The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20000322ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 22,2000 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SITE VISITS - NONE 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of March 8,2000 minutes. II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments and project monitoring IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. OLD BUSINESS :05 A. /g 213 W. Bleeker - Landmark, Conceptual, Partial Demolition, Temporary Relocation, Variances, Residential Design Standards Public Hearing 0/4 -7 0 5:45 B. /0 330 Lake Avenue - Final, Temporary Relocation - Public Hearing 5- D /0/C_ 6:15 C. 419 E. Hyman Avenue - Minor Development -tv /44 #Que_. VI. NEW BUSINESS - NONE VII. WORKSESSION 6:35 A. Wagner Park - no memo 7:00 VIII. ADJOURN PROJECT MONITORING Susan Dodington 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 930 King - No Problem Joe's 121 5th & North - Ernie Frywald Suzannah Reid 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. 312 S. Galena 7a and Main Jeffrey Halferty 414 N. First- POLE 920 W. Hallam- Guthrie 101-105 E. Hallam 212 W. Hopkins Ave. 312 S. Galena TTeidi Friedland 232 E. Hallam St.- Pace 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 78 and Main Lisa Markalunas 939 E. Cooper- Langley (work stopped) 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 214 E. Bleeker- Brumder Christie Kienast 735 W. Bleeker- Bone 426 N. Second Mary Hirsch 930 King 114 Neale Avenue (not active) 920 W. Hallam 400 W. Smuggler Street - Dodge residence Gilbert Sanchez 312 S. Galena 333 W. Bleeker Street delanie Roschko lally Dupps 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 ". 210 S. Galena .ISIS 406 E. Hopkins i 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 i.520 E. Durant St. 9.308 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.No reso. 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. 2~d 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. 7~~ & 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 1.510 E. Durant Ave. November 10, 1999 . 332 W. Main Street Minor rear yard variance August 11, 1999 ..3. 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 10. 330 Lake Avenue - front porch Feb. 23,2000 11. 213 W. Bleeker Street - Conceptual Feb. 23,2000 2. 76 & Main St. Affordable Housing - Final March 8,2000 3. 333 W. Bleeker Street Final March 8,2000 ACTION: Landmark Designation 3?/ 3 uj , 80(44*,A2- To be eligible for landmark designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more ofthe five (5) standards contained in Section 26.76.020 ofthe Municipal Code. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. Designer: The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. 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. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Mil#TORIC P#w,Â£,b, -IyllÂ®1$519 MEETING DATE: 3. 0 1, D---+--0-z~ NAME OF PROJECT: 0-1 6 LAJ. d34Â» CLERK: f<f' 5 STAFF: - WITNESSES: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report k) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( lj~(Check If Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: 9 -- 66ci-c,~ 5-z_- ./ .1 'g,99Â«Â«Ai.- 1 tu-Â·. ..7.727 06-224 - VOTE: YES NO '- SUZANNAH REID YES ir NO - MARY HIRSCH YES _lcONO - SUSAN DODINGTON YES l-r NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YES NO LISA MARKALUNAS YES L- NO JEFFREY HALFERTY YES L/NO HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES l-' NO CHRISTIE KIENAST YES R-NO MELANIE ROSCHKO YES NO RALLY DUPPS YES NO I I --- ---- HPCVOTE 1 4 24Â¥/Al 1 11] 0 [@111 | 7-4 '7 -2- ACTION: Significant Development (Conceptual) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet aUfbur 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 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood ofthe 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. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Standards of review for partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 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 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 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. V -69 ~H~~ MEMORANDUM I" 22126Â£111 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director 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 (Continued from February 23,2000) DATE: March 22,2000 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to restore the front porch and other elements of the historic house on this site, and to make an addition between it and the existing outbuilding along the alley. 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 515 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 1~~~/1,LO l -~' /~ 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 ofthe 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 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 ofthe 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 0 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 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 "Greenhouse" on the as-built plans. Window changes and other alterations of exterior materials have also occurred. Following the February 23rd meeting, the applicant has revised the proposal and will keep the historic kitchen area and has lowered the height and scaled down the size of the proposed addition. While the applicant's March 8th letter describing the project addresses the gross square footage of the project (including basement and garage), the floor area will be roughly 2,000 square feet, 400 square feet below the maximum. Staff finds that the design has improved greatly from the HPC's input at the conceptual review and meets this review standard. A dotted line on the proposed elevations indicates the form of the addition in the previous proposal. (Note that the dotted line below the ridge of the existing building is an error. There will be no change in that ridge height.) 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. The setback variances needed are: a 2 foot west sideyard setback variance for the new construction (the old house will maintain an existing non-conformity), a combined sideyard setback variance of 7 feet for the garage and shed, a rear yard setback variance of 10 feet for the shed, a rear yard setback variance of 7 feet for the new addition, a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 15.3 feet for the existing shed, and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 11.7 feet for the new 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. There are a few topics which should be touched on by HPC at this hearing and must be addressed in detail by the applicant for final review. First, any restoration efforts on the old house will have to be based on physical evidence to the extent possible. Framing should be examined to determine the size and location of the original bay window opening on the front gable end. Typically there is only one window under the porch, instead of a pair as shown, and this should be investigated. A cut sheet showing the profile of the windows that will be used in the restoration will be required, with the goal of choosing a window which reflects a historic double hung wood window. The new 0 3 front door, porch posts, trim and other detailing for the historic house will have to be addressed and 94" scale drawings will be required. In regard to the new addition, staff recommends that there be some discussion about the proposed materials, which include board and batten, rolled roofing used as siding, and corrugated metal. These may be appropriate if the addition is viewed as an alley building, where more modest materials would be typical, or it may be more appropriate to use the quality of materials that are more typical of the house. The HPC should also address the window style on the new addition and whether 4 over 1 window panes are appropriate since they do not reflect the design of the historic building. Finally, staff recommends that the HPC review a landscape plan and discuss how the house will be stored during excavation at final review. The applicant deserves praise for undertaking the proposed restoration work on this house, which will make the building a contributing historic resource once again. 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 thereoÂ£ 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. 4 0 Response: Staff finds that 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. 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. Response: The project meets 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 0 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 final approval. Information about how the house will be stabilized during relocation may also be provided by the housemover. 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 final 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 0 applicant be required to keep the building on the property during construction. 5 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. Response: The project as designed is in compliance with the "Residential Design Standards." 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.) â€¢ Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that HPC recommend approval of Landmark Designation to City Council, and approve Conceptual review, Partial Demolition, Temporary Relotation, Variances, and Residential Design Standards review with the following conditions: l. HPC hereby grants the following variances: a 2 foot west sideyard setback variance for the new construction (the old house will maintain an existing non-conformity), a combined sideyard setback variance of 7 feet for the garage and shed, a rear yard setback variance of 10 feet for the shed, a rear yard setback variance of 7 feet for the new addition, a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 15.3 feet for the existing shed, a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 11.7 feet for the new addition, and waiver of one of the required parking spaces. 2. Any restoration efforts on the old house will have to be based on physical evidence to the extent possible. Framing should be examined to determine the size and location of the original bay window opening on the front gable end. Typically there is only one window under the porch, instead of a pair as shown, and this should be investigated. (These decisions will likely have to wait for the construction phase to be fully resolved.) 6 3. A cut sheet showing the profile of the windows that will be used in the restoration will be required for final, with the goal of choosing a window which reflects a historic double hung wood window. 4. The new front door, porch posts, trim and other detailing for the historic house will have to be addressed at final and &4" scale plans will be required. '5. The HPC must discuss the proposed materials for the new addition, which include board and batten, rolled roofing used as siding, and corrugated metal. These may be appropriate if the addition is viewed as an alley building, where more modest materials would be typical, or it may be more appropriate to use the quality of materials that are more typical of the house. V AL<Â£~EAA-ibs.ad.-9864 -. the window style on the new addition and whether 4 over 1 window panes are appropriate since they do not reflect the design of the historic building. 7. A landscape plan will be required for final. The applicant must verify that the project does not require removal of any trees or excavation within the dripline of any trees without Parks Department approval. 8. The applicant must discuss how the house will be stored during excavation at final review. 1 3 6 AÂ¥ 44 Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 2000 A. Staffmemo dated March 8,2000. B. Revised application. C. Drawings and written information from the original application. 7 , r; 129 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, TEMPORARY RELOCATION, VARIANCES, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW FOR A 213 W. BLEEKER STREET, LOTS G, BLOCK 51, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the applicant, Schelling Development Corp., represented by Palomino Barth Architects has requested landmark designation, conceptual design approval, partial demolition, temporary relocation, variances, and "Residential Design Standards" approval for the property at 213 W. Bleeker Street, Lot G, Block 51, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves restoring the existing historic structures and creating an addition between the house and outbuilding; and WHEREAS, all applications for Historic Landmark Designation shall meet two or more ofthe following Standards for Designation of Section 26.420.010 in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. B. Architectural Intportance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. 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. E. Communio, Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance; and WHEREAS, all development in Â·an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of 0 Section 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic strugtures located on the parcel proposed 0 for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HI?C to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel; and 2.Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a.Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. 0 b.Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure; and WHEREAS, all applications for temporary relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: 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. 2. Standard: 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. WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated March 22, 2000, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on March 22, 2000, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and HPC recommends landmark designation and grants conceptual design approval, partial demolition, temporary relocation, variances, and "Residential Design Standards" approval for 213 W. Bleeker Street, Lot G, Block 51, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the March 22,2000 meeting, as follows: 1. HP C hereby grants the following variances: a 2 foot west sideyard setback variance for the new construction (the old house will maintain an existing non-conformity), a combined sideyard setback variance of 7 feet for the garage and shed, a rear yard setback variance of 10 feet for the shed, a rear yard setback variance of 7 feet for the new addition, a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 15.3 feet for the existing shed, a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 11.7 feet for the new addition, and waiver of one of the required parking spaces. 2. Any restoration efforts on the old house will have to be based on physical evidence to the extent possible. Framing should be examined to determine the size and location of the original bay window opening on the front gable end. Typically there is only one window under the porch, instead of a pair as shown, and this should be investigated. (These decisions will likely have to wait for the construction phase to be fully resolved.) 3. A cut sheet showing the profile of the windows that will be used in the restoration will be required for final, with the goal of choosing a window which reflects a historic double hung wood window. 4. The new front door, porch posts, trim and other detailing for the historic house will have to be addressed at final and 14" scale plans will be required. 5. The HPC must discuss the proposed materials for the new addition, which include board and batten, rolled roofing used as siding, and corrugated metal. These may be appropriate if the addition is viewed as an alley building, where more modest materials would be typical, or it may be more appropriate to use the quality of materials that are more typical ofthe house. 6. The HPC should also address the window style on the new addition and whether 4 over 1 window panes are appropriate since they do not reflect the design of the historic building. 7. A landscape plan will be required for final. The applicant must verify that the project does not require removal of any trees or excavation within the dripline of any trees without Parks Department approval. 8. The applicant must discuss how the house will be stored during excavation at final review. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of March, 2000. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk patominobartharchitects PC architecture planning March 8,2000 interion; Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Schelling Residence Addition and Alterations 213 West Bleeker Street Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Submittal of Revised Development Application Design Dear Amy, Enclosed herewith are three copies of the revised design, dated March 8~ for the above mentioned Development Application. The enclosed material is small (8 1/2 x 11) format. If requested we will forward full size (24x36) copies of this information. ~ The revised design addresses the Historic Preservation Commissioners concerns expressed at our HPC Conceptual Review Hearing of February 23,2000. These concerns include: 1. Preserve the historic kitchen. The redesigned floorplans retain the historic kitchen to be renovated as the new kitchen. Please note we are requesting we be allowed to develop new window openings at the South wall of the new Kitchen and the East wall of the Dining Room to open up the residence to light and views of the back yard. Due to previous alterations of the historic Kitchen, it is difficult to determine what openings, if any, existed in this area. The proposed window openings are facing the rear yard and are not visible from the public street or the alley. 2. Reduce the Master Bedroom ridge height The height of the Master Bedroom ridge has been reduced from twenty nine feet to twenty four and a half feet. We have also redesigned the roof elements of the South (rear) facade of the building fronting the alley to simplify and reduce the mass of the building. In order to lessen the visual impact of the new addition from Bleeker Street, we have relocated the high point of the ridge four feet further South from Bleeker Street. post office box 301 174 midland avenue suite 205 basalt colorado 81621 p 970 927 9976 f 970 927 9676 palominobarth@sopris.net Edni\01 4- 8 0 3. Expose more of the West wall of the historic shed. A portion of the South wall of the proposed Garage has been relocated three feet further to the North to expose more of the shed. In addition to this, we have reduced the East/West length of the Upper Level balcony at the Master Bedroom by six feet to more fully expose the West wall of the shed. 4. Reduce the overall mass of the proposed addition. As stated previously, the roof of the proposed addition has been redesigned to help reduce the height and mass when compared to the existing building. 5. Reduce the square footage of the proposed addition. The square footage of the Entry Level addition, including the Garage has been reduced from 834 square feet to 584 square feet. We have also redesigned the Entry Level addition to allow views of the existing historic shed from the proposed Kitchen and Dining Room. Redesign of the Entry Level will preserve more open space at the rear yard and allow for more sunlight into the existing dwelling. A summary of the redesigned floor areas is as follows: 0 Existing Entry Level Area to Remain Dwelling 715 SF Shed 160 SF Subtotal 515 SP Lower Level Addition 1,659 SF Entry Level Addition (Including Garage) 584 SF Upper Level Addition 541 SF Subtotal 2,784 SF TOTAL 3,659 SF 0 6. Reduce or relocate the proposed lightwells away from the existing dwelling and the shed. The new addition has been redesigned to reduce the size of the proposed lightwells. We hope this summary is helpful in interpreting the redesigned floor plans. Please call me if you have any questions or comments regarding this revised design submittal. Sincerely, 19/ 14.- tÂ®AMET, VUU'V u Jack Palomino AIA, Principal Palomino Barth Architects P.C. 1Pljp 2K-101 L6 Encl. CC: Ron Schelling 5 14/0'49- . 100<3Â· 00~~'| 1 ) 3<4 1 g 114991 ri. 11Â· 4 .Ki- Â·1Â§ *- , , 1241. - ' _ Fi 7 l 05* ~j ~ 4, R 111! mIl 1 '-flutit'~Â« 1 - .,u <o B + 12 9 Â»\ U .-- 11. 7 ... E-1 =lnE.[3 '~ OQU N 140SO// C 1400<y ....1 1 palominobÂ«th:- t , r,r!10'rrl.'041â„¢01 -râ„¢ IC p.0.1*1% 31,1 PROPOSED 174 14/â€žLAND AVENT JE SUrIE 203 . 1 SCHELLING RESIDENCE BASALT. COLORADO 8162 1 I..'..# M i ADDITION & ALTFRATIONS PHMIQL)9274976 Â»=.-M ASPEN, CO. FAX(970)927Â·10676 $.. w.ielt Y 1 *e~'cac 0 14050Â·44- A 00-0. 449 - - 4- E-4 ~ ~ r-7 n 0[-1- E-lt] N / 1 . 1 Â»-- â€¢IZ---4-4---------+I----I-- :14 8 4 br $ P L==J - tz-ox- 1 j 7 + 11 ... u u .... Â§1 4 /'moN .1 -41. il" :1 I ..1 .\\L .a / 1.Il-lit ff'>mt-/7 /0-42/ 1~nnn 1 1/ % j f ~ 3242 3-;1 ' m ! ~122= E[/ 7. 1,1 i ..I 1 1 Â· m Â·t .10 1 IT- ./V-1 - ch.h - 2 OIl /%&0. 1-------- ------------- --------- i>Aa'.21.Â«.118 111: ) 11 /7 1-1 \. 6% 1 1 1 1 MLIJ -8 1 lo' 1000] j Ill Ill_I Ir-4 +4 FL.1.-4 ...~=cE 7\ 11 '11 a 4 3\11 --.Ill- / -i A /- /14/0Â·44-/ 100/I f i 1 -: 1 P.U.10,1* palommob.A:++ i â€ž#. pl PROPOSED MAIN 174 MIDLA,0 AVENUE S,irrE 205 LEVEL PLAN ~ SCHELLING RESIDENCE BASALT C<10*ADO B162t ....... .= , 1 ADDWION & ALTERATIONS PHONE{970)927-*976 1 1 ASPEN, CO. FAX (910) 927Â·9676 -<F 1 -'Â·su 1 eâ€ž.1.1 0-. I NV-ld 13/91 NIVIN GIBGOdO'ald ,-IF'mrÂ»- IL] 4,4,0Â·44Â· r* 100-0' I1/ I . \ I 1 11 41% lilio<-1 2 1 \ 4 / /11\ 7/6 Li l / 1 L , i \\ .7-- P' 12 1 ...7-n im ~' 1 M Il O O , 1 U - 1.-=li A, 02-91 + 11-iz r i ' hi\\\ 11N .to- 1*-0. \ i i1 i i - 92 5 18 41 2 3 E 6 4 8 E i :10 1 P.0 HUI Jul pllinobma; r ~c,r' '-;*;]~ - 1.. ...: 1 PROPOSED UPPER 1 ) SCHELLING RESIDENCE BASAL AIX) 81621 Â¥F,t- 174 ME*.AND AVENUE lUITE 205 1-All? li LEVEL PLAN I LI~0Ai'A ADDmON & AI.TREATIONS PHONE{970)927-9,76 R.~.1 I 1 ASPEN, CO. ..p70)927Â·9876 *:0Â·...r EE?- 'imillur/'ll./ LÂ«*TI=l Mal, IMLO,4 NV-lal 1191 33<:=lart (33<30 034 L-, r.Â®ThS,~,iCINd>ati-Â·3Â·4 159TDâ€¢$ RÂ¢0Â· IMLO~'il To Rrerd* 9 14-50'41 . h I 4 '/ 1 11 -/ 1 .WL . 2.9.~ 4 1/ 'I---P-Sli 3/ IQ E---- =F- 12 ~~.... ~ ~-JJ 7, ~ ,, 7,/ I . I. i Â· i I Â· l 4. I 1~ * 1 1 \ p 7 15 (-_/ 1- 1 1 1 --- ' 1 0 : t 1 1 4>.' -/ Fr - -7 9 ' --*.-4~-- 9% 1 14.12. (.4 ~ - -11 41 ,-tht i 21= ./ 1 8/ 4 - 1 1 r 1... a, 9 1 1 . .1. tu....: 1: : 11 1 1 1 -1 P it 0\ N 14~50'411Â· C 100-7 1 1 ti /1 3 2 li 5 5 4 6 48 9 * 1 r.0+ BOX 30] pal=/.blhor,Â·' i ,~... 'r SCHELLING RESIDENCE PROPOSED ROOF ALAND AVENUE SUm> 203 BAULT, Cal,OBADO*1621 |- PLAN | ~.t.r,~~~,a i ADDITION & AT.TERATIONS PHONE(970)927/976 Mviw 1 ASPEN, CO. FAX (910)927.9676 02/1/. W li 0 1 , .. .. 1 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 11 1 1 N 11 il~ ~1111 ~111 111111111 14'Ill / --48,iriz<=l~*trrt-'I~ i f -1 1 , il H .E - R 52 E N 1 000 ..Â£ 1 li E. 11 rxESQEQ~2.2@IAKEATION Lf@774'97* ; L-------3 h ~ Â£4=== lf}El liE - -U i !11 -- -1 - FU I 1 11 f C.#. --7 11 i 1 - 11 r -1 , * 1 I f $ lamil::li 1 . 1 4-Jub 1 :1_ 1 l 1 1 --- ~ A3.1 ....'.6.- OPYHT om27~2-MQEIM--EL:2Â£6[gi. ~ ~~_~____~__~_ ur/1749Te. ./. I W... 1 viAny)I 14 11 , 1.11 1 1 1 111.11 1 1 T E 11 1 '*,1.11.111. 44 12 !,1/1,,' -.,21 81 1 =-1-1 \ 1 4 \\ * hy - 1 e 3 .1 ' It fl\\ -- il V* 1 - 1 if 13 - ./ ILA 1.-=-----*-w 1 - i ,Â£110** 1 F,=-- BE/,-â€žâ€ž- 1 |4 k I VIEWS --7' 29*32~ SCHELLING RESIDENCE LAJALT.XX1'EADO *1421 BIX.UE>AMME scrmâ€¢5 ---Â·---- ADDrrION & ALTERATIONS *:1.4, .. 1 r 5 1.=--1 ---# - ASPEN, CO. 1. '-I/*- 1 - 1 ... 4. 4Â» 4 4 --- -0-5 1 11 ,Â«-1- f-1-1 44Â» ' ' - fl4#2 - - -902 1- , t~ ./ 1 --7 * 24., - 4< - L if - im=h - 1 ------- - 1 -1-- .--/-1-~ .-- --- t : -*-/ 1 i , Id -'.r... -1 111 - 1,1 - ii , 1 1 6, 0111 . -4 - - --1 ---- -*--- .~'I= . - 1/ 1 1 -----1 - ------ . 51//I,=1*4 4-- 1 1v#L ------- -- 11 h A4.2 =D<.10, rh VIEPN FROM BLEEKER >,4 9'...11 ME NOE 04 3)NOICISIH SNI'IliHOS /1 iii / / LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: 00116///M j Â·Residence, AdditicM aMd All-fral-ions Location: 113 West,ENâ‚¬eker Slnet Ae#tn, 60 81011 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Lot e, Plook '5!, Cit, a,td-mujylsite. 0~Asen, Fitkivt Couq , Colomolo APPLICANT: Name: 9,1 9041 le, fhji/446'Ati.2. 5chej lin' .11:lic1rlojes":B:423'irl. Grr- Address: 0. gux 34,5, PlafÂ«U :EL 20544- Phone #: 8)5 450 - 45413 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Yao)( FoloÂ»11.00 Al:A, fhpiced'/ 8/olm)70 64,#IArdAitects A. Address: ED,Ax 30\ 1,115~Â¥ , 60 6\021 Phone#: 170 127-947@ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ~1 Conditional Use Â£ Conceptual PUD *( Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review D Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) 1 Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal C Conceptual SPA C Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment E Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) O Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption ~ Subdivision ~g Historic Designation Â£ ESA - 8040 Greentine, Stream 6 Subdivision Exemption (includes D Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane â€¢13,h-al -2Â»10/ilion El Lot Split C Temporary Use * oem~temporarl~ A:joatic, ' Vapjaplces El Lot Line Adjustment 0 Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description ofexisting buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) %#stino oylt- Aw,1 ~Wo +droom, alle.-bath s\n,le.~*Â»lill re,idgM (L (9064) Will *Red straje shed (1304.), 40 knoww previous jopld Iue, arovaIs. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Ses #acked kittraddressed 40 A.1, 0uthpie,daid januar, 31, zooo (rrÂ· 5-2 Â· Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ /213'oia- E Pre-Application Conference Summary N Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement g Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form 0 Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents g Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents El Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application 2>41/1 l\O lucE- OUOO Palomino Barth Architects P.C. P.O. Box 301 174 Midland Avenue Suite 205 0 BasalL CO 81621 (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) 920-5491 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 of the 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 off the 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. Ifyou have any comments or questions regarding this proposed development request, please call me. / Best Regards, 252*/49 Jack Palomino AIA, Principal Palomino Barth Architects P.C. 19/jp 2K-101 L2 CC: Ron Schelling Sarah Oates, Planner City of Aspen 0 6 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM project: *hellin, Res}dence, Addition And Alterations Applicant: 19on gch t- li-Ml . pkesidewt: :Ddle) I've Clive #F}ylâ€¢11Â» 6,7 Location: 213 IAk5 t Bkiller "reet. Asre,; . 00 8)6) I Zone District: K-0 81ed'.unt Fensity Aildepttial Lot Size: 4000 54Â· Lot Area: 3.000 5.f. (f6r the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please ref6r to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Eristing: 14~ proposed: R/A Number of residential units: Exisung: f Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 8 Proposed: LE 30 6 SÂ·+ s Â·1, a 01 * Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): -Â¥filÂ·+. 1, & /0 â€¢ St/Ma#+1Â»1 Wi)1 restore shu Clure iv oyit~inqi hi stv ric fDotpr} rit. DIMENSIONS: 3,970 9.5.f. floor Area: Existing: 91,4. Allowable: 4,400 FAK Proposed: 43*lt MAx.Â¥AE Principal bldg. height: Existing: |'2!, 10" t Allowable: 9Â¢ Proposed: 04 0 Access. bldg. height: Existing: lot 01'+ Allowable: 12' Proposed: WA On-Site parking: Existing: O Required: 1 Proposed: 1 % Site coverage: Eristing: 33% Required: No LtÂ»li+4tio#!Proposed: 61% % Open Space: Existing' 67% Required: No LiÂ»litationProposed: 91 % Front Setback: Existing: 147' Required: \d Proposed: \47' ty@ e,ift. s,44 Rear Setback: Existing: 0'@~le~ Required: |0~520Â¢npProposed: see eapa,e 1, 1 Combined F/R: Existing: |4.1' Required: 30' Proposed: M.1 1' 8 0,1 St. Side Setback: Existing: 19: Required: 6' Proposed: 9 e addi+ion 6' 8 C.Xi51-Â· Side Setback: Existing: 5 ' Required: 9 ' Proposed: 9 e addition 0'ge),ist. Combined Sides: Existing: 61 Required: 10' Proposed: Ge addition Existing non-conformities or encroachments: O 8% isÂ¥1'Mj mr P6rd setback fs o' ; Â·2) S<ish)19 sidulard setback is I't. Variations requested: Ble, I. E. /41+ach,ne,Mt 4 -5~e'cl-fic Sub mistion N?e~ui~UMUttS: pariQMCâ‚¬,S. 0 B ... ME.4'7' Al.FFIa NTREET LEPOSIT CENT,EICATE 5 41 1 IiI 17â€¢' a ,/.il - '. - . r .,14- 3 E 407 I i.' , are.- 'J' FlisÂ· - .. , f e i .CIÂ¢ 42 - I ..1 5 Fihin?tr ' .,9 ..1 '"t ' 1=.le=-i :,t,rewL:Â·4â€¢.'u' rum M,wall . 16 ... ..........(- ..... 4. 7. I. ap ALLEY BLOCK 51 CENTIFICATION 4 ..... .....,1., I.' ........0 .08 ~ 4 A~ ~' v - CO~.f 10 11â‚¬ -1--- * 0 '.... 1 1.1.14 " C; 'tri $ t C~ '1% A~Â·t ... , 000 .,1 Â·, ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS INC 1.Â¢ 1 .4,-,t...1 ..... '.. .1. /A I O I C 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 (153) 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. 17 0 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. 0 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 StOIy 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. 0 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 (7) feet at the new addition. e. A combined rear yard setback variance of fifteen and three tenths (153) of a foot at the existing shed. 24 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. 25 ./ 1. .. .1 I'll'.U-Xvi Do.NadsÂ¥ 1 1 SNOUVMEU,V Â¥ NOLLIaaÂ¥ SNOLLVA:1121 r" D a,9040Md ~ A rrâ€¢ GIONGI([[SGIH SNI115[HOS 1. 100. U. 1----1/=-11 . . FO ~1 ew I.==:= - .1 301 lâ€ž '-- r --Kil,~1 9{11 /4 1.111112 l, ill"*01. 1 ki./..J' 1 === <V 1 W t-- J â‚¬1.S-=Â»C EFLUE =851 1 1 Fr-~--11 -\ .tri *83-54:21 L 11 ~ - .[ \=Ell' 11 1 + mÂ« S L ~ hi -1 4 H PM/qi//Fi__11- l It--1 1 13,7 (1 ~ Â¢0Â¢ ~ 11*'2 8 Ll X ~84 ~~ id\ Ilyr -A 1 \ 4 - l__1Â»F ~, %U-- F \ 1377714 1Â£111 1! li n U ' 1-0 FF,01 - 1 60 1 11 00 1 ' 1.17 rilfilijrll--Ii 1 Un - )11 1 1< Ii'11111 /1 iL Â· - r N..4 1 X-41 -":= -9, 17-71 \ H lilill \1 -- 1 \ / - \ \V.LI , D Â£ ..Ii 11 Im i 0 \Â·Ul.1 1 1,11 11 1 11 ki 1 .111,1 96 -mi \ d.Â·5Â·Â®dÂ®- t, trcagEMÂ» - 1 ---~ 7 I \'3.h{ki;~ 9~ , n-- 1. 11 '/ I - 46=CM M-WWW.. L 11 ~ 1 \\ b \ V Â¥ 4% Â¥.\ - 4-50 \ 1 2 3 2 Gl~Z NOUVAa-13 HlkION (39850~ 14011Â¥/a-ta H_LAOG 6360 11-0 2-'-2'L....4- . 73" 9 Q:11 1 4 Â¥ i r j 4 , '.........F...h.... 4 ..e*.*9â€¢.Pae.p.***2 L -2.--72=.7 4--222277:. : Â·h k- _ __ . -8.lia.,afealk-/6 4 4=. 6 L t ! t:= ~493 -~ 1 .1 - - i 4 11 1 " ! 1 4 IIi {i Â£ Li- - ; 711:1 7 - 81 F 11 13 - 11 1 01 4- ~ GUEEI t}Ant , ____, 1-1 -4 Fo . 0>Er-QOH â€¢2 2 8 1 , M 2 â€ž 161 - 1. I v. 12..Ila 1.. f I T.--= 1 I rogo twED r 1-r 1.7 % 1 1 .81' 11 1 1. 1 11 ... 1. 11 i:4 dig~TJ~COM k .... . . I A2.0 11 1I EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN ....*..,-4-1 / . 1 Â·Iâ€¢ 1 -c .... .. 4. 4- V' /1.- 4.,0 /7 ./ le /q /* Iâ‚¬ I~~ t ...112= .t i RONÂ£GIS:inI ON[TEIGIHOS SNOUV,111Â¥ 1 NOLUCCIV eD \3 f i / F/\\ 1. ..1. ----Unt \\ 1 =42==1\ / ... -~~-1 In--33-_-- </ 1Â© __~~~~~___-69,24 ii g ~ 60â€¢â€¢rot Cl,r.Â«SP r. E-'*21* E x "46.99:4* r-) EXISTING EAST ELEVATION reHED) Ch EXISTING EAST ELEVATION o,ousel 9 /7 12 \ 2 ~il i <116&44&FL4/66 44/'3=._-f-tru:~*_i-- ~!il 5 5â€¢ [7 , El 1 ry/-6 -014, ,Â®1$"r , em J------ ---------------.44+ ~ 1 4 -h ilt! 1 0 0:.. 0 r. E 'IST. AÂ¥. A i ' /-- - -023=527 / 1 \ exisT....O. ~ EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (SHEDP. /n EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION mouse rh EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 90910 - -- I 1/4.1 -0 \~../. 1/4 * 1 -0 ~.j 0 1/4 0 1 4, 1 Ff-11 1 ' . I CUJUJU~~ â‚¬Â»â€ž4 M MW ' C.'./ C.,I.Â«se! Mi ..11 a-iii.1 /n EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (SHED) ~ EXIBTING FNEST ELEVATION (HOUNU r) EXISTING }NEST ELEVATION (54420) â€¢ 1/4.1Â·-O A3.0 2-el-rl- .LAND .... SNOLLVErâ„¢ Â¥ NOILIaaÂ¥ SIONGIaIS32I NITTEHOS SNOUV ACTION: Significant Development 33 0 W'L/*2- 02-0,uc- . SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT 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 26.40.090(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 or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 0 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 of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness ofthe 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 0 MEETING DATE: 9-9 -2-22 . 2---17 NAME OF PROJECT: 3 30 4 Â»dC a-Â·-u - CLERK: 435 STAFF: ELul,9 WITNESSES: (1~ %5 A--~20+6 AF A - (2) 9* (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report C \Â¥1(Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( 9--(Check If Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: VOTE: YES NO '- SUZANNAH REID YES.1,-No - MARY HIRSCH YES 12 NO __ SUSAN DODINGTON YES - NO.v~ GILBERT SANCHEZ YES NO LISA MARKALUNAS YES NO - JEFFREY HALFERTY YES LÂ«NO HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES ur NO - CHRISTIE KIENAST YES L/~ NO ' MELANIE ROSCHKO YES NO RALLY DUPPS YES NO HPCVOTE MAR-02-2000 THU 09:22 AM PAX NU. RECEIVED , 0 0 2000 County of Pitkia } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT 4 } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION '31'p-6 - State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E) f, L+Ic,4 <1 ) 4<Fla/- 1Â»p, 0,Â«,Â· Alro-1/!,46'im Sing or representing an Applicant to tile City of-Aspen. personalI>/certify that I have complied with the public notice recuirements pursuant to Section 26.304060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regularions in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is anched hereto, by first-class, pogtage Prepid U,S. Mail to all owners ofproperty with three hundred (300) feet of rhe subject 0206>C> property, as indicated on the attached list, on the _16_ day of ~9,24-, !997(which is 15 days prlor to the public hearing date of 2'0- ). 2. By posting a sign ina conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that :he sid sign was posted and visible continuously from the * day of b'~2064- ,4991, (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full \ 1,000 days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Â»4.-u_ Ch-L ~.p~.a:. 04 3/2-2.ju, S i'gnature ' , 7.i DATERÂ» 7/te TIME Simed before me this 7/h day 11\,twlk 3.00 ,/49 by 8 HPC LACE*QI*50Â£1 AÂ«-ion IR,=BfA )12'Phv,4-4 URPOS WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL A r//fl~ 065 16,4 REV/ . My sommission expires: â‚¬7, 4,1 Â» .Ann - (E) LAW[MME-Ets!*t_ ,#e.... ~-56(0/Jo REAPâ‚¬/9 - f ~-~tlf~tic...tt: ~t.%16,1 6 /4- 01-7 ~#ota#EOXic' 5 Signature ~ . ~ AeÂ·., 4. . ...1 PE IrÂ¥ Age,Cess: ; KF *frfilib My Comm. Expires Aug. 13, 200.2 FEB-29-2000 TUE 09:19 AM PAX NU, RECEIVED MAR 0 0 2000 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT . N } SS. TOASPENLAND USE REGULATION ';3"- I State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E) I,l-+E Ju (A.)Arww 'Pâ‚¬94K j /4ryvi /6-AM@,45, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, persondly 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 miling ofnotice. 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 1 9/000 property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 3 day of ll,~4=t, 1992 (which is 4%1<~ days prior to the public hearing date of 22- )- 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 3 day of P~~4+2â‚¬- , 896 (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full ' 0000 days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Â»1.4.-r- aut '097 5 ~1174 ~9â‚¬rpexa (- / f // TiME Signed before me this '7Â·1\ day 81 zi +,or~ 6*cnit, ,Â¥3p -by 8/27- ~LACE*nog .hfk#&6 4=e--r - 1"6 ' 40-*A jece,04 \ 4/Frn 9.Ab WITNESS MY HANÂ©Â·WND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: thbl .220 y ~ A F/tfAL Des/6,4 p.fute, /.-51.2 -1'Uphh 1~ (EN LAND/*AKA 12:5/4'61__, piflki~biliÂ·<44' 7/--\1 C.,- -7 .... V #otty pâ€¢*tiAEs si~na~ure- - 44 j.,. JAYCOX :i** U 'A.... :'~3>n pe 77 40%88 1 KE ..0,81.2.2.,4.tic~125,7 %*MA=.6/*M, My Comm. Expies AL:9. 13, 20C2 r--mim -1_ al MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 330 Lake Avenue- Final Review and Temporary Relocation, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: March 22,2000 SUMMARY: The applicants request HPC final approval for a project that involves making an addition between a historic house and a historic barn on the site. APPLICANT: Bill and Ellen Hunt, represented by Lipkin/Warner Design Partnership. LOCATION: 330 Lake Avenue, R-6 zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) 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.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 aliowed 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)(2),for detached accessory dwelling units. 1 6LJACIOll- /4 Response: The property is exceptionally large for the West End and contains a miner's cottage, barn, and an intact historic landscape, including cottonwood trees and an abandoned irrigation ditch. The applicants propose to remove and reconstruct the 1950's addition at the side of the barn and to remodel the addition at the back of the historic house. New construction will then link the buildings together. Through several meetings, the applicants have been asked to restudy various elements of the project, including the location of the new garage, roof forms, and the front porch. The project received conceptual approval on January 12th. Final drawings at 94" scale have been provided and the applicant has supplied information on the proposed materials for the new construction. A landscape plan is also part of the final application, and shows the addition of one maple tree behind the house and shrubs to block car headlights from ACES at the end of the driveway. As a condition of conceptual approval, the applicants returned to the board a couple of weeks ago to report that the front porch and front door will be restored. While this is a very welcome restoration effort, a great deal of the HPC discussion centered on restoring the function of the front entry door as well. That change has not been made and the entry to the building is still clearly off of the driveway. The historic house is reserved for bedroom spaces which will not be active and lit in the same way that the house was meant to function and staff does find this to be a negative of the project. The life is directed away from the historic home, which conflicts with HPC's goals. Although the original application noted that a new foundation was proposed for the old house, there was no basement plan provided at that time and staff did not address the temporary relocation standards that must be met to pick up the building. The applicant intends to reinforce the existing stone foundation on the barn by temporarily lifting that building, and these relocations are discussed under the relevant review standards below. The house currently has a brick foundation and the new foundation will have a brick veneer (possibly using the salvaged bricks.) The basement requires lightwells and at the last meeting, HPC indicated that they would not support a lightwell in the footprint of the existing side porch. The applicant has moved the lightwell so that it is front of the porch, making it non-functional. Redesign will be required. The applicant also indicated at the last meeting that an increase in the floor area bonus would be needed to cover the lightwells. A 150 square feet bonus was granted at conceptual approval and the applicant now requests 300 additional square feet for a total of 450 square feet. Staff found during the conceptual review that a floor area bonus was justified by the fact that the lot is larger than 9,000 square feet, a large historic outbuilding is being preserved, and the addition is all one story. The addition is simple, but very well detailed. These circumstances are still relevant to an FAR bonus request, however staff finds it harder to qualify the project as "outstanding" without further HPC evaluation of the abandonment of the old house as the 2 central living area. This must be weighed against the value of the applicant's plan to restore the porch and front door as features of the building. The drawings have not indicated any proposed changes to the exterior of the historic house or barn such as window alterations, new windows, removal of any existing materials, re-roofing, etc. The applicant must specify any features that are proposed for alteration. Finally, staff has recently been informed that there are four spruce trees that are intended to be removed and mitigated as part of the project. The trees stand immediately in front of the 1950's addition to the barn and are in the footprint of the new construction. The Parks Department must determine whether the tree removal is appropriate. If the tree removal is not approved, the applicant will have to return to HPC with a revised design in this area ofthe project. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The property is located on Lake Avenue. Several historic buildings on this street have been overwhelmed by large additions that collide with the structures in a way that makes it difficult to distinguish where the old building ends. While some concerns have been raised about the one story addition on this project creating a "sprawling" effect, staff finds that this will not be perceived from the street and that the new addition will be appropriate to the neighborhood. 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 project will not detract from the historic significance of this site as a 19th century house, early 20th century barn, and historic landscape. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Response: The architects have designed the new addition so that it is distinguishable, but compatible with the historic buildings. 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 3 submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Both the house and barn are to be temporarily lifted. The structural report will be required as a condition of final approval and/or information about how the house will be stabilized during relocation may be provided by the housemover. 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 final approval (HPC must discuss whether that is adequate to cover the two buildings). The relocation plan must detail how and where the buildings will be stored. Because of the location of the barn at the edge of a steep hillside, the housemover will need to indicate whether any special measures will be required to safely access and move the building. 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.) â€¢ Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that HPC approve final review and temporary relocation with the following conditions: tk~Dete# 5*-lhe old brick will De salvaged as a veneer for the new foundation on the house. (14 54Â£ , 6.4/ 1627 /42 56*~0Â£99/ 0/ 9/lu-yk,Q. 2. Redesign the lightwell on the south side of the house so that it does not eliminate the use of the porch. 3. The HPC grants a combined side yard setback variance of 8'6". 4. HPC has granted a 150 square foot FAR bonus. The Board must determine whether 300 additional square feet is appropriate. 426 -04,0Â£44 g +0 '-4- 5. The drawings have not indicated any proposed changes to the exterior of the historic house or barn other than the reconstruction of the porch and front door. The new front door must replicate a door style that was typically used on a miner's cottage and must be approved by staff and monitor. 6. Ifthe Parks Department does not approve removal ofthe trees in front of the barn, the applicant will have to return to HPC with a revised design in this area of the project. 7. Provide a structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover. 8. Provide a bond or letter of credit in the amount of ~-19%00 to insure the safe relocation of the structures. 9. Provide a relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored. Because of the location of the barn at the edge of a steep hillside, the housemover will need to indicate whether any special measures will be required to safely access and move the building. 10. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 11. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house and barn are to be removed as part of the renovation. 12. Submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage. 13. No elements are to be added to the historic house or barn that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. (Note that the drawings of the house do not show all ofthe existing trim. Nothing has been approved for removal.) 14. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 15. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 16. The preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 17. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 18. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 19. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5 Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated March 22,2000. B. Application. C. HPC conceptual approval resolution. 6 03/13/00 MON 14:45 FAX 9709278487 LIPKIN WARNER 0002 23400 Two Rivors Rd, 0 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 ~..ee ..IPK IN WARNER DESION & PLANNING, 1.1,(' Bosalt, Colorado 8162I F 970 927-8487 HPC FINAL REVIEW Hunt Addition - 330 Lake Ave. CHANGES FROM CONCEPTUAL TO FINAL 1. White House non-historic east wing roof and exterior wall to remain. 2. Dinning room massing changed from curved to sable roof form. 3. Windows changed from a modem turtain wall" assemblage to conventional sash windows. 4. Introduction of exterior siding and elevation change from modern to regional aesthetic. 5. Front porch and door added to reflect historic character of white house. 6. Basement plan submitted displaying spacial program and required light wells. 7. Additional square footage requested for light wells. EXTERIOR MATERIALS 1. Roof- Rolled asphalt 2. Walls - Horizontal and vertical lx6 wood board siding butted connection. Horizontal cribbing - 2][6 wood boards with 1 M" gap on vertical furring strips. 00.HPC final review changes.ag.ah.doc Page 2 03/13/00 EvIl RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, VARIANCES, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW FOR 330 LAKE AVENUE, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. ___, SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the applicants, Bill and Ellen Hunt, represented by Lipkin Warner Design Partnership, have requested landmark designation, conceptual design approval, partial demolition, variances, and "Residential Design Standards" approval for the property at 330 Lake Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves demolishing additions to the historic buildings and replacing them; and WHEREAS, all applications for Historic Landmark Designation shall meet two or more ofthe following Standards for Designation of Section 26.420.010 in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. 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 ofthat neighborhood character. E. Communio, Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: . I Â·tÂ«l'll~\ ~w G 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel; and 2.Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a.Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. b.Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated January 12, 2000, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 12, 2000, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 5 to 2. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and HPC grants landmark designation, conceptual design approval, partial demolition, variances, and "Residential Design Standards" approval for 330 Lake Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the January 12, 2000 meeting, as follows: 1. The applicant shall determine whether there were a pair of front doors into the original house, and whether one of those doors can be restored. If this is not the case, an alternate front porch design which addresses HPC's concerns about having the primary entry into the historic building must be brought back to the board before the final review. 2. The HPC grants a 150 square feet and a combined side yard setback variance of 8'6". 3. Submit a landscape plan for final review. 4. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of January, 2000. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk EXHIBIT 507 1 ./b# ACTION: Minor Review . / / 9 2 N Yma. * All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet alljour 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 thereof. -92 4 1-mmi~jf MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 419 E. Hyman Avenue- minor DATE: March 22,2000 SUMMARY: The applicants have received HPC approval to make modifications to the south, east, and west sides of this building, and have discussed, but have not received approval for rooftop improvements. At this time, various code implications of the rooftop design are being addressed by the staff, after which the applicant will be able to submit the final plan. In order to keep their remodel moving, they request HPC review of a proposed alteration of the central entry into the building. The structure is a designated landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Zone District. APPLICANT: 419 E. Hyman LLC, represented by Dennis Wedlick architects. LOCATION: 419 E. Hyman Avenue, The Roaring Fork Arms Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen. 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 1 E#4,6 4 # Â»< 0 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)(2),for detached accessory dwelling units. Response: The applicant is in the process of remodeling the condominiums on the upper floors of this building. The primary faGade of the building is obviously along Hyman Avenue. The east and west facades have limited public visibility and the rear wall is part of the character of the alleyscape. Elevations showing the alterations that have been approved to date are attached. At this meeting, the applicant is proposing to open up the central entryway into the building and create a semi-private entry alcove for the residents of the building. Currently there are a pair of gates in this opening, but the original doors have been removed. It is always HPC's policy to look for opportunities to reverse an earlier alteration to a historic building. As a first choice, if this area is to be remodeled, exterior doors should be recreated rather than making another change by recessing the entry doors. Staff has no issue with eliminating the step up into the entry to make it accessible to the disabled. 0 b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There is a concentration of important historic commercial buildings in the area of the Paragon Building. For the most part only minor alterations have been made to these structures and they continue to reflect their original design qualities, which will be true of this project as a whole as well. 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 project will not affect the significance of the building as a prominent 19th century commercial building. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Response: This proposal may in some way diminish the integrity of the building, by changing a feature on the primary faâ„¢le. As stated above, HPC's goal is to focus on enhancing the building through restoration. 0 2 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. 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 HPC weigh the impacts of the proposal particularly in regard to the concept of enhancing the integrity ofthe building rather than altering or creating new features. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated March 22,2000. B. Application. C. Previously approved drawings. C:home/amyg/cases/minor/419eh 3 1 6 J 4 0 0 , 0 Â¥ lu lA k 1,3 14 10 10 if le) 12~ m gl g u 44 /0 60 6 f Co ./ I. 61 /4 Y O In-House O Issue a X v Dennis Wedlick ArÂ®itect LLC es ~4*m- 4=- (21/1 820-9222 FU: 012) 828-8186 T PROPOSED STAIR 174 *J~7-0&.im T. 0. BULKHEAD 6 - BUUREAD BEYOND .d"tUrti -Er-56.-11-k - i.,Iii A i i.r.ran-, i M ~ 6-2â‚¬91-hba ~ 0 ' , 3 6Â»293Â» 1 ROOF SURFACE BEHIND T. 0. PARAPET A - ....L.~.,---,- ~ Â¥ : " *./ -I'~ I =:*:#-LV~-1.-1- 9-,J-r--,- .-V-~--1- I . -r--- . -iII*f-*tr.- .U:-0-I~T-y - _-r-: Â·LÂ· 7-v-./-7-: . 7:-V" '- ' ----JV-- . . ---7) -V,-1 -7 CD HIGH PONT ROOF 6 - - - -- ~-- ~- '-- -=' -' --- -~ -~- ~=~- --= ~-~~- -~~~- =-- -~-~-- ~~-~ -- 1- -X-r.1-ratutitm0~4-.-Â£Ir,~r.n-mr,~r,-0-juR{4-9-rs<4*3-R*Eâ‚¬ 3Â£46Â£92*a- ri-* -Gb-}69-iluMR-rkâ‚¬9~32/431314.(65---263322633 -5346-9 U.U u.- - r AD. 7 -I - . ..2 -. f [El W 1., 1 1 1 ' 2 2-1'A .21.-rl-~:-7-~~I.~12:. . -U. J '. f Â·1 1---L -1 1 I 1 1 :462-~-:.A.1 1 Â·3-E&.MEG -Â·-1-4-:Â·j Â·Â·N-Â·d I I 43-SP i ' 333-:2&-t- -: ;Â·722.: ; 4 -i-Â·- 1.~F.L~j-.= -3 E 2 221 I :i::; 1-un: f.: am:as Cz FINISH 3RD FLOOR /6 -GE,-94-45-5-00.1-AE-3194 -r-7--4133-vit-9-tip-*-â‚¬3-2532 -1-u 6ierrk-944 1-~4 4-9-vpx-*Â·1-99Â¤-26-*19- p.nub-g-*-+.mr -UNC-r-pul-red 17-t 4 ':I- t-a L â‚¬45-gfrt : i. IF====91 -,1.,.L iffij,,.-604..... IF~~1~ 1- Ip===~1....Â· 4630.~ :. rp====a J.--.-L EE-KI 22-Â£1 Il-E:-:-IN~' -1 "Â«Irt J Nkli~~~ll i-4 'Ii ~'* i, -r.7f.ttrU li ni.-Â£ " I 52 -.Â· Â·--" 426~-~if&2382 -1 Z 4-21- L 1 -53-831;1- ii 1.-; 'T, 11 A-Ty / || J.,L!< 1-~i<--~-â‚¬-'.8 Il , I| 21 r.1 -I-~1--yi , Â· '--1 4 -2:Â·1 -24.tREY" 11. i P, o r.:r,|1 ||.--rc-*A~ |1111.7- .~.&/-1__~.1.J ' 'Â·~~ -'-I.5~1- l6~:z-J Uto- 1.-L,1.-i-A.-,1 1 FINISH END FLOOR A. A - - .--21.1.,1 V an 0 0 0 0 80 3 U - OPENING TO ENTRY CE| Â·Â·Â· VESTIBULE 1 m 1 4 Ul U 0I TYP. GARAGE A 00 1 . . _FINISH 1ST FLOOR 03/08/00 E EL. 0'-0-- 2130 NORTH ELEVATION A3.11 AS.11-14 rrK NORTH ELEVATION Â®2000 Deval, Ifedllek Arclt-t LLC -~EMPEUWUPROPOSED,6 _.~_ HYMAN AVENUE MALL SIDE PRELIMINARY A Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0' These documents illustrate an original design by Dennis Wedlick Architect LLC (the "Architect). They are the properly of the Architect, who retains all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. They may not be reproduced or used for any purpose without the Architect's written consent. 0002 Z2 95 :9~eW PaM 6Mp'SA313 PI--II 'EV\ld@0 6PIG\SDUIMeJO\SOMONS~~lu@JJno~ .M OGYHoloo EcIEV 11'-8 13/16Â» - 15'-2 12'-0 3/8" 1 13'-8" WAV NVWAH I.SVSI 6 It, ONIG IRE[ NODVHVd - :aluCI C] Â¤ In-House O Issue ~ 1 8 1 b 6. 1 = 1 Dennis Wedlick Architect LLC 1/0 85 =Un-gr (21/1 820-9222 F.. (kle) 8/5-1.6 17* Wdlind Avenua. W. i. WEST TENANT SUITE (9701 --0007 D-IR co 81821 / hz: 070) 9/7-0638 J C/-3 25 T.O. 1ST FL. ~ EL. 100'-0" - MAILBOXES MOUNTED I - ~ IN WALL - EXISTING BRICK 4 -1 MECH. \ \ WALLS 04 $2 - WOOD BLOCK C=23 2 . 199 1 I=I FLOOR 0- tÂ·-2--r-r-=F- 1 11 4 | 1 1 11 -- A- M 1 11 1 1 1 -E#**~im~#mmm.*v i u~ Â¤ up X :\ 114 ./ :11 <z -1. i ON. . * %Al-il I \ I I t / 1 ]11 1 1 i -- 1 1 62.31-1-: M i '-P:.-.2.41 --41.-i-ill i-[ 1-1-i-i-~i-i-':-ti-t:.-1-7-11-ill ./+H.J -1 4-1 3 --- - .i , 4.1..4 ,; ,,,,A .M 44: - H Â·. Â·4 Â·Â·1 :. H,Â· BÂ· )1 :i H Â·: B l: i: i-! 14 :1 H , Â· pâ€¢ i. â€¢4 â€¢4 â€¢4,4 aÂ« r#-4-: ili-,-i-{ 44}!-=Mil!-~21(:r:--:12- :1.1.-:1-: 4 <Â®MD~y hb i# nhHMH iÂ·j>i-H-P-H-HMM f a,VATOR LOBBY ~-HAR#HAH-i-i-1>0 ENTRYM*MÂ»nrt'.1 I-~.ri-ti-riti,O{ill-[i_H.1-1.-H :1.: h ...i.1-LI--i-i.rlyik 21 * 11 1 -1 Â» 1~i I Â®6205Â®20*424 1 1 N 1 -T l- D 03 f EAST TENANT SUITE <TW | 02/08/00 2130 ~ FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~ A2.11 1 PLAN JTK I Â®2000 D.enotâ€¢ Vidllck Archilict LLC 1-1 PRELIMINARY FIRST FLOOR PLAN Scale: 1/4"== 1'-0- |_~~ These documents iUustrate an original design by Dennis Wedlick Architect LLC (the "Architect"h They are the property of the Architect. who retains all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. They may not be reproduced or used for any purpose without the Architect's written consent. -1 0- 779* VAN3AV NVKAH OGVHO'100 'NE[dSV ISVSI 6 It' NODVHVd a - Â£5 0 4 0 0 , O 2/ lU 11 14 10 14 10 10 1 f 10 1Â¥ CU 4. .U .1 ./ Y =r 1 -L--1.- 1 1 ---L L.-_ a â€ž-- 1 1-I- __I_l _ mrr~~| O In-Houre Â¤ Issue 8 - X- Â¥.i V- Dennis Wedlick Architect LLC U- h. (*12) 616-8086 = :E163313'- T- 174 .*=21:.U..t~" m \24 1 r-- - /. d / 09 Z 9- 4-lit 1 -.- 6,4 STAIR 4 =1 Et: Ul C.Â£1 = ! : 1 ... 1: Iii: il::1 N- Â· f:::ti:Ii::I, -12)0 1 11 - EXISTING TRANSOM z Â·i:It:Ii:11:i:;'i:i- WINDOW - e .4 - <C Z a 1 : i~: 1 i~~ ; : :~; T - TRANSOM -rling-I,FI./ ~~ WINDOW C E im ELEVATOR ELEVATOR LOBBY 1--{-L{.-1-;-inuyiI----k-iÂ¢PR/IRFAT-,5 rri--I,-T.-Â¥12:-f,---Â·--:-~--,--i-i-...~--Lliriyl~-L~.1-~ HYMAN AVENUE I Z < 1 / x DOOR ENTRY MALL A-4 < L / T ry, - n INTERCOM AND C = 6 / -1 'i:i:ill:: :,â€¢9 , MAILBOXES h i ji ~~ 1 4: LL.4,v+ 9: 1---Th-;-7-T.-i-Â£-:--h . , ~>â€¢Z E-4CCDO 44 . -l .,. :....l...1....: 1.-1.--~-- ~.--1...i---l U' I C, L ......... ... - ' 1 - EXISING BRICK In A K- i. , BÂ»/ 1 - -- --- ------ - ... - I. , 1-11--2-22-- 11--'--Ir.. r.-- 2 3559' WALLS i - 0 E-1 CO Â·Â· 1: 1 [-- 7-T- r --1----~~ ~ -3 :--Â·â€¢41 .....' RAMP UP FROM < \ -~~ '' 3- STREET 84 \ 1--- 1,11 1 I =4 1, + .p 1 '. -I 11- 1--1 41 -1 11 r-+ / || ELEVATION OF ENTRY LOOKING WEST ELEVATION OF ENTRY LOOKING SOUTH E- ' 03/08/00 2130 BUILDING ENTRY ELWEVAT10NS A6.11 0- PLAN rrK Â®2000 DendÂ» 11/Uck Architect LLC PRELIMINARY A Scale: 3/8' = 1'-0* < These documents illustrate an original design by Dennis Wedlick Architect LLC (the -Architect"). They are the property of the Architect, who retains aU common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. They may not be reproduced or used for any X purpose without the Architect's written consent. W: \Current\~kokos\Drawings\PLAN.dwg Wed Mar 08 17.27: 57 2000 ~ NODVHVd 114 0 , 11/8/99 HPC . 12/01/99 HPC X' v Dennis Wedlick Architect LLC 80=~22#7- 1190W r.216*62- T PROPOSED BULKHEAD BEYOND , T. O. Pediment 6 -Er-56U-7----7- --}- -~ -2.-*J.rim,-,.7~ ROOF SURFACE BEHrND T. O. Parapet 2 - T. 0. Roof Surface B. 0. Roof Surface E- Â« .... -3 f 1 13(11 ---.~{--Flic ,.*.tt' 1----~-31 I o--6---Â·:. -i,F I A w o I I '"-' i g..63 1 21:1 - ------- ---c -~-./--Il ' ;- 0 I,fff--:t~-y# 4 419 202-3-j 1 :.-23 i Â·-~ri - 2 ------14.-1 111.-2-N- 0 2 OE Finish 3rd Floor Â£ --2.7 31:T-:77-77â‚¬73 -37/ 3:7-770-.EUT~-371 -,irm.Up--n-n. Â·I -4-"---7~ -2- - "- ""- r." Z>o E Tr 7. 11 11 -7 -- =1 4 3 K D >4 9: 1 Â·1 5 ..: -1 1%27-2 W :S UE 1 Prolosed Fin. 2nd Floor _.k_ ...... --- ,-:- CD ZG J Existing Finish 2nd Floorb El.- 15'-2 5/8- 0 =' 29 1 0 H E U 1% PIll--= 12=71 0 or 1 10 4 2-4 L li Flnish 1st Floor A 12/01/99 2130 Typ Ground A F El -0-6 f PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION P2.01 SUBMISSION Nâ„¢ PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION Â® D-:al, W.cilick Archa,el LLC HYMAN AVENUE MALL SIDE ~ Finish Basement Floor b A These documents illustrate an original design by Dennis Wedlick Architect LLC (the "Architect-). They are the property of the Architect. who retains all common law. statutory and other reserved rights. including the copyright. They may not be reproduced or used for any purpose without the Architect s Written consent. ficil i 9 lf-' O SNOI1Â¥801 W.\Cu~#2130 Skokos\Drawings\ELEV-11.29.dwg Tue Nov 30 19 1 1999 . -:91.0 0 W 1/ li 1/ 10 14 Y 10 10 1Â¢ 10 1/ .U 41 0 40 64 .0 .0 ./ .0 4/ .U .1 a. X . 12/01/99 lipe JIn-House O Issue , 11/8/99 HPC 'r---N V Dennis Wedlick Architect LLC T a i~#i334/ PROPOSED BULKHEAD PROPOSED PENTHOUSE SKYLIGHT SE BACK 27'-4" RESTORE ORIGINAL FASCIA REPAIR COP[NG REMAIN (TYPICAL). EXISMNG WINDOWS TO -EAT/'9. E-SE--FE51+ =0-..2z..-~2-= 2-3 -, --~*:V- 17Â·Â·Â·Â·'Â·trn 4 Â·,Â· PROPOSED WINDOWS - TO MATCH ~ 1 .-:9--IL]r=*2--==rtr--4~il--:*--=ji--r:.jir--dkf-49:---1.4'pia-e-aÂ·=--af:LaiL___IIi' i 1. - SASH, JAMB, HEAD, AND SIU OF EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS 94*-JI "iÂ¢-T---EP'| lel.m--3-tall '1[944].U k--ie---2.1--elll k.-ea -1 Mfo E- < ---- i-(13Â·Ff?(~IL_Â«3.-ff.Fil 'ima,--EE-,--m----: %'LIIE*4--f-~~~ riAf-ful-6-*d' 'ILE-1- =1- .<:.22.-I- 1--7.----.Al.-uÂ«GEÂ«314941*ppyc-Â£~i-2-3~g-*f,E-75:9Â»244 L 11 1 1 1 K *-4.--- 3 2:4Â·.m, 1&2::-2-:-Â·:" 1---2---5-Mil 42--Â· 1 9-Â»'Int*-4-4~1 1~Et<-939~1 11~11f=4~~ IlJZED-Ed 'IÂ©3;~--~ ~~ =1 Â« BRICK ARCHED HEADERS AT NEW 4-.- .-.,---- ...,Â· I|~-.-I--Un--U-t-f----1-.Anâ‚¬.-2-,Il |IEG : -2-I: 0 Â» -711 i ,+ ..V.U.--7+ GARAGE DOOR OPENINGS m* EXISMNG BUILDING ' -- -: 2.-r-r-'.----EY.-6.TEEE-2 ADJACENT 33-3 BUILDING Â·Â·nur PROPOSED CARRIAGE DOORS 5rYLE SIMILAR TO ORIGINAL PROPOSED DOORS - ' ' STYLE TO MATCH ORIGINAL =--j E 12/01/99 2130 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION C P2.03 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SUBMISSION Nâ„¢ ALLEY SIDE Â® D...1. W.dUck Archit- LLC A These documents illustrate an original design by Dennis Wedlick Architect LLC (the -Architectl. They are the property of the Architect, who retains all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. They may not be reproduced or used for any purpose without the Architect's written consent. U 0 SNOILY ICI NODVMVE[ W: \Curr~30 Skokos\Drawings\ELEV-11.29.dwg Tue Nov 30 19: 4.~999 V 6 It 700 'N[idSV A.J .. 1/ iD 10 ly .U Y- ~~~~~~~~-r---T---r--0-f-L ... 1 1 1 1, 11 6.: co ... go co =, Â£:0 cu JU J 1 J 1 C]In-Houie O Issue , ' liu 1 .- 1.7 1 ... Lil ~ -.--111 1-1/ -I ~--1 ' I- ... I L _ U I. ~ X- 1 11/8/99 HPC ~ 12/01/ge HPC r) v Wedlick f - \ Dennis ' A SIGHT LINE FROM ALLEY 1/ U- \ Architect LLC a 86 Â¥orth mt,-4 - 441: M-r PROPOSED SKYUGHT Miv Yerk. rf - SIGHT LINE FROM ACROSS UALL 2.9651Â°Â£ I T- WINDOW OPENINGS ENLARGED-NEW \ WINDOWS TO MATCH SASH, 1 - ROOF SURFACE BEHIND JAMB, HEAD. AND S[LL OF EXISTING ir REPLACE WINDOWS Â·IN-.EXISTING OPENINGS WOOD WINDOWS. I S- NEW CORRUGATED METAL SIDING b~ WITH NEW DOUBLE ! HUNG WINDOWS - TO MATCH EXISTING / \ 2 x(TYPICAL FOR FIVE)Â· EXISTING BUILDING BEHIND 1-7 ~ EXISTING>BRICK A S (TYP.) 2..9--3.--3.-~â‚¬963-3322-3-bEEf-3-1-79~.1 .. - lili 11 11 11 - 11 1 1 lili - / \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \~ - -- -2.1JX--02:-2-2.tlit:ft:CL.:i:f':c:.2.':-Â·tf:i:=:2::::Exted:~3~-EfiEFERitfi'EFiliiÂ®1 \ .c--1.-.I 1 - 7 Ii ' 1 514.Nol lai 7 Ilf . - I M --, E----2.-- i.2.1756'02.17541-1.1 C=:1 d J --I- -1-j .-1 "r'.--5 -2-3.--;IrmrÂ· Â· . E- < - An 4 Crl 111 1 0 1 1 lilli 1 111 1 1 11 lili '111 7 lili 11 1 1 1 11 1 11 Crl 1 14 111 2 L- 1' 1 11 r i / \ 1 1 1 An,lACENI_.EXULINQ . 1 111 11 1 111 1 11- -== 1- . 1 11 11 - 1 I- -' 1 - H- G- i F-1 E 12/01/99 2130 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION C P2.02 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION SUBMISSION Nâ„¢ 9- Â® D-/ Â¥,dlick Archit,ct LLC A Th J These documents illustrate an original design by Dennis Wedlick Architect LLC (the "Architectl. They are the property of the Architect, who retains all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright, They may not be reproduced or used for any ~ //4 1 a purpose without the Architect s written consent. / 11- m SNOIJ-jVH SNIC[TIOE[ NODUIVE[ W \Cup 30 Skokos\Drawings\ELEV-11.29.dwg Tue Nov 30 19: 4 999 009210100 'NadSV 1,~ 1.ijit:fl-:il; 1 14$ V NVWAH 6 I# 1 6 J 4 0 0 / 0 8 JU 11 1/ 1/ 14 13 10 1, 10 1/ LU /1 04 90 44 40 .0 4/ /O 0 JO It /4 :1- L.i.i..- _1 .-In-11. -- â€¢,â€ži ..,........~... ~ , -i~__ , -- .1.,:- -2- -1 1--1 ... 1.. . -iT-. --r. --- I I- 2 In-House O Issue A 12/01/99 HPC X- ~ 11/8/99 HPC / W- / \. Dennis I v- \ / Wedlick \ Architect LLC , .:IJAI/*- fl:- 1- 1 /2,1tr=a- 1 SIGHT LINE FROM ACROSS MALL / PROPOSED BULKHEAD / T- ROOF SURFACE BEHIND -7 ~X RESTORE ORIGINAL MURAL m / PROPOSED WINDOWS - TO MATCH SASH, JAMB, HEAD, AND SIU OF EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS \ S- EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN, TYPICAL \ \ 4/\ .Rx \ ~ _ 1.1.-i... -1.....u.'~1.-L.--.~__1_.~.--1.f----.3-:1---2.-1....-.-c:.A. ...x. -- ..,--- ~:'.:Â·ar-- itattffâ‚¬OtiT>121.-nO---~U-U--fi I: ~---tiv----9~1-Â·L---------- L.--- -- ~VAN--- TA-AVIV~rrurn--r;mU-'--ru-:-n-n--r ---u---:r -~~i- "-1VIN-UP.-IXAVÂ·~~UIVI~~2~~-I ~~1~1~U~~.~P.UAUA+52.UJ-I.1 ',1.t~ t:~~.- .L:Lt:. 4/':2 LI --.t.:7.- -.--r :.-2~~~~~~~.~1~i~Ki~~...v..-.*.i..+.-.--ruul--02*03Â·.-1Â·.--r.---ro-jin----i.--mu-ur.-r.u--ri-.-ru= -:-i---- -----~.=rumvr.nur -u - rÂ·-----*.-vÂ»-w-Uvrr.--U-rrm -- - -.r.Vr-U-Us-;<: / 9- / --.17. IA,j':1.-I-I.VOÂ»AIJ'-I-....2.'0 -:UNO....i......... / h 5 :.1-...rUUâ‚¬AU- -V-*CCJ~VUY;r-r . ~22-2...--A-v.. - -~II.Â·--2.-Un*VUL--T- ..U~*2~944~*:-t" :7.-u-7-,---0.-37-VAPT#ltlt~-2 I~.UJU........-- ......... ..t.-24..1.-~.~...1 1 .J-~.â€žL..u~j.. ...~L-'A-----Ir2AU~-IL.*.O.-~-5.-EL ----tILJ?-L - 2999Â»07 Â· - . ty .7 . 7% EFS F Ef F :f-7F:*.5-0: 4*-2 r~. i f-Aiy-'- 6-4 ,-i--i E ' = i IfI-V?2.-4 ~~Ek-:i-Ar4I th?-A- o~Il ,~1~-~~40-Â·~dd" 'r-1-1 1 i lit----~-:~~52-32â‚¬~~ Â·'p -~-4 r=- --3 . E---7-11 --~ .E~ R 3, :,1, =..ur---0----Â·i~L :Ilin-\ 1 -1 ~ CD N-- - 1- -1 9.-al NIFi-.31~1 E-- --all tihin-.--*.9' '1/.12~. 2 1~........6.+4 11~1' 'I~---2 -2, Ill'------Â·-'--- -- ' ' : -- - 0 '1-iunt:z......' IM... r - 111.- ---------1....111 4=Â·- -- F,V \ il #23 119-:911 111%~- m *L~-%4 ~~R-ff*Il "ES#~ 4541 #P-~I G*23' Ra-I?31 ca =-=-Â·.- 0 04 14.--4 Ll Crl J - --- \ 5225 0.O . 3.:.22Â· // 22:11.: 23-out=:23:ILLE-I-:Â·-Z:=3=:= : . Ei-:-22:2.-: iÂ·~ta. -IER:321-iii.-C.23-7 -Â°L. -ft=22.-EEEOF- F=:-- -fEERIZIEME:.:r r.=:i:= .... - ---=:=EE:F>:3~.FEEEL.D- ..-EF.E.:2-2:---3-~t:izzlm.2:0_:ca -- .- =--Â·-i 1 -.2-----/21.-j--~ ~~~KI~~IR..i.I> ---~.1. ,--~-9.- .0.--DE'-2222-3103-1-2.- ~~~ ~~~:-2.-:..~ j. J-t~~12-2 37<--2. .1 / -:4:-/ --- ---- --- ---1.-- .....~. 217 - i -, , 1 1 tr ------11 6 DÂ» I' Â· u-~c--~JEÂ«ll| #%*MI| imiu ;CIBEd RAMs- L :2 FI-+ M ] .......Â·, * z ili~i~OPÂ·-}i;d~k,MUE..Eli Il>)-~~1.4-Al 1201 E---6 Lib-- m= ----r---* ----*---- ~-'---1-1--Â·32194 Il~I Il[~ 1 W-t-: 7 IlEUI 'i~EIT*3|i |I~â‚¬4-GE~i WEEâ‚¬:1 'g---2'i liEEÂ·- - Â·Â·U---Â·--~UE-il 7.---21| 6-28|| ~~-----An-AÂ·.11| r--'-1-T.--A.-I.--I~ ir-;:73 i.- *.. r ;. 4.'LULU|| 11---Â· -"-11'_==2Lt -i -1 fit- Ii-'-ILi~2-/JI~.)~ f ADIACENL-Em.DING G-i 12/01/99 2130 E- PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION D- PS.04 C- SUBMISSION Nâ„¢ Â® Dâ€¢-1, Widlick Archltict UC PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION-OPTION #2 1 - /1 7 / \1 -\ A 1 These documentâ€¢ illustrate an original demign by Dennis Wedlick Architect LLC (the "Architectl. They are the property of the Architect, who retalns all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. They may not be reproduced or used for any ~- i purpose without the Architect s written consent. 1 - b. m SNOI-LVM~[ NODVHVd W: \Curr \~~kokos\Drawings\ELEV-11.29.dwg Tue Nov 30 19:l N3dSV Date: _ MEMORANDUM TO: John Davis, Gary Nichols, Larry Winnerman, Noel Hernandez, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Preservation Plan for 930 King Street DATE: March 9,2000 The following was agreed upon in regard to the historic "No Problem Joe" cabin at our site visit today: 1. There will be a ridge vent and soffit vents installed on the cabin. The ridge vent will be in the same character as the green historic house across the street (114 Neale Avenue). 2. Using bricks salvaged from the lower part of the chimney (from the interior of the house), the contractor will rebuild the chimney on the exterior to match the one at 114 i Neale Avenue. 3. The front porch roof will be rebuilt with 2"x4" construction to match the existing 0 porch roof design. The roof must tuck under the eave of the house as it does now, not overframe that roof. 4. The frieze board that still exists along the east side of the porch will be retained and a new piece to match will be placed across the front of the porch. 5. A new beadboard ceiling will be built on the porch. The beadboard can be standard dimension and does not have to match the existing. 6. Noel will locate a simple turned post to be used on the front porch and provide a cut sheet for Mary, Susan, and I to review. The post should be approximately 4-5" in diameter, which would be typical of a miner's cottage. 7. The two windows on the west will be trimmed to match the others on the house, including the cornice piece. 8. All of the flashing on the cabin will be metal with a black matte finish. 9. Where panes of glass are broken, they may be replaced. The contractor must be careful not to break any more of the historic glass. 10. The contractor intends to install plywood on the inside of the east and west walls for shear bracing. 11. The contractor intends to install Tyvek or tar paper on the exterior of the building. All historic clapboards are to be carefully removed from the house. On the front gable, the clapboards will be numbered to go back in their original locations. The priority in reusing salvaged siding will be to complete the front faQade with historic clapboards. Remaining salvagable boards will be used to side as much of the west wall as possible since these two walls are most visible to the street. 12. Only the clapboards are approved to be removed on the old cabin. No other trim 0 boards, fascia boards, corner boards, etc. are to be removed. 13. The original front doors will be reused. The existing hardware will be used if possible. If replacement hardware is needed, it will match the existing as closely as possible. 14. The original windows will be restored. The applicant may add an interior storm window or bring us a proposal for an exterior wood storm window if desired. 15. In regard to the new house, the window in the corner of the master bedroom may be eliminated if desired.