The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20000223 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 23,2000 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CIIAMBERS SITE VISITS - NOON - 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Jan. 26,2000 minutes II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments and project monitoring IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. OLD BUSINESS 5:05 A. 7~ & Main Affordable Housing, Final Review (continue Public Hearing to March 8,2000) 2/04,- 70 B. 920 W. Hallam Street, Final Review, (continue Public Hearing to March 8,2000) 7-0 C. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, (continue Public Hearing to March 1,2000) 7-0 VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS 5:15 A. Streamlining the public project review process, Joyce Oh~;son 6:00 B. 330 Lake Avenue - tront porch( 6 06, ZeÂ«-j 94)@+VU VII. NEW BUSINESS 6:20 A. 312 S. Galena Street, Minor Develow,ent - Public 1earing OK continued from January 26,2000 .; 4,6 r Â£~ Mon It-0 7 riffâ‚¬U/9 0 511,1/1&,.ir Â£7 l 7:00 B. 213 W. Bleeker Street, Landmark Designation, Conceptual Review, Partial Demolition, Temporary Relocation, Variances And Residential Design Standards - Public Hearing 7:45 VIII. ADJOURN u)Â· PROJECT MONITORING 0 Susan Dodington 234 W. Francis - Mullins --424 -22=1.--1.StmeL 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 930 King - No Problem Joe's 121 5th & North - Ernie Frywald Suzannah Reid 406 E. Hopkins- ISIS 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. 0 3/1 5- GaUu-_ Jeffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis- Mullin 414 N. First- POLE 920 W. Hallam- Guthrie 101-105 E. Hallam (not active) 315 E. Hyman - Su CASA 212 W. Hopkins Ave. 3 /4 3 - 4 Â£;e-6-/1-,L- Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street- Halperin 232 E. Hallam St.- Pace 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter Lisa Markalunas 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 939 E. Cooper- Langley 240 Lake Aven 2, } 1.4 L . igt- Greenberg G41& f- Christie Kienast 520 Walnut Stteet - Greenwood 735 W. Bleeker- Bone 920 W. Hallam 9 1 4 8.3284-71-6 Mary Hirsch 930 King 114 Neale Avenue 920 W. Hallam 0 400 W. Smuggler Street - Dodge residence Gilbert Sanchez 3,1 3 . G ~-11 , CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 4 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,2000 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 12,2000 214 E. Bleeker Street, new out building expires August 12, 1999 920 W. Hallam Street, expires February 12, 2000 735 W. Bleeker old house expires Oct. 14, 1999 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1999 1. 117 n. 6TH St. - Coulter 2. 920 E. Hyman Ave. Lot N Block 32 3. 435 W. Main St. Lot A-I Block 38 4. 930 King St. 5. 920 E. Hyman 6. 735 W. Bleeker 7. 234 W. Francis 8. 205 S. Mill A. 210 S. Galena .ISIS 406 E. Hopkins ~ 1.234 W. Francis 12.234 W. Francis 13.424 E. Cooper Ave. 14.234 W. Francis (Mullins) 15.DEPP 16.834 W. Hallam 17.2 Williams way 18.531 E. Cooper 19.134 W. Hopkins 20.450 S. Galena 21.710 N. Third St. 22.234 W. Francis St. 23.123 W. Francis 24.312 E. Hyman 25.930 King Street 26.117 N. Sixth 27.234 W. Francis 8.520 E. Durant St. 29.308 N. First Street 30.533 E. Hopkins 31.330 E. Main St. 32.315 E. Hyman Ave. Su Casa 121 N. Fifth Street 240 Lake Avenue 35.920 W. Hallam Street 36.332 W. Main Aug 11, 1999 Sara 37.400 W. Smuggler - July 14,1999 38. 500 W. Main St. July 28, 1999 39. 121 N. Fifth Street July 28, 1999 40. 121 N. Fifth Street August 25, 1999 41.7th & Main Conceptual AH September 8, 1999 42.426 N. 2nd St. Minor Review Sept. 8, 1999 43.406 E. Hopkins Ave. ISIS Theatre Sept. 8, 1999 44.426 N. Second Street Designation Sept 8, 1999 45. 7th & Main Street Conceptual Oct. 13, 1999 46. 205 S. Mill Street. Telecommunication Oct. 13, 1999 47. New Bus shelter Oct. 13, 1999 48. 735 W. Bleeker, extension of conc4eptual Oct. 27, 1999 49. 114 Neale Avenue Minor Oct. 27, 1999 50. 7th and Main Street Oct. 13, 1999 -11. 510 E. Durant Ave. November 10, 1999 ~ 332 W. Main Street Minor rear yard variance August 11, 1999 616 W. Main September 22, 1999 54. 735 W. Bleeker - November 17,1999 55. 302 E.Hopkins September 22, 1999 56. 419 E. Hyman Ave. December 15, 1999 57. 212 W. Hopkins Ave. December 15, 1999 Resolutions 2000 01. 330 Lake Ave. January 12,2000 02. 333 W. Bleeker St. January 12,2000 03. 221 E. Main Street January 12,2000 04. 312 S. Galena January 26,2000 05. 501 W. Main St. Christiana Lodge Feb. 9,2000 06. 130 S. Galena Street, City Hall Feb. 9,2000 07. 520 W. Main Street Ullr - Minor Feb. 9,2000 08. 110 W. Main Street Hotel Aspen Conceptual Feb. 9,2000 09. 417 E. Hyman Ave. Paragon Feb. 9, 2000 0 ick, MEMORANDUM To: Historic Preservation Commission Thru: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Fronn: Joyce A. Ohlson, Deputy Director u~O Re: Framework for Public Review Processes I)ate: February 23,2000 Attached is a paper regarding a proposed process for use in the review of public projects. The concepts contained within the paper are the product of several task force meetings that included P&Z Commission members, Bob Blaich and Tim Mooney; City Council members, Tony Hershey and Tom McCabe; City Attorney, John Worcester, and Community Development staff. The purpose of the task force was to try and establish a process that would involve P & Z, HPC and other advisory boards early on in the process of a public development plan coming through the development review process. The process could apply to such projects as affordable housing, public utility facilities, recreational facilities, etc. I will provide an overview of this process and answer any questions you might have at your meeting on February 23,2000. (Note the Q&A sheet, also attached.) For Discussion Purposes: 2/23/00 A DEVELOPMENT REVI EW PROCESS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS: A new approach to project review in order to achieve community goals What authority does the City have to utilize a process for the review of public projects that is different than that used for standard, non-public projects? Colorado Revised Statutes 31-23-301. Grant of Power states the following: "... for the purpose of promoting health, safety, moral, or the general welfare of the community, including energy conservation and the promotion of solar energy utilization, the governing body of each municipality is empowered to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts and other open spaces, the density of population, the height and location of trees and other vegetation, and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purpose. ...Any ordinance enacted under authority of this part 3 shall exempt from the operation thereof any building or structure as to which satisfactory proof is presented to the board of adjustment that the present or proposed situation of such building or structure is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public." While these statutory provisions set the legal stage for a varied land use review procedure for necessary public projects, the City of Aspen is a Home Rule Municipality which allows us to establish regulations unique from the enabling legislation. These above-noted public projects, due to their necessity for the convenience or welfare of the public (COWOP), and the importance of such public projects to the overall good of the community would be reviewed through a process that takes a different approach than that included in the current land use regulations. 1 What types of projects would qualify for COWOP review? â€¢ Affordable housing projects (public and public/private partnerships) â€¢ Park development â€¢ Recreation facilities â€¢ Utility facilities â€¢ Public infrastructure improvement projects (such as DEPP) â€¢ Public building upgrades, additions, remodels Can a joint public-private project qualify for the COWOP process? Yes, if determined by the City Council to meet the test as being necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. How does the COWOP process work? The COWOP process is a fairly freeform development review process that is determined to be as complex as the development proposal demands. More complex development projects are likely to require a longer, more in-depth process while simpler, more straightforward projects will require a shorter, less complicated review. It is not meant to be a way to minimize review, but to get key decision-makers, advisory boards and staff applicants into the process early enough in the evolution of a development proposal to ensure it meets broad City objectives. It is felt that if, prior to the full preparation and completion of a development project application, the applicant seeks input up front in the process then they can better prepare an application and be "on target" with community goals. Therefore, key to the process at the beginning, the parties to the project, including pertinent City advisory boards and City departments, are included in providing input, advise and guidance for the project as a "team". The COWOP process is also intended to acknowledge that the City Council is both applicanUowner of the public project and judge/decision maker in the regulatory review process. The COWOP process also places the Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and other advisory entities in the role of an advisor to both the applicant and Council, earlier in the process than the standard development review process allows. 2 Step 1: Determination of COWOP Status The City Council determines whether a project is appropriate and eligible for COWOP review. Staff prepares an analysis of and recommendation regarding the proposed conceptual project it terms of the project's ability to meet the threshold of eligibility as a "project that is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public" and a process for handling the specific proposal. Council determines the necessary advisory board representation, affected interests and staff to be included in the "team" review process (Step 3). Council establishes a process and preferred timeline for the process. Action by the Council in Step 1 is undertaken by a vote of the Council on a resolution. Step 2: Technical Staff Meeting Conducted-Issue Identification The Community Development Department coordinates, at the request of the applicant, a staff-level, interdepartmental Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting for the purposes of identifying and resolving any potential issues associated with the provision of utilities and services, environmental constraints, site engineering, access and circulation and for providing any other technical information to the applicant which would assist in the preparation of a proposal. The applicant should be prepared to present an overview of the subject property and vicinity, conceptual site plan alternative(s) and a statement of what program elements are desirable. Step 3: Team Meetings The Community Development Department schedules and coordinates a meeting of the review team. The meeting is legally noticed in the newspaper and adjoining neighbors are notified in writing at least 15 days prior to the team meeting. Meetings are run by Community Development Department staff; however, complex development projects may require the use of a facilitator to guide and lead the meeting to a productive outcome. Ground rules for the conduct of the meeting are established by the team at the start of each meeting. As with the presentation before the DRC, the applicant should be prepared to present an overview of the subject property and vicinity, alternative site plans designed at a very conceptual level, and a statement of program element objectives. The review team meetings are not intended to be a "design by 3 committee" process but rather a process which yields a preferred alternative for the applicant. It is intended that the meetings be interactive in nature by all attending. Meetings will continue until the plan has evolved to a point where the Council representatives is satisfied that the plan is what it should be in order to be submitted for official action by the Council. Community Development staff prepares and presents a memorandum of "threshold issues" for the review team to discuss and provide input. Such threshold items would include at a minimum the following: â€¢ Aspen Area Community Plan â€¢ Land Use, General Site Plan features, Zoning and Dimensional Standards, Density â€¢ General design and architectural features â€¢ Access, Circulation and Traffic Impacts â€¢ Environmental and Landscaping features â€¢ Suitability of development to the neighborhood â€¢ Availability of utilities and services â€¢ Neighborhood or other Masterplan Compatibility Community Development staff will utilize the Land Use Code regulations as a guide to the review of the development proposal, especially the Planned Unit Development Review Guidelines as appropriate. Applicant presents the project proposal that would include at a minimum the following: â€¢ General Development plan objectives â€¢ Overview of Subject Property Constraints and Opportunities m Known issues for Consideration and Input of Review Team â€¢ Conceptual Site Plan Alternatives of the Development Proposal The most desirable outcome of the team meeting is a recommendation on a particular preferred alternative development plan. Should consensus not be attained by the group arriving at a preferred alternative, multiple recommendations may be forwarded. Advisory board representatives may wish to inform their full board of the team review process in advance of a recommendation and seek the input of other members. Council evaluates the recommendations of the team, determines which recommendations are desirable for inclusion in the proposal preparation and 4 directs the applicant to prepare a final application. The action of Council at this step is handled as an "action item" on the agenda. After evaluation, the City Council may make a determination that the project cannot be considered a COWOP project and require that the project must proceed through the standard application process. Step 3: Council Takes Official Action on Development Proposal At a regular meeting of the City Council the Council conducts a first reading of an ordinance and then conducts a public hearing and finally adopts an ordinance approving the development proposal. 5 Q & A Sheet Review Process for Public "COWOP" Projects (Projects for the convenience or welfare of the public) 1. What current steps and/or procedures of the current process would be negated or changed if the COWOP process were put in place? The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), Housing Board (HB) and any other designated advisory board, would involve themselves in the very front end or "conceptual stage" in the design of a project. As proposed, the COWOP process would eliminate the formal Planning and Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission processes as we know them today. However, given that, should the Council determine that a specific review before a full body of an advisory board is necessary to a certain project, then that could be directed by Council. The Community Development staff would continue to utilize the development standards contained with the land use code for the review and evaluation of a project and present them in memoranda to the review team and Council. 2. If implemented, would the COWOP process make the review process shorter and/or more efficient? Without a doubt, one of the goals of the COWOP process is to make the review process shorter, more cost effective and more efficient. Attaining this goal has more to do with the effectiveness Rf the team in a.) running a well structured meeting, b.) focusing on key conceptual issues, c.) the ability of the team to reach consensus and formulate a clear position on those key issues, and d.) the applicant responding to the input of the team by amending the plan. 3. When the P & Z or other advisory group is unanimously against the philosophy of a public project, what happens then? Should a particular faction or the entire review team not agree with the intent or philosophy of a certain project, the group should forward that recommendation to the Council as soon as possible. As with all 1 recommendations to the Council, it is most beneficial when the Council can understand the thoughts and concerns of the advisory boards, in this case through the review team. These can be included in any written recommendation and come in the form of "concerns", "outstanding issues", "conditions", etc. An applicant has the right to proceed through a process to gain a decision by the appropriate decision maker (in this case Council). With this in mind, the review team should strive to communicate their position quickly, clearly and in a manner which would assist both the applicant and Council. There may be times when the Council requests that a project go back to the review team with a major change in scope. There may also be times when the Council likes what they see as owner and moves the project forward despite the concerns raised. The fact that some members of Council will serve on the review team should assist in communicating between the members of different boards. 4. Representation by various advisory boards? How many people should represent a group? How many vote? It is not essential to have a hard and fast, predetermined number of representatives from advisory boards. The initial reviewing team for most projects will probably be several (or all) members of Council and P&Z (Housing, HPC as necessary). What is important is that there ii representation, especially by members who might have a special interest in a project, special expertise to lend, or understanding of neighborhood issues, etc. It is expected that representatives on the review team will report back to their full board and give project review updates and seek input as necessary. Remember that the benefit to the COWOP process is in having the development plan evolve with the assistance of the advisory boards as part of the review team. The greater the amount of sharing of ideas and concerns the better a project will likely be. This should also minimize the chances that an applicant will get way off base creating a plan that is unacceptable. It is expected that the team will come to consensus on their recommendation to the Council. It is possible that there will be suggested conditions, alternative concepts and additional matters for Council to consider which fall within only Council's purview (financial, acquisition issues, etc.). 2 5. When is the "review team" part of the process over? As a practical matter, this may not be a problem in most instances. It should be evident in most cases whether additional time to review an application will be fruitful. If there is consensus, the process is over, but even if there is an impasse, most people will recognize that fact and argue that further time to review a project will not yield anything useful. In that members of the Council will be present on the review team, the determination that the process is over should not be a problem. 6. What does the applicant present initially to the review team? The applicant enters into this process with the understanding that they are there to evolve a plan, drawing upon the variety of expertise and input of the collective group, including neighbors. However, this doesn't mean starting with a totally blahk piece of paper. The idea is to get the discussion rolling with an understanding of the land and concepts for the development. The applicant would present the following: a.) existing conditions/site constraints map of the subject property, including such things as topography, vegetation, water courses, rock outcroppings etc.; b.) a utility/facility map showing how the subject property potentially be served and any contemplated line extensions; c.) general vicinity map of existing development, roads, parks etc.: and d.) conceptual level schematic drawings of potential development scenarios. Ideally, the applicant would present several alternatives for discussion purposes. The intent is to not require a large expenditure of money at this level on survey work, engineering, or detailed drawings. 7. Will there be yet more volunteer meetings to attend? yes, there would be additional meetings to attend for the sole review of public COWOP projects. It is anticipated that because public projects would be eliminated from the heavy loaded agendas of the regular P&Z and HPC meetings that these meetings would be shorter in duration. This would not always be the case if a project was required to be specifically addressed by an advisory board. 3 Ph A 1 4 PUBLIÂ© NO'*CE ~ >bATE 7/2-7 r)-TIME 5 00 PM Oddle I ~ PLACE C 4 1-611 1 01*.,beur PURPOSi aÂ« ra/i Â®W of 64 VIC/ 1ev,Awer\L 04*,Ar,WOM ,Â¥J \04- 4~\,1- - , FORFURIPERINFOI,MANON CONTACt 114 ASPEN/Pil.INPLANNINGOFF,CE 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN. CO (309 920- 5030 ; . 1 (ho w 6144\84*1 0 CountyofPitkin } AFFIDAVTT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 2632.060 (E) L ~- gAZAÂ·11 via, , being or represendng an Applicant to the City of A*en, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto. by first-class. postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list. on the [Ll day oll j Ull, 1992#which is il days prior to the public hearing date of7~271 1. 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ~~ day of K~J (7 1 19~.(Must be posted for at least ten (10) full ' days before the h=ing date). A photograoh of the posted sign is attached hereto. V Signam# (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this_,1~.13..L.I.$424,y 1 Ck, 4 9- '17... '199#9% JACIOE Y' 1 . .gy- Gunit< LOTHIAN j ~ -,/{M WrINESS MY HAN13'4~ SEAL My commission expims: m,pr-79 JAck,E LonivU Notary Public .1 0 . *60*421>1 *ary Public s Signature SHARP DESIGNS INCORPORATED LOUD HÂ·MONTGOMERY & PAULA CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION A COLORADO CORPORATION PO BOX 11660 PO BOX 32 PO BOX 8630 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 GREGORY KIRK - --- STUART DONA ALDERFER JOHNNIE MAE GREGORY PETRA PO BOX 11733 BOX 10880 PO BOX 10055 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 MAINTENANCE SHOP COORDES HEINZ E CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN COORDES KAREN V 130 S GALENA ST 530 E MAIN ST 233 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 RUNNING BEAR LLC - -I- -- TALENFELD ELIZABETH G SKIFF KATIE C/O BENTON SMITH-ADV PROPERTY SERVICES 915 W FRANCIS ST 920 W HALLAM ST 315 E HYMAN AVE STE 211 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ZUCKERMAN NORBERT-ATRUST. BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M JONES EARL ZUCKERMAN HELEN'-DI91NGYI:RUE 120-13O31135J-.---=L~---" ~t.. i.r Â· 834 W HALLAM ST . ..V..... lea rk A 1-ArCC CTU. â€¢WnÂ· - â€¢ ribi22*400 - 1:511CVUINUMANi, Ntt 46UUy MURRY PAUL J - ----' 9 C *W PAM LARNER JACQUELINE L MURRY BONITA J 3520 1 ... 61STCIR 376 DAHLIA 814 W BLEEKER ST C-5 BOCA RATON, FL DENVER, CO 80220 ASPEN, CO 81611 D'ALESSIO ROBERT J COHEN RICHARD A - ~- -- FATAHI AMENEH D'ALESSIO JEAN M COHEN ELIZABETH A PO BOX 8080 814 W BLEEKER C-4 PO BOX 1806 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCHAFFER WILLIAM H MORRIS CHARLES R JR TRAN HONG HUONG SCHAFFER KAREN W ASPEN VILLAS MGM'T 814 W BLEEKER UNIT Cl 127 BRIXWORTH LN APT 7 814 W BLEEKER ASPEN, CO 81611 NASHVILLE, TN ASPEN, CO 81611 LUU TONG KHON TOPELSON ALEJANDRO UHLER FRANCES M TRAN TUYET LE TOPELSON REBECA 814 W BLEEKER PO BOX 2785 5300 DTC PKWY #400 ASPEN, CO ASPEN, CO 81612 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 -. HEISLEY MICHAEL E LI IWALTER GARY R GELLER SCOTT LW GIES - HEICO INC C/O 3. BOLT RD 29 BARKLEY CIR 2075 FOXFIELD RD STE 102 TOL_-_,IL FORT MYERS, FL ST CHARLES, IL 60174 ./ 424&?1311135<Ii/P A . .:. .- - .... Iâ‚¬URTZ KENNETH T & KAREN HINRICHS NANCY R GLATMAN THEME ZAMBRZYCKI BRAKUR CUSTOM CABINETRY INC GLATMAN BRUCE ROY C/O 100 N 8TH ST #2 20034 CALVERT ST I86-- S RT 59 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 WOOD, IL 60435 FERRARA VINCENT J KOPF CAROL ANN & DONALD W DI BARTOLOMEO BETTY M FERRARA ANNA M - JT TENANTS VILLAS OF ASPEN #C-11 PO BOX 956 100 N STH ST #16 100 N STH ST ASPEN. CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 EIDSON JOY REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 DOYLE R&G 10% SEARIGHT P 30% REED BRENT H & GEORGE L n EIDSON ARVIN WAYNE REVOCABLE DOYLE R T III 30% GRIST F 30% 100 N 8TH ST #6 TRUST-1/2 3711 EASTLEDGE DR ASPEN, CO PO BOX 271 AUSTIN, TX 78731 SULPHUR, OK 73086 ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF SAMUELS LAURA R ASSOC ASPEN LLC PO BOX 4934 617 E COOPER AVE 60 I E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HADDON HAROLD A LEPPLA JOHN L ANZALONE GRACE E HADDON BEVERLY J. LEPPLA JOENE :4=.-,-z--:n--- 0=Â»cr-,-Â·- - .4 . 1 =: p,Â·1+treer##Ek-, .1.. 4 Â·Â·- PO BOX 3808 4040 DAHL RD . - ... ASPEN, CO 81612 MOUND, MN 55364-Â»-; -- T3itic.tÂ·~:3-es.-:- Â· -Â· DENVER, CO 80205 LANDIS JAMES H - - ------ B :'IT JAMES W JR - RICCIARDI RIK C/O MICHELLE BRIGHT 100 N 8TH ST #5 100 N 8TH ST #14 530 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 SIEGEL ELIZABETH N & NEIL B WARD PATRICIA ANN PATERSON CARRIE E 4706 WARREN ST NW 429 E COOPER AVE PO BOX 11675 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BEHRENDT H MICHAEL BLANZ JAMES M BEHRENDT H MICHAEL 334 W HYMAN AVE 2555 NE 11TH ST 334 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33304 ASPEN, CO 81611 TOTH MICHAEL & ANNE G FAGAN PAUL L CHISHOLM MARGO J 910 W HALLAM ST #3 PO BOX 244 PO BOX 4870 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 S U ANDY L & MICHELLE SHOAF JEFFREY S BEHRENDT HERMAN MICHAEL ! PO BOX 3123 334 W HYMAN AVE P X 1801 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 5401 BEN HAMOO SHLOMO & PATRICE PETROCCO J ANTHONY KEILIN KIM MILLER CONYERS 910 W HALLAM #11 PO BOX 10064 PO BOX 2902 ASPEN, CO ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 .._.-SEN GEORGE W JR -MAROLT RANCH OPEN SPACE FOREST SERVICE ASPEN MADSEN CORNELIA G CITY OF ASPEN HEADQUARTERS 931 W FRANCIS ST 130 S GALENA ST UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 a . PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 920 W. HALLAM STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A LANDMARK LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, July 27, 1998 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, requesting approval for Historic Landmark designation of the property located at 920 W. Hallam Street, which is described as the East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, O, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Subdivision Exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split to split the 11,048 square foot lot into two parcels, one of 3,432 square feet and the other of 7,616 square feet. All structures that might be built on the resulting parcels would have a combined allowable FAR floor area equal to that of a duplex on the original parcel For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. s/John Bennett. Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on February 7,1998 City of Aspen Account g:\planning\aspen\notices\920whal.doc 60 3-4 9 ct- Al Â·c.,c-~ /, R-e...~ , i 0 146 10,10-4. & 2 4.-,-c- 6 4 cl_ c._ 2 n d. 1 -1-9-~ c .7 10 002 Ok T- . 9%41 13-4 " 6, I NIINER'S HOUSE 4 1 0. ** .1 4 1 + '6 A.' ' rr Â· $6 ,* 4, itte 72 Â·Â· 7#*~f 1. \91 . I i' ' 1 i ypicid of how the oral- f /" # / /43'&â€ž+ I i 'WP 'T liary mincj- lived 11/US -ill 0/ ~ 1 -~117441 -- .2 4 .1 ...ity>,9 8-Â£4* . 11, 0 1, .1. 11111 this dainty collage 01; pj'gp ~< 1 14 0/7 , 0 b~ 1,1 the -1.1,?a)/ lip lill/ltej- ~ . i, ! d':.Â¥ t'jii-'i' 43 -6ll/ ,Â¥1 ... 4 1 > 1,11 tr<54 0, ~ ' 24, /n 1 1 1 . 1 11 + If lili. 11! * *Afe 8, A'KJ Creek. C,tolj)DOIN-el lectS ,~ i,t '"'+~"~)*34Â· 0*~9":*Â· iu<~ L. 4 , +1111 1- It.1,1,11*144:V#W,18,4*~1Â£61Â£1 4 commordy Â·used und the > ... better of the nmolest it*6443.9-Â·, 4 i - 1 *3**%1* . '17.3- ./ a,AM'*.4*.. ,./.ul:(3 3 557'~OVE-fpgpi 171'9912 1 4 + homes always boastect cl '~,: Â»â‚¬44ii?0~0*jÂ·..13 *65'ASSL-itij~1.~i &-'Â·:(i';;fG~t . ' 2 >4 Vt:. *R*4#Atf*Â»pe fily.**/9**~y,4/2~~8~//0~( ' Â·*.:** L ..:, ba,-geboard t j-iniÂ·milig, {***~~ 4 -m,#4, t.Â£#~.461 ,p,~t841Â£144#fA,-4;3,t- -pâ€ž49*5* . ./ pâ€¢ ' ''i~~.: .4, I L} whÂ·tch we call "aiuuci-- ;10 1, 1/AL,6514#76*f- t. >.' Pil * :,IL Vt I '42-9?7; i 1 2,4, 2. 0 0 4/ . t.12&*2 1 .er, *11.1 . 1)) k v -'442+EM< i. 1, * i- F bread Ujday. fifter ilte ,: : ---=I=9 . 4 ~~ r." a 4.51 Â· 2/Terr/ill i & I M; ..14 4 A decline of the tow/.1, Fii>i?~ilÂ· 1-Â»2 1 4 - r . j tfuke I . r these tiouses Colild be :4440745 ~ tD Y .9---/,"1% ....... v 84,4 1 N L 14 4 -2 -.,0 &13:Ap n..9-3~~. /: . L 1 42*rf, 4 * i picited Â·up For Ct few %*r -12 - 12 4 1 81'F) 4 9 ..:.'*2 ~1 4, r.t,t.,1 1*1 dollars of back taxes Mimt,p' - 41*A e?, . Nwor~aa,t~41)2. 1 L. , 3 ..7. 4 '91 p .4.44 9412 4 1 d. as real esl Â£tte bargains. y-, . 11. r 9 1 !/wj 137 . Â· Â· . I Â» I ' - 3 301 47â‚¬0 443 142*ezz 1 EXISTING FLUE TO REMAIN ' #f/kÂ·*f,/'* " 0,6Â·~frÂ· 74, F/Â·Â·0' t ..1 1, .'illij~'1:. !~~j~~~Â·*M*$23#11.1:.: ~ 1.:C 110!,i. t,~.â€ž,::.4~1&4?4N'41Â¢it'litâ€žIt 40:41'i r,c~.il. 1'.. 1 .., %111'41 11 11'lilli.lili 4&"Ma~UP,44/"4 11 *1444,.j<,fl.?,0.,1.tÂ·f!~Â»Â»01;3;11 .14 1,11",~~,61,11 . ;i'~ti*%1449 Â»45'2.- /1~1/i,~pÂ·,. lilli 11111111111 {0.-0,1 1 1 j ~ 1 11111111'1111111111111'11111~111111 ll'll'll '111'1111~~11111111~1111 ~111111'll'll!1111111111111111111 1111111[ i 1 1 L TE 2,111 1 1111 - - - 1 - Id 1 1& 1 Ll_1 2 *EE ------- s ~1 IiNi irrilii ilmii p~ ~n giN - A 1 HISTORIC BARNI ITO REMAIN WITH 1 1 14Ew STRUCTURAk HISTORIC WHITE HOUSE TO REMAIN SUPEORT_N-EN-ADDITICN_WITH_NEWIQUNDATION_N-EMADDITIC-N WEST ELEVATION 1/8"=1'-0" hlili q â€ž/ 9 '| - 01:1111'1 ~1~~ 1~~~!111~1~~~ill'111111111@11111~ 11,Â· 1 1,1 1 1 lilli lili 11 " 1 111.11 1 11 - 11,11111:1: 111111 1,1 --p-~U-.1% - dl'~11111111,~Ill':~~~ill FRERmI ~"".,~!'Â·' ~ - / 1.-t--1 1 , 1 1 ' ' f f f ./ 1 11 i l j 11 l i i 11 i ll, 1,111 l Ei 0.1 1 1 Ll>. - & L * - 1 1 3 '1' 'll L~ll It Il Illilll U-ill 12 Il 1510 1 i i 1 Qi 11 SITE ELEy. 98 LINE OF EXISTING 1 | LINE OF-Â·--~ TOY' OV BLUFF NOI HISTORIC WHITE HOUBE TO REMAIN WITHNEWFOUNDATIONNEWADDITL*)N NON-HISTORIC 1950'5 ~ HISTORIC BARI\6 BARN ADDITION 1 TO REMAIN I TO BE RECONSTRUCTED I WITH NEW I SOUTH ELEVATION BITE SECTION @ DARIN ADDITION 1/8"=1'-0" 1/8"=1'-0" . NON-HISTORIC WHITE HOUBE EAST WING 19505 ADDTION AND MASONRY FIREFLACE TO KEMAIN , 1 pÂ·, U '1, 991' N:'i .. s .il WHI//11 1 ,1 , 11 1 lill i 111111 1 1 1 1 '' Â·,. 11 Â·Â· h,Ut W. 11 4.i:. i hlitÂ·11.'111?~"d :.lili f:9:.1 1111Â· .1 1%.1: 2, 171 1 1% 0 4.41 ..1.4 214'111!1911 !111 '11;'Iml~,11 ti ' n Â·Â· 1 41Â· h .11Â· 411 11~ +Ji' ~~ b Fi *0Â¢% 5 ~ ':11*1431'~f ~ 11111111111 1 1 11 , 1 11 11 1111 111 4 1 11 1 1111 111111111 1 lili 9111 lili 40 r===1 110'-0" L c H. --- - J 4-1---i~24- - -it --- i' 1 ?jil~jtli:I ,4 141.l'.1., 11 11 li 11 1,11 4 1 1~14 [1-11 11]1 oIl - unt 'll'~' I 1 1 u I 'l'11 lin 411 111 1 2.11 lilint JITTIE'[1-11-El 11 111 11:1111 I lili 1 - El alÂ·i jillillililitj'filil lijil flilli - 37 a -4 a - UNE-OF-EXISTING..HOUSE-BEYOU.NIZ--__--__-J /N NON-HISTORIC 19505 X BARN ADDITION WITH DECK HETOKIC BARN T TO BE KECONSTRUCTED TO REMAIN WITH NEW ADDITION - MASSING TO REIvIAWNEWSIEUCTURAL-QUEEORT EAST ELEVATION Â· ----------------------Er------------------------ ----- - 1/8"=1'-0" 1 a 1 1 \ EE Â£ 101 0 E-- 1111 111 1 --- EE EHEM 11 11 1 r --- Â»- - -/ V. 1 k i - A I* -- LINE OF ENTRY GARAGE ~ TOF OF BLUFF J 15' ~ LINE OF EXISTING HOUSE BEYOUND HETORIC BARN TO REMAIN HETORIC WHITE HOUSE TO REMAIN WITH NEW STRUCTURE NEW ADDITION WITH NEW FOUNDATION NOKTH ELEVATION 1/8"=1'-0" msN=,RE,a=â€¢Â©=mim: MEETING DATE: NAME OF PROJECT: 3/2 5 guL-.~L- EXHIBIT CLERK: /Catify EZ] STAFFÂ·.0-Â·~ c c.c_j-A Plt WITNESSES: (1) c~,~/L od) 66-4 04.-~ 5-11-,/2 (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (c3 (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet (Lk (Check If Applicable) 0 4 5 MOTION: 3/ 1/9 d*L-, VOTE: YES NO SUZANNAH REID YES / NO MARY H[RSCH YES 6/ NO SUSAN DODINGTON YES U~ NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YES 1/ NO LISA MARKALUNAS YES 1 NO JEFFREY HALFERTY YES J NO HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES NO CHRISTIE KIENAST YES V NO YES NO YES NO -- 0 -taÂ£--33- <1-2 0 =~LL I{PCVOTE 3jx s ' r==m ACTION: Minor Review ~ 21Â£2122* 1 All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet allfour Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: 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. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 0 viE 4 1122 3-**D 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Directo4~O FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 312 S. Galena Street- minor review DATE: February 23,2000 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to restore the landmark building at 312 S. Galena Street, including recreating the original entry, removing brick in original window openings and removing the paint from the historic masonry. APPLICANT: The Aspen Downtown, LLC, represented by Mark Haldeman, partner. LOCATION: 312 S. Galena Street, the north 32 feet of Lots K and L, and the north 30 feet of Lot M, Block 95, City and Townsite ofAspen. MINOR DEVELOPMENT No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.B.4) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary 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 Section 26.520.040(B)(21 for detached accessory dwelling units. 1 Response: The HPC has examined drawings and photographs showing the original 0 entry to this building, and later remodels. As viewed in the oldest photo, depicting the E. W. Jewett grocery store, the building featured the classic storefront of that era, divided into three bays, with a recessed entry in the middle. There were large display windows with transoms above them. The focus of the discussion at the January 26th HPC meeting was how to accomplish a restoration of the original storefront. The old photograph shows a large platform in front of the store that allowed entrance into the building with just two steps up from the sidewalk. Now that the elevation of the sidewalk has been lowered substantially, getting from the sidewalk to the first floor level, meeting all building codes, presents a challenge to restoring the building. The applicants, staff, and the HPC monitors met with the Engineering and Building Departments, and through the diligence of the applicants, who researched historic photos, an encroachment license will be issued by the City to allow the new steps to project slightly into the right of way. This allows the entry door to move within 5'6" of the front fagde. (Typically the entry door in this type of commercial building was recessed about 4'.) One of the Engineering Department's conditions in approving the encroachment is that the steps be curved to present the least obstacle possible on the sidewalk. The application has also been revised so that the elevator is an interior element, accessed through double doors at the top of the steps. The stone at the base of the windows is to 0 be replaced with wood kickplates, to replicate those seen in the original photo. Staff sincerely commends the applicants for their cooperation and willingness to restore this building, which will contribute a great deal to the historic character of downtown. On the new elevation, the architect stopped short of drawing in the mullion which is to run through the center of the display windows (as seen in the original photo), and some of the other details due to time constraints and the desire to fully study the faGade and make the restoration accurate. Staff suggests that the HPC allow this level of detail to be resolved with the project monitors. There are however, a few issues for the HPC as a group to discuss before the design is finalized. The first issue is whether or not the columns on the storefront are original and/or are in the original location. The best "head-on" photo of the building, from 1978 show the columns closer together, so that their outer edges align with the outer edges of the two central windows on the upper floor. Today, those columns lie outside those window frames. Additionally, it seems that the base of the columns would have aligned with the base of the kickplates, further suggesting that they have been altered. Second, after studying the original photograph at length, and using the people in the photo to judge relative heights, it is staffs belief that the door threshold was one step lower than shown in the proposed plan. (It would seem that historically, one took another step up upon entering the store.) With the threshold lowered accordingly and the doors 0 2 reduced from 8'6" to 7', it is possible to recreate the transom shown above them in the 0 historic picture. Finally, the HPC should decide whether or not there should be benches placed in front of the kickplates, as appears to be the case in the old photo. In the proposed new plan, the applicant has shown benches and flower pots placed in this area. At the last meeting, no objections were raised about the proposal to re-open the original window openings that have been bricketi in on the north and south facades. The applicant will have to provide specifications on the replacement windows, which should match the profile and detailing of those on the front faQade as closely as possible. The applicant also proposed to strip the paint off of the brick, which staff recommends only be pursued ifthe method of paint removal, and test patches are approved by the monitors. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The applicant's proposal to return to a centered entryway, and restore other elements of the building, is very appropriate to the historic district and is commendable. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. 0 Response: The project will not affect the significance of this historic structure, which was built in 1885. Forgiving some unsympathetic alterations done in the past, this is an excellent example of a Victorian commercial building and exhibits very ornate detailing for an early period in Aspen's development. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: With some modifications and refinement of the design, the project will enhance the architectural character and integrity of this historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 0 3 â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that the HPC give the applicant direction in regard to the columns flanking the entry, the appropriate level for the door threshold, and the height of the doors themselves, and the proposal to have benches and planters along the base of the building. Once these issues are resolved, staff recommends that the final details of the storefront be approved by staff and monitor. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated February 23,2000. B. Turn ofthe century photograph. C. Application. D. Minutes of January 26,2000. 4 . . 0 . f. Â· Â·râ€¢â€¢"f~*10 6 -~71*4747Â«,~*.1*723 5 -em'Fll '1.1 *,jr- ~,,-=â€¢pr-r" : 1~02~~ . - ...9 1, 1Â».1,4... *49.Jfga- - rf al.3Â£~ , 4 ' 7,/..IMIZ#**/f.../-#- ..... . I .I-....~~r . ~ .4 4- 44*- . â€ž 4: 1 | Itit 4 9 .~IÂ· 1 i ' 'Wto..Twhq'em/bl - -1phW *1 4 0, ID-721' 4,7 up .1 L: r. 7 . 40#, t" Â·2 *Prtwearâ€¢ - Â·/ I.=... t-=~. -m, ' i L . 1 k.. , r 11 e.*, '..7(45 1 - I f .l , '0 1 , I. .Cal.69*,Istfit. !*elt#*~9 f.k-- A. 4 : ...immwi. *"'ty+4 8..,.....;F 1,2 93 ~ r'-'41/4 , , I, 1 / t~A 'v < -a- v, . a #. ~y Lr ' ; Â·64% . Wal.Al ' -: . 1. . 1 -, ....4 In r , :11%. - Â· i *, 4 11 .0 ~ ' .., N f - 4 Â·r , -, 4 ,. . 1 -11,2 4 Â· 1 r 4 ' Â·" '"' 4 '131%~..'1/, . ... 1:111 41, , - F P-/ J 11'?1 li-'tea P Mile * . 41.1. u >,3,6 0.4. , 10 ='â€¢4 , d ' Al 41'KI-v : i. * 4 i Wet:17Â¢SIA,/ 464:0-,5'Â·#Liti#24~-1 5 W'* M ' r,6- 1, ir I. 1 ./ I Â·N - 1 r '.'4 1 - . 1% -V-/ : > 2Â· 4/11*vi:4-,7,2,~1/I. 19k 4 W rj. , 1 -f "4'21# Effwl-- *- / .4 4, re *1) ~ 9~__. _ 4.- 1 -I- ./.911 !" '04 141..â€¢11'li 1~ /1. . 1*1/1 /~gl~ tid r . ALÂ·' il, - r . .1 ->h,~ / 2 Pit-'111(1*,Â· til'f,!! Ill;11'1 Â· .1 . .. f .1 , 0 C ( 0 0 eigi#,Appt/OBE 44>.1 LE JT'. r 0, ...0.1 00.0 .J leâ‚¬,6 1 4-TA...1.2 % , .. -- -I- 1-1 .- .1- -I -- ....1 Ii---i 1.1 Lk-Ix- -~ , f LÂ·L Â·Â£1% ~Ir .....5.1:fj~ .:.I;Â·~~52.1....~.'~~l-- 1,3-~~ -r.-7.1~~-Zt. j 1.'. ]~.7 f~T~13~-~Ct"IJVf~~147- 3-Afil-IfI~~tr~Tta~CE , 1 1 . [ 1 , I. 1 1 Â· Â·Â· - 1 $..1.1.1,1 27 - 1-I-' .1 ..1 1 1 '1 .r t III') 1/'/1. *fl.*'/.~ ... .<+C.J..:,rÂ·L;.4. r ~-3 1.-1'Â·11.-1, 'LA'lt--_i_IÂ·- . ]11 1'l.'.'i' . . , .1 J . . i i Â·1,2.. f~; 7 1 ...1 '21; . 4661ft. 1:11,..Llu ziu; ---:-1> -1. i. ,~ 1 - f~,11 , , 1.4 ..s:5~~~Z Irr.LT - ri.1. â‚¬3 Lf' --*-111_L. i. i- c ; i . -, 7,;619 , rÂ· ' ~ 8 â€¢ 4 - LIC - 9 1 -/ 1 1. i , 1 - I. .1 - 4 ,/ f 693>/ 11 1 4'I'; r, : 1 aium:ZI 9 . 1 1 1 U ' 8-, W 6.1 W Â· ' Â· U LJ L.J . ZEIÂ·'I-:l , l . It r , . . .1/ . Lk..1. . â€¢..1 t.-I*C 1 1 . 1. 1. ' 1. 1. 1 i i F . 1 - 1~.1 1' t'.1 . - . 1 1. Â©-5 - r'JE-:Â·44, i Â· Â·Â· 3 .. . 1 , - - Â·r %Â·F.8 - ' 1 1 . . 1 . 21. . t I,-7- ,/ 11 J ~-/*1-3. - 1 i litÂ«.1.Â·L i ; . Â· A....6 , // , 11 - ---''---~T~ 1Â· -1.- .1 1.- .--1 1 -Â· r-7 , 77-1 , ,.-1 -- - -= - ---- - -~-- -~- - -- - - ---- -- - - --- - -- - -- -|-, 1 L v L .1 2.2~ 1 1 1 1=Â· i #4 L -4 1 X1 L-4 r.11 4 r.1 1-4 2.1~ 24 r 4 /J 2.-1-Â©4 454- 2-4.24 X.4Â· -~10.tu~'.+2...J--,11...12~ 21-Â·4<Â·09-3 '14-7 IN , 1 12{}Ir.- 3 '1 . 1 94-- Â»-1 C 1 , .. s .1 it~al~ ~ ~~~ . . 1 1 +KÂ». W . Vâ€¢--9 f 1 4'Url =T 203 4.t- 1 .. 4 . .14 1 - I- 1 I %4.... f j .y./ 1 1 1 11 Si +4 1 1/ , i / , 1 ',1,1 ' 1 â€¢ 1, ' 1,1 - _.Iii 11#'' i''/'â€¢1/'/'i.# i.t'i' '1Â·. 11 ... - ...2.- -- 1. 9. --- -9 - J 1, â€¢Â· '. ./. I .1, /* 4 - . C 1 1 -f\\ i r' 1 ,- , JiTZ W L.JU - .... 1 -- . I - .,- r -rl 1 1- ., 1 1 14__ WEST ELEVATION - GALENA STREET *2,: 4 312 2..:i ~De Lti South Galena I enr.T ./rlirÂ¥ r,nâ€žr.Â·T .... T Â¥ r. â‚¬14/l iloit 0 73 1 3 1 - Â·Â· " Mil 1 14 RECEIVED FEB 1 1 2000 ASPEN / Fl I KIN 1... 0,â€ž 114,Â·rv flF\/Flom,r-K... it' 1 I 1 ALLEY ~ I.........0 I , I Â· fe,>192 EXISTING WINDOW ~ 48*T . Teme N 1 ' il 0. .. DISPLAY WINDOWS LEASE SPACE I I i I. 4% 0 1. i i ! NEW GLASS -- f 1 , - - -lte, 21 , 10 VICTORIAN ELEVATOR ' 9- - 4 . .. .. . I I - i. Ic I LEASE LINE ~ X 1- 1 . -I --1 1 1 - I NEW CENTRAL ENTRY 4-17- 1- , 1 I, k t . I -- . . 1 : - . 11 I. I # LEASE SPACE % , % DISPLAY WINDOWS % /4 4 . . * 4 , 0 % 4 I I 8 - , 11 + -- . 4 ' ~ r Gâ‚¬â‚¬~417 1 I =-P' &. Â»t-7 -1 -[.1- 15 -EXT 3* "44 1... ) 31-1*-*i,3 ?14- South Galena PROPOSED FRONT ENTRY PLAN GIN+IMIBIFI ASPEN DI'VFI OPMENT (n, 110 GALENA STREET ... 1 p. 7-1 1 It - 1 2{32 ZeÂ«/ NEW WINDOWS IN --r-1 -- rr.. ORIGINAL OPENINGS (SHADED) Â£- -- 4- 2-- -1 - 1 3 I 1- h , L-----4 7 ./.0... F.OfÂ» -4 t.---- 0 h . EL. 11/ â€¢ I. 1 -1 , 1 L-LU Z F -- EL-3 -4 . - â€¢L d W.22Â»â€¢INC -L '. - ' ' --- 3 11-1 , - - f 1 -1 = = -1 -1 1 - QL J ~2~UaL.rÂ·-.-- ; 1-- 11 I lilli -_7[3 242--L-;6 LL 7-7.-, -r, - 1 --- - -. - -16â‚¬-: :.i-eu~ 1- h ti 0.- 44 4 6-F-rl-~ 312 ..0. , .... .1 Soutt 1-ete:~ NORTH ELEVATION mill. 0.--mor 4 01..i, d i 1.: 1 1 1 8 U| 1 L. LU UL |f 'll],L|It Jublidillb r.. . . 1 1 Zf . C-..E r. 1 â‚¬ SHORTEN NEW WINDOW IN ORIGINAL LOCATION / 1 -- 1â€¢J I -Ck - Â· . rl T .1 1 Y.-*E - O.W r- ...j . 1 1 ...r ./00, r o I. .,01.10. 1 + - 312 -4-%-4 i m. 0 . q South Galena SOUTH ELEVATION - PAPTIAL - \1 / . Â£ tb'"M' .,11. .... - PROPERTY LINE i-/I,E 0 4./A:Wr , nr e,-De, 000 0 0 le 00 (AA) LN .U"'.. f '-2---~ -;gur= - 1 1 1 1 /' . 21 3 , I o . 1 r-7 \1 1 r, 1 4- --11 ----1~AUL .W --. 1 7 .1 e-Â·nÂ» 42Â£--1. A 1 .1.VEUT - ' - /1 1 ...37 + i --1 R. 11 8 _-B ALL *--- Â· I ( ===Al.1 ! tr: i lef ---- 4 1/ i . 1 21 1 1 a LE Â«213 1 I * i _.1 +I. -41 ~2_V_-U l m 4 1 0 ? --1 ./;*.*1 it v Al 6~4/ 4 t//I'-r ||r-rt----- : r _U-i --P ----- 1 r.-, i 1â€¢-re C-DI.â€¢,LE c-TLK"r- //I J â‚¬)--=--- +I--2< 5.-:-L' ,; :- -- --~Â·rT. Â·rÂ·r.vt,r *1â‚¬,"6 b/9/'9 4,/LIDâ€¢r fll///,--'~ . , 1 - -- 1 ~ -Exâ€¢â€¢re/'P./'"-4-t t-ru-â€¢Ir | *H .- . -â€¢--rt .-ka IMA/0.1/. r./.â€¢r/T L- -/f-/B- . 1-217 -. C-N . -r:-'" - 2, M;21 21 , ~ El i C...rl - . h it il B| 1 ' 9 1 1 ..1 1 .--'.te - -13 --' 1 6 3 - dll ' 4.9 4 -1 -- ThÂ£ 17-1 Â».. M -1 De- ./. -. rfee<Tâ€¢I If/,-â‚¬ 2,- :. k rer'.FAL. 0 0 Ci 1 2 8 1 Â¢11 I id- --- ~'ZI-El - - . \, <-1. --- 1-2; 6.0,4.â€¢'- -/r-,6 : 1. ./.4-/ A U ....# ......: 4 ..5.Jer.'.-16 .1 K./. .$ ........5 VI- r#.. Uâ‚¬ *r,=......... 6Â»71-5 312 14-23 1 " 0 'h South Galena SITE 1 ROOF PLAN ilw. ..1. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 26.2000 Heidi said generally skylights blend in but in this case it is a separate element. Scott said being on the ridge the skylight had to be supported in another way. Mary informed the board that the beam supports the skylight within. Jeffrey asked for clarification of the finished product as it is exposed. Scott relayed 2 M feet and the profile off the roof is 6 M inches. Amy informed the board that the skylight is not on the historic house. The main issue is the contact between the applicant and board in order for the board to be aware of what is happening on the property. Mary relayed to the applicant and board that the project was controversial with a 4-3 vote and the fair and respectful thing would have been to make a phone call to the monitor or preservation officer. HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES - PH Vice-chair Mary Hirsch opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue the public hearing on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines to February 23~d; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried. 312 SOUTH GALENA STREET - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING - RESO #4,2000 John Davis 346 Lewis Lane Tom Schutz 520 S. Original St. Amy relayed that the front faGade would return back to the original storefront on the building. Windows that were bricked. up would be opened up and the paint would be removed from the masonry on the building. The building was previously called the Jewett grocery store. The main obstacle in the restoration is the staircase that is required to get up to the original 2 - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 26,2000 floor level. Staff recommends that the entry doors come forward to the front of the building. Another approach would be to move the stairs into the sidewalk. In 1994 the HPC allowed the windows to be bricked in. Staff is in favor of opening up the original windows. Studies will have to be done regarding the removal of the paint. Proof of notice was submitted to the Clerk's office as Exhibit I. Applicants presentation: Tom Schutz, architectural firm, Philos International, represented the owners. The primary objection is to return to a central entrance, Exhibit II. The columns and brickwork on the front have been kept the same. At some point the main floor level was raised. Instead of six inches offthe sidewalk it is now 30 inches. The over-ride for the elevator might project on the roof. There is a proposed central entrance, set back off the sidewalk to a landing and doors at 45 degrees entering into proposed lease spaces with an elevator centrally located. The elevator is critical in the renovation and reuse of the building. It will service the basement and primarily the second floor. The idea of moving the steps out to the faâ„¢le is a great idea because that helps alleviate the sense of the entrance being pushed into the building. The intent of the elevator is to utilize glass panels for the doors and sides giving a translucent feel but the framework for the elevator door, side panels will be period details similar to the doors entering into the leased spaces. Victorian base and jams and wainscoting will be incorporated. The details on either side would wrap around in front of the elevator. On the alley elevation, which is the north, the four existing bricked in windows would be restored to operable windows. There are two other windows, which were original to the building, and those would be opened back up for light. The south elevation also has an original opening which is proposed to be opened back up for additional lighting. John Davis indicated that staff s memo referred to reducing the vestibule in size and the reason the building sits empty is because it was a building that had one tenant and it doesn't work with one tenant. They are trying to create the possibility of multiple tenants. Clarifications and questions. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 26.2000 Lisa inquired about the alley as an access and the applicant explained due to the truck traffic and the fact that the building is built to the property line it would not be feasible. Heidi inquired about the stone and when it was added. Amy stated that she feels the stoop was removed and the floor level was changed. Some of the stone might be original and some isn't due to the way the front of the building was altered. Heidi suggested a common airlock. Tom relayed that the difficulty in doing that is the way the doors swing and there is the landing condition at the top ofthe stairs. Susan asked about the possibility of lowering the first floor to the street level. Tom informed the board that the height of the basement would then be below 5'6" and not a functional space. Susan also agreed that the window panes in the front should be returned to as close to the original as possible. John Davis said six panes on each side existed on the original photo. Tom relayed that the awnings are at the top of the transom window. Gilbert clarified that the elevator serves three stops. The building has an entrance at sidewalk level. Would there be the possibility of taking that sidewalk elevation and getting inside and going up a few stairs as opposed to changing the entire floor level. Internal stairs could occur within the stores in addition to the use of the elevator. The elevator is not intended to serve the first level. That would preserve most of the basement space. Amy felt that the disturbing part of the faâ„¢le is not having the door level relating to the floor level. Tom researched and the majority ofretail stores that are located in historic buildings on Galena Street step up into a vestibule area. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 26,2000 0 Jeffrey asked if the applicant did an inspection to see where the foundation meets with the historic framing, which would be rough sawn. The applicant relayed that no walls were exposed. Amy presented a photo from 1980 indicating the change in the entrance. Lisa and Christie agreed with staff comments in the memo regarding the windows and also agreed that the central entrance is appropriate. Lisa reserved judgement on the elevator until further information is obtained. Vice-chair Mary Hirsch opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing. Comments The board was encouraged about the direction of the project and the restoration of the front faGade and building. Restoration of the original 0 openings is commendable, i.e. north. Some sort of step up starting outside of the building is preferable. There was concern about the modern elevator and further study is recommended. HPC prefers a fagade similar to the Jewett grocery and they feel that is a compromise. If the elevator comes closer to the front it would be an impact to the over run on top. The elevator needs restudied in its design, i.e. screened from the street and some kind of setback offthe street. A meeting with the Engineering Dept. regarding the steps will be scheduled. Generally the board supported staffs recommendation. This building is a landmark in the commercial historic core and steps going out into the street are an historical element of Aspen. Applicant's comments: John Davis said if we are to do vestibule doors that open out, a three-foot landing is code. Amy said that her interpretation is that the Building Dept. wants a landing that is wide as the door swings. Ifthe stairs go into the sidewalk a handrail 0 will be required. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JANUARY 26.2000 John said the second floor ceiling is at the level at where the elevator is going to come up which is around 16 feet tall. Hopefully the mechanicals will not project. John also informed the board that they have communicated with the Building Dept. regarding removal of the interior of the building, which will occur Friday after the purchase of the building. Regarding the solution it will all be determined on how far the city will let us go out into the sidewalk. The best case scenario is that two stairs out would be permissible and then go three feet in. Staff will schedule a meeting with the Engineering Dept. Tom relayed that numerous scenarios were looked at with the elevator stairs etc. One ofthe factual pieces of safety in architecture is the most dangerous number of stairs in any flight of stairs is one. It is because you really don't see one step in front of you. The elevator photograph is misleading. The elevator doors will match the doors on either side and have the same jam and ceil detail. MOTION: Heidi moved to continue the public hearing and minor review on 312 S. Galena Street until February 23*with thefollowing condition: 1) Restudy of the entry. 2) Restudy of the storefront so that it more closely replicates the historic storefront. Motion second by Susan. Yes Vote: Jejfrey, Gilbert, Mary, Susan, Christie, Heidi, Lisa. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Heidi moved to adjourn; second by Christie. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6 m=lie p.-ES =15$mi MEETING DATE: NAME OF PROJECT: 3 / 3 tv j /31 tut tj- 1 EXHIBIT - CLERK: />5:e=â€¢L~_- 4 Â« 5.2,00 [7 STAFF'. 61-yui~ WITNESSES: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( ) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice C ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet C ) (Check If Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: VOTE: YES NO SUZANNAH REID YES NO MARY HIRSCH YES NO -..- SUSAN DODINGTON YES NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YES NO LISA MARKALUNAS YES NO JEFFREY HALFERTY YES NO HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES-NO - CHRISTIE KIENAST YES NO YES- NO - YES NO HPCVOTE f-=m71 1% 2=Un22Â» 1 ACTION: Significant Development (Conceptual) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet allfour ofthe development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: 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 an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot 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 26.40.09003)(2). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: 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. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 0 PARTIAL DEMOLITION Standards of review for partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that aU of the following standards are met: (Note: "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 the parcel). Standard 1: 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. Standard 2: 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 0. that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. ON-SITE RELOCATION Standards for review of on-site relocation: No approval for an on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the following standards have been met: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation, and The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts ofthe relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting of a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. 0 OFF-SITE RELOCATION Off-site relocation shall not be granted unless all of the following standards have been met: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable use of the property, and The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation, and The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation, and The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or the character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptable letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. 0 County of Pitkin } ~ ~1'Â»3 2 i ~ AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26304.060 (E) . I, -54 ok G / O/KI }+10 , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing ofnotice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepid U.S. Mail to all owners ofproperty with three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 14 day of tkb. ,~*(which is _15 days prior to the public hearing date of'~'23/24. 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously ttom tize qth day of Ah +991. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full 2000 , days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. gnature (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this R+k_ day 2' A J-99_by AVID FdorÂ»fuj V Â·1 ' 1 rh - Jacki Pa \6 rAt n o . WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL # -_ My commission expires: My Commission Expires 5 *... 03/23/2002 -bar bari- 50 huia- * Notapp Publig 4 ---* 16 . -4Â£ g)84, bu-9-- 0 01Â·Â£01-- 146tary Public's Signature /0 ,:Â·Â¢*/- 1 â€¢*Â·all. - m. i.liA# 1.,3..mp L' - I.92- 1 Ii,#+21 * a~ 0 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 213 W. BLEEKER STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW, HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, TEMPORARY RELOCATION, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 23,2000 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. City Hall, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Schelling Development Corporation, requesting conceptual design approval. historic landmark designation, partial demolition, temporary relocation, residential design standards review, and variances for the property located at 213 W. Bleeker Street, which is described as Lot G, Block 51, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves restoring the historic house, excavating a basement below it, and making an addition at the back ofthe property. The following variances are requested: east and west sideyard setback variances of 2 feet, a combined sideyard setback variance of 4 feet a rear yard setback variance of 10 feet, a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 15.3 feet. and waiver ofone parking space. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on February 4,2000 City of Aspen Account g:,planning\aspen\notices\920whal.doc 0 l8 0 ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 212 N SECOND ST LLC PARTNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP 1043 GUISANDO DR A MICHIGAN LTD PARTNERSHIP 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 TAMPA FL 33613 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009 ASPEN MAIN LP BENNINGHOFF ESTHER BOYNTON FRANK E & ELIZABETH J ASPEN PROPERTIES C/O 233 W HALL.AM AVE 528 SAND BEND DR PO BOX 10502 KERRVILLE TX 78028 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 BROWN ANTHONY BROWN MICHAEL H BROWN MICHAEL HAYDEN C/O FOX GRACE PO BOX 25282 250 MARTIN ST STE 100 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009-3383 WEST BLOOMFIELD MI 48325 BIRMINGHAM MI 48011 BROWN ROBERT STICKLER & SANDRA CHISHOLM EDITH 1/2 INT CHRISTMAS INN PARTNERSHIP LEA PO BOX 126 205 W MAIN ST 1115 20TH ST ASPEN CO 81611 CARBONDALE CO 81623 WEST DES MOINES IA 50265 0 DAVIS WILLIAM LLOYD CITY OF ASPEN COLLIER J STUART JR TRUSTEE OF DAVIS LIVING TRUST 130 S GALENA ST ONE COMMERCE SQUARE STE 2800 4924 BALBOA BLVD #489 ASPEN CO 81611 MEMPHIS TN 38103 ENCINO CA 91316 DIMITRIUS RALLI DE WOLF NICHOLAS DOBBS JOHN C & SARA F HUEBNER-DIMITRIUS JO-ELLAN 233 W BLEEKER ST PO BOX 241750 200 S SIERRA MADRE BLVD ASPEN CO 81611 MEMPHIS TN 38124 PASADENA CA 91109 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES FESUS GEORGE J & SUSAN C FOSTER FRANCES TRUSTEE 1/2 INT INC 2400 PRESIDENTIAL WAY #1503 PO BOX 9197 PO BOX 7846 ASPEN CO 81612 W PALM BEACH FL 33401 ASPEN CO 81612 HOTEL ASPEN LTD HOTEL ASPEN LTD INNSBRUCK HOLDINGS LLC C/O ASPEN GROUP ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 435 E MAIN ST 415 E MAIN #210 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009 KING LOUISE LLC KAPLAN WILLIAM M AND KATE KETTELKAMP GRETTA M A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY CO PO BOX 406 3408 MORRIS AVE PO BOX 1467 MILFORD DE 19963 PUEBLO CO 81008 BASALT CO 81621 LUBIN RICHARD G M D W ENTERPRISES INC MARCUS MARTIN L & FANNON JOHN H 1217 S FLAGLER DR 2ND FL FLAGLER COLORADO CORPORATION C/O LEFF MARILYN PLAZA 233 W BLEEKER 7660 BEVERLY BLVD APT #365 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33401 ASPEN CO 81611 LOS ANGELES CA 90037 â‚¬0 - MCDONALD FAMILY TRUST MELTON DAVID MUNDAY TRUST NUMBER ONE 320 W MAIN ST 135 W MAIN ST PO BOX 1689 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 AUSTIN TX 78767 PIETRZAK FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP NEWKAM CLAIRE M PIETRZAK BOB & SUE LLC COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 2808 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD ASPEN CO 81612 BASALT CO 81621 BASALT CO 81621 PRICE DOUGLAS L AND VALERIE SAUNDERS MARGARET W SCHELLING RONALD L & LORI L 8611 MELWOOD RD 231 ENCINO AVE 24523 BRITTANY BETHESDA MD 20817 SAN ANTONIO TX 74609 PLAINFIELD IL 60544 Sit.VERSTEIN PHILIP SLOVITER DAVID SMART PAMELA SIU/ERSTEIN ROSALYN 1358 ROBIN HOOD RD 3351 WOODHAVEN RD 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT MEADOWBROOK PA 19046 ATLANTA GA 30305 BRONX NY 10463 0 STEVENS LESLEY 4.25% INT WATSON DIANE B WEESE KATE B IRREV TRUST NO 2 STEVENS BRUCE 95.75% INT 121 W BLEEKER ST 314 W WiLLOW RD 214 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN CO 81611 CHICAGO IL 60614 ASPEN CO 81611 WEST PHILLIP N & SUSAN J WHYTE RUTH WILLE O LOUIS & FRANCES LYNETTE 2114 MT CALVARY RD PO BOX 202 200 W MAIN ST SANTA BARBARA CA 93105 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 0 Photo Survey ' 2=1124 February 23,2000 Schelling Residence Addition and Alterations 213 West Bleeker Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Architect's Job No. 2K-101 Prepared By: Palomino Barth Architects P.C. P.O. Box 301 174 Midland Avenue, Suite 205 Basalt, CO 81621 970 927-9976 0 Table Of Contents A. View of 205 West Bleeker Street Looking South 1 B. View of 213 West Bleeker Street Looking South 1 C. View of 213 West Bleeker Street Looking Southeast 2 D. View of 213 West Bleeker Street From Back Yard Looking North 2 E. View of Existing Shed From Back Yard Looking Southeast 3 F. View of Existing Shed From Alley Looking Northwest 3 G. View of Existing Shed From Alley Looking North 4 H. View of Existing Shed From Alley Looking North 4 I. View of 215 West Bleeker Street From Alley Looking North 5 J. View of 205 West Bleeker Street From Alley Looking Northeast 5 K. View of 213 West Bleeker Street From Back Yard Looking North 6 L. View of 213 West Bleeker Street From East Side Yard 0 Looking North 6 M. Existing Residence-610 West Smuggler-Aspen,CO 7 N. Existing Residence-134 West Hopkins-Aspen,CO 8 O. Existing Residence-1000 East Cooper-Aspen,CO 9 P. 1904 Sanborne Map 10 1-Pljp 2K-101 PhotoSurvey 0 Â¥45; . 4,4.11*i 337+11'r ..... 4.=- -4..f..4.36401& I. 1. r , e P I Â«491 l, . - 1 a : 4 ? . E.,irK 1 i*3 5 : I Â· # r Â·Â· ' 6. 4 ' â€¢2â€¢AU -99 1.iu' It t...$12 L V . ':.../ - ' .,....7./71* -...//,4 1..,11 ~. View of 205 West Bleeker Street Looking South 92 . - f-*1*le 87: , -, .1 1 E ' d: -I ..' I. . 4 4% e ' + 9-441Â£=27-=~ ~, View of 213 West Bleeker Street Looking South 1 73*Â·' 61' - *Pke t .4.7 i:i A 1 61-4 FIC, , 4. ...... 5 Â»4 '.TÂ·4 7,/11"##a 9 2 -- -- a -Â£9'Â£* A E- 922 ---- . t f.961 1: '-4 I 1 1 . - (~, View of 213 West Bleeker Street Looking Southeast 0, /.,htium-=U., . . I P. 41 Â·Â·i/_r'--4"/INM"Mil -% ......' Â·- Â· i ' ~' fIT -'4-*lidiIlilWi~5illI 4, /â€¢ r tz#./1/1/1.- 3 ./ . - 2 Â· Â·A . :. 1 - 71 m 4,0.160 , 4 - - - A 1 *2...- es 10: AM-7 'V ' - 1 ,% r *.-'4*;'*i / 0 h. Il . / , -11 i l e- \ *c 7' 9 View of 213 West Bleeker Street From Back Yard Looking North 2 Vt -N ~ .<r 0. 4 L f I .t ... .4. C -C: :. / .7 t :F W 1 ( ..,4 - 3 I. ': .1 A 25, View of Existing Shed From Back Yard Looking Southeast - 40 .. I '- FÂ·- iIi 5 .*. W ... - .- :14 :1 1 f. 9 , rÂ·Â·Â¢,rtio - 4 ' 4 1 J Â· 4'"42 : U.:334 :' .... A- 4. . , 11,1 ..... 1 it .4 14 N Vi k , 1.:g w f,J: - 1 E ~ 4 c 1 N~ 419.L .ip 2 1.4 ., 4 '.r , j{ I l' 1 ---- -- Â· Pwa . Â· Â· I *aa. *1.Aul 4 .e I .'/1.' I .rÂ·,f 11~4 :,9* - ..9 4. F. View of Existing Shed From Alley Looking Northwest 0 - MY 0 44:1~ . , R #Awal'r 1 , 1< 2444r1 k : V ) 3 ..3,4 1.29, i i .imimml '41 = ha ..tk.SA--- , 4, 11 1 / I 4 6*z6-* -- *-:cjtÂ¢*%Â¢Â¢f~-"-121*+0*#p<~ - ~-f; - -1 1 . ./1 4 . . u. - -9 40:'.CÂ¥ Â¥ 4 / 3* 24, View of Existing Shed From Alley Looking North *Y ~ .2.1. 1 r, . y , F ..40 , j 2 '1 .6 1 - - .1 '-1 --Il./rh 4,74. /4/,2/Qumr 11 View of Existing Shed From Alley Looking North 4 ..fÂ® r N:, ~'12 4 e t 77 0 4-/7 =-4 IIi ~â€ž. E-*M 1/Eme"ll 1.1, a=. V r .,41 4 44: 4 1.2,14v b =11&.i , Alli/NEAL.C.*1924 .:f i.4 4.1.41'Li .f 1 - .*1.-- 1.0.1!E~ , ;Â·,4, S 4," ./6 '4/." ' I .- . -89= h ... 1 492 Â·2 *0- - I i , I I . '''- lili'... d... . ... - e,al Jull i 4 1 \[7111 -u.r. Â·1 --- - 4 1. , ' 111/ I 4 -1.,Â¥.a-.~21 ? 7. f.'09 41.1 1-9 . c rr-r -1 1- 1 1//14 --. Â· . 1 -IIC I'la rve I.- P 1 - .i,47/.KI.,S=.&=7. 6 - ./ - * - 'tr.~:'3~mwnÂ·Â· ts,.p. -; , . 911. - V .#42 CE, View of 215 West Bleeker Street From Alley Looking North 1- - , A *A . ,. Vt..2.- . D X i r 11. _ p . 1 : - I tyÂ¢. i - 17. L 2/ i..,4:5 4%1"f #..:,. 111~ h-- -bl~, Wâ‚¬4 0 I,KÂ·te ;.4*'pr 1 L- 4) I f ~i 11.7. r -4-1 . .1 1 Ill. 3 . :2t.A.(:r ;.@r / 171 = 4 31/1 /:", :r 4 1 1 .Dr I le m.#44 1 1.4. Eft'-~71 -f~uy , M L .4.-1,4*3,-- + 16: 1 44 .0-0,31; AR A 43. *... 4. d '* 92_ -T View of 205 West Bleeker Street From Alley Looking Northeast G I. t.- PL 11 ......Â· 4 .. 41 i . 6. ~. 41 : fl~ 3 2- r t 4.1, ....a. P . 44/ .. 1 > f ..1 .4 -7 L Â· 'C .11 1 4-'r 4.: I h.3 * 3.../ : .i .fz-Â·u "'./ ., .. * 4 . 4. .4 U 1 4 1 A.-4 4-Yte-~ 64 A.:.. - getÂ·Â·'.Â©.3.4.4.J-Pirjiz.1~0,4-."r, 44~~~<~~ ...IÂ·fr~~~.<,#221 - _?zf__ t>37&2..Â·. 4--' /\ , , P ..0- -4-1 1 2 .1 0 1 I >.0 y & 5634 Â·h , L .21% .... 14 - r 1 Itt.. t . Lk- ~<f View of 213 West Bleeker From Back Yard Looking North 4 -*-.Efi-,15.-- . .1.,964*i,hia,6,443,I l-'ill 'll , ... r 1:. V J. - % Dll. - /1 -:15 :2, V... 0 ;9.fT; 4 ' t. 1#.:, ' 4 - i . 4, , 1 '9 1 - -.t 2- 1.-41 *turi.. r 'rt-f. p 44 - I# Â¥ft )*4 46:Â· ~ Â· ~ Â·- :Et * of 0 -/4 ' .1 -1 Â·I 042' C 1 J. 1 ...% :. . 0- 1. i 4 . 1 *, F 11&1 ', ~ 4 #44 f 3, t*f*14 ~_, View of 213 West Bleeker From East Side Yard Looking North 2/22/99 1.K-101 Schelling Residence % M IU k 2 t, 00 ..41. I e -0. Â«t Â·1:Uky -... 14.4. --I 95/71 *-., '<40. 2 9, Jrue, a I. . " ..Aut.-3'jit ~66,/ _. ..wa-_- im C Ge*$1'*mi. ..: .,4 :.1-~~~'. 7 - 0 Â»AR :47' . f U . $3 1, .. 4 .Â· i .,1 . Â¥ - ,:f.,1 - -. -- - .. .. i / -1 / 1 , 1/1,7, 1. C , 1 2 /-1.. f ~Â· % ~ht'~, Existing Residence 610 West Smuggler Aspen,CO 1 V. ZE %Â£* 2/22/99 2K-101 Schelling Residence ~~- ~ -~~ i. -7 0. 9,7 K . -: '. t j t--J-- 0>j. ~ j. 11 . . A. I : /,1. 1 f.1 1 . ' '':,0 36-- 4\ : 1 1 k, INâ‚¬,4 ..r- 4 4 -i- 0 R; :~ ;: 1â€¢mmâ€¢ i. 1/t,/= â€¢m,?, Â·Â· 4. k V.I.-1 I /'I, ill 1 1- 1 ,- Â·- . 32r~_ U. Z . -. 14. T . , . V 4 -4 , z t.d,4 '44 1 1 , '63 7/. . - /---*m-77~.'I~/I~.il~.alill ~tt.'. - 11. Existing Residence 134 West Hopkins Aspen.CO 2/22/99 2K-101 Schelling ~sidcnce 4..: â‚¬ ..,Ck 24 ' th I . Â· Â· 1~ 70. 72,. f -gel. . : 4 I I. ... 7, a .'- e . 4 . 14 421' p..4~5 <P E.... 9 .4 t.: R.10*.0 ,.1 . ' 1%. .97 1 ./ ~ Â·:5 uÂ·- '-, fl. //-25' 11+r talÂ« -Â«E- 4-4-b- -W ,Â·67=te#31t " 'I.2,-'., I 4- .). 1 /1.4.. t il 22 4 W , :u42. t FIIZ/Â·' vl 1. . ' *74' 1 - -- ..1.-?:4 :7#i'. ~~ed 21. Â·-:Â·"j' *'* . -A.'46 ; Â·i'05Â£6~ :Â· -.i<,iki +377,~2-LLkÂ«Â¥ . , i 3 6 . 1. ~; . â€¢' -4.4 C I h ' 'A Â·Â· $ f., 3.AN~ 9.. . /. VI Â· , L k. f - .Â·- I */.1 */ Â· '9 .. 4.-/ 'A. 1- " lim 1 t. U.., I ~ . , t t.. ' 1 - ..297â„¢-Â·- . C), Existing Residence 1000 East Cooper Aspen,CO 1 .. 3 - ~ El_ P---*1~ *-1 l-2 17971* ~ / 4 /7 1 a c / i El Fri 1, 0 111, 7 N , 4 23Â»1 '6 F/Ef-; i / Al I 50 1% 5- 57 | 1 ' i N 11(1.(I+3 4 4 41 17- MN OPâ‚¬ 6' NA Z M M o Lit 01 fi -91 ~:, -17-71-1 4 X - Fn 1/ 4 4 /1 N 37 - rÂ·'71; 0 -jgo <f 4 ty*-1 -lis:U , 'N -6 A- 1 1 0 ; 4 ~ 1 1 '34.32 230-26 226~ m 227 28 2/,7 Â¢12 210-2 206-4 202 200 84-2 130-28 /26-4 /22- 20 113-/6 /*4 11: i j / 2//FÂ· 1,2 SukÂ»t /3-,oper& .\151/ 2,1.r ~ jolES- /213 0)â‚¬6+ 'Ned<-er' W. BLEEKER V -i?/NA--- -- 4' W.PIPE 0, == t= ==== = = -I'- "Ill ...= /=..=.'. ..1 .=.= - =.=~='Il. I.'= =I= ;./.~/.= - I;.==i= = =- ./f == =Il=n - - 1... -. 2//:'2 20: ,Â£17 \ 2%-33 231-29 227- 25 223-21 2/9-/7 2/5 /3 *,3 49 3 201 !35-3 /31-29 127-.5 123-21 //9-/7~L 1.2 i 7-7!T -r 7-117 r 7-Ir,-P 7-FT,-i. â€¢ 1 or- & 2 L ID -D -77. 2 1 0..'-'... *L 71~-71 7-7 7 3" 1 Lo 1 UIC;Â· b A # 11-2 L -0 -7 L _1 17-3 r .71 fiI~BD JU . r- 0 T -7/ 0 71, c br# 14 gi I -; . 1 t...I.i,\ L-9 ri'Â·1:U A L[ 4 44 k ~1 -6-2] LEI _ 3, 2 \1 - Â·V DEFGHI b BCD 0 # 35Ell-11 L c|. Â°'i ~-w K fr-rr-9 Fi-rl--31 , ne -1 4 [3" 61 1 51 58 % 2111>~%15 1212] F X /*\ / 9 0 % 2, 1 -21 M i S \ rzâ‚¬ M Nop f 1 ,r LMNO 17- i &,Â·T Pll j Li rr'Trla 1-l-Tn , 1 6 ~ / w, 'E 11-79Â¢91 & 0 B . % 1 1 1 111 kI 0 0 i #t 4 \ r rj ; ~R 60 0 1 IN f XI,! Ttg 0 -19/ /6 ' 0/ 1-4 ~azl--1 1 r- 41 10 â€¢ % 7- 2/ 1 1,, ~ / 2 -D x li -_ _ El Â¢ z _Z7 -1 -b 12 J -1 r ALW Gtfuloqlg Â®61 61:, 1'. C 2.- FEB-17-2000 THU 03:59 PM FAX NO, P, 02/02 ' 102 /0Â£1 /06 Ntt_ a) r-='=1 1| 22.i:22fri MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning DirectorJ~b FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 213 W. Bleeker Street- Landmark Designation, Conceptual review, Partial Demolition, Temporary Relocation, Variances, and Residential Design Standards,.PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 23,2000 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to demolish an area towards the rear of this historic house, to restore the front porch and other elements of the building, and to make an addition. The project requires HPC to find that the standards are met for landmark designation, conceptual development review (including variances,) partial demolition, temporary relocation, and the Residential Design Standards. APPLICANT: Ron Schelling, Schelling Development Corp., represented by Palomino Barth Architects. LOCATION: 213 W. Bleeker Street, Lot G, Block 51, City and Townsite of Aspen. R- 6 zone district. LANDMARK DESIGNATION Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards (Section 26.420.010) may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Reponse: This standard is not met. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of 1 BAL 6,1 A 0 traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type. Response: The historic house on the site typifies the modest homes built for Aspen residents in the late 1800's. It has had numerous alterations, including enclosure of the front porch and changes to doors and windows, but the changes are reversible. There is no information about the construction date of the outbuildings on the site. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: This is one of a group of eight historic houses in a row along West Bleeker Street. There are few other instances in town where so many Victorian era structures have been preserved together, therefore it is particularly important that these resources be protected. E. Communio, character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the 0 character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic signifi cance. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the 2 Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary 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 Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. Response: From the attached 1904 Sanborne map, this house is completely intact except that the front porch has been enclosed and alterations have been made at the rear of the building. Originally there was a back porch, which was replaced with what is labeled "Bedroom 2" and a "Greenhouse." Window changes and other alterations of exterior materials have also occurred. The proposal before HPC is to restore the front porch and to demolish "Bedroom 2," the "Greenhouse," and the "Kitchen," which was built prior to 1904. A new addition is to be linked to the house by a small connecting element, and will include a full basement. The addition also attaches to the existing outbuilding along the east property line. It is not clear whether either of the outbuildings on the property are those represented in the Sanborne map. The westernmost building, which is more of an open shed, is to be demolished. The eastern building will be preserved in place. Staff finds that in general, the proposed addition is very successful. It is broken up into components that relate to the historic house, uses similar roof and window shapes and proportions, and will apparently not be visible even from across the street. Several setback variances are needed because the lot is 3,000 square feet and because of HPC's desire to create a separation between the historic house and an addition. Because the HPC has indicated that one of the outbuildings must be preserved, there is only enough room to accommodate a one car garage on-site, so the applicant has requested HPC waive one of the required parking spaces. As stated above, staff finds that the project is going in the right direction, however, there is one significant concern with the demolition that is proposed. The application includes removing an area of the house that pre-dates 1904 according to the Sanborne maps. Because the kitchen is part of the original building, staff finds that it must be retained. This will require some reconfiguration of the proposed addition, possibly retaining the kitchen in the existing location rather than moving it to the new construction. Basement space and lightwells will also likely require redesign. This issue has a major affect on the project, therefore staff recommends continuing the hearing. Other issues that must be addressed in detail by HPC in the course of this review are the exact design of the restored front porch and the restoration of windows. The applicant deserves praise for undertaking this work, which will make the house a contributing historic resource once again. All window restoration must be based on framing evidence that will be discovered during the construction process. The new front 3 porch must be fairly simple in detailing so that it is clear that it is not the original. A preservation plan will be required to determine how any historic materials that remain on the house will be addressed, and a landscape plan will also be reviewed. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The project will be a benefit to the neighborhood in that it will restore the house to a more historic character. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The historic significance of the property, as a piece of 19th century history, will be improved by this project because the house will be brought to a more authentic character. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The development will enhance the architectural character and integrity of the house by restoring missing features. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: a. 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: Staff finds that some of the areas of the existing buildings that are proposed for demolition are not historically significant or can be appropriately sacrificed to allow a successful new addition. In particular, staff finds that the western outbuilding, the greenhouse, and the second bedroom are not historic construction and/or do not appear on the Sanborne maps, and should be approved for demolition. The kitchen is historic and staff is opposed to its demolition. b. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. 4 0 Response: The project does not meet this standard. (2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: Staff finds that the addition is generally compatible in mass and scale with the original structure. TEMPORARY RELOCATION No approval for temporary relocation shall be granted unless HPC finds that the following standards are met: 1. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: This report will be required as a condition of approval. Information about how the house will be stabilized during relocation may also be provided by the housemoven 0 2. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 will be a condition of approval, The relocation plan must detail how and where the building will be stored while a basement is excavated. It is unlikely that an off-site storage location can be found, plus this has placed buildings in jeopardy in the past, so staff recommends that the applicant be required to keep the building on the property during construction. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS All residential development in the City of Aspen requiring a building permit from the City of Aspen, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district, shall comply with the residential design standards as specified in by the Administrative Checklist unless otherwise granted a variance by the Design Review Appeal Board as established in Chapter 26.222 or unless granted a variance through some other required review process by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission. 0 5 0 Response: The project as designed is in compliance with the "Residential Design Standards" except for the standards related to windows. Some windows on the new addition are located in the "no window zone" and must either be modified or approved by HPC. The standard is: Windows. Street facing windows shall "No window zone" not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve Â·Â· 1 2 111 1.. 111 feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measure- 11, ment will be made from the first land- 51 , . ing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. All street facing areas with an exterior 1 1 expression of plate height greater than ten (10) feet shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations 0 between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of finished floor. The HPC may grant an exception to the design standards ifthe project as proposed is found to meet one of the following criteria: a) yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan: b) more elrectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; Â© be clearly necessary for reason offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the application with conditions to be met prior to final review. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) 0 â€¢ Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. 6 RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staffrecommends that HPC approve Landmark Designation but continue the rest of the review for restudy of the proposal to demolish the existing kitchen. Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated February 23,2000. B. 1904 Sanborne Map. C. Application. 7 UmellÂ©RESâ€¢Â¥Ambil geâ€¢s$110. MEETING DATE: NAME OF PROJECT: CLERK: STAFF: WITNESSES: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( ) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check If Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: VOTE: YES NO -- SUZANNAH REID YES NO MARY HIRSCH YES NO SUSAN DODINGTON YES NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YES NO LISA MARKALUNAS YES NO JEFFREY HALFERTY YES NO HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES NO CHRISTIE KIENAST YES NO ' YES NO YES NO HPCVOTE EXHIBIT F--1 ACTION: Minor Review All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet a#four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(13)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: 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. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ 0 ACTION: Minor Review All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet alljbur Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.09003)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: 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. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 0 0 MEETING DATE: NAME OF PROJECT: CLERK: STAÂ¥Â¥: WITNESSES: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( ) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check If Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: VOTE: YES NO SUZANNAH REID YES NO MARY HIRSCH YES NO ~ 'I- -- SUSAN DODINGTON YES NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YES NO LISA MARKALUNAS YES NO JEFFREY HALFERTY YES NO HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES NO CHRISTIE KIENAST YES NO YES NO YES NO 0 HPCVOTE v R BE,-C PE i,-3 M N 1Â£21 ., f- 4 - / 1 UP H ABCOE [2-717 0 ~ F 1 -3 173 -3 1 'willx 7 \/ w 1/ X [3 1 -7 i I /2<'x 4 3 1 , 8 50 57 - 1 E 1 0 4 1 1 1 /1 th 0 ~/ PE GY I ' 0*,C.1 tl 4 7- MLMNOPQR,st 4 0 L M n o LI I % E,,11- 4 ~ t' k-Y w 0 1/6/@il I/JULE O 1 1 & - \ o l~; 4< 8 ~ 4 97-32 230-28 226-24 222-20 2/,7 e )2 2/0-8 206-4 202 200 134-2 130-28 (26-4 /22-20 118-/6 Na 2/8 ?16 W. BLEEKER , , e' Rt-3 ======= = cteÂ« =-1 === =t- f / t.-1 X 2 2677, 25 , f i ; .* - 28-3 i~_29 227-23- ~~~ '2~9-~~~ 2~6,~9 ~3.-3' -- "-- H- '1' 1_ -7 4 -71 A., 293 201 135-3 /31-29 127-5 /23-2/ //9-/7 \(A % \ luri 7-FID- 9 7-FT/- 7 f â€¢ 4 --r _Ty L . . P--91 7-1,- De 1 - 2 1 _.D ' ' T A 21 --I to %> IT-51 E / t.*bu k . . Â·, 2 If, \ ~EZE-, 1 / 01 C.gu 2.3,17*.IM 4 1 0 47:,1,3 1 W.: 4 1- 7. u r 1 - sp J 11-21 121 s k U f) - \ 4 1..~21 26- ~~ 7:~ /C- 62 /7, / - 4 3><4. 71 /\X / O / Del 11 07-9 [7-r t-F--~1 \ r--Shed / X 1,3/x 1- 51 58 6 / 1 bEM-21[.2 lEi I ' x / '~~~~ 0 % 29 9 M 1 / V 00\ A I K 5 1 8-17 [Til iM NO P q 7147; R / [7-1 ixt 1 OX Z /01 /1/ 0 1#rmm| Â£ 1 E r7-3FT76 FL-T 71 ,\ % 1 77 0 ,/5,84Â·.4 ' -1 1-1 1 OZE 1 7 1 4 L \-11 1 1/0 to. Z | i 'dilli':. L 7, 0 if) 1 e N.KF,2,111 ///6 XI I 6 0 -12_ 1 1,â‚¬0'* I e 139 2 0 0 --1 - 422 Jux f Z --27 7-7 12 4 0 , U., ~1 . /0 ma /9 0 220 202 2~7 ' 206 208 911 91/ 0 Development Application February 9,2000 Schelling Residence Addition and Alterations 213 West Bleeker Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Architect's Job No. 2K-101 Conceptual Design Review, Historic Landmark Designation, Partial Demolition, Temporary Relocation, And Variances 0 Prepared By: Palomino Barth Architects P.C. P.O. Box 301 174 Midland Avenue, Suite 205 Basalt, CO 81621 970 927-9976 0 1 M.1/l L loll' 0 Table Of Contents I. Land Use Application A. Land Use Application Form 4 B. Agreement for Payment of Development Application Fees 7 C. Attachment 2 - Dimensional Requirements Form 8 D. Attachment 3 - General Submission Requirements i. Applicant Authorization Letter 9 ii. Street Address and Legal Description 10 iii. Disclosure of Ownership 11 iv. Vicinity Map 15 v. Site Improvement Survey 16 E. Attachment 4 - Specific Submission Requirements: Variances i. Description of Variance Requests 17 F. Attachment 7 - Public Hearing Notice Requirements i. Publication Notice 18 ii. Posting Affidavit 19 iii. List of Mailing Recipients 20 2 Table Of Contents (Cont'd.) II. Historic Preservation Commission, Significant Development Review A. Attachment 4 - Specific Submission Requirements: Conceptual Review i. Site Plan 22 ii. Description of Major Building Materials 23 iii. Description of Development Proposal 24 iv. Existing Floor Plans 26 v. Existing Elevations 27 vi. Proposed Basement Plan 28 Vii. Proposed Main Level Plan 29 viii. Proposed Upper Level Plan 30 ix. Proposed Roof Plan 31 x. Proposed Elevations 32 xi. Proposed Southwest Perspective View 33 Xii. Proposed Northeast Perspective View 34 Xiii. Visual Description of Neighborhood 35 III. Historic Landmark Designation A. Attachment 3 - Specific Submission Requirements i. Grant Request 41 ii. Landmark Designation Criteria 42 3 LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: 0040/1/1/1 5 Re,sidenct AdditiLM and All-erÂ»fons Location: 113 West.131â‚¬eker Siveet Ae,en, Cb 8 10 11 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Lot et, Block 51, 0*73 a.d-!Ownsite oBAsen, Fitkivi @unl~, 60/o,wolo APPLICANT: Name: 1*n 5dle) 1 te , 00Â¥j j*4,rt-~, Sche J I in, .N Ye /op,le.rj- Gre. Address: 0. Box 345 , FiR'.pl fieÂ·Id ,Â£ L 00544- Phone #: 8)5 466 - 61â‚¬41, REPRESENTATIVE: Name: 6904 Fo/0Â»114,10 Al:A, )*#Mcirdl, 83)0#11)70 #AY#~Ardtifects le. Address: Plax 301 YOWÂ¥ 1 60 8\021 Phone #: 170 127- 947@ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): gl Conditional Use Il Conceptual PUD ~Ef Conceptual Historic Devt. Â£ Special Review D Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) m Final Historic Development E Design Review Appeal O Conceptual SPA E Minor Historic Devt. 1 GMQS Allotment m Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) D Historic Demolition 0 GMQS Exemption D Subdivision ~* Historic Designation g ESA-8040 Greenline, Stream O Subdivision Exemption (includes m Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane 01&,Hal Jbno/ilion El Lot Split El Temporary Use % Ouker,-tâ‚¬mporary Adomfion j Lot Line Adjustment 0 Text/Map Amendment â€¢ Vari Qyl US EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description ofexistmg buildmgs, uses, previous approvals, etc.) MISÂ»j Oyle- 3Â»1 ,tal -kin,OÂ»1 2 gie..joatki &110Â»lity Mihme (900 c.f) Wiil 000(ked stra, sbed (/Bos.f.), 40 knoww peviou; /0,101 cut arovals. PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Sa Acked Id}tr addreised -10 A.1, 6%}hpie,dated 3-anuar, 34 zooo %Â· 5-0). Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 1 3/0,01- m Pre-Application Conference Summary - N Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement g Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form g Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents M Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents m Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application 4 Palomino Barth Architects P.C. P.O. Box 301 0 174 Midland Avenue Suite 205 Basalt CO 8162 1 (970) 927-9976 (970) 927-9676 Fax January 31, 2000 Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Via Fax (970) 920-5469 Re: Schelling Residence Addition and Alterations 213 West Bleeker Street Aspen, CO 81611 Architect's Job No. 2K-101 Subject: Request for Significant Development Review and Historic Landmark Designation Dear Amy, Please accept this letter as a formal request for Significant Development Review and Historic Landmark Designation for the above mentioned property. We are in the process of preparing a complete application per the City of Aspen minimum standards for submittal by February 9th. Significant Development Review The existing residence on the property is Victorian but, has been expanded in size and altered from its original details to a point beyond recognition of its stylistic origin. If approved, we are hereby requesting permission for selective reconstruction of the dwelling to its original form and detailing including reconstruction ofthe original front porch, exterior doors and windows. We will retain the existing historic shed at the Southwest corner of the property by incorporating it as a new storage area adjacent to the new one car garage offthe alley. We are also requesting we be allowed to construct a full basement under the original dwelling footprint; and a two story and basement addition at the rear of the property. We anticipate that the total square footage ofthe dwelling will be between 3,800 and 4,000 square feet and will comply with the maximum allowable Floor Area Ration (FAR). 0 6 January 31.2000 Schelling Residence Historic Landmark Designation We are also requesting the property be granted Historic Landmark Designation as a part of this proposed development. We are requesting several variances as a part ofthis Historic Landmark Designation review. The variance requests are as follows: 1. Reduction of the East and West side yard setbacks from five feet to three feet. 2. Reduction of the rear yard setback from five feet to three feet. 3. Reduction of two off-site parking spaces to one off-site parking space. It is my understanding that your approval of both the Significant Development Review and Historic Landmark Designation including the requested variances supersede both the City of Aspens requirement for submittal and review subject to the Residential Design Standards and the Board of Adjustments. Ifthis is not correct, please notify me immediately so I may prepare applications for these submittals as well. We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any comments or questions regarding this proposed development request, please call me. Best Regards, Â£:52*6~4 _- _ I Jack Palomino AIA, Principal Palomino Barth Architects P.C. ypijp 2K-101 L2 CC: Ron Schelling Sarah Oates, Planner City of Aspen Aâ€¢21*4+Â©ElÂ·01':t+-4*41-- ~- 2+ Â· * .. 'Â· 04â€¢-'p/: Â·Â·Â· Â·i:..ik/,1. 1 â€¢.,1 *'hy'?i#Â·Â·â€¢1 1..'I':42*/6/'14/:EUU=Â»GatÂ·',Â· i '*Â·.'4' 4 i:-'Â·, i Â·Â·'Â· DO 301 1 â€¢L /09 50.4 T BOD 26 00 03:32p Jack Palomino 9709633015 P.3 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees hr_\ r CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY)and 40,1 tzpalie.)/ iP'l~ (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 013 4% Nest D)eeker , (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 9-v ,Â£5 â‚¬Â·i 22)co 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 45-fSeries-ef-499% establishes a fec structure for Land Use applications and the payment ofall processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project. it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICAN1' on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPI. ICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council zo make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of appiication completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount ofs 4,310 which is for Twelve hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid, CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT 4 UpU- . bc 4 ((In C By: By: ~~f-~tf L Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director - Date. O 4 / 9 4 ~ O-0 1 iMailing Address: f 0. 343, Maitift| d IL 6054+ 7 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM project: â‚¬Ehellfvt, Res}elence Addition and Alterations Applicant: MOn Schef Ify,04 , Pke sidemt~ Sdle) Â£952 8.Ve OFÂ»*Mt CorF Location: 213 1AleS F Bkiller 9+reet:, As/-, 8 8 16 11 Zone District: K-CO /Fled'.u,M PerisiÂ·19 As,depttia i Lot Size: 24000 4 Lot Area: Â·51000 5.t. (for the purposes ofcalculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: 14~ Proposed: R)A Number of residential units: Existing: f Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 3 Proposed: 4 3065+Â· Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): -Â¥ii-2Â·tÂ· -- 30,9 % * Â¥ 13&wMa~ ition wi)1 resto re stru Clure to oribly}QI hi sh ric fbotpri rit. DIMENSIONS: 3,9709Â·g.fÂ· Floor Area: Existing: ~81 4 Allowable: 41400 FAR Proposed: '2,302* Wol.Â¥AE Principal bldg. height: Eristing: 124011Â£ 21#owable: 95 ~ Proposed: 94' Access. bldg. height: Existing: IOLB/'+ Allowable: 12' Proposed: WA On-Site parking: Existing: O Required: 1 Proposed: 1 % Site coverage: Existing: 33 % Required: No Limi+4tfolfroposed: 61% % Open Space: Existing: 67% Required: No LimitationProposed: 99% Front Setback: Existing: 147' Required: \d Proposed: \471' Rear Setback: Existing: 0'0Â¥ti Required: \0'~Â£5'â‚¬Gyâ€¢~Proposed: 9222% Combined F/R: Eristing: ~4.1' Required: 30' Proposed: M.1 t' e 6*i St. Side Setback: Existing: 14 Required: 6' Proposed: 9 e addi+ion Side Setback: Existing: 5 ' Required: 9' Proposed: e e addition 0'e 045+: 0'e Â«ist. Combined Sides: Existing: 6 ~ Required: 10' Proposed: <We addition Existing non-conformities or encroachments: 0 13*isÂ¥10, Fur fiard setback is O' ; 1) S<i' shw; Wde.9ord setback is I't. Variations requested: 3Â£6 I.E. Mack]Fne,Mt 4 -fricific Submission Re~Wift~uds: Varioncts. B 07/18/1995 15: 50 8157448483 SUMELLINeâ€¢ Ut.V r,AUL u. t Pr) 41.* l)() (}4 : .'hp F â€¢ ) e, in A r, r, ll .ir- r. hj 1 â€¢1 c h , t. 4. r. t. 4 01'/ UV ;Â·i'/ 4 0 t;'â€¢I t. P-p SCH!-.11.INN DEVELOPMEN!-CORK 1'.0. 1301 3,15 1,1.1/nfield. 11. (,03.4-1 K I i 416-9543 14.1,1 uury '7. 2(XX) Mi Amy (;whric. Hiltoric Preset vation Officer Aqi}en,Pickin Commimity Development Departincill 130 Notith G:ilena Street Aspen. CO 8161 1 Re: .Schelling Residence Addition and Aliciations 213 West HIcrker Street AV,en. CO 81611 Subieel. Authori 1,4,lion ft,r Representalicm Dear Anty. 11+ letler serveq :ti notice :o hereby authorize Jack Palornmo ot Palomino Barth Awhitects P.C. to serve as nly represr.ntative ditring, the development :spplication review preceÂ» It,r the above mentioned project. Please call me i f you have any questions or contrnents regarding thi, authorization. ely. Â¢~frhelling. Pre,arietil Sch~ing Development Corp. J1':/,i r ZK 101 1-4 9 I. D. Attachment 3 - General Submission Requirements ii. Street Address and Legal Description Street Address: 213 West Bleeker Street Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description: Lot G, Block 51,City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado 10 JAN. 31.20uu 2:VorM rlIKLN LUUNIY itti[ b V. 4 0 4 5 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: January 18,2000 at 8:30 AM Case No. PCT14125 2. Policy or Policies to be issued. (a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992 AmountS 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured. Rate: PROFORMA (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 PremiumS 0.00 Proposed Insured Rate: Tax Certificate: $10.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: RONALD L SCHELUNG and LORI L. SCHELLING 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of State of COLORADO and is described as follows LOT G. BLOCK 51, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Fl'I-KIN COUNTY TrrLE. INC. Schedule A-PG.1 601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid ASPEN, CO 81611 unless the Insuring 970Â·925Â·1766 Provisions and Schedules 970-925+527 FAX A and B are attached. AUTHORIZED AGENT l1 JAN. 31. 2000 2:ourM ritAIN LUUNIY ItiLE AU. 4 04 J SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complled with. ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creaOng the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit: THIS COMMITMENT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY, THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMAHON CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT. THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE. l2 JAA. 11. 2000 2.00 rM r i I A i A LUU Ill I Y i 1 1 l E AU. 404 5 0 SCHEDULE B SECTION Z EXCEFI'IONS The Policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession notshown by the public records. 2. Easements. or dairns of easements, not shown by the public records. 3 Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or nght to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created. first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment 6. Taxes due and payable, and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district 7 Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 52 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' 8 Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Survey of subJect property recorded December 14,1999 in Plat Book 52 at Page 8 0 0 19 JAA. ll. 2000 2:01 fM fijAim LOUNIY itiL[ AV. 4043 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) Water rights, claims or title to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER) Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2: NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in writing every prospective insured in an ownefs title insurance policy for a single family residence (including a condominim or townhouse unit) (i) of that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the insured under the terms of the policy. A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Uens executed by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon request Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained In this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or materialmens lien coverage. NOTE: If the Company conducts the owners or loan closing under circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage" Pursuant to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122); (a) The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing District: (b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent; (c) Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, orthe County Assessor. NOTE: A tax Certificate will be ordered from the County Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to the proposed insured unless written instruction to the contrary are received by the company prior to the issuance of the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment. This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B.Sectton 2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT14125 A and B are attached. l4 , iii . 1 l i 1 0- 1 / 4 -- 1-_ 1 ! // --4 1.-...... iii 1 -.-- 1 1 1 7-----g -i 1 7---(7-7 i 1 -3 1 1 i ' 1-- 1 1 L. 1 r#. 1 f iii 1 / I / i W HALLAM ST 1 L i.1 1 / i t; ! 11 i I ' 9 i i ji - .-l .... I i j ' Al l iivil I ..04. 4// \.-j 'Ii! .-9 5ll i 1 1 211 W BLEEKER ST W BLEEKER ST E--44 i ! 1 1! I i -1-*+.% 1 Lod,A~\ON OF PROPOED BUILDINS ALTERATIONS -.*-i 1 I r-- 213 REST BLEEKER ST. il l l i ! 1 1 'ill i_ i 1 1 . i .i , ' 2 il 1 -0- Iii ' il 41 1 .-1 i -4 0 i il lil 1- -/- --IC 4 8/ // 7 i!il - i~-f-f , i I ALr' i t.-R LL~j ~ Lr~i L<K~K --2 ll I -----lij ~{Ili~tt-t- 1/4 i r.-- -/=-1-J/l W MAIN ST //9 / . v' L 1 1 It; 1---- i i i 4 i 1 '-I J i i 1:bRE.r- - -4- , -aVICINITY MAP / ~E~ @1"=100'-O b , / / j///\\/ lG 1 lt----W.- lS HOSINHVS S 7"9 ... HT.4'7' BLEEKER STREET *, + f LEPOSIT CERT,LICATE bc &11 G .2 i ... I. r..1 '.Â¥. â€¢*,â€¢â€¢ 1- ... â€ž.1 1 , if, ' C I< M.' % 6~I....Cl'. ." ~...# '.Â·1~ t.MI T,r *i &r- , ./ 8 E E Lot p u ' ard- e ./.* .2, , '14. 6 - 4 I IC+I ./â€¢'Â· O -â€¢ ./.' I 'â€¢ 4' â€¢' . / . 'rk I. . ... I S,'â€¢er .- 0â€¢ n I. .... .. .1'.S, I... . . ....... .t, ./ 4.â€ž. 6 , , 40 t.......I. '' 56"U'.'lt' ra 74,3,11Â£.. 41% M ALLEY BLOCK 51 CERT'/!CAT,ON Ir /' .i '.1; 41. :.' P:L ' D.,0 â€¢ ..1. . '.....t ... .... I'. './ 0; e.... ... ..TI~1 -â€¢1 .â€ž ..1 .' .... '*- â€¢ * i"D ,.VÂ¢Â¥ '1*'0~-0 ,Â®4' prÂ¥ ;Vâ€¢.â€¢Â·9,0â€¢ 'â€¢ -.~or 4 ~"0 ' ' DUI A- ru*' re Â·. 01 i~*.t.9.F â€¢~ /Â·.tl~ 1ll ' ."'FO~LON '1 '0. ./B .Plt-f ONIâ€¢-h 4â€¢111 dll. I. Â· 1 IllÂ·/ 1 ' O; AVEâ€¢. f â€¢ I ... I toi ....4 ./.0 I ..... " Â¢ 120 --=- Â»41..:.9/:7 â€žt. ' 006 .. ., ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS j NC -- W . 1*â€¢i Uâ€¢ . 0-g-' -, - 1,~ â€¢U01 I'le, -N...1 ~0 - Â· 'Wâ‚¬-'.1 9,0 97$ 11 â€¢ 01 I. L 0 I.E. Attachment 4 - Specific Submission Requirements: Variances i. Description of Variance Requests The requested variances are as follows: 1. East and West sideyard setback variances of two (2) feet. 2. A combined sideyard setback variance of four (4) feet. 3. A rear yard setback variance of ten (10) feet at the existing shed. 4. A rear yard setback variance of seven (7) feet at the new addition. 5. A combined rear yard setback variance of fifteen and three tenths (15.3) of a foot at the existing shed. 6. A combined rear yard setback variance of eleven and seven tenths (11.7) of a foot at the new addition. 7. Waiver of one on-site parking space. 0 0 17 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 213 W. BLEEKER STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW, HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, TEMPORARY RELOCATION, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday. February 23.2000 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. City Hall, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Schelling Development Corporation, requesting conceptual design approval. historic landmark designation, partial demolition, temporary relocation. residential design standards review, and variances for the property located at 213 W. Bleeker Street, which is described as Lot G, Block 51, City and Townsite ofAspen. The project involves restoring the historic house, excavating a basement below it, and making an addition at the back of the property. The following variances are requested: east and west sideyard setback variances of 2 feet, a combined sideyard setback variance of 4 feet, a rear yard setback variance of 10 feet, a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 15.3 feet. and waiver of one parking space. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on February 4,2000 City of Aspen Account g:,planning\aspen\notices\920whal.doc l6 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECrION 26304.060 (E) 4 24 Ok *WomiMO , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen. personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By miling ofnotice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners ofproperty with three hundred (300) feet ofthe subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 1& day of }Wl ,;99- (which is _15 days prior to the public hearing date of*/200. 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously 200 from the ~ day of *h , 4995 (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. ~*ature (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this Â£946. day A-orua,M '199-2by Â£*ob JacK Pa la rn:vio - WnNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: My Commission Expires 03/23,2uu:2 bar bart 50 hula- Â¤~~~diA--73 0,\AJUr N6tary Public's Signature l9 SEE, ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 212 N SECOND ST LLC PARTNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP 1043 GUISANDO DR A MICHIGAN LTD PARTNERSHIP 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 TAMPA FL 33613 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009 ASPEN MAIN LP BENNINGHOFF ESTHER BOYNTON FRANK E & ELIZABETH J ASPEN PROPERTIES C/O 233 W HALLAM AVE 528 SAND BEND DR PO BOX 10502 ASPEN CO 81611 KERRVILLE TX 78028 ASPEN CO 81612 BROWN ANTHONY BROWN MICHAEL H BROWN MICHAEL HAYDEN C/O FOX GRACE PO BOX 25282 250 MARTIN ST STE 100 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009-3383 WEST BLOOMFIELD MI 48325 BIRMINGHAM MI 48011 BROWN ROBERT STICKLER & SANDRA CHISHOLM EDITH 1/2 INT CHRISTMAS INN PARTNERSHIP LEA 205 W MAIN ST PO BOX 126 1115 20TH ST ASPEN CO 81611 CARBONDALE CO 81623 WEST DES MOINES IA 50265 DAVIS WILLIAM LLOYD CITY OF ASPEN COLUER J STUART JR TRUSTEE OF DAVIS LIVING TRUST 130 S GALENA ST ONE COMMERCE SQUARE STE 2800 4924 BALBOA BLVD #489 ASPEN CO 81611 MEMPHIS TN 38103 ENCINO CA 91316 DIMITRIUS RALLI DE WOLF NICHOLAS DOBBS JOHN C & SARA F HUEBNER-DIMITRIUS JO-ELLAN 233 W BLEEKER ST PO BOX 241750 200 S SIERRA MADRE BLVD ASPEN CO 81611 MEMPHIS TN 38124 PASADENA CA 91109 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES FESUS GEORGE J & SUSAN C FOSTER FRANCES TRUSTEE 1/2 INT INC PO BOX 9197 2400 PRESIDENTIAL WAY #1503 PO BOX 7846 W PALM BEACH FL 33401 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 HOTEL ASPEN LTD HOTEL ASPEN LTD INNSBRUCK HOLDINGS LLC C/O ASPEN GROUP ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 435 E MAIN ST 415 E MAIN #210 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009 KING LOUISE LLC KAPLAN WILLIAM M AND KATE KETTELKAMP GRETTA M A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY CO PO BOX 406 3408 MORRIS AVE PO BOX 1467 MILFORD DE 19963 PUEBLO CO 81008 BASALT CO 81621 LUBIN RICHARD G M D W ENTERPRISES INC MARCUS MARTIN L & FANNON JOHN H 1217 S FLAGLER DR 2ND FL FLAGLER COLORADO CORPORATION C/O LEFF MARILYN PLAZA 233 W BLEEKER 7660 BEVERLY BLVD APT #365 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33401 ASPEN CO 81611 LOS ANGELES CA 90037 â‚¬0 MCDONALD FAMILY TRUST MELTON DAVID MUNDAY TRUST NUMBER ONE 320 W MAIN ST 135 W MAIN ST PO BOX 1689 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 AUSTIN TX 78767 PIETRZAK FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP NEWKAM CLAIRE M PIETRZAK BOB & SUE LLC COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 2808 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD ASPEN CO 81612 BASALT CO 81621 BASALT CO 81621 PRICE DOUGLAS L AND VALERIE SAUNDERS MARGARET W SCHELLING RONALD L & LORI L 8611 MELWOOD RD 231 ENCINO AVE 24523 BRITTANY BETHESDA MD 20817 SAN ANTONIO TX 74609 PLAINFIELD IL 60544 SILVERSTEIN PHILIP SLOVITER DAVID SMART PAMELA SILVERSTEIN ROSALYN 1358 ROBIN HOOD RD 3351 WOODHAVEN RD 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT MEADOWBROOK PA 19046 ATLANTA GA 30305 BRONX NY 10463 STEVENS LESLEY 4.25% INT WATSON DIANE B WEESE KATE B IRREV TRUST NO 2 STEVENS BRUCE 95.75% INT 121 W BLEEKER ST 314 W WILLOW RD 214 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN CO 81611 CHICAGO IL 60614 ASPEN CO 81611 WEST PHILLIP N & SUSAN J WHYTE RUTH WILLE O LOUIS & FRANCES LYNETTE 2114 MT CALVARY RD PO BOX 202 200 W MAIN ST SANTA BARBARA CA 93105 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 ZZ' t.7, mir. cel,MA 11Â§ : 7 --=:L- 8!41 P -~ , i 11 1 1 1 77 4 - 0 4 M E 4 1 '11 4 1 â€¢aF=- i j 1.1 - I PO~B]0(301 1 b{IDLAND AVENUE SUn13205 ~ PROPOSED SnE 1 1 SCHELLING RESIDENCE EASAI.T. 0[lmADO *Mal 1 iE ah l. ' .O. 1 ....9 M Â·' 'Ce I f. ADDmON & ALTERATIONS PHO/05(070)92740,8 Mma 1 ASPEN, CO. TAX(â„¢)921*IS 219 NV-lei alle aEIGO,JOhld II.A. Attachment 4 - Specific Submission Requirements: Conceptual Review ii. Description of Major Building Materials a. Roofing 1. Existing Main House - Existing roofing is wood shingle with exposed copper ridge, hip and valley flashing and 2" diameter ball accents. New roofing to be blended in with the existing roofing material as necessary. 2. Existing Shed - Existing roofing is 90 lb. roll roofing. New roofing to be blended in with the existing roofing material as necessary. 3. New Addition - Roofing at roof slopes of 5:12 or steeper shall be architectural profile fiberglass shingles. Roofing at roof slopes less than 5: 12 shall be 90 lb. roll roofing. b. Siding 1. Existing Main House - Existing siding is horizontal wood bevel siding with 5" exposure. New siding will be blended in with the existing siding material as necessary. 2. Existing Shed - Existing siding is wood board and batten. 3. New Addition - Three siding materials are used to help break down the mass of the new two story addition and to distinguish it from the existing main house and shed. The new siding materials are as follows: - Vertical wood board and batten siding. - Horizontal roll roofing siding with exposed flashing reveal at 18" on center. - Vertical corrugated metal siding. 23 II.A. Attachment 4 - Specific Submission Requirements: Conceptual Review iii. Description of Development Proposal Significant Development Review The existing residence on the property is Victorian but, has been expanded in size and altered from its original details to a point beyond recognition of its stylistic origin. The development application is hereby requesting permission for selective demolition and reconstruction of the existing residence to its original form and detailing including reconstruction of the original front porch, exterior doors and windows. The existing historic shed at the Southwest corner of the property will be retained and incorporated as a new ski storage area adjacent to the new one car garage off the alley. We are also requesting we be allowed to construct a full basement under the original residence footprint and a two story and basement addition the rear of the property. We anticipate that the total gross square footage of al levels of the residence will be between 3,800 and 4,000 square feet and will comply with the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the lot. We anticipate that the original existing structure will have to be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction of the new basement beneath the original building footprint. If the structure is relocated, we will attempt to keep the structure on the lot. A request for variances is a part of this application. Granting of these variances will assure that the new addition will occur with the least amount of visual and environmental impact to the existing residence and shed. The requested variances are as follows: a. East and West sideyard setback variances of two (2) feet. b. A combined sideyard setback variance of four (4) feet. c. A rear yard setback variance of ten (10) feet at the existing shed. d. A rear yard setback variance of seven (07) feet at the new addition. e. A combined rear yard setback variance of fifteen and three tenths (15.3) of a foot at the existing shed. 24 0 f. A combined rear yard setback variance of eleven and seven tenths (11.7) of a foot at the new addition. g. Waiver of one on-site parking space. Historic Landmark Designation We are also requesting the property be granted Historic Landmark Designation as a part of this development. 0 0 25 - 22./.4 11-C , 2.-9,/4- .41/4- 2-,/. 1, n \J ~~ - -i- ~ . -&-4/2222**8+ 11 ~ 4 2 el/*0.-Il,#6-lee***I --22/2.-2~-iril--Ir- - 11'11 1 big r.-v--A-.-*,e.1 +. Lte'*12!'*1* 1-_c_ L.........,-6......, 1 11 ~ 2- 14 1 Mi 4 -1 4 -_1 0 41 4 f r -1 - -1--- -- ----4. PE.LEQCM,1 I-J .- - -I; -1 ft 1 1 /2 .* 4 - INIC,Hah 07Â«7 1 -01 4- CLQZE[ aE[H I---- 1 1 03 =15904 1 8 U 11St. M . 161 .-2 1/2 Â¤ 3-~ VI L_------__---Li ..1.1.....â€že.r 1 rego zkt=2 7,11#] 1--c arCH 11 1 1 1 1%4 11 ; :1 1 A2.0 EXISTIN6 MAIN LEVEL PLAN .-,071...T..... 1.-- 1 1 , I :,4.. 1-0 .... ...... 7 ., SIONSIGISGIN SNI'Ill[HDS 1 Er SNOI.LVEL-IV Â¥ NOILICCIV ' HYI.1 1 09 0 *7- i O S===1 -Y---- ---- --- --------- R-------- BEI ----- ---- ---------- _11*'~* *" li 2 ca..... c...,c, , ":0 KE :iN 12 - ----- -1112=I221+ i ..ST ....4 Ch EXISTING EAST ELEVATION (SHEEN Ch EXISTING EAST ELEVATION (HOUSE; C).1/4 = 1 -0 /16 10 -- 15 2 8 12 /'uvey VA#h . 3...W...-.= cÂ·-75/52 /0 41-_ZE-T i Q. ./ 10Â·rl=.0* 01*TY T PL. ,L -1 64233---------124 F. E.T. Plx. ,Â·L | // / T. lei nyÂ· 1 1 1 ----- EXIST. MN. IRADE ,Â·L ---- \ ..ST ..E 0 -11 NORTH ELEVATION (SHEE ~ ~ EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION Mouse) I L/4 b 1 I) 0 1/4Â·. 1'-C ~ EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (HOUSE) ---- - all \ 12 \\Kil . 5* /12 L - \ ..4/&*grl.- -1 L/ - L] 8 [J 60..01 0/TAN<Ge I m â€¢â€¢,1 8 ill: Ch EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (SHEEP) 0 1/4'â€¢147 ~ EXISTING FNEST ELEVATION (HOUSED rh EXISTING FNEST ELEVATION (SHED) A3.0 .ao,r=rÂ»ell,~. - 31)NaaISEH ONITTIaHOS ~ SNOILVEL'IV Â¥ N0I1KICIV *./A ... SNOLLVA~3 g3 9 14â€¢504â€¢~ A 100-0' 94/Rf* L ,= 1 1 eld . i 10.~- ~ 1 2~~ -1- 01- 1 1 1 .19 [ 89 r u ./ : A 1 1- -_L - / r , m 1 2- ELLL ~ ill//I'll"///Ill///Il U= 4 11 h 1 i 1 ,& 1 0 -r---~~1 7 I 1450Â·4â€¢r E 100-0â€¢ /i *3 3.... 1 1.. 'll. 1 IM,k ~ Câ„¢f-Â»Ir/~LÂ£Â»--Râ„¢IC PO Boxjoi 174 MIMAND AVENUE SUNE ;05 -4 1 V th PROPOSED ~ SCHELLING RESIDENCE BASALT. C[JUNLADD /1621 i 11 19 BASEMENT PLAN ADD[TION & ALTERATIONS MHOME (Â¢70)927-9976 1 ~ i -2 - * 1 ASPEN, CO. FAX (970) %*5 1 Â·. 1 ~ CL, 1-Â· - .9/9 NV-Id 1NEINgâ‚¬Ve CIAGOd-O 66 I 6 u 77 4 1 9 11 1 E U i=ZW 11% 9 4 Tr=i r- ,-1 F=il - H \\ *9 4--- 'g--P---------0---LIN----11-f---- ten li -- : LIU , I. / 3 / n nn 3 U ~1 tAi \ g 4-9 1 -1 1 ..2 \ 1 . 1 HAA H . 1- Il..... 1 4 13 . i 1 4 7==[1 - 9 1 11 C Â·2 ..!101 0 9 8 1& 1 11 . ...'. 9 . 19 - - * 2 2 :Â« -5 U toi 1001 VL/~-Rig=].......1-4--lili -19Â«.1 1 0 1* .. 1.r 4 \ \ I m 1 51 N 14'50'ME loc-0. 1 7 i li 11 9 1 m 6 1 4* % F; 3- 0 ' 1 .....10*rt 'AL.'-0/AIâ„¢. i PO BOX 301 ~ ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED MAIN MAIANDA=,mu LEVEL PLAN SCHELLING RESIDENCE ~ BASALT, C[*~UDO "821 .=j ADDrrION & ALTERATIONS PHONE 170) 927.9176 , - 1 .4 1 ASPEN, CO. FAX (Â¥70)9~7-9870 1 '--â€¢r- 1 ! 1 1 I.I.... 1 NÂ¥-Ial 13Aal NIVH CaGO,=IONcl 0% 6 14504I M 100-0' 7-=J / ./1\ /1 9 , 071 7713 1/1_ I â€ž~1 - IN--13_Â£-15-7-1, mi ,122<22-(02_ i\'i C 199 1 1 JE 16 11 1 3 \ f .' 1 F . I 0. 3/ f 1 - 11 1 1 56 1 1 :.: 9 & 6 L.L.-1-21222---L--,~-21----_---- j j N 14'504,1- E 100-0' 12 '' 0 1 1 91 9 g 1- eC-1**TIAU-NOBARâ„¢. Po Box]01 PROPOSED UPPER ~ SCHELLING RESIDENCE BASALT, COLORADO :1621 174 MUAND AVENUE SUITE 205 UVEL PLAN ' ADDrriON & ALTERATIONS ...lot ASPEN, CO. ~,~0,Wh XXX 1 1 5lm./PM le 6 14Â·50*r n 10/-<or 14 . 249Â·Â· It ./47 1 -- ~ 14 LL.[-ff--~i~--21Â« . ~ 1 : L.. .4 . . . 12. 0 .:iÂ·Â· /=.--1Â¢7-~ / 1 TJA 7/ 1 - 1 *j.... :i,: \ W'Â· 2 , 41,93 : 1 6/1 1 1% 11 4 1. i * 3 ! ...MEM' I....: ./ - Â· i. 4 5* ' 16 A. 3 1 1 .. :i t..t g i42. : 48 . m i \ f 9 i jj H*~C-E too-<3' 11 1 /2 0 4 98 4 11 4 1 1/ Si 91 3 9 J .~- -, J - Ill' c./Â¥ralmril.01'...Arrl. Po BOIll , ...em-&. A PROPOSED ROOF SCHELLING RESIDENCE BASALL. COErnADO *1621 174 bia.LE, AVENUE SUITE 205 PLAN ADD[TION & ALTERATIONS PHONE (970) 927-9976 4tNE 4 Z~~1~ ASPEN, CO FAX (9/) 977-9676 0,lue,~A .O ~rl N*lci 4008 (1730<40 - 1 \\ 1 2 - i H i P \ 9 - ,[FFT A ' 1 - StlÂ·tirt*fi - 6 -4< "fl~-- 13 4*8813*0 1 111 1 ' 1'1, r-1-1 ~-3 11 I 111 \ 43 '1~ g *4=,~ -1---Pl \ - 1- \ --- Liu 3 151 1 Fli ~ \ CROT--V 1 , I /7 .11 \ 2 - #meL------- \ -----c:~41}-1 M -1 - 7----1 7 - - i I im d J ''' 1 1 ,1,. 1,1 1 .10 , \ 1 VII - \ 0 - 9 1:14:66:1 1/ \ i - 1Â¥ 1 11 IF \\ bwu H \ r \ X. \ - C \ 1 . 11 T - & 1 11. l\' A--KIEJ-&614 - -4,#,#p,~t 1% M - 4--A Â£ .-. lili 111-1 1 'z -f)-Tr ~rrl-p~j ! il -1:1-bkiE. 6 - _--1 4 1 J y.1- ~ C m....7 '~ ', 3--7-a N -2 Â» -d//LU/N.t- 1111]11{~1~1iel vit f -791: A P- 701/ 1 L_L I J '1 F=- = hr,166~1 HI 1-~ I I Illia - - #& imirÂ¢:01 818@-ti#1 -1 I *1:GE -- 16>. PROPOSED SCHELLING RESIDENCE -~94 o,gr,t: 11 ,-m pO. Bax.1 p,In/ob.h' 1,4,Â£Â¤.APOAVE,Â«m:urrE,05 BAIALT, COLOBADO 11121 16, ELEVATTONS ~ ADDmON & ALTERATIONS MIN...... 011.1 ZZ~12 ASPEN, CO. ta@O~ NOUV,q-m H.1.21ON alâ‚¬432; O i I i F :1 Iii/ M KE 1 -17///-- -9 7 /57.A U 11Â«-t Z - - / 2% N /8 le 4521 f %---- -- E------ mi .1. An=223 33 -- li~~Ttli -~T - - - r--1 m.=all M_.2 1 .. n VIEM FROM BLEEKER STREET E[EIHHOS IV Â¥ NOLUCKIV //ill//ljlll//1 ~ Â»-fl-lf~ . 4 +9 1 44 & 19 4 I l kh,1 3% 1 424 11,1 + r 'dij '45 / l ' APP, %1 V A \ 11 1 1 "11 6 -- 1 11 -- -7-9---3.9 1 1 f I 1 =2= IZ7~--2--~Lt3==gr I 74 hijll.AW AvmluE surrE al ' 4=zz==~ SCHELLING RESIDENCE 5AiALT. COLORADO 11621 ADDITION & ALTERATIONS ..el/)977.-6 ~ 4,0,; V 11 f = 1=== IE ASPEN, CO. 6 . .; -=0"1 FAX (19,01 927-*076 1 . I ' =1~Zx 13174 k403=I h/GiIA ZI.1 - II.A. Attachment 4 - Specific Submission Requirements: Conceptual Review iv. Visual Neighborhood Description 36 , 4. t . ./ C..EL n r.- ...2 .... r' 2* 4 View of 205 West Bleeker Street Looking South I T 3 ..5* ' '2 -- *WI- ILÂ£*.+ 5. ., 1 - 1.. 11 4 .... * 1 V-- 0-4 - I ... .. View of 213 West Bleeker Street Looking South ~ 34 t 9,14 .4* I ,~41,4 ~ ~ View of 213 West Bleeker Street Looking Southeast ./ + 1 I. , 3 3- ..7 -9 1.--Purk-,72 . 1 f L d --4,4 2,IL=-zz==z--9-, - - 7#1/ . ? 3,3"Agil -,-7/6 .1. .. - 4- I -- 1 - ./ d View of 213 West Bleeker Street From Back Yard Looking North 37 '1' I, . ~1 f ~2 : Z"t'UlÂ©..tÂ·j-~g--m,â€ž ~ Â£40:f- jolm:W"*965:09 2 2.JAL-a::, e / 1,1. i-. I 'r. t.4* 1,2>tke t'.2 , 1 -I -I-I. 1 11 7 Z A \- , . . *........ A -j~ 3-5 -1-, -, . 1 ler, i 1 i~, .a 1.*98. . .6 - - /432.4 1 i,S lii.. 2 34.~ 4 ..: . 0. . 0 . lia e . L 4-<M- if I *1 ~$~*443 3&4,54:91.4.14 ( ' :~. T ., r ., 0{~; ,r MEYSâ‚¬(1*643.1.~.5 - - Â· ': i ti; p::,0...28424. 9 JA, ' â€¢ , 13'35:*Ple///////'//EAO/*:9!t.illt~~Â·l:? tikin: i :119 -..:di",0,/1/'Ii"Ii,".,lt#"*r,MB ... 32'4)9 - 1- ..r ~1,0,1 . 1-, -1 9. , 1 . E- 4 Â» Â¢3'rt- .. 4.1 Â·') 1, 9 : 2Â·.ill-1. . - .....~.. . 1 + -- p'. 44.11 I-- {1 1 17'N~k I 0 00#'49<* 21' 1 4. 3 â€¢ 4 , 7/4 1 -- .., , . 0 .. . . . 0. 0 0 A't' i r ' >GE 64: k -1, .: r -, 1 + r~ 7, 1 L ...1.J , View of Existing Shed From Alley Looking North 4, / , r 4- View of Existing Shed From Alley Looking North 39 'h . 4< 1 h'. .- . - - 0-: . 4... .' -i-=13 9 ' - 1,- ' 'll . &. 1 I ,r . .. - r al L m =/ I 1 . 1. 4 0/#*Ii/FiTh , ti I , 2 =Flu Â·41'55 ... ,â‚¬ L . 11.-V, . 1,1 4 View of 215 West Bleeker Street From Alley Looking North I I . ...... 4 4 ' . ' ily 4 ' $ L r..ah/1.-- 4 7 \ / 1 Â·u I Nuh. Â£-0-42221- -A - I â€¢ t â€¢ - 1 I - 4 12 , 2 e ./ r'' 1 .ir 'A, I. - 42.3.51- - --1.. - Â· _ â€¢1 - -1- 14 ..1 11 M . -- 76 . - View of 205 West Bleeker Street From Alley Looking Northeast 40 07/18/1995 19: 34 515 /448463 ...WI -Ii.. ... .- Feb 08 00 12:0Op Pelominâ€¢BarthArchitects 9709279676 P.2 SCHELL,ING DEVEL,OPMENT CORP. F.0. Box 345 Plainfield, lL 60544 815 436-9543 February 7,2000 Aspen City Council do Ms. Amy Gbthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 1 Re: Schelling Residence. Addition and Altcrations 213 West Bleeker Street Aspen, CO 8161 1 Subject- Request for Historic Preservation Grant Dear Amy. V I am hereby requesting a grant from the Aspen City Council for Historic Preservation of the above mentioned property as a part of this development applica[ion. 3 Please call me if you have any questions or comments regarding this request. * '' /.. /W~le\y, / Ro~chelling, President U Schelling Development Corp. JPijP 2K-101 LA }2 - tÂ© > 41 - -6.F III.A. Attachment 3 - Specific Submission Requirements ii. Landmark Designation Criteria The development application is requesting that the existing structure be restored to the original footprint, massing and Victorian detailing of the original structure. There are several other structures, which are similar to the existing structure within the same neighborhood. Restoration of this structure to the original design would help strengthen the overall fabric of this historic district. We believe the property merits Landmark Designation for the following reasons: a. Historical Importance The original footprint, massing and Victorian detailing of the existing residence is historically significant as a principal structure associated with the "silver boom" years of Aspen. b. Architectural Importance The original Victorian detailing of the existing residence is characteristic of the distinctive traditional Aspen architecture at the turn of the century. c. Designer The designer of the residence is not known. It is assumed however, that this structure as well as others in the West End neighborhood may have been designed by the same person or at least by the same business entity. d. Neighborhood Character The original structure is a significant component of the historically significant West End Victorian neighborhood. Preservation of the original structure is important to and consistent with the long-term goals of the city of Aspen for preservation, restoration and maintenance of this historic district. e. Community Character The original structure is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community due to the architectural similarity of other contemporaneous structures of historic architectural importance. 42