The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19990825AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 0 August 25, 1999 REGULAR MEETING, 5 :00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 I. Roll call II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments and project monitoring IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS WdoL-Â© :05 A. 2cfpfui[ifiprovalb 5:15 N~ / B. 302 E. Hopkins Ave.- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site f lu*/ Relocation (continued from August 11, 1999) 4,41Â¥ll,4 + 011 F Kh L oj.h) 6:00 C. 121 N. Fifth Street - Final Development 43/1- /11(tu Puub Do %1 6:20 D. Design Guidelines - review of detailed outline 6:45 G. Adjourn 0 PROJECT MONITORING Vfoger Moyer 406 E. Hopkins - ISIS 920 E. Hyman - Veronika, Inc. 930 King Street- NPJ 706 W. Main- Goldrich Susan Dodington 234 W. Francis - Mullins 421 W. Hallam Street 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg .939-14 AJAI~ Suzannah Reid 406 E. Hopkins- ISIS 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. Mel*9411 i-Rerin- --9@**me,#PJ 920-Wft2*GU* Jeffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis- Mullin 414 N. First- POLE 920 W. Hallam- Guthrie 101-105 E. Hallam (not active) 315 E. Hyman - Su CASA Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street- Halperin 232 E. Hallam St.- Pace 117 N. Â¢.St - C~ulter '*;*e-leÂ·=*a~,~~~,_FEEMA *.5 Lisa Markalunas 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 939 E. Cooper- Langley 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg Christie Kienast 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 735 W. Bleeker- Bone 9 1 0 K:,. 66Â£2.~ ..Maureen McDonald 920 E. Hyman - Veronika Inc. 214 E. Bleeker Brumder CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: ~34 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,2000 23 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 e 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 .ISIS 406 E. Hopkins 210 S. Galena 11.234 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. Bleeker 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 -28.520 E. Durant St. ~.308 N. First Street 30.533 E. Hopkins 31.330 E. Main St. 32.315 E. Hyman Ave. Su Casa 33.121 N. Fifth Street .240 Lake Avenue 5.920 W. Hallam Street 36.135 W. Hopkins - July 14, 1999 37.400 W. Smuggler - July 14,1999 38.302 E. Hopkins July 14, 1999 39.332 W. Main July 14, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Aspen Historic Preservation Commission RE: City CounciF Historic Preservation Commission Worksession DATE: August 15, 1999 The HPC has requested the following items be part of the worksession discussion with City Council on August 24th (listed in order ofpriority): 1. Update on the new design guidelines and contractor licensing exam The HPC will briefly update Council on the status of these two major projects. 2. Expansion of historic districts/ "Environ" review HPC has a continuing concern about the impacts of residential development immediately adjacent to historic sites. Currently there is no review for development of these properties that would require impacts on historic resources to be taken into account. 3. Floor Area Ratio The allowable floor area and resulting development pressure on historic properties is HPC's biggest challenge. 4. Budinger decision/ enforcement This item relates to a recent appeal to City Council on an HPC case. 5. Demolition by neglect/ Deferred Maintenance In some cases, privately owned historic structures are being allowed to deteriorate. While the City has standards for minimum maintenance in the HPC section of the Land Use Code, enforcement of this issue can be difficult politically. Attachment: A. Summary of the 1998 Council/HPC worksession ATTACHMENT A MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Summary of City Council/ HPC worksession ofJanuary 13,1998 DATE: February 19,1998 The following topics were addressed at the worksession: 1. Council supports HPC in investigating better ways to enforce their approvals. There will be a follow-up worksession on this in the near future. Some suggestions included tying HPC conditions more directly to the issuance or denial of a "Certificate of Occupancy," tying enforcement to the penalties for "demolition by neglect" (i.e. the possibility of a development moratorium on the site), and tying enforcement to the potential revocation of any variances or bonuses granted to the project. 2. As part of the enforcement issue, numerous suggestions were made as to how education could be increased, particularly for contractors. Staff will follow up with Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official, to request that a few preservation related questions be included on the contractor licensing exam. Also, staff will explore the possibility of including historic preservation related content in the UBC course offered through CMC. There is interest in developing a certification procedure which is separate from the existing contractor licensing exam, that would be required of any contractor working on a historic preservation project. The feeling is that it is important not only to convey the rules that exist, but also the reason that they exist. 3. There is interest in developing a packet of information on historic properties for the real estate community. 4. For public education, it is important for HPC to establish the reason why historic materials are to be retained during each review. Although requirements for preserving historic materials will have to be determined on a case by case basis, HPC should try to be consistent and reasonable in their requirements. HPC should avoid being overzealous on issues of less significance. On the other hand, some issues, such as rooftop mechanical equipment, need more attention. 5. More discussion may be helpful on additions to historic structures and ways that HPC can be more effective. 6. The HPC should produce a booklet of information on options for the preservation of historic windows and information on when and how they should be replaced. 7. HPC must be aware that any increase in authority may be viewed negatively as "expansion of government." : 8. Revitalization of Main Street should be discussed in the future. 0 9. The topics of redevelopment in the downtown and expansion of the historic districts should be discussed further in a brown bag meeting of Council and HPC. 10. HPC will try to meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission in a similar worksession format in the near future. Please advise if you find that the topics as discussed are not correctly represented in this summary. ec: Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney 2-L ~~2~EFI V - 234) 1112] MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director CÂ£UY Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 214 E. Bleeker Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: August 25, 1999 SUMMARY: This property, which is located next to the Community Church, has received approval for a historic landmark lot split. The west lot, which is just under 6,000 square feet in size, containsÂ· a historic house and an outbuilding. The east lot, which is 6,000 square feet, is currently vacant except for a swimming pool. In 1996, the applicant received approval for a small kitchen addition to the historic house, which is expected to begin construction soon. Additionally, on August 28, 1996, the HPC granted approval to relocate the existing shed from the west lot to the east lot. After continuing the application several times, conceptual approval for a new outbuilding behind the historic house was granted on February 12, 1997. Section 26.415.010.C.2.b.1 of the Municipal Code provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. Since the time of the February 12, 1997 approval for this project, two extensions of conceptual approval have been granted. Staff recommends that HPC not grant a further extension of the conceptual approval for this project, finding that the land use code has been amended in a way that would affect the review process (for instance, conceptual and final review are now both public hearings), that substantial time has passed since the last public noticing of the project (1996), and that the design for the outbuilding and concept of relocating the historic shed off of the site should be re-examined. APPLICANT: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Gretchen Greenwood. LOCATION: 214 E. Bleeker Street, Lots A and B, Brumder Historic Lot Split. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 0 214 E. Bleeker Street not be extended RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny an extension of conceptual approval for 214 E. Bleeker Street." Attachments: Resolution No. , Series of 1999. 1. Subdivision Exemption Plat 0 0 . RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AT 214 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust, has requested a one year extension of the HPC conceptual approval for the property located at 214 E. Bleeker Street, Lots A and B, Brumder Historic Lot Split. The conceptual approval was originally granted on August 28, 1996 and the property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.010.C.2.b.1 of the Municipal Code states that application for a final development plan shall be filed within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless an extension is granted by HPC, failure to file such an application shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan previously granted by the HPC; and WHEREAS, previous extensions of conceptual approval have been granted by the HPC and the extension is set to expire on August 12, 1999; and WHEREAS, the applicant filed a request for an extension prior to August 12,1999; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staffreport dated August 25, 1999, recommended that no further extensions be granted; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on August 25,1999, the Commission considered and denied the request by a vote of_ to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That no further extension of conceptual approval for 214 E. Bleeker Street, Lots A and B, Brumder Historic Lot Split, Aspen, Colorado be granted. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25th day of August, 1999. 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 i Jj L l Al UL- 11 11, 4 j LIM j L Lot bt'LiÂ·i --BDMUSI ON EXEMPTION PLAT 13 '1 0 10 , e C," AND ,-It'.69-11=.5,1:%,cdor, .- 6. *.ING .2 963 . FT Â·,Â· ..24 0<RED M lili . GE MÂ¥ C '4, 1- 10Â¥86 '~ till k;645&4~2~5~&~rimvt:.Â·wÂ·,:rn w j *444.. il 1 1.4% 2Â£%* p. 2 110 ...11 41-.LE - I,%.i,r.WR,LOT;.tu'wn,1ms : D-LE, F.A.*. MOW)*911/1* OF TKI -- 4 63 ./. 111CROADeENT R.: r: Me.k .'r :imli'.6%L.At &11' I.â€žu '111 101 A' IS ILIOIBLE . (no? EgrFMPE#--*Mufwi.~EFB,an 4 lsâ€¢ ... 29:!;Al,ALZE~unÂ°41?' mwÂ·. Â·Â·Â· Op".. OUTBUIOL I NG . .2,> "D.. .T n.4 1.Al=WIV.F.:11 a.liilogililip'/Zgbiwillit'. 3'1~10 J.,ar - LOT B . e 441 04. 4,142'mt,rn':E!~194-im,~;,L â€¢ 5..3 *0 - â€¢/Â· 0 137 ...1 â€¢.Â· -C 01. -1 . 3 2 ; â€ž4 f . / 9,81 LEGEND AND NOTES 1 1/2 110RY 1 0,0 4 - n 0 ,-Â® 1-nÂ¥ Nom.... a 06*call. 0 *-.. ~7 A ........06 , houst . i l . 7 0 1.111â€ž - . I '.4 ,Â«*--1 1 .-/ W. ./<ING 71111 1-TION -INISIED - Â· ~ '00Â£ CI1 4 7 g= 219011:Ir,10. : / r DA- 10,1.,01 .-/ El/V / -m./ i -' 1 . - I =0 8,0**04 11'0 0, 0\*-' HI 5 ALâ€¢ m,(10*/~*Ill; INTO hILIC *01 IU li Ile- Al Ill / Oly,14/Miln â€ž , LOT A -~ / 6 000. n .'. . n 1.' N'I'.Tto'/DIS.,CT Râ€¢I 1,0 4 - 0.,3...... / *. /. LECTalt. P-1 ./ CATÂ¥ ... ARI .... . ALLEY 25. \ t. / \ / 011 7...-- / 1 1 - CLE 1 1 mr f nâ€ž, t.. j DECID--0 ... / gia â€¢ 11 963 *0 â€¢1 FRORâ€¢TED 12.000 .0,1 RICOID Zin //-1,-44 SET 2-47 / I +42 1 VICINITY MAP N.T.S. 0/44,- 00 00 1 -1, ./. 1 AttiL. O -I-- 1 4.., / ilit .11"/ -mr,7 1-,2-. O...06 AM,r I - EAST BLEEKER S 'REt T 1 , I .i.-:~~Â«, 6. s#in#}VffÂ·UW:.Â·ds- 5 051!11#Ki iii ! --3 -P'7\,VTÂ« EXF MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 1 THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Dil FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer , ~ REi 302 E. Hopkins Avenue- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Residential Design Review-Public Hearing (Continued from August 11, 1999) DATE: August 25, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests conceptual, partial demolition, on-site relocation, and "Residential Design Review" approval. HPC has held a site visit and five meetings on the project. At the last meeting, a worksession on August 11th, the commission expressed their unanimous opposition to certain elements of the proposal, including the height of the new commercial building, and to the structures being linked together. The project review has been in the form of worksessions for several of the meetings, when minutes are not usually kept. Minutes are available for two regular hearings on June 9 and July 14, 1999. Minutes from the August 11th worksession will be prepared since public comment was made, but are not available yet. This property is a designated historic landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: John Davis, represented by Vectors/Jake Vickery Architects. LOCATION: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. Commercial Core zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H " Historic Overlay 1 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). Response: This house was built in 1883, which makes it one of the oldest remaining structures in the Aspen Townsite. Throughout it's history it has been used for both commercial and residential purposes. It is the only example of a "Carpenter Gothic" building in Aspen, defined by the steeply pitched roof and decorative trim on the front of the building. (Carpenter Gothic is the Gothic Revival style carried out in wood rather than stone.) The applicant wishes to add more commercial space above and below grade, and to add a new free market apartment. In a worksession held on April 28, 1999, the architect was encouraged to look at the idea of demolishing a non-historic addition to the house and moving the outbuilding closer to it, thereby freeing up the back part of the lot for a separate new commercial building. This would keep the outbuilding intact and directly related to the old house. The new building would appear to be on its own small lot, a similar concept to the historic landmark lot split. Staff finds that the suggestion at the worksession was an excellent way to remove the impacts of a new addition from the historic structures. On June 9, HPC reviewed a proposal which followed the basic concept from the worksession, but attached the new construction to the historic structure. The HPC members expressed significant concern with the connector, with the majority of the board saying that they would not support it- that the new construction needs to be completely detached from the historic structure. Some members of the board felt that the new commercial space should not be taller than two stories, while others were willing to entertain a third story if the connector was eliminated. The idea of setting back the third story was emphasized. Since the June *t meeting, the HPC has been presented with several revisions ofthe design. When the design did not successfully resolve the issues on August 11th, the HPC Oil a worksession format) indicated that the project as proposed did not meet the development review standards. Five board members stated that they would not support any more than a two story commercial building, completely detached from the historic structures. One board member was still open to the concept of a third story. As summarized in the attached letter from the architect, dated August 12th, the concerns of the board on August 11th were: (1) the connectors between the structures, second floor deck and railing, (2) the third floor and/or its architectural treatment, (3) the light/egress court and stat (4) the roof top deck and stair enclosure, and (5) cumulative impacts of all these 2 elements taken as a whole on the property. The applicant has provided another revision for this meeting, which addresses item one but is otherwise unchanged in any substantial way. Staff finds the proposal does not meet this review standard and finds that the standard will not be met without modification ofthe drawings as follows: 1. Eliminate the third floor. 2. Minimize the landing in the interior courtyard, and begin the stair rise at the earliest point allowable by the UBC so that the visibility of the stairway and courtyard will be reduced significantly. Note that there is no requirement in the UBC to provide natural light to the basement commercial area, only to the new bedroom in the below grade apartment. The applicant will have to provide two exits from the commercial space. Site Plan Two existing crabapple trees will be removed as part of this proposal. The City Forester has required that the Douglas-Fir and Rocky Mountain Juniper trees in the public right of way be preserved and protected during construction, which shall be a condition of approval. The front and side of the house will remain grass, but a basement will be placed under the rear one third of the site, so the outbuilding has some pavement around it. This pavement is to be reduced as described above. Variances The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District, which does not have any setback requirements. The applicant will have to apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Special Review to eliminate the on-site parking spaces and to reduce the required trash storage area. Parking waivers have typically been approved on other downtown sites, where on-street parking is more appropriate and public transportation and parking garages are available. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The site is located in the Commercial Core, where residential buildings are an exception to the surrounding building patterns. These structures have proved particularly difficult to preserve given the development potential for the sites. If the jproposal is modified as described above, staff finds that it will fit into the character of the surrounding area, where the Commercial Core transitions into a less intense commercial and lodging neighborhood. 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. 3 0 Response: The historic building will be preserved unchanged from its historic appearance, and will still have a strong relationship to the historic outbuilding, therefore staff finds that the proposal, as modified, will not detract from the historic significance of the property. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: With the elimination of the third story, the building will be only approximately two feet taller than the existing house. The architecture of the new structure does reflect the era in which the house was built, allowing the buildings to have a successful relationship to each other. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Applications for partial demolition must meet all of the following review standards: 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 0 significance ofthe parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a rear addition on the existing house. Building permit records indicate that a basement was put under part of the house in 1958 and the addition was made in 1960. Staff finds the addition does not contribute to the historic significance ofthe parcel. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The area of demolition is not original or significant. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is addressed under the conceptual review standards. ON-SITE RELOCATION Applications for on-site relocation must meet all of the following standards: 0 4 1. Standard: 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. Response: The outbuilding is to be moved so that an appropriate location for new construction can be created on the site. The outbuilding will maintain prominence on the site and in fact will be set closer to the street. 2. 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. Response: Said report, from a structural engineer or housemover, shall be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: Financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be required as a condition of approval, along with a plan for how the building will be moved and stored during construction. The outbuilding willlikely have to be temporarily stored off-site. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The proposed new structure contains a residential unit, but is a commercial, mixed-use structure. The building does not appear to conflict with the "Residential Design Standards" other than that the apartment does not have a street-facing entry door or a porch, elements which would not be appropriate to the building. Staff recommends that the HPC waive the requirement to comply with the standards, since the ordinance is only intended to apply to purely residential development. STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. Based on HPC's previous comments, which have included the same consistent concerns with the proposal, approval as submitted is not appropriate. 5 â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. With the significant scale issues of the proposed project, it is not close enough to the review standards for approval with conditions. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered). The staff recommendation is to identify the minimum changes that must be made to the project in order to continue holding hearings on this proposal. If HPC finds that there is enough merit in the general concept of the project to warrant continued discussions, then staff recommends the following: Continue the application to September 22, 1999 with the following direction: 1. Eliminate the third floor. 2. Minimize the landing in the interior courtyard, and begin the stair rise at the earliest point allowable by the UBC so that the visibility of the stairway and courtyard will be reduced significantly. 3. Add an overhead door at the trash storage area. 4. HPC shall waive the "Residential Design Standards." â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Although HPC has expressed the same concerns at each of the meetings held on this project, some of the most significant items, such as the height of the tower, have not been adequately addressed. Without modifications as described above, or if the HPC does not feel that the current project has any merit, the board should deny the application. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated August 25, 1999. B. Revised application. C. Minutes from June 9, 1999. D. Minutes from July 14, 1999. E. Memo from City Forester. 6 4. I I 'DATITÂ£ I 4 k .: J; 1 n /#> .. i~ 41 3.waki .22. 4.* 4. * 4*4409*04- j> I * 1114.z- r,Y,% 4. : :Mitt ; '12~\\ 4 -EMWIV-- \ R'45Â¢3, I. TE', V, \, , 1. - V X ff.~ -A#ge"Millill iri..-#4~24-42: X.pl:- b,#Rk; 1 \ \ ~t & B :&=2=32*== r----- //lk"NE&~2-Â». ---- -4,/9/4 1 A- 1. 1 1. ~. . /-7-- , r . 04 /\ Ii-,9(13*li- - .. . 4 -i ..1//m .2 ./- PS quill - 4 *91Ng i - 1.. Ir/- - ZZ~ 2--2--_ r- IL_~ 41' ~, 70 -- E R - - ~1 \\ .-*--~ VectorsPC/ Jake Vickery Architecture Aspen 302 East Hopkins- South West Perspective 4/28/99 Photo: Charles Abbott/ Digital Arts Aspen Â© 1999. milli!11,1111 â€¢ r=-1 â€¢ 6221.1 'Â¥20*,sitrITÂ» ./ill"Bilb.'a/limi'lillilf dillililillimilitf- </~4 1Wq#Vi#ek'jq'ME:A r.*2.. *i'eizil-74-10*42:~~4.,.jif. Â·Â· . , 0 1.4 ~~~â‚¬ *f ~~ 9*33' f ,â€¢>Â·tA'*ilÂ«iÂ°~4Â· .4 vÂ· AJ .,Mt .. A- 1, 4.1 5 0 / 4//4 Â·0 " + 6.. 4 .â€ž,-m 4//M*/'. 217 *--1â‚¬0.Â»g T*Â»~333~~t.,~e,Â£~s '2{ . , 90 1,1,~ ,\ 4*Wl.*.- <:t:..9.4 - 3,~C. ..g==.MEO ' NN 1Â·*.-4 :Attm/:~ ff,461&Â«39*Z,#%&INT#4:~,, , tp Â·:~-ij* :4..4. .<.31.944-:84;. Â¢~flhz.i}xfffÂ·j!(ix:,~~; . ~ &Â¢M ?:t 45'~f-#f r- ~,<finG@-~Zf,<-~4-2..it .i ,..~,,,~~1~, 4 RIZHOR /Â·*kÂ¢j jt*1 -- - =r Ii:' . 4 f j 19 ~---44â‚¬4' Â· i Â·Â· - 1 1 , . 4 . - 1 1. . ... a 94~t . ~14~*EHOP-KINSArd-4 17Â¢pkoo \AÂ·.%. . \ N IM -- 9 : 7. 1 -3 -' . itt I. . 9 -i 1. 1: f. 1 f r .P. - / f i . -0. 1 4 .i 1 611 1[MAInth I ''i 1~ I 004&' 0 3=.- : 7- 12 6 iwid'll 4 - 1 . .4 . 4 IÂ· 11 I 1 -21. 1 1 7 f~Pl'j~mik.. I F V k Fl = .r# .1 3' I. . 2. I. f. " . .. - - 6 w. wilill." 111 4 -6 "11'#IV'4!fj, .ili#ii .1! fl,H~mt ti,4..: f . 1111~. . . 11 -~ I . "1. -. ,- - - . I. * ~.1111"01'"I.-<- 2- _, Â· -- - 2.=*W --4.24Â·954 #14'/i/ ~*-": 4 /4,~41/~P<#12..I 0 A:.0. 1 4 A @ 0 .. EXHIBIT Sunday, August 22, 1999 Historic Preservation Committee City of Aspen Dear HPC Member, At your last meeting you discussed the proposed development of the A. G. Shepperd house on East Hopkins on the corner near La Cocina. This small victorian , on a small lot, is over 100 years old and has historic landmark designation. To allow this to have an outsized addition, to move the structure in back, to possibly lose adjacent trees, will destroy the visual integrity and the historic charm of one of the last homes that reminds us of Aspen as it was during the mining era. If the current owners feel this must be done to realize their investment, they should not assume that Aspen as a community is responsible for their making a profit here. It is not appropriate for them to expect the HPC, Council, or the community to allow this. The existing buildings are in scale with the lot. The proposed development will overwhelm and change forever the character of the Shepperd House. Your position is a difficult one, but you are the people who will decide what parts of Aspen's past will be saved for Aspen's present and future. What will people say as they walk past that corner in one year, twenty years, a hundred years? I hope you will strongly consider saying NO to this further development of this historic structure. there's very little left. Sincerely, lufl.-Â®-4- Helen Palmer Box 1855 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Sheldon Fingerman l' Elsgg _11- I Box 8692, Aspen, CO 81612 Tel & FAX 970-925-4639 E-mail: sheldon@sopris.net ~l-~ August 25,1999 To whom it may concern, I am a 25 year resident of Aspen, and had the fortune of buying a deed-restricted home one year ago. When I purchased the home I was well aware of the restrictions it placed on me. It is my understanding that the Sheppard house was a designated historic landmark when it was purchased, and that the current owners were well aware of that fact and any restrictions that were placed on them at the time. Therefore, the HPC should not feel any guilt in denying the application for development before them. It is one thing to allow construction on a property to bring it up to code, or to make it safe for its inhabitants. It's even conceivable that an old structure may have to be torn down, simply because it is beyond repair. In this case, however, it is clear the only reason for this construction is financial gain, and allowing this to go forward will be a slap in the face to everyone else who owns restricted property here. Sincerely, 1 \/U EXHIBIT APPLICANT: ~lf y. 2/ LOCATION: 361 2. Depldns All-U ACTION: Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet allfour ofthe development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(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. Twn 0 PARTIAL DEMOLITION Standards of review for partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (Note: "Partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel). Standard 1: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration, or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance 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. 0 0 0 0 ALLEY 30.00' -7 31 1 1 11*E 0 'z 1 * f O i m E O . Z I > 1 . 30 1 0 I %3 1 1 07 0 2 mi 5 1 7 81 Iii O 21 ' 1 Ut- M 32318 * 1 2 16 816 & 12 EM 2 1 I 1 1 -ff f g Â»b â‚¬* i \ N) .J 1 -6 : J 1 0 : 1 , 1 1 4 1 -\ 0 2 4 i r 0 4 1 3 - I. On I . w N - , 30.00 &8 C 11@ an gii Q M /1 34 A . h /8 M EAST HOPKINS AVE. Â» EXISTING NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS -- SITE PLAN 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, C0L0RAD0 ASPEN, CO 81612 (970)925Â·3660 272-1 (TO BE DEMOLISHED) * SLOPE * SLOPE 100.00' 1131. Dell PARDPEl AL OFFICE <3f 0 0 0 ALLEY 30.00' U. 1 1. 1 9 1 1 m:. 574'. r 01 ./ 6 1 /'tls j O 4 M a ./ I 03 3-0 : 2 91 0 / 1 ~,162~1 - 1 - 1 l i; *i- IIi- 4/#4 0 h 4 1 1 O 3 NE I 1 Z 0 30 1 3% 8 CD 9 mo I *go U) -1 35 490000 /4 -4- i R i8 6% M * 31 i 01 N i 8.1 1 il 0 il 1 1 1 11 0 1 21 b N E 1 1 1 1 7471 I tz 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 *14 N 1 1 1 1 ~*mi I 1 3 1 1 1 1 r 1 r 1 i 3 1 l> 21 L.----------------- 30.00 0''A.IN- DD 11@ 0 C -. r<A 2 3 0 =: 3 -m % im Â« Â«t EAST HOPKINS AVE. 11 1> PROPOSED NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS N SITE & ROOF PLAN 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, C0L0RAD0 ASPEN, CO 81612 (970)925-3660 300,1 9 31IS 039&10Â¥d PATIO DECK Rt R OURT * SLOPE 30Nlj NOMI ONILSD(3 43'-10 f.- 12'- lot 11-10' - -- -------- --------- - ----0------ _ BATHRM 2. D AREA 1 HISTORICAL OFFICF ~ 4 CORRIDOR fl I El!112NG 0 . 1 - -. Fl r-1 -1~ ,' OPENE. b Bag* 4 27 -121 BURD.NO ~ ABOVE fEN-1 --' il =1 9 KLM RAILING NEW RETAIL/OFFICE SPACE PORCH EXISTING RELOCATED SHED m. 4 Â¥,NDOW BOX 10?POW BOX 0 r--/Filimil/Emmii-. Ip..El.*1....0 DN. Ny-01' . 5-2. 9'-f 5-7 : 46-3. 9.-9 3 1171 GROUND FLOOR PLAN "2 5 10 FEET NORTH 4/ .0- 10'-8. 13'-of 5-r .- 16Â¢ -t I ~~ATHRM Â· K u k h 1 . L; 3 MECHANICAL 1[9 }1 / 11 NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE Et EQQM 1 , . I $ 1 ]L~~' EXISTING STUDIO APT. UNEXCAVATED. â‚¬-4 2 .. 1 1 0 . . 1 . I NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE ME* 3 - . UNDOW VILL 5 BEDROOM .~ Â· bo 1-____-_ I INDOW IELL AS(M t. . 0 AUG 1 2 *99 ----- ---- I./.Ill-- 24-0 , 54 . 9-5. BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN Flt-2 5 1 AUGUST 4. 1999 - HPC 10 FEET ~NORTH 2 AUGUST 11.199 - IPC 3 4 5 6 r------------------1--- %. ...#I.-I. 28'-6- . 5-9. 5-SÂ» . 2-7- - 14'.Or ' r. I :ms ~00~ 6,2 9-2 i~ ~ ~ ~E# a=:.. 11 . BEDROOM 2 - m CD - i N f wi=- 3 4 dE E MECt CHASE / M m ------1~ -. P \ 1 7 0. O \ |DN, 1...~~ 1- CO 2 0 g 6 MASTER BEDROOM 1 I V 0 M MSTR 9- BAIM -10' 0 1- M < 0 .'lli . iÂ·-11- I 13'-33~ 23'-0- THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE 30.-0. e 1'-02 15-10 5-9. â‚¬ -'f - f -- I. - --- Il.- .Il -.I.-Ill -Ill -Ill.Il--- -- -* Il....-I 1! r-42.. , l ~~ ~ BAR YOp E & p ' DINING ~ ENTRY 1 0 I KITCHEN 6=al i Â¥ * 10 1 i Z 1 : L A'41 5-3. 1 E}AIRY b - A: 1 1-4 LIVING . :=~zIEZEZZE FIREPLACE & n / J - ,â‚¬*rht UP 45â€¢ -- --------- AUG 1 2 1999 r 4.-9 19 - 3. 4 24-V SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2 AUGUST 11. 199 - 40 8 1 AUGUST 4.1994 - â€¢*C 7 SCALE: Â·M 3 9 5 11 6 12 I - 91031IHOW 00 'rr 101&1~ SNIMdOH 19Â¥3 10Â£ SNV-Id bl0013 Cr--r Vectorspc Research / Planning & Architecture / Project Management serving the best in communities since 1976 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS August 12, 1999 Amy Guthrie Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 302 EAST HOPKINS Dear Amy, Please find attached revisions to our Land Use Application for the above referenced project. Included are a complete set of plans and elevations for the proposed work. These revised plans eliminate the "connectors" between the new building and the existing structures. We developed this revised scheme to address HPC concerns in hopes of moving this project forward. Major HPC concerns regarding the previous design were as follows: (1) the 'connectors" between structures, second floor deck and railing (2) the third floor and /or its architectural treatment (3) the lighUegress court and stair (4) the roof top deck and stair enclosure (5) cumulative impacts of all these elements taken as a whole on the property The revised scheme is submitted as a compromise between the functional needs established by applicants and historical preservation. We suppod the elements retained i from the previous scheme as outlined below: (2) Third floor: We feel the third floor of the new building is essential to the project economics and "constructive use" of the property as a whole. It's utilization allows the project to take advantage of exemptions created by the City Land Use Code to off-set the expenses and loss of use of other parts of the property due to historical controls. We feel that the third floor is less of an issue once all the above grade "connectors" between the buildings are eliminated and the new building is free standing. The roof of the third floor is approximately 4.5 feet lower than the ridge of the "tower" on the 303 East Main (Kuhn) property accross the alley to the north. (con't) 100 South Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado USA 81612 0 tel & fax 001 (970) 925-3660; email: vectorspc@aol.com 302/wrevp.dol page 2 of 2 (3) liaht/earess court and stair The interior court provides necessary and desirable access to the basement spaces, as well as code required natural light and ventilation and emergency egress for the occupants of the affordable housing unit. It is minimally visible from the public right of way and replaces light/egress wells that would otherwise be required in the sideyard setback along South Monarch. Light wells in the setback location would be much more visible to the pedestrian and more impactive to the historical structures. The previously preposed overhang of the rear shed wall over the corresponding basement wall has been eliminated. (4) roof top deck and stair enclosure The roof deck on top of the new building gives the occupants of the 2-bedroom unit a private place to be outdoors. We fell this roof deck is a reasonable request and provides a superior level of compatibility for the historical structures than the cantilevered and lower floor roof decks previously proposed for the south elevation of the new building. This roof deck is virtually invisible to the pedestrian at street level and has virtually no impact on the historical structures. (5) Cummulative impacts The elimination of the "connectors" separates the new building from the historical structures and significantly reduces cummulative impacts of the new development on them. The reality of a separate building on its own comer of the property vastly improves the sense of separation from the historical structures. Sincerely, / A'AM Jake Vickery, Architect Jake Vickery Architects VectorsPC p>f 0 0 0 0 0 t 10.0. 11'-0 10'-0. 10.-0. . 1, I . 3 6 -- :11 I.."........Iit -----------1- 0 1 2 ~mIf F=- =-=- Â·m~Â·11 mgm@ima~ .......':...... Fi i- 1 11!1 t . 4 1 0 'T- 11 2==- L -:: 3 ffr311 7 lEÂ®IEI[IE[[Il- i imimia: g 0; m 0 0 0 -- *IBII-5 A11 11=- Tulli- - 'Nti- 11 Â· Â· 'Al 111 !_ 1 1--1IF - 7[k 4,1-1 90-0- 11111. . L 3/1 J - - - -- -- a -4*di-L2VILTI -- 7 21.----- 44 ------- & R C---E~ --- --1.-- --- ..... --1 1 - 0 i - --1% ----- 1 & 19 â„¢& Â» EXTERIOR NS NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS Cn ELEVATIONS 302 EAST HOPKI ASPEN, C0L0RAD0 ASPEN, C0 81612 (970)925-3660 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET NOI.LVA313193M 13,n 1N]M3SÂ¥8 Tft 11 1 r------------------------- r : 9 0 -001 L.------------------- 1 lilli m P i m 11'-0~ 10 -0- 10'-0 1 :6 Uj LE. ii 9 1 6 Â°Â°. 1> EXTERIOR NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS CD ELEVATIONS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, C0L0RAD0 ASPEN, CO 81612 (970)925-3660 la[9*jiNHIHON 0 0 t; 1, 10'-0" 11'4 10'-0. 10'-0. 3'-8- 1 1 . 01 011 : MM ~ -- 15__1 EM r a I 00 01 11 11 11 2 i U D f f f f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 ! - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Iii 1 1 Iii IM /5 19 iE Im Im 1 1 0 1% 48 4 4 4 4 - tr U> 5 tc Â» EXTERIOR C NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS -4 ELEVATIONS 302 EAST HOPKIN. ASPEN, C0L0RAD0 ASPEN, C0 81612 (970)925-3660 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET N0119*373-1Â§3*Iiin65 N6119*373AIMOSIWi65- 7 1 9AV Ld,1 - 66 2 1 noftÂ¥ 0 0 -2 B It' C 11111111111111111 -_--- -- Â·-- Â·-- Â·-- ---- ----- 5 ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- M ------ ---- ---- I -1- - - ,----- -- 1-=.I --- 7-----7- - ------ ----- ----- ------- ---- -1------ ------ ------- O ------ ----- ----- in- - - kl.=.=1;=...=1 - - - - - - ------ --- 1--- - ---- ---- 1---- ----- - 1 ------ ----- W- ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- -- ------ --- ----- r --------- -------. -------- -------1 ------ ------. --- --- - 0 -- -- - - --1 -- - - - - --/ 7 - 1 00 1 123 llc. EXTERIOR NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE Via(ERY ARCHITECTS ELEVATIONS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, C0L0RAD0 ASPEN, CO 81612 (970)925-3660 NOI1VA313 19V3 1hln00 g=Â§11- ----- t-11~ 1~-1~ 11~ ~~~~~~~1~ 1 AÂ¥ .1.111 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 9. 1999 Victorian character but will be a public amenity and is not attached to any building. It fits within the character of the Historic District. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the clock at the Hotel Jerome; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. 135 W. HOPKINS AVE. - LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL, VARIANCES and PUBLIC HEARING Amy stated that the affidavit of notice has been provided. Suzannah opened the public hearing. MOTION: Mary moved to continue the Landmark Designation and the public hearing on the conceptual development for 135 W. Hopkins until July 14, 1999; second by Heidi. All infavor, motion carried. 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE Jeffrey was seated at 5:20. Lisa and Christie were seated. Sworn in: Mark Haldeman John Davis Heidi recused herself. Amy informed the board that a site visit was done and a worksession was held a month ago. The property is on the corner of East Hopkins and Monarch and it is a 3,000 square foot lot and it is a locally designated landmark. The house is inthe original core ofthe city 1883. It is a very important house. The proposal is to remove the addition on the back of the house which was built in 1960. Staff has no concern with that proposal. They are asking to relocate the outbuilding behind the historic house close to the street so that it has high visibility and create a new lot for the commercial construction. A basement will be placed under the rear portion of the lot. Staff recommends that the Parks Dept. be contacted concerning the trees and excavation. 2 Ecini 6 4 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JUNE 9. 1999 In terms of the architecture, the idea at the worksession was to make the historic structure separate and distinct. The proposal is to link everything together and Staffrecommends removal of the link or at least the second story. Staff requests that the HPC study the height of the three story tower and whether it is appropriate or not. John Davis stated that the historic shed would be moved forward and if the attachments are hooked on from a commercial feasibility to be able to have that one space would be better for rent. If it is detached it can't. The recess is ten feet back. Commercial would be on the first floor and residential on the second. The historic house will not be moved or have a basement. He said the development is probably three feet from the sidewalk but there is a drip line. The shed would moveeast and a three story addition is proposed on the alley corner. The architect Jake Vickery could not present due to a conflict of interest. John Davis, contractor tried to explain what was going on with the site but he stated he is not prepared to do a presentation. Suzannah opened the public hearing. John said what they are trying to get out of the meeting is direction on the mass and scale so they can proceed further for the next meeting. The fagade ofthe glass is not at the street level; it is behind the shed and isolates the little shed. The connector is 12 feet wide and will be office use. The new commercial building sits on the property line of the alley and on the sidewalk side it will be on the drip line of the trees which is probably three feet in from the sidewalk because the spruce trees hang over the sidewalk. The zoning allows retail or office use. There is one existing parking space and the proposal is to pay cash in lieu. The shed will have a basement under it. The shed is 150 square feet and will be used as an entrance to the basement and category unit down below on each side. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 9. 1999 0 Jake said one option is to attach the relocated shed through the rear of the shed to the connector and in doing that the spaces would be able to be linked together and make that commercial space more larger and usable space. Sworn in: Roget Kuhn Nicklaus Kuhn Roget said his parent's project at 303 E. Main was similar. This house could easily be on the national register in its present form. Ifthe improvements are done he felt it could never be on the register. He feels the parking space should be maintained, as they had to maintain a parking space on their property. On his property staff was very concerned about attaching anything to the building and they could not attach anything and this proposal has an attachment. He also feels the sidewalk should be widened like they widened their sidewalk. Nicklaus Kuhn, neighbor passed around a picture of 1950 which shows the 0 importance of the alley and how many houses were really lost. It is very important that what is historic is left on the site. The space between the sidewalk and trees is much smaller and if the sidewalk is widened the building needs to move back further away from the sidewalk. Roget stated that his carriage house is separated and not connected and it is a clear distinction between new and old. There is too much going on with that space. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan stated that the house could be eligible for the National Register. Maureen stated that there should not be an attachment to the house. She also does not like the massing behind the shed and prefers that the shed stay in its original location ifpossible. The third floor on the commercial is not appropriate. If the attachment goes away she would be willing to consider a 0 third floor on the commercial. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 9, 1999 0 Christie agreed with everything Maureen said. Lisa has concerns about the relocation of the shed out of its historic location. At the same time to put another structure between the historic house and the shed and detaching the shed further from the house is not appropriate either. She prefers a two story addition on the commercial building in the alley. The massing of a third story is too significant. The landscaping should be retained. Concrete should not encompass the carriage house as it willloose its setting. The connection to the historic structure is a concern. Susan said the third story on the commercial building is much too dominating over a one story historic structure. She would never approve the three story. The connector should be as minimal as possible, and not office space. Since the buildings are going to be connected through the basement she does not see the need for a connector on the surface. In this way it saves the historic house from being attached to the new structure. 0 She would never approve attaching the shed to the connector as Jake suggested. The shed should stay whole. She would also not want that space to be used just as an entrance. There is also concern about the height ofthe new structure, connector eliminated and the shed stay whole. She commends the applicant for not touching the historic house. Mary relayed that she is willing to go along with moving the carriage house closer to the main historic structure in order to get commercial space. She also feels that the commercial space does not need to relate to the Victorian house as it is a new structure. She has no problem with the three stories on the commercial. She would like to see developers maintain the historic structure as is and work with the basements, the commercial space etc. and adapt the historic structures as they are. She does not like the connectors or the glass. Jeffrey is not comfortable with the shed being attached to the new addition. If a basement is proposed detailing needs to be submitted so that it doesn't stick out above grade. The three story development is acceptable. A detailed landscape plan needs submitted. 0 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 9. 1999 Roger said at the worksession it was mentioned that the second addition could be demolished and allowing the cottage to be moved and in doing so that would give you the freedom to design a truly unique building. In light of that he would move to table to a date certain with the following comments: 1. No problem with the height ofthe commercial building. 2. A model is needed. 3. The new addition should not attempt relate to the carpenter gothic of the historic building. That means in the type of siding and trim etc. He wants the addition to be totally different. 4. He is not sure about the linkage. It should not be higher than the cottage door and totally transparent. 5. The cottage should remain an active building. 6. How the cottage sits on a basement is of the utmost importance. It should sit on the ground as it is now. 7. The landscape design is very important. The new building with the concept of the historic false front on the top should be removed. Stay away from the Victorian as it does not relate. Suzannah concurred with Roger and the rest of the board. The only possibility for the carriage house is to be moved. The linkage needs studied. She might be able to accept a little two story piece on the back of the building that would set off the little cottage and not plug it into the u- shaped thing. She supports the three story commercial building. The third floor does need some kind of setback. The little cottage needs to be a functioning space. Maureen stated that often attachments are allowed to historic structures when they cannot be seen from the street. In this case, not only is it a corner, it is a primary corner in the downtown core. It is impossible for the connector to be transparent. She feels there should not be a connector as it might prohibit the building from being on the National Register. Christie stated that she completely disagrees with the concept of taller buildings in the core area. It does not go with the historic blue print of Aspen. It has always been said that buildings will not be taller than the opera house. That has been the history of Aspen. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JUNE 9, 1999 Susan said she objects to buildings being tall that overwhelm the historic house. She would agree to the third story if the connector disappeared altogether. Mary stated that she is not for the connector but to preserve what little we have left we have to go to three stories. Amy stated that the site is very important and the buildings need to relate to each other. The Board clearly did not support the connector. MOTION: Roger moved to continue Conceptual Development for 302 E. Hopkins until July 14, 1999; second by Mary. All infavor, motion carried. Yes Vote: Roger, Jeffrey, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa, Christie 121 N. FIFTH STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - PUBLIC HEARING Disclosure Jeffrey disclosed that Ernie Fyrwald contacted him initially when looking at the lot but he was not retained and in no way will his decision be influenced. Amy relayed that the application is only for the landmark lot split. The property is 9,000 square feet and it is in the R-6 zone district and across the street from the Historical Society. The technical requirements for approving a lot split are very objective, they just require that the lot be the appropriate size and zone district. All of those concerns have been met. The only issue to discuss is the 500 square foot bonus. The applicant decides how they want the lot divided and how they want to allocate floor area. Bonuses and variances can only be give to the historic building part of the lot and not to the new part ofthe lot. They are asking for a 500 square foot bonus for lot A, which has the historic house and a couple o f side yard setback variance to accommodate the existing building. Regarding the FAR bonus, one of the justifications for granting a bonus is to promote the concept of the historic lot split. This is a good program for 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JULY 14. 1999 0 Suzannah felt if a wide dormer is proposed a shed dormer is more appropriate. If it is a narrow dormer then the gable shape can work. Amy stated that the applicant could have one gable on the south and two on the north. Or they could have a shed dormer on both sides. Steve said he drove around the city looking for a shed dormer on an historic home and he did not see one. Everything is gabled. Lisa said according to the drawings four gables will not work due to the roof structure. Steve said they would work but would be closer together on the north elevation. Basic agreement: Whatever looks the least massive is appropriate and they dormers should be all the same. 0 MOTION: Jeffrey moved to table the minor development application to 400 W. Smuggler until July 28, 1999; second by Susan. All infavor, motion carried 6-0. Lisa clarified that the dormers need to be the same and the applicant's options are a shed dormer on both sides or two gables on the north and one on the south. The dormers need to be symmetrical and below the ridge line. 302 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON- SITE RELOCATION- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Amy relayed that the entire project has been building on the idea that you remove the development impacts from the historic building by creating a new pad at the back of the lot. That would require the out-building to be removed back toward the historic house but would allow the preservation of the historic building intact. At the last meeting HPC talked about whether the new construction could be attached to the old building and issues about 0 height and architecture. 4 641 c lo t 4- ED ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JULY 14,1999 A new submittal is being presented. All the buildings are free-standing from each other. A fourth story element has been added and the architecture has changed significantly. Staff feels these changes are problematic. The idea from the worksession was to do something like an historic lot split where all the new construction is contained in a confined footprint, 20 x 30 at the back of the lot and should not intrude anymore into the space established by the historic buildings. The fourth story element is too much and is too much out of context with the historic buildings. Additional height downtown should be on newly developed lots and not right behind a very important historic building. Staff also feels that the architecture has become unrelated to the historic structure. Sworn in were: Jake Vickery, architect for the project. Mark Haldeman, partner in the project. John Davis, Roget Kuhn, Nicklaus Kuhn and adjacent property owner Bill Seguin were also sworn in. Jake presented that the 1950 addition will be removed from the rear ofthe house. In the process ofremoving the addition the historic wall will be uncovered. The addition being taken off already corrupted the wall and what they are proposing is less than the addition taken off in terms of surface area connected to the historical resource. The applicant feels they should be allowed to attach to the historic wall that will exposed after the addition is taken off. Jake said the adjacent building owned by Bill Seguin is a two story building and can go to a height of 40 feet by code. The commercial core is where the council would like the density put. The height of the Kuhn tower is 32 feet high and the height of the proposed tower is 40 feet. The HPC requested the separation ofthe historic buildings and in order to get the square footage the mass had to go upward. Zero setbacks and 40 feet, four stories is allowed in the commercial core. Coming up with a reasonable standard for these properties should be a goal. The second and third floor have setbacks. The setback is 18 feet from the sidewalk. The reason there is density in the commercial core is to relief the density in other zones and the fourth floor is the use ofthe roof top. Functionality ofthe roof space is important to the overall design. The applicant would like a one story connector to the historic house. If the space is taken out it has to go somewhere else. There 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JULY 14, 1999 0 is a subgrade connection for the basement underneath the shed for a bedroom. A courtyard is created on the site. Mary endorsed HPC's role which is to preserve and protect the historic landmark. Board members felt that a model is necessary on this project in order to visually see the height and dimensions of the new building in relationship to the historic buiding. Jake said he agreed that preservation of the historic structure is the key element. Roger asked the applicant to explain the stepback as opposed to the faQade creating more of a presence on the street. Jake felt that 14 or 16 feet wide is an historical proportion and he did the stepback as study to see how the HPC would respond to it. 0 Suzannah opened the public hearing. Roget Kuhn stated that he is opposed to the height of the tower which is 40 feet and their tower is 32 feet high. The shed is totally lost. He is also opposed to the loss of the existing parking space. This is aggressive development for a smalllot. Bill Seguin stated it cost him $30,000 when he put his building up to support his foundation due to the historic house being adjacent to him. He is disturbed about the lack of upkeep by the new owners. It is a classy corner and demands respect. His suggestion was to move the shed to another location and keep some open space between the historical structure. Board members relayed that the shed has to remain due to its historical signifi cance. Nicklaus Kuhn relayed that one concern of his is the garbage left in the alleys from restaurants due to the lack of space. He also relayed that the shed should be away from the sidewalk. 0 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JULY 14. 1999 John Davis said they lost the attachment as HPC requested which was huge to them. The HPC didn't want the shed to be a stair corridor and it will be hard to rent as it is too tiny. Bill Seguin's building can go to 40 feet. Suzannah closed the public hearing. Jake relayed that they have a ten by ten by 9 enclosure for trash. The code requires for buildings under 6,000 square feet to have a 10 by 20 by 10 trash enclosure and it is their intention to ask for relief from that requirement. They will then propose an area where two dumpsters can be placed. Jake said density is encouraged in the downtown area due to the transit route with a stop M block away. They would have to pay cash in lieu of $15,000 which helps support the parking garage. There are two trees involved in the project with regard to the digging of the foundation and some pruning will need to be done. Careful excavation will need to be done. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Lisa relayed that the existing vegetation should be preserved. She has concern about applicants coming in with more stories and square footage in . an effort to end up with less. The four story massing dwarfs the historic property. She would only support a two story addition. It is commendable that there is a separation between the historic house. The commercial building is too modern. Jeffrey relayed that a code amendment should be done for historic lots to limit their FAR. The four story element is not appropriate and he is not sure a three story would be appropriate on this lot. This building is a very cherished Gothic Victorian in the commercial core. The landscape plan is a critical issue with the development of this parcel, pertaining to the sidewalk and drip line ofthe trees. Susan felt that the tower was way too high and she felt only a two story building would be acceptable on this important historic lot. The building is not compatible with the historic house. The shed should be moved back from the sidewalk. The indentation of the new building is acceptable. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JULY 14. 1999 Mary felt that the original design was more acceptable. She feels the project should be treated as an infill project. Roger felt that the trash situation should be completely dealt with before final. He also felt that the interior use of the building should be addressed regarding the mechanical systems. A massing model would be helpful and the resolution ofthree stories vs. four cannot be resolved tonight. Suzannah supports density in the core but in regards to this site being on the edge of the core, it is a different condition. She could not support a fourth story. She feels the rectangular footprint should be respected. The original drawing had nice elements of the higher first floor plate height and should be continued in future designs. She has a major concern with the stairwell and lightwell bordering two sides of the shed. She feels a connection behind the shed would be better than four feet of dead space with a brick wall behind it. She could support a one story connection but the stair should be accommodated within that design as it is a full story down. There are other options that do not create an island for the building to sit on. Jake stated his representation is that there will be no visible mechanical equipment from the new building. Roger stated that he would also support Suzannah regarding the stairway and could support a connector providing that it would be less than or equal to the height of the door on the shed and the connector would be totally transparent. Jake requested consensus from the board regarding the connector on the ground level from the new building to the existing house. Three members stated no connection and three supported a connector. Amy stated at the last meeting a two story connector was rej ected and this topic is a one story connector. Lisa stated that consensus was that the HPC did not want anything looming over the historic house. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. JULY 14. 1999 0 The board unanimously stated that they would not commit to a recommendation without looking at the entire design. They supported Amy's recommendation in the memo. Jake stated that they want to do a one story connector in order to give HPC what they want. Roger informed the applicant that a connector would be acceptable if the design is appropriate. His advice was for the applicant to provide two models using the 24 x 30 footprint and another one that deals with an L shaped staggered configuration in order for people to see what the proposal is. David Hoefer, city attorney stated that the board gave direction which is the HE'C' s role. MOTION: Roger made the motion to continue 302 E. Hopkins, Public 0 Hearing, Conceptual and Partial Development and On-site relocation to July 28, 1999 with the following conditions: 1. All new construction must be contained within a footprint of approximately 24'x30' on the rear ofthe lot. 2. Confirm all zoning and building code implications Of having three detached structures on the site. 3. Consult the Parks Department before the next HPC review to confirm that excavation impacts to street trees will be properly addressed. 4. Resolve the trash issues. 5. Look at possible mechanical equipment both to the new structure and to the existing resource. Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Yes Vote: Roger, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Jejfrey, Lisa. Amy stated that the July 28th meeting would only be a worksession. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. 0 Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland. ChiefDeputy Clerk 9 R/2 3 JUL 2 7 1999 MEMORANDUM *. DIC, 11 TO: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Stephen Ellsperman, Natural Resource Specialia DATE: July 26, 1999 RE: 302 East Hopkins The following represents comments in regards to the redevelopment of 302 E Hopkins. This list represents a synopsis of my comments to the applicant after a site visit on July 26, 1999. Plans at this stage were preliminary and these comments may not be all inclusive: - Two (2) trees located in the parkway adjacent to proposed construction activities must be preserved. These trees are identified as follows: A) One (1) 34 foot Douglas-Fir B) One (1) 18 foot Rocky Mountain Juniper - The trees must be provided protection in the form of 6 foot chain link construction fencing, adequate irrigation during construction. No storage of excavation materials, fill, or supplies may occur within the driplines of tree. - Excavation on the east side of the two trees may infringe a small amount (2 feet) into the dripline of the existing trees providing the applicant utilize "drop down" excavation techniques. Any Exposed roots appearing during excavation will be saw cut back to the soil line. - A small amount of elevational pruning may be permitted in order to gain sidewalk clearance under the existing canopy line. Any pruning accomplished on these trees shall take place by a staff member of the Parks Department or his contractor. - A small amount of directional pruning may be permitted in order to clear the new structure from branches. The orientation of the building should not require large amounts of directional pruning. If you have any questions on any of these comments please feel free to contact me. fic, L/4-92 1 r---immr-1 1MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 121 N. Fifth Street- Final DATE: August 25, 1999 SUMMARY: This proposal received Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Variances, and Residential Design approval on July 28, 1999. HPC is now asked to grant the final approval to remodel the existing historic house and to demolish the 1950's outbuilding. APPLICANT: Small and Large Fries, LLC, represented by Mary Holley, architect. LOCATION: 121 N. Fifth Street, the east M of Lot H and Lot I, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen. R-6 zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 1 Response: The proposal involves demolishing non historic additions to the existing house, shifting the house slightly eastward and excavating a basement, demolition of the existing secondary building, and construction of a new addition. Following is the staff analysis ofthe project. Site Plan The applicant has previously indicated trees that are to be removed due to poor health or conflict with the existing or proposed buildings. On the subject lot, it is anticipated that a tree that is growing too close to the house on the west side will be removed and that two sick or dead spruce trees will be removed on the north side of the house, in coordination with the Parks Department. A full landscape plan has been provided, including a pathway to the front door and new brick stoops on the front and side of the building. Planting beds are proposed and are designed to address the shading problem on the north side of the building. Some of the plant materials on the site (the peonies, lilac, and yellow rose bush) are typical of Victorian era properties in Aspen and must be retained.Â· They may be transplanted if necessary because the house is being relocated, but they should be replaced around the house in the same manner that they currently exist. The applicant should note that fencing, if proposed in the future, will require a permit and HPC approval. Old House Maps indicate that the original portion of the house is the area labeled on the new floor plans as entry. By 1890 an addition was made on the south of the original building, in the area where the dining room is proposed to be located. Around 1952, it is believed that a historic cabin from another site was moved onto the property and attached to the west side of the building. This structure is labeled as the living room on the new floor plans. The proposal is to keep all ofthis construction in place. The areas proposed to be removed are an enclosed porch which was added on the southern end of the building (1952), and an enclosed patio on the west side (1983). The apartment building, believed to have been built in 1954, is also intended to be demolished. Only minor modifications are proposed to directly affect the historic areas of the house. The original front door off of W. Bleeker Street is to be rebuilt and where historic windows have previously been removed, new replacement windows are being installed. The character and location of the front door will need to be confirmed to the extent possible by framing evidence and photographs, and the new windows must match what existed originally. The design of the new front door must match a style typically used on miner's cottages, with drawings to be approved by staff and monitor. 2 New Addition The new addition is largely one story, except for a carriage house type of structure along the alley. In general staff finds it to be very successful and appropriate to the historic resource. The following variances were granted for the project at conceptual review: a 7' combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 2.3' west sideyard setback variance, a 3' west sideyard setback variance for lightwells, a l' east sideyard setback variance, and a 3.3' combined sideyard setback variance. The variances are needed to place the bulk of the new construction as far back from the historic house as possible, and to accommodate the width of the existing structure. Staff finds that the variances are compatible with the historic landmark and the neighborhood. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The applicant has received approval for a historic landmark lot split, and is creating two smaller houses instead of one large addition to the historic structure. Staff finds that this makes the redevelopment consistent with the character of the surrounding historic neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The house, as remodeled, will still represent the character and scale of mining era structures. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The new additions are compatible with the historic construction, but are distinguishable through a variety of materials and different detailing. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance ofthe parcel. Response: As described above, the areas to be demolished on the old house are recent construction or have been altered in the past. 3 The apartment building which is proposed for demolition is thought to have been built in 1954. It does not meet the 50 year old threshold for significance and has no other special architectural merit, therefore staff recommends that it be approved for removal. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: This issue is addressed under the significant development review standards. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is addressed under the significant development review standards. ON-SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: 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. Response: The relocation of the house on the site is minimal and is done to avoid certain UBC requirements that would have resulted from it being less than three feet from the new west property line. The relocation will not affect the historic character of the neighborhood. In response to the conceptual conditions of approval, the architect has indicated that the floor level of the house will be raised one foot above its present location. New clapboards will then be extended part way down the concrete foundation wall, and copper flashing installed below that. Staff is concerned about the slight change in the building proportion by having more clapboard added, and with the copper flashing, which is a modern detail. This element requires further discussion with the architect. 2. 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. Response: A specific plan, stating how the building will be braced and how it will be supported has been submitted from Bill Bailey Housemovers. At conceptual, staff raised concerns as to the implications of removing the house from the existing floor structure. In the past this has resulted in the loss of historic siding along the bottom portion of the structure and other similar negative impacts. The architect has indicated that siding will 4 not necessarily need to be removed to temporarily attach microlams to stablilize and lift the building. The other option is to bolt the microlams through the siding and repair it afterwards. This does not necessarily seem preferable to temporarily removing the clapboards. HPC should discuss this point with the architect. A plan for how the lower clapboards will be properly removed and stored may be the appropriate solution. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: Said plan and security in the amount of $30,000 shall be a condition of final approval. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The project is in compliance with the design standards. STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends final approval be granted with the following conditions: 1. The peonies, lilac, and yellow rose bush are typical of Victorian era properties in Aspen and should be retained. They may be transplanted if necessary because the house is being relocated, but they should be replaced around the house in the same manner that they currently exist. 2. The location of the front door along W. Bleeker Street will need to be confirmed to the extent possible by framing evidence (once construction begins) and photographs. 3. The design of the front door must be based on a historic example that exists in town, with drawings to be approved by staff and monitor. 4. All existing historic windows in the house must be retained. Where the historic windows have previously been removed, new replacement windows must match what existed originally, as shown in the drawings. 5. The HPC has granted the following variances: a 7' combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 2.3' west sideyard setback variance, a 3' west sideyard setback variance for lightwells, a l' east sideyard setback variance, and a 3.3' combined sideyard setback variance, finding that the variances are needed to place the bulk of the new construction as far back from the historic house as possible, and to accommodate the width of the existing structure, and are compatible with the historic landmark and the neighborhood. 6. HPC must discuss the new foundation treatment, which is proposed to be clapboards and copper flashing. F Art.1 44 5 00, I --4. Provide a plan for how the lower clapboards will be temporarily removed and stored 0 for relocation ofthe structure. 8. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures when selected. 9. New flues may be added in the location shown on the approved drawings. The flues shall be metal pipe, detailed in the manner typical of miner's cottages and approved by staff and monitor. A masonry, clapboard, or metal sided stack is not approved. 10. Provide a relocation plan, detailing how the house will be securely stored during relocation (windows covered with plywood, fencing around the building), and a letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 with submittal for building permit. phi Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 1 17tb- 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 \ retainfrepair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC )~01130 elements are to be added to the historic house tÂ¥at did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been *cifically approved herein may be itor. j3 94. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 0 < 9 ~The preservation plan descri bed above, as well as the language of conditions 1-5, Â¥-9, 13 and 14 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. j _97% 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. (4-14. 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. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. Staffmemo dated August 25, 1999. B. Application. 0 6 f-mmEFI 1 0 ical - APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION: Significant Development (Final), Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet alljour 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 thereoÂ£ PARTIAL DEMOLITION Standards of review for partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that aU 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 ofthe 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 ofthe structure, and the historic integrity ofthe 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. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES TO REMODEL A HISTORIC HOUSE AT 121 N. FIFTH STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, Small and Large Fries, LLC, represented by Mary Holley, has requested final approfal, partial demolition, on-site relocation, residential design review, and variances for the property located at 121 N. Fifth Street, the east !4 of Lot H and Lot I, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated landmark. The project involves removing non-historic additions to the house, restoration of the original cottage, and construction of a new addition to the rear of the cottage; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the 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(13)(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 0 WIIEREAS, 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 26.72.020(C) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel; and 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 0 WHEREAS, all applications for on-site 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 following Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(D)(2),(3), and (4) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: 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 2.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; and 3.Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and WHEREAS, all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 0 26.58.040 must meet one of the following statements in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, 0 namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 25, 1999, 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 August 25, 1999, 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 final approval, partial demolition, on-site relocation, variances, and Residential Design Standards review for 121 N. Fifth Street, the east M of Lot H and Lot I, Block 24, 0 City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the August 25, 1999 meeting, be approved with the following conditions: 1. The peonies, lilac, and yellow rose bush are typical of Victorian era properties in Aspen and should be retained. They may be transplanted if necessary because the house is being relocated, but they should be replaced around the house in the same manner that they currently exist. 2. The location of the front door along W. Bleeker Street will need to be confirmed to the extent possible by framing evidence (once construction begins) and photographs. 3. The design of the front door must be based on a historic example that exists in town, with drawings to be approved by staff and monitor. 4. All existing historic windows in the house must be retained. Where the historic windows have previously been removed, new replacement windows must match what existed originally, as shown in the drawings. 5. The HPC has granted the following variances: a 7' combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 2.3' west sideyard setback variance, a 3' west sideyard setback variance for lightwells, a l' east sideyard setback variance, and a 3.3' combined sideyard setback variance, finding that the variances are needed to place the bulk of the new construction as far back from the historic house as possible, and to accommodate the width of the existing structure, and are compatible with the historic landmark and the neighborhood. 6. HPC must discuss the new foundation treatment, which is proposed to be clapboards and copper flashing. 0 7. Provide a plan for how the lower clapboards will be temporarily removed and stored 0 for relocation ofthe structure. 8. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures when selected. 9. New flues may be added in the location shown on the approved drawings. The flues shall be metal pipe, detailed in the manner typical of miner's cottages and approved by staff and monitor. A masonry, clapboard, or metal sided stack is not approved. 10. Provide a relocation plan, detailing how the house will be securely stored during relocation (windows covered with plywood, fencing around the building), and a letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 with submittal for building permit. 11. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house 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 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. 14. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 0 15. The preservation plan described above, as well as the language of conditions 1-5,7-9, 13 and 14 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 25th day of August, 1999. Approved as to Form: 0 David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney 0 Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0 0 Marg A Agian Architects, T.C. MEMORANDUM To: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer From: Mary Holley CC: Ernie Fpwald Date: 08/07/99 Re 121 N. Fifth Street; Small and Large Fries Residence Please find enclosed the materials required for final review for significant development of 121 North Fifth Street The project has changed slightly from the conceptual package in order to meet the needs of the owner and respond to concerns raised by the H.P.C. I feel that these changes have made the project better and help to further preserve the historic structure. I have included a more detailed landscape plan, which outlines the treatment of the entry area and the landscaping surrounding the new construction. Both the flagstone walkway and the terrace have been eliminated in favor of a subtly curving brick pathway and a brick stoop. The entry stoop is large enough to hold either a chair or a decorative plane with annual flowers. I have configured it this way in order to avoid having plantings in an area below where two roofs will be draining. In addition, I have continued the existing lawn around to the front of the house with a smaller "garden" area just to the west of the brick entry path. The evergreen trees will have mulch at their base (rather than dirt) and drifts of perennial flowers surrounding them. The choice of the flowers will need to be made carefully in order to assure their survival in such a shady area. In addition, I am proposing to relocate the peony bushes on the east side of the house to replicate their original location. The yellow rose and the lilac bushes will remain in their original location if possible, however, if it becomes necessary, I would propose relocating them as well. Finally, 1 have included a new stand of aspen trees next to the alley. All representations made on the landscape plan with respect to plantings, walkways, and the mailbox outside of the property line and in the public right of way are subject to approval by the Parks Department and the City Engineer. Therefore, until such approval is granted, the landscaping shown may change based on their comments. As for the architecture, I have worked to keep the relationship of the Entry to grade close to what it is now. In order to accomplish this and increase the height inside of the house, the Entry is now one foot above the rest of the house. The door on the east side of the house will now be fixed in place rather than having to be replaced and its stoop being about nine inches above grade. 50 River Oaks Lane basalt, Colorado 8 1 611 fhone: (970) 917-8589 Yax:(970)917-8589 E-mail: aardvark@sopris.net I Web fage: http//mt.sopris.net/aardvark Nâ€¢rÂ¥* Marg A. Agian Architects, F.C. MEMORANDUM The stone base has been removed from the historic structure in favor of copper flashing. This will help to preserve the maximum amount of the siding. I have discussed the process of moving the structure with some contractors and have been informed that in their case the microlams that are attached to the outside of the structure were bolted through the existing siding, which is later patched and repaired. I have also included a foundation detail to show the anticipated treatment at the base of the building and the juncture of new and old siding. Also, I have relocated the mechanical room in order to assure that the mechanical flue will not need to penetrate the historic structure. I anticipate that all of the plumbing stack vents will be able to be routed to the new, lower roof. However, I would like more clarification on the condition of"no new cuts or accoutrements" to the historic structure. I have worked to keep any kind of flues or stacks off of it, but I maybe forced by the Uniform Building Code to include attic vents in the end walls. I will discuss this issue with the Building Official and keep you informed. The main massing change has been relegated to the southwest side of the site. The west elevation of the Garage/Master Bedroom has changed in order to accommodate a slightly larger program in the Master Bedroom. The roof now simply slopes down and allows for space under the roof. In addition, I have added a covered entry into the Garage, which adds to the additive feel of the massing. Other than this massing change, the project is essentially the same. My client and I have worked hard to make it a good neighbor and to make it compatible with the neighborhood. The landscaping proposed is similar to other properties in the West End and helps to preserve much of the existing plant material. The elimination of the stone base will help to keep as much of the original siding as possible. Finally, the raised Entry area will preserve the existing relationship to grade while allowing the interior of the building to become a little more spacious. I hope that I have addressed any concerns that you and the Commission may have. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding this memorandum or the enclosed materials and I will be happy to discuss them with you. Ce Ernie Fyrwald. 50 Kiver Oaks Lane lbasalt, Colorado 8 1 62,1 fhone: (970)917-8589 Vax:(970)92.7-8589 E-mail: aardvark@sopris.net I Web fage: http</mt.sopris.net/aardvark + 4 - 5%10088 ar,+Aoru Fe + + f *IP{Ne ..51!Â®t# 101-0,1 Mev UtÂ«.0*Up, - 41'MER ONTO e<Wn +16, * Mwoop UN ..1 *** , 1. - . 1*414. A '-1/.... .// -7, 4/ 10/1,11 T HEW*191 14 - MMUM EMerIND 4 I ..9 Â·f MEMINâ€¢te raFFâ‚¬F. Flmt,Ne Mvrmet{ BUMP 0 40. 4. ==11, 1 11!E 0/Or -f- 0 Mary A Avjian Architecog, P.C PROJECr: SMALL AND LARGE FRIES 1 M~: 50 Rive Calm lane DESCRnmON: FOUNDATION DETAIL Basal; Co. 81621 AS.01 (970)379Â£067 DAIE. AUGUST 11,1*19 0 0 0 . 0 ~- EXHIBITylf IZEJ ,mi A 43/0 42 3 3 VIB, A . . A . D 0. 0 i .. . 0 .. .lf . .. 1 . - . 4 - .. . 0 to. . d} , ~mil'- =li8kill.Ini- . ... I '' "24 - , 0 jr.. 0-44.eli: if 1 liu- tic& 1 -- 4 Al----.- itt. . ' . 0 1~f, . 1 . la\/ iKAâ‚¬ek -1- 1..- ~- - ah ... A, /t 1 6- 0 4 . . ,/'dkh 4 } , 3 1 ..1 .. + 9 61/P 1 1 ,4. , ' 14 . ..9'.4*Â»*ly - -1, '' ,)-/d'/-//Id/'-firt y.4>4*50'444,~Le . 0 , I ./ ff''laÂ« 4 .... 4 -' 4 4 - =-1 1 I - 1 .1 - I .. 3 , ... . -. . .. .. C- 44 Â· 72% ..r.*f# 4, te. D 2/. '14' .' - iMfÂ· 1 1 0 2. NEFY BRICK . /, .1 - - PORCH AND STEPS NEM ENTRY DOOR r BUILPINe SETBACK ~ ~-- IN HISTORIC, LOCATION ORISINAL. FYINDOM TC~ REMAIN-- F - REeLAZE eROKEN P~NE ~ 2- 11 V lott fil- V 1 1 O -,;05-Â»4 0 0 ' 1 I ' Mary A. Avjian 1 , 1 11 j Architects, P.C. BATH 14,on k --- -4- r-11Â» il- Basait, Co. 81621 /7 1101- I LIVINe ENTRY (970*379-6067 7 1--3@ggl~~~| 50 River Oaks Lane 3 r 0 131 all - BEDROOM 1 m -0 0 T. 0. PLY. ISSUE: r~-1 EL.lot'-0. --- -7 ~~ 9*3, ~<--'- f J-~-<~ : HPS MORKSESSION: 7-j4-qq III HPC CONCEPTUAL: 7-28-qq 11131( 1 CLOSET - HPC FINAL: 5-11-'101 --npail _ 4< 11-0 1- 1 M i ~- - tate (23 -L I i ., .- ... 2'~IdÂ·'i'~ hi r.-1 U 1.1 - La I 142 1 10 1 . 11 . 1 r--0-3 2-d' 1 . - VEST. UeHMELL ~ LleHTMELL BEDROOM 1 0 - 7 FT--- f .65: ' Sh 1. * 4 ~~-- - Â· EXISTINe POOR TO REMAIN-- 1 07 -EV - - II-3 L NEW BRICK P OR TO BE~ FIXED IN PLACE \ a 1 - - jit]. z i - HALL .J -1-j STEPS ANI~ LANDING r. r=-7 1 d - EXISTINe kALL L' i -7 | LISHTMELL --- - TO BE REMOVED ~ (23 EXISITNe *ONSTRUCT~oN ININS, LISHTHELL a t==fl L \01 KIT4HbN ) ;%&1 #7 LizLI Tp_ 31 f 9 2 =~- TO REMAI~ -1- r =Q:ZI . --41 1 1 = -< 1=ZE] - NEFY CONSTRUCTION BEPROO'-1- LF rÂ·- .Z~ ty m 0251 - Â· Lu 000 . P; O 11-3 1 L -[5 0 Nt n 1 -------_ PONER |1 1 1 0 1- -9 -61[-139 - - 1- /7%% --j=*I ,0==Â»rl, ~ (LE) 1 !' IÂ· -i# i lf) iLl I 1 , .1 -- 1 1 Un--1! LAUNPRY - - 4 1 1 11 /L -'11' 6, 1 1 2 J Pill I ta 1 -0!r, 1. [33Â£1 1-2 7 1 ~*CHANICAL~ L \=71 /1 - .-6LOSET [7371 1 70 1 1-1 ..- .1 I 1 43 Â· -------------- Z | 1 W_ ' -' Up 8 UP . '1 . r / STA R/MUD ROOM BATH / 3311 [(351 0 u / = / A 7-0-PLY- 352 ~ | 0 06 f~ - - ~1 EL 100'-0" -DN C 016:5/ -----4 T. O - /1 77 4 EL. 08'-câ€¢ - 5//f ~ 1 ) MAO. 11 1 11 1 6 RAG 1 MEDIA [136-1 W 1-32-1 0 0 1 1 + Tia- PROJECT: EL. 44'-6. | SMALL 4 LARGE FRIES 1 RESIDENCE STORAeE Lle-TEL i LleHTFNELL : MAIN 4 LOAER LEVEL PLAN DESCRIPTION: V , Frn-91 V 11.7 - 11 El O 1 '1 r SHEET: 1--- 1- --------- 1 r33 LOAER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ~~j MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 41-.1 < 42.1 j SCALE: 1/4"=tri-O" ~ 42.1 j SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 0 0 â‚¬312/6=1 396*3 *30100 'N36â‚¬V 0 -- 74*43 ., 2.. . :0:3â€ž .. 4. .. ..,44' 4%.0. /ft:1.4,4 0 0 lill' 49'f,1 ORISINAL STRUCTURE MITH U~ NER ASPHALT SHINGLES .'/4, E--------3 j 1 1 z.'+7:Â· 1 -----/-------7 ------------7 1. 1 1 - L.:. | Architects, P.C. %. ~ r 7,29.- , 1 ' .1 -4 1 1; f < ..1 Mary A. Avjian 50 River Oaks Lane - Basalt, Co. 81621 2 (970)-3794067 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 ISSUE: Ill 1 HPC MORKSESSION: 7-14-qq HPC CONCEPTUAL: 7-2B-Rq HFC FINAL: 8-11-44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 E---1 1 . r-- 1 S.T.P. 1 1 1 1 1 L ~ 1 NEK CRICKET ~_ | 7------ -3 1 -7------ -7 1 1 1 // 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 03 l' i ' 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 Ill 1 1 1 M ' 1 ' 1 12 1 1 1 Ill Ill Ill 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 Im [- - <C itin LO 1 1 1 1 21 LLI It <[ 5:12 512 NEW METAL ROOF 1-- W 1- -liu 1 1 1 1 lil O I -1 1 MECHANICAL FLUE CHASE Im 1- O L 0 -1----------------L----7 1 1 4 3 1-L i 1 1 1 1 L-----2, C ASPHALT SHINGLES . ~ 03 1 fy < 12:12 | MASTER BEDROOM < 1 1 ~ i n o per'. - PN. o - 0-7 c I 1 1 1 A 1 12:12 1 1 1 BATH Â»- L=U 6:12 III lili 1 1-- -UÂ« ~ 61 Â· PROJECT: 11 1 lili 11 0 0 1 == 1 SMALL 4 LARSE FRIES ------- DECK RESIDENCE 4:12 - ~ 36" HISH GUARDRAIL ROOF KNPOR DESCRiFTION DEEK UPPER AND ROOF PLAN 0 0 1 PYR-*22 NEA METAL ROOF SHEET: 0 0 r-3-3 Roof PLAN ~7~ht UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN < A2.2 ~ SCALE: 1/4"= I'-0" <A2.2~ SCALE: 1/4"=1'-O" 112.2 C] C] 9.3.1 4A 79..e J - r J O-0 /1 /1 A /11\Â« ~ 1 9 1 V *4 V..2 1 2--lf ff V I 3 -1> 4 0 -0 f--~ Mary A. Avjian Architects, P.C. 1. t lt' - ------- -PIHee ~51/Ii,PINe F~*7142 50 River Oaks Lane t- --1 ---7 - -:__ 7,4- --74--'- 7, --7- ---1.-.01-_~_ Â»._Â»_ , Basalt, Co. 81621 ~>tp~-- 11--TZ-~-*it+----+,_~_0_. 1 1 (970)-379-6067 , 0-0 - I -- - N.HA+ME+VT â€¢s,MIN,14* ISSUE: - Â·-y'- 1 1 1 , lili I '1 - HIE CON<â‚¬,NUAL: 7-427 -11 kee. rirtâ€¢t: e,-11-91 11 I 'lll 11*c_' 2-2 lili Iii 1 I - .-l -/*ti- - - ---6 / 012Â·491 HAL AlpINe + 11KIM - \ -- F - 1-1 HN p eNTRY ~MU~r M To _3~ B --1 ---- - - -- - N HWP hi INCWW P -- --- -- - M.42>H 0,1.INAL - 1 1 11 - 1 -4 - fÂ®MAC:,T, Oflal N,â€¢6 flet- -1*kL 1.+UN P,f 111 1 ~ .--- i il --1- Â£ /L -- 1 - Li 4 1 1 ---- -HeH ID!41â€¢t 1,â€¢+401,40 4 er,f* If . 1-14, 1 ---- --- -- - --- >ISH 4077% FL,40,41 *44 . -. 8,<T,3/91+Ygifiev..Ilikjt=o helâ€¢4 14 2/96 I 1 i 1,O.EY,loo-d - 1 - ---- 1 1 1 11 : 1 1 11 1 1 1! fekk Meot+0Â·Niaâ€¢u ' 4 1 1 1 1 - HoFTH 506Â¥KrloN Chikel<ef 913 1 11 Lo 1Â· . ttic .1 Ne,4 #Hurf,v,>rkâ€¢4*xlent* 00,111&4/GTI'H KI; If- --*---1 Â«A,0 ill 111 0 i <C <7 SWT|0141.dOMINS HOFTH 17 04 Z I -1 O Ul O L 4: 1 1 F' Bill 1 1 1 .4... , i 1 \\ -Pâ€¢IMP Mul,â€¢â€¢ G to â‚¬Fr,4, ,#P el A NO k-ks:k;P TiN,4 . 11-1 4 3 L i i < - -- -Â·- -Nert P+Rrth/ eMIN,1,84 weRV#frap MIEÂ»L IwF 2/1 - lill' 1 I 11_11 Z D ~. A-~gâ€¢-= I ~~ ~ j 1 IL_ _' / / Â«_--232.-ZIZZE:2=2rtÂ».1.. ff):'i: f .Â· t --- - .- -- -of~letr-.,aPINe*TFIM - 111 1 Â£ -1-11.1-1 -74- -1 11 jill.1~ , ----- To Bg~ rl & VffEPÂ· Le.,el--. ,- 6 . ..~--7--- /-04-421-40- - 2 -- --/-- -- - 1 + IllÂ·# 1 To- fWI . -: 1 1-Â·i.-Ii 1 114 4 "t "1 1, 1~ 41 1~ 71+ -2-7 -- - (-6-*,----- 27UIC-21 I - ir, -7 [7---3 - ---- ---- - -Â¢91451'*Al, P.Wop P+Ia:'P.1 I t il 1 1 1 lili. ~41 -1 6+ 4 1 IN 1 4 4---2-~ 1 .6, 1 Â·F---- ---- 1 f fl n tu==341__sL==112-2------ I r ---- $-- N/,4 Mfol< â€¢*â€¢P '1 1 1 1'. i 1 , p. rig 11 - 1 ...a---1.--- 'll---if1- - 1 4' 41-------- f.pl l: 1 1 1 L--- 1, --- ~L-zz_lt.1--- ; _ A-Â·- - --- Â·Â· ' r 11,1, H 1/9/66 : 1 11 lili . 111 1.1 1 ! qi , - EHIFf/ofleÂ· FwoR k lai'.0' O - 0 1,1 1 1 111' 11 11 ----- ---~ -- -- - I -RI*I I ~12) PROJECT: 100 VT 10, ' 1 4, f,â€¢FTe,94 ke -- 5,4 le,P WitÂ·12Â¥Â» 17 FOM,1,/qÂ»~ ~ '1[1 1~! r.- - F :1 - - 2 3,01&(, :I- 1 SMALL 4 LAReE FRIES , - RESIDENCE 111Â·1 Pfflap )102 1121)/1 ,-,480Â£*H -_ e.vi HINCWWW __ , I H,â€¢17 TrilÂ·/1 , exv F.4, Hâ€¢OP Ber 14Â®rt 15~kott FWPotÂ¢ 4 Blaf# ~ 1 ~ DESCRIFI~ION: - Map* af,a '12 v-ep Mart â€ž~ , 1 EAST AND NORTH ELEVATION CaPPF FLA:*Ilrle ' . Fit N. ref#YU-' fefl,â€¢rpi.2121~18Â» , ~~ - O PYR-A31 i lt, >, SHEET: 14 ill 1 1 1 1 1~Rul fiep- 1+4 4011*10 ' 1 1**Hortelt0â€¢6' GOHOET~ Â»u. 0 U.*frweÂ» -----7- 3 1 I t- I lÂ»Im leal- i A3.1 I -- 293*~7-1//,4 rp~*9[ 94*~TION - O - O â‚¬3164 3929+47 9 33 6 -4 . 0 -0 ,\ 1\ l / 10 - I, 1 , /391,--*fl-7 -4- -19Â»-,fl.7, / t-/~ -- ,-0- I - yok-Z- + T 62 -/Pr~. Ing // 5- -,â€¢14'PÂ»6'r *11 r*l,64 ~ '' 2 lili i !1 hill,iIi w Iii - 23=104-ALL , . 1 ij. k lilli lilli '11 41't! 4 11 r.--121-01--7-, - r. '72.-- - Mal,L let,Fl Ne Â« ~ 1 1! 1 11 .u .- - 6- rnil Hi4 '~LIEFJ_-1,~ b:. . .--~:--- - 11 ht,1.1 1 litlili 1 -2..4 i' ~' : HAM-1 , 1 1 - 2 -' ------19 TP\0 Mary A. Avjian , 1 L.A.=r- -- - - - *~9 94*4A Architects, P.C. ' 49.Â». 27---- I . , L; r ,- - - LI/i/- - 4,-Â«- --,14Â«Â« 1 - 50 River Oaks Lane 1---f "7-3/71-,AL 1 /474-71.:2 z ., 1 ' 7i t*rf-*__1- . _i, - veM~16,1, 01*up 41:4144, Basalt, Co. 81621 / 1 , 1 IIi 1 ' 1 (970)Â·379-6067 1 / 1 jhrlf#ft 1 1 - 11 1 , - f.Â·7LL. I illit '\ lilli 11: 11 11 H / 1 l 1 1 ISSUE: . * 1 1 . ...4 , . 1 . . ~11111 -.- .... . ........7, Ufff l.0k__4_ . 0% F#*+48Â§*10Â·l 7.14Â·.drl - -.-1,=r--r-Â»40-Â».14-U .. -. HÂ·Fo Â·3,#Ge/Tw#4- 'Â· 1-lell - J . - . ./ I ... /7 - -7. 1, It 1 1 11 11 1 lili, 1: -, . 1 1 MÂ·FoÂ·fiMAG: DÂ·ItÂ·19 -JA-- 911-- 1 '' lili Itt-- 1 1 il t- 11747 f :1 1, 11/ . 1 1 1 1 0UfÂ·Â·IC*( 0, H #60./7, 9.9% 6, 1 1 1 1- I_UL-L_ ... 1 5 - 11 1 1 1 41 ---1 111 (. i Â·1 '11 1 AfFI'le[7 -TBI â€¢4 1 1 1 lilli 1----5 111 i tit. i., i + 4 1 4: 1,1 1 1 4 111 MAN Geal. 1 1 '1 1 if ; 4 /11 1 1 111 :11 I+IN 0,66 1 - 11 . -A - - 1.1 TOÂ· Fl~Â· I 1#'-O" rer: 1 106-0 11. 11 1 \ 11" 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 - lilli 004*T ' + MI 0**fit 0,4, ' P,au 1 1/ U :1 . i 1 1 1: 11 i WHEft 0466 1 11* 1 1 1 WHe ke,veL- 1 T, 0, #NG, - he,OTI ON la,1<114* alent '1'ath:&22213- 4-3 )49.11-OIl IL-1-1 14 4 ie- z // ./ j y -- BOW APX ,t*pe\,64 MectÂ·INI~ M.1,0 4 424:.el" , 1' 11 1 vefl-k:/t H:220 4APINe 0-Mer-6 I i < 29 122:7r Hi,4pap4 '111 111 1 \1 ' " -roti--,/Art,tif7trZ/TE- -ivi 7-7-77 Â£ ~ 1111,1 I ty==2 - 14.44 01"& pivp 1 liLli , i Â·Iltful 1 1 1 , Â«1-/toÂ«i,~-Â«771<f~T~~t/~~<2<tto / 4 1 ~111/. .\1111 111- 4 1 ..1, 7 1 , 74 1 1117 '1'11 1 - 1 -I. .- ....,2,73?47- 74- 0- -7.-- , ' T-7-T---7-7-1- L ' - $ \ 6 il- 01 i -T---~ j 1 1 '' lili lili 7 01Â·41Â·--Â·7~3~'-twru'I .474-7LL-#4-4.4-- / 1 0 1 1 Â·' ' 1#il~ ~' ~ 11 " - ' : -4&1LL//~24~-2 , --4--I. .. 1 111 , .lilli 1Â·11 UffefÂ· UNEL 1 ;- i~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i ~ -Li~ i Â»IÂ»u Â·~ ~ it // 1 .... j' r ..1 1 1 / 1 1 1 , 1 [ 1 .1 . lilli ' , i 1- - -- 111 li 1 - 11 5 ' 1 & i 11 1'' ..]. ,Â¤â€¢80 +RP:rrEN wa,2 11 1~ r[ 1~ 11. 1 ~ ..1 1 1 1 , 3~ ~ ~ , '1 421 rte L_- L_1-ig -i*-1- . 1 1 P 1 .1 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 . . 1 01 1 . , 40ff*qED hdelÂ»,0 P-,5 4 1 1 1 1 1 .1 r-It- ! (11 14 1. 1 1 --iu=j jl ,]1 [ 96311 -] i 1 -11 E-- 2-11 1 1 11 1.11 1 1-4 I ; t 1 1.11. 11 1 1 i 1,1 111 P 111 1,11 1 ~i ' ' PROJECT: Â· Â·' I --il - it 1 111 i kil 1 ---3 I in i 'j i 1 111, 1.1 1 1 1 *IH L.Dau 1 fi l' 1' 1 +4 1~ 1 11![ 1, 1 41 h i i 1 1 ' i ' , TOÂ· Firi,0,3 SMALL 4 LARSE FRIES 1 11 RESIDENCE 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 8.7 1,11 11' Ill' 11 11,11 Â· 'It . ~ 4'11 1|â€¢' I .,1 1 i t b H l it DESCRIPTION: 1 1--1-- 1-. <-'1-Â·-11.- Â· 11 1 F 1 1 1 1!11 AEST AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS -0 eroHe FÂ»* 1 1: lip- ~ hy--1 1-1-i{11:1111.t I f-11~1 -fl---4.841#1 lit lit' 1!1 1 11 1 1 i p SHEET: 11 1' 2. Â· 1 11,4 1 It 114 D 111 1 01 1 ' til Â·11Â·t 1 1Â£ 1 -Â· ' 1~1 1 ! 1 lili , I'llil !! 1 - 1 1112 9 1 1 AI'l WHBFÂ· le/EL 1 T#m& 68 ~--1 HeMT el,ev-T lorÂ·1 - - â‚¬316=1 393*3 133319 Hll=ll 2 -N I 05*&10100 'N3=1â‚¬V