The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19990526AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 26, 1999 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOON - Site Visits - 308 N. First St. (across from yellow brick school) 333 W. Bleeker 5:00 I. Roll call II. Public Comments and DRAC appointment III. Commission member comments and project monitoring IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS t,/7 13 13(, Coffa- Â·' l> N 096'./ 5036C" .05 6 /k A.)49 308 N. First Street-Inventory of Historic Sites and Structured â‚¬456 ,-4 ,1 5:25 ~~468. &22 520 E. Durant Street - Minor Development - awning 0/ Q j(gag-, kl i ~ .#- t 5:45 â‚¬**s=n cc , 400 W. Smuggler - Minor Development UuÂ¢ 4_c 1-6-64-to 44 / 4-4 l r SCL' UkuL- 6:05 0. 333 W. Bleeker 7 worksession t...k.~~~c:t-- ~9â‚¬63-Fa.'--44-/GA- A...Cu-nu-1 6:35 MA,~*FÂ· * 240 Lake Avenqe - Enforcement Action Lie. 7:00 VI. ADJOURN ';34'-Â£Â·/ 5.ri-#4~11 4 gâ‚¬ -C--- .OJECT MONITORING Roger Moyer 406 E. Hopkins - ISIS 514 N. First - Ringsby 920 E. Hyman - Veronika, Inc. 930 King Street Susan Dodington 811 Meadows Rd. and Tennis townhomes 234 W. Francis - Mullins Suzannah Reid 406 E. Hopkins ISIS 702 W. Main, Pearson 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 414 N. First POLE Mary Hirsch 811 Meadows Rd. Tennis townhomes 420 W. Francis Street Halperin 930 King 920 W. Hallam Guthrie Gilbert Sanchez 414 N. First (POLE) 232 E. Hallam St. Pace 214 E. Bleeker Jeffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis, Mullin 414 N. First POLE 920 W. Hallam 240 Lake Ave. 101-105 E. Hallam (not active) Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street Halperin 514 N. First Ringsby 232 E. Hallam St. Pace 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter isa Markalunas 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood Christie Kienast 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood ..Maureen McDonald 920 E. Hyman - Veronika Inc. 214 E. Bleeker 0 0 CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: '~34 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,2000 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 13,1999 214 E. Bleeker Street, new out building expires August 12, 1999 920 W. Hallam Street, expires August 12, 1999 735 W. Bleeker old house expires Oct. 14, 1999 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1999 1. 117 n. 6TH St. - Coulter 2. 920 E. Hyman Ave. Lot N Block 32 3. 435 W. Main St. Lot A-I Block 38 4. 930 King St. 5. 920 E. Hyman 6. 735 W. Bleeker 7. 234 W. Francis 8. 205 S. Mill 9. 210 S. Galena .ISIS 406 E. Hopkins ~Fl.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 0 TI 342 5179 EXHIBIT4g 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development DirectorL;#f v Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director JA<) FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 308 N. First Street- Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures DATE: May 26,1999 , SIJMMARY: This property was recently the subject of a lot split review before City Council. At the Council's request, staff has prepared an application to list 308 N. First Street on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." APPLICANT: City ofAspen. OWNER: William C. Nolan. Represented by Stan Clauson Associates. 0 LOCATION: 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCESS: The following paragraphs are excerpts from the Land Use Code to be utilized by the HPC in evaluating additions of resources to the Inventory. Staff has prepared responses to these standards to assist the HPC in its findings regarding 308 N. First Street. INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Section 26.76.090. Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures. Intent: Fifty (50) years old is generally the age when a property may begin to be considered historically significant. It is not the intention of the HPC to include insignificant structures or sites on the inventory. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community. Response: City records indicate that this house was built in approximately 1887-8. Originally identified as 124 West Hallam Street, the house was occupied by H. A. Brown. According to the Aspen Historical Society, Harry Brown, the brother of D.R.C. Brown, moved here in the 1880's and became the timekeeper for the Aspen Water District. The property was included on the City's first "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," which was completed in 1980. Prior to and subsequent to the 1980 listing, a series of 0 alterations were made to the building which HPC did not have review authority over. 1 In 1991 the City hired a consultant to review the Inventory and to make recommendations as to whether any properties should be added or deleted. The 1991 Inventory form on 308 N. First Street (then 124 W. Hallam Street) describes the architectural integrity, modifications, and importance of the building. As the form reports, the house is illustrative of Aspen's modest family lifestyle during the mining era but has been substantially compromised with the renovations and additions. The consultant recommended that the house remain on the Inventory, but acknowledged that its integrity had been damaged by the renovations. Following the consultant's report, the HPC held public hearings to receive input from all affected property owners. Attached is a letter from the then owner of the subject property, Katherine Levitz Lee, and a copy of the HPC minutes from March of 1992. The owner requested that the house be de-listed from the Inventory in consideration of the alterations. The minutes reflect the Board's discussion and acknowledgment of the changes to an already low rated house. The minutes from the following public hearing do not include a discussion about the Hallam property although Roxanne Eflin, then Historic Preservation Officer, recommended the house be de-listed. The HPC Resolution passed and City Council Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, which officially de-listed the property, was adopted. The 1893 "Bird's Eye View of Aspen"and the 1904 Sanborne Map show the original footprint and appearance of the building. (Notice that houses to the east and west of the subject building have been demolished.) The form of the house is still essentially intact, but it has had numerous appendages added, including a corner tower, a masonry chimney stack, decks, and other additions. The original front porch has been enclosed and the entry to the house has been moved from the Hallam Street side to the First Street side. A current front elevation of the building shows the original cross gable roof form and some historic detailing still remain. This drawing also demonstrates the obvious alterations that have been made. The effect of the alterations are significant and have changed the architectural character of the building. Some of the alterations, such as the tower and chimney, are likely cost prohibitive to remove. It is staff' s understanding that the owners do not wish to have the property re-listed on the Inventory or to have HPC oversight, but have stated that it is not their intention to tear the house down. Staff finds that while the house has been altered, its form is sufficiently intact to warrant continued monitoring by HPC to preserve what remains, avoid additional inappropriate additions, and to guide any restoration that might be undertaken. There are relatively few examples left in Aspen of the larger Victorian era homes, and the property should be preserved for the future. Although the property has been subdivided, staff recommends that the entire original parcel, Lots K, L, M, and N, be listed on the Inventory. The house that once existed on 2 0 Lots K and L has been demolished, but the outbuilding remains and should be preserved, and new construction on the site should be in character with the historic resources. Section 26.76.090(c). Structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic landmarks. No further action need be taken with respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence and categorized accordingly, as follows: A. Signiticant All those resources which are considered Exceptional, Excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. All structures or sites within the City of Aspen, which are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be reviewed according to the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" in addition to the review standards of Section 26.72.010 and 26.72.020. Response: The structure does not meet this standard. B. Contributing. All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for Significant; provided, however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. 0 Response: The structure does not meet this standard. C Supporting. All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered Contributing once again. Response: The structure qualifies as a Supporting historic resource. Although the house has been significantly altered, the structure still retains original historic fabric. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend that Council list 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures finding that the criteria for a Supporting resource have been met." Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. 1893 Bird's Eye View of 308 N. First Street. B. Vicinity map C. 1991 Inventory map, notes by Roxanne Eflin. D. Letter from Katherine Levitz Lee and inventory form with her own notes. 0 E. HPC minutes from March 1992. 3 F. 1904 Sanborne map. G. Front elevation of house. 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT 308 N. FIRST STREET, LOTS K, L, M, AND N, BLOCK 56, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BE ADDED TO THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES RESOLUTION 140099, SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, Section 26.76.090.A ofthe Municipal Code states that the inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has identified 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, as eligible for inclusion on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 26, 1999, provided a history of the house and supporting evidence of its age and recommended that the property be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," and WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on May 26, 1999, at which the Commission considered and recommended that the property be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC recommends that City Council adopt 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day of May, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ~,105/27/99 THU 13:27 FAX 970 925 2254 STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS @001/001 lim STRYKER/B ROWN ARCHITECTS TRANSMITTAL Total pages: 1 VIA: Fax TO: Aspen Historical Preservation Committee c/o Stan Clauson FROM: Wayne Stryker DATE: May 26, 1999 RE: Residence at 308 North First Street To whom it may concern: 1 was the Architect of the addition and renova Mon for the house at 308 N. First St. in Aspen. This work included the reconstruction of the small garage at the Northeast comer of the property. Due to the state of degradation of the original structure this garage was essentially reconstructed of entirely new materials replicating the original's architectural intent. In my opinion it is not in any way reasonable to designate the new garage as a historical structure. Please call me if I can be of any further assistance. 30 0 SOUTM S r RING STREETS U ZE 300 ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 970.925.2254 925.2258(FAX) Applicant: City of Aspen Address: 308 N. First (Lots K, L, M, and N, City & Townsite of Aspen) Action: Addition to Historic Sites and Structures Inventory Review Criteria: Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures. Intent: Fifty (50) years old is generally the age when a property may begin to be considered historically significant. It is not the intention of the HPC to include insignificant structures or sites on the inventory. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community. The HPC evaluation process is as follows: Structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic landmarks. No further action need be taken with respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance, and community and neighborhood inf[uence and categorized accordingly as follows: A. Significant. All those resources which are considered exceptional, excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. All structures or sites within the City of Aspen, which are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be reviewed according to the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" in addition to the review standards of Section 26.72.010 and 26.72.020. B. Contributing. All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for significant; provided, however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. C. Supporting. All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered contributing once again. EXHIBIT 117- NOLAN AND ALDERSON 15-322_ ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1=1 202 WEST 191'H STREET EL DORADO,ARKANSAS 7!730 WILLIAM C.NOLAN,JA. TELEPHONE 501 862-0202 EDWIN B.ALI)EMON,JK. FACSIMILE SOl 882-0203 26 May 1999 Ms. Suzannah Reid, AIA, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 308 N. First Street, Historic Inventory Listing Dear Ms. Reid: I am presently residing in Arkansas and did not intend to return to Aspen until sometime in June. Unfortunately, I was unable to rearrange my work schedule to be able to return to Aspen for the meeting of your Commission scheduled for today. However, I do want to convey my strong convictions as to this matter, and I am writing to you and members of the Commission to respectfully request that my house not be listed on the City of Aspen Inventory ofHistoric Sites and Structures. It is my understanding that the Historic Preservation Commission has only very rarely sought to include a specific property on the historic register against the wishes of a property owner. These have been circumstances where the property was ofunusually significant historic or architectural value, and moreover at some unusual risk of demolition or destruction. Our property is not of significant historic or architectural value, as the record will show, nor is it at risk of demolition or destruction ofhistoric features. We believe that listing the property on the Inventory will cause a significant loss of value to our property which is not justified by any public benefit. It should also be noted that the house does not offer any historic exterior materials and the exterior form consists of pseudo-Victorian additions. Placing the house on the Inventory will represent a degradation ofthe Inventory and may well cause confusion in any future reviews by the HPC as to what exactly they should be protecting. Briefly, this house was once on the Inventory and was deleted from the Inventory by Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992. That ordinance indicated that the house, along with several other properties, should be delisted "by reason oftheir loss of historic integrity or value." The owner at the time, Kathryn Lee Levitz, had strongly objected to the listing and had detailed changes to the house, noting the absence ofany historical materials or authentic formal elements. At the time, the HPC, P&Z, and the City Council agreed with that assessment and ordered the house removed from the Inventory. Nothing has changed to enhance the historic significance of the house since then. Moreover, the fact that the house was not inventoried (and in fact had recently Ms. Suzannah Reid, AIA, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 26 May 1999 Page Two been removed from the Inventory by ordinance ofthe city council after due deliberation by your Commission) played a major role in our decision to purchase it. Recently, my wife and I have sought and obtained a lot split for our property. In approving the lot split, the City Council felt constrained to request that staffinvestigate whether the house should be included on the Inventory. We can well understand the desire to protect homes of historical value. However, this action by Council was largely prompted by two persons, not trained in historic preservation, who commented on the value of the house at the public hearing before Council. Council was in a position where they needed to appear responsive to these comments. Nonetheless, an objective assessment ofthe historical value ofthe house needs to prevail. In the 1980's, this house was completely redone in its exterior forms and materials. Many changes were added which may appear to be historical in nature, but are simply not authentic. The house no longer offers anything which might be properly protected by the Historic Preservation sections of the code. It should also be noted that the house is not at risk. As the owners ofthe property, we have repeatedly stated our intention to remove some of non-historical (and formally detrimental) additions to the house in order to complete the lot split. We have worked with Amy Guthrie to identify the original shape ofthe foundation and retain that historical shape, even though doing Â© so requires us to appear before the Board of Adjustment for a setback variance. We also intend to restore the original orientation of the entrance to the house. The lot split itself ensures that the floor area for significant changes to the property will not be available. And, finally, Ordinance 30 provides a substantial measure of protection in ensuring that any exterior changes will be generally compatible with neighborhood scale and streetscape elements. In summary, we are opposed to having our house listed on the Inventory. We do not believe that the house merits inclusion on the Inventory and feel it would impose an unnecessary and inappropriate financial hardship upon us to have it listed. Our intention is to work respectfully with the house, bearing in mind that it has lost its historic qualities and features, but still can continue to be a good neighbor and contribute to the neighborhood streetscape. We hope that the Historic Preservation Commission will respect our desire, as well as the evidence that the house is no longer of historic significance, and recommend against listing the property. You cooperation and understanding as to the importance ofthis action as it affects my property is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, 1 -0(/*2 :lio.6,A. William C. NNian, Jr. 0 CC: Members of the Historic Preservation Commission Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer 1 . 14 1-mmir-~ 115Â»79 2 1 RICHARD KLEIN - - 3--1 - 1 May 26,1999 Suzannah Reid, AIA l Chair Person Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ~ City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Historic Inventory Status Residence at Lots K,L,M,N, Block 56 City of Aspen Dear Suidinnah. Mr. and Mrs. Nolan have retained the services of my firm to assist with the prepcration of documents required for the Lot Split of their property and to produce the necessary Architectural Drawings for the remodel of their house. They have also asked me to assess their house relative to H.P.C. Inventory Status. The original residence on Lots M and N was constructed around the tum of the century and the house appears on the 1904 Sanborn Map. Through the yeclrs. quite a number of additions have occurred, with the latest major renovation in 1984. As the house now sits, every elevation has been significantly modified. The South facing Bevation, on Hallam Street is no longer the entry to the house, the Entry Porch no longer exists having been replaced by an addtion which wraps around to the East. Above, is an awkward looking Turret and Deck, which hides the existing roof. A new Freplace with a " very red" brick has been added to the front gable. Across the property line to Lot L, a new Entry Foyer has been built. There is also a new Curb Cut to access a long clriveway to the Garage at the back of the lot. The West Elevation from First Sfreet is now the entry to the house. An Entry Faye, mentioned at the South Bevation, with spiral stair to a Icrge deck on the second floor has been added where the original Freplace was demolished. There is also an addition connecting the original house to an Out Building located in the vicinity of the original Caniage House. On the 1904 Sanborn Map, a Carriage House is located in the same corner of Lot M, but is a different size, more rectangular, and actually sits on the property lines. The North Bevation from the Alley is totally changed. Even though the current former Out Building is probably the oldest addition, it does not seem to be the original Carriage House. The Shed and Garage have also been added in locations where the 1904 Sanborn Map shows there were no structures. One should note that the Gcrage does not have access from the Alley. It is accessed by the clriveway from Hallam Street. 1- . S 0 The East Bevation, ac~acent the neighbor, has additions along almost the entire length of the building. There is the addition where the original Entry Porch was located with the Turret and Deck above discussed at the South 8evation. There is a Shed built along-side another addition ac#acent the original Kitchen. And there is the infill addition connecting to the Out Building discussed at the West Elevation. A new solid wood fence about 6-ft. high with sandstone piers, running along the property line, blocks the house from Hallam and First sireets. There is also new 6-ft. high Iron fences at the new Entry and Driveway. I have tried to illustrate to you the amount of modifications, which have been made to the original residence. It is my professional opinion that this residence is no longer anything resembling a once historic house and should not be required to have H.P.C. Inventory status. Also, it should be pointed out that this residence was removed from the H.P.C. Inventory in 1992 by ordinance. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Richcrd Klein, Architect 0 CC: Mr. and Mrs. Nolan Stan Clauson Lane SchiUer 1 4.. â€ž.1 1. 1- 3 0,Â¢" ..9- N . . 1 '1*:Â¥46.14 . M K /\ I -4 D:f-FLP~ I~~~~0~~~/.~~ <~~~.i ~ 1A4' 9 22@....~.~40 7-"~b- *t.Â£,* -,-9 - -===Â« 4-4- . -.1 ht ,10â€¢*t2*mâ€¢52 - ..., 0 .. 9 54=?Sl.':16'D ?, .<124,0 ,".4*34 * ' ~ Â· gite;Â· ....r â€ž. *.'ll~: .141...1.Il- ..I -fi..#. .. , 11'11,11 $ -Tr*i-41>j'l, Fi~al.3,9 4 A- r..... r . I , 111 1 'ma'w-- 6 ,-4 _UL-- 5 1, er ... 1 - 4.16. 1 , 6 L . Â¥ 481 242*+IdÂ¥625, - *rk ; 4 4 4 20 I -Â»2.2... .9./8 1 ' . a , DE % er, 1,1 ' ...9 1 .6 I ... , , 11 Â·t, ..1, 1 1 , . 1 23Lm' ...... , ..1 1 - '10,>&,wu.+ f,4 3.t..... .7..<242 -9 * ttÂ·* 9.14----03&*14 "41. '* T- 4 U ' 11 . 1 11,1 11 =â‚¬.4Â£7,{.f:~5*~*pi,~6:.4~=.*T~,f1,~, ;. : 14 1.t 0 4.4+4< ..:. i *~E.~AL 1 0,44 14 *143* , . 40 , Â¥ 4fs-7- ' 6*~ ,* 243Â·~ . , .11, 1 111 - , . 1,1 .1,Â¥ 1 9 1 r 1,1.1 ..fl 9,7â‚¬ ..179 0 1. 1 .6 1. ... . s 1. 1/2 ,+S , 1.1 b .31 / 2 j 2 . + eA0â„¢ Â· 7 Â·Â· u C. i .A. 1 ... ' ~~ 't Â· 2 j .+ i , + .livil~M:/Flrs,0 ,, i "405*04. ..d .21 1 *r . 0 1 .1 / % ft./ 4 1 Â· 14.- . * e 1 1 4 1.11 4 1 . ' 0 I i i, .. 1 . 11 9 . 6..... Â¢ 11 lif'K,W W â‚¬" , ..01.0521 iyy, 49 t. 1 11, .f 1 1... t 4 1 li.. 1 !./4 . ,.. 111 11 1 , , M~ t.. , 3 , . lilT 1 .1 1 /.9 'i ; 1 ' Â£ 664' 4 4 1 1 5 Â·=, Itt' 1 4. .1 9.4 4 .... 1 . 1 - 4 1 1 - 48 . 9 0 37.-6 1. 1 111 .. 1 , 1 1 I - . -,1 ~. -4-Â·-c :-4-Mt#=96*= .Al <P:le 2.. -2. Â· ~/3*y-~7292a~age> *4Â£,9AA,L~~L~~4~~~:~J~~7 V//'/It...311*.F .4 06 /4 2*3y'41<.*.e"*#11 .1 /21. -,h~;-mr,El . i4~1/ tr *-47.-1 AYb&*'32 ..:u -104& # Â·i'/14/.4.-r 4 '1: r.. ' 4. --,12#4* ..9#!r~ #14*4_iA#4341& Si .<tat '40.13 "'44:, ix.'.,.6 i.0 .. , 1 â‚¬i *r ' hâ€¢':-- - -1:11 0 , t -*f-944'ff---2:I#1-. --4,ka .m_ 1 I I '-%= â€¢ -'I-â€¢LI. 1.,0 %4.-4 ' . . '482- 16 L f. - -u;: fl~Â·."LG l ;th:.,2,- 4 ~ , .7 . +42 4 EL I .16- 1 UL 0 *4 ~' - ' -4/445,~.:iyfw-1455*44 *.6 -P ' 13 19 , 1 ,â€¢I,L~.: Â·h- 1 6 l.Â® â€ž ; ... D.Â·w. '.t .945230*i.Z?#5..154: ....3.. .Â·- -<.- - .*:A:-91-,>ta tÂ¢F.~*49 ..:b ./ ~ 11-f,1 ~ .*-:-j< ~- ~-, ~ .433.4~=Â»-I./....:Et.I... . +.U>*0 -1 + t *.*' 4. 4 '. .......:.1 . - . I '. . i : Â¢0. , I ./,1 *N~ I Â·Â·t 113Â·-eÂ· :-94Â·-Â· Â· < IÂ· ~~ ffÂ· ,CZ.G. .. .,5,4. r mel . 4**24/ .:*24Â·~0 ., ...,.:*.Â·Â·t .....3j:j~,T: 923+33~Â·r i Â·Â· Â·144*.2id .A .(,C ''P;,.. 4,..5 4-4.re...1 -.132 -49, , -',4.Â§~rt"~,Ch.7.- .Â£.. Â· - ,-*:+7 4*:~FL~.5244#0.tul - f 6'DUL , 944,$1*044 9.4 " 4 . ->~.- â„¢*4/3.7..44 Â·Â·Â· - --N<=,fif:~~~~'*-d= Â· r Â·...:Â·17.9~ - - D ' . ...1.#-2*.. Â·-1"FJ*re *7:-49,.0~~.~ ~~..:~jrâ€ž4 #44, -(479.2*J#) .:2 )4 rf kimi, , ,Â¢,1 &1% 4Vy. + 01:r j,105/26/99 WED 14:43 FAX 970 925 2254 STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS EXHIBIL % 673 STRYKER/B ROWN TRANSMITTAL Total pages: 1 VIA: Fax TO: Aspen Historical Preservation Committee c/o Stan Clausen FROM: Wayne Stryker DATE: May 25, 1999 RE: Residence at 309 North 3rd To whom it may concern: 1 was the Architect for the addition and renovation for the house at 309 N. Third St. in Aspen. This work included the reconstruction of the small garage at the Northeast corner of the property. Due to the sta te of degradation of the original structure this garage was essentially reconstructed of entirely new materials replicating the original's architecturalintent. In my opinion it is not in any way reasonable to designate the new garage as a historical structure. Please call me if 1 can be of any further assistance. 30 0 SOUTH S I'RING S T R E E -r, Suit' E 300 ASrEN,COLORADO 81611 970.9 25.2254 925.2258(FAX) Â·A~de "1\ i *,C 13*24 1 **MA flip" P . 'Egibil /3 I 11 f ~ a X -. \lwv :9 4 Â·t~/ 46* LA@rlit .7 1- 'b 1.1 - E 1 -f, --f Al #74 1 WEL \ li ./ 91 -111 - -4-14,1 1.- 11 1 10,111 4 2 /6- 'LA tea=2 ..W ~*1 LME- 0. fl w4 , i=lar-9 1 \\F 9 -4 i ~bu - En p~ Nol an Lotkk *Rwh ~ 4,=#3*~~il~*l~ 1. - -~l //amilly. le>=f~// f~ CE=e==/1 5 ~ gl~ Red Brick 7*AITI 1.4 rip JU M"#65-=%-111. 6,271:%2 4,2 -L L Yellow Brick *g /*t -= 111 1 1 1211 11 141 1 1/ ; 9;01 k....'-I-.-'- Y 4l jm g 4*741**- Fil /jIU/;SA Nk< A ., 9> ,19-7- P; 2- F , A, a 6- - -C- (, A-JO /Le-t>&* 1 -Num. let,M HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State S ite .Number: Local Site Number: 124.WH Photo Information: ASP-F-26, 27 & 28 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Asven Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: 124 W.~Hallam House / M.V. Chamberlin House Full Street Address: 124 West Hallam Legal Description: Lots El/3, L, M City Asnen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Hallam Lake Historic District Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: * Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 2-Storv Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Irregular with southeast corner turret (e.21 Landscaping or Special Setting Features: None Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): Northeast single-qabled garage: clap- board; with gabled end verge board; center north: single-qabeled clanboard out building. same as other; northwest garage: single-gabled with side dormer. clagboard. wood scalloned shingles at gable ends and cutout verge board For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross-gabled with hipped turret, with brackets and gingerbread trim at eaveline; wood shingles Walls: Clagboard with fishscale at aable ends Foundation / Basement: Unknown Chimney(s): New: south center, corbelled brick Windows: 1st storv: vertical fixed light; 2nd storv. west 2 hipped gable dormers; 2nd story typical one-over-one double hung with shutters and decorative lintel; turret: decorative panels. brackets and dentils Doors: South Cold front?); 4 Danel West (new front ?); Dair 1/2 light cut glass with large transom and side lights Porches: Shed roof. west side with square posts with brackets on sandstone wall/base 7-- -. - AL General Architectural Description: (Retains original gharacter)but ~ Dorch has been enclosed, f ireplace re[Bcaterwith new masonry, steen pitched roofs of front qable and cross gable with long Aarrow wi,dows. verge board decoratinq the qable is simple, but has detail stand&rd horizontal clanboard of 1890's; large 1987 turret dramatically alters massing Page 2 of 2 State Site Number . ,-I Local Site Number 124.WH . - FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Construction Date: 1887-88 Actual Estimate _ Assessor I - Based On: 0;~ MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate__ Major X Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Completely renovated in 1967 on to 1980 42 GAX Â¢-4 1 7 38-(158 Additions and 6bate:/ Turret. 1987; west carport NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA __ Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E Map Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register - architectural integrity. Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: i Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of this residential structure historically is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture. although this structure is representative of Aspen' s earlv mining era. This modest structure is of historical importance by illustrating the familv/home environment and lifestyles of the average citizen in Aspen which was dominated bv the silver mining industry. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin Countv Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Archaeological Potential: (Y or N) Justify: 0 Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen -- Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner ~ U.. /992 1 06Â« 1 -6. rED 04*144-*y - . i o *r,uÂ£j d dja- .gâ€ž to 14*A-UA t" 04 :L. 6 -4-~ak 01* U 4 162<- a.D Uv~Â°7~ 24>tf. -%4 4,47; u 7 0.. to~ull k tÂ°lut. 19 *62&2*54-0-~ 9Â° 411 fltf- 2tl~1 t# 421Â£-6,nt . 1% 16*2 #A lju.r.k~R th, U;de.&.a -1,4.,ro a.k \3~ UL .4 -fyt ~4 - blkqj.Aa-, D*1-4.~i~4 Â£1C~L. t~ Â»ZJ~k~ 7*-. 0.0<Â».t;D .ehadÂ·PL). afCAU~_.tr--lim.,g-~Ja g-to L eu.*2 0-- a.j u ,doutod_-thile 4.b ANbo-es.....--*>. 4utkla-. qu, 1.0 cu. i.~udeL Lit A);44 ' 0111.03 t.d 46 kilk 40 Â£~02Â·64Â·f 4 64*4 79 ~,1+48,~4 -2;7 Mok,UIDIN 1, d A Ar fAL* 2 16 f ALL~&Sif~</54$164 Â·Â·60. 421~(b W. d# 060. iu'fed- J Ud= 9-6 -4-, 46144 611*L 60 .=3.71**Â£4545(. - â‚¬ .09 L/ 0-7 440- A.#t Q- Mae Cd be si qnii , en 111450,73 , r -50& 19Â·~1 l.0, 118 1\Ar~ - Otener: Ifdierge_ 64/1--e. Le \, U;*logicd Po#pri,d- 05 Aoust /las 120 rad :cql~_ ck M +J Pron* 19.67 Â«t; C /927.(Bluerri,cts -lt stbs-Fo-Kfide. a.te, auatleblet iS nce</ec~ cq. IL +Le. pagi- Evgs.-I haue- f.sonill~-1 06"jeige-, Â©7 ler;op d.ran,A' ouse. s 9 rbrA- i 5 no | 04tT Â©A ' 3~l l'IJ'lstij-, -TA e . ,EN.1 3,-ron i -04.\ s on First â‚¬+rid- 3. _ELL "v It c-kr;.A oldol ls" -4 * e- Aous e_ gre_# n eu) 4 have.. 6 egA t~Al 67 7- fcr/,9- -1.A t. f 4.4- 5.1UM O.A.A. Amo fe- Â¢/ O 1 14 aueds art -10 b, al;(d :A -14 ~dz<re, , -Tkes Â£ Uu)edÂ¢c art- Auu aâ€¢-1 do Agt- _(118:EL;-U<- _anitua_ 111.S140 1 C-Â£11. .. L, a_ -,_ 1/ 4. -11â‚¬- L~s.c kag Lea alter el 1ra~Â£1-;c ( 2360*, 84& ft'93Eirtr4I adik -r-,l<a (,Aw- ,-124:41 r . 51/4,7/" <44 2 + Se. _112- 1/1 I -1- 1 0 4 (1 41*t See $(~4_1*&Â£Â£ 1 5 IE fur.45 J Ltst- 5~s~ 0-4 6 06Â·UUS â‚¬- if- clia 461- 4.x,- i, A :gkA; al #e s> ened-; 00, A Â·oe.Utr >5(y 0 1l a- D :doâ‚¬,1 in U ' ~ Lwae_. 4-)0(LIX .61 j k>4 96-, 444 harLA /Motâ‚¬, k 49;2 alr af-#/ W ad doot r*Or O) WA 1 " uicfbfaA 9tal)642 aA O/cl~BAe.# nnalini ,+, CL Att.J " AJes -Utch*jaki.l , ~Ud-Cb- & ons__ot- no*twn#fl~ A-,s?Â«t-&3,~ -LA conise; on- 1 no nnes *ect SALM,41 6.des;44(Yed 404,2-1 /11 4 1- kd /,tttit) 1, 9 j e~er/or cAÂ«es. Elf 0 kfut tÂ¥trt/421 4 S fo#uy ~t~iARES dÂ«~dol#' 09â€¢W floug L 0*J Mbst 1 44 DJ -44- 16/4 0/6 -.22.-12-~ 1%210. Â£0+ pit; Yi--09 jal 4+ leS+ 71 27 46 u,g'61 iroon 2#ter 51,Â«r -3 curo UJ i/4 MIN no,hu C H AllkÂ« oR..W: RS+ 51-re*j (f~ 6 ; U ted-rs o C WIFf 14â‚¬f- %25006 dve,f~ Â» Ato .44 do 'c -32 -MA Aya lifts-*e_ vet Â£ leâ€žls ue* tor* 904 7 ne'460,6&01, #04)eueA Â«Ae.,4 co,ActeÂ£< A OP?â‚¬L 42 Osolich/4 no Utotica-1 41~%5;caikie. aJ W- 0 4343)274/4 , -i : A wo u.ll L. %0#ybpriak- -rk ass-e-'t_AE&Â£ist.t_â€ž ./2:014- afte*â‚¬tio#s 4)kfc-k bot- or /STOA'C,â€¢6Â¥ ;A-t~r ;4* 09140, ADAâ‚¬, , clle.-= - i \/ 01 k 1 A-~~ (7 /5 #1/' ' ' Vun , 1 11 1 1 -Li-A-0 Lt r.9 / lit b Â»A>th<4924 342 ~ 9P ' 1 U6 yvids - ' * . i RISTORM ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE +ORM atig' A,A 08 At 11 hoto Information: ASP-F-26. 27 & 28 tate Site Number: Local Site Number: 124.WH Township 10 South Range,85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Ascen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: 124 W. Hallam House / M.V. Chamberlin House Full Street Address: 124 West Hallam Legal Description: Lots El /3. L, M City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Hallam Lake Historic District Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: . ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Ete rrcb %1 C).RES"yr 0-6981Â£4 Architectural Style: * Dimensions: L: x W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 2-Story Building Plan (Footpuint, Shape) : Irrequla, with southealt Â¢orner ~~~~'Landscaping or Special Setting Features: None turret fe.21 *hÂ·lik- p f'#sul;C oa)n,4. b u, tiff. 444 (%2,24#;240~ Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and ...Function (map number / name) : Northeast single-crabled garage: clap- --1 ~~p~ca~toutqatli~dinad. ver~~e b~aorthie~,entaarrthn~reth~a~ian~lie-~YZ;LE,abled M with side dormer. clapboard, wgod scalloped shingles at Mable ends and i putout verge board - A/) M.-47*/s /Zi'p? Mi. F#Stit- O:V>ugg- --J For the following categories include materialgl techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross-qabled with hipped turret. with brackets and crincrerbread 7110 trim at eaveline; wood shingles - Walls: Clanboard with fishscale at cable ends --1 Foundation / Basement: Unknown Chimney(s): New: south center, corbelled brick N' e.0 Windows: 1st story: vertical fixed light: 2nd storv. west 2 hinloed cable dormers; 2nd story typical one-over-one double hung with shutters 1/6 and decorative lintel; turret: decorative panels. brackets and dentils A r ~#~ Doors: South fold front'M ; 4 panel A j tu) transom and side lights -a West (new front ?1; pair 1/2 light cut glass with large /Fal 1 tiQ~orches: Shed roof. west side with square posts with brackets on sandstone wall/base 130.7 M Mr General Architectural Description: Retains orlainal character but norah has been enclosed, f irenlace relocated with new masonry. steep -_ /~42t pitched roofs of front gable and cross gable with long harrow 4idows, ah J vercre board decoratinq the cable is simple. but has detail star\dard .,#Mr ~rizontal claoboard of 1890's; large 1987 turret dramatically lalters _ 16~ 1 assing 4 Â¥ Atuj 14(1Â» 44 1 990 0 *oft -han s. 6&1Â·- , Page 2 of 2 State Site Number - , Local Site Number 124.WH FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Â· Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Construction Date: 1887-88 _ Actual _ Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONG-61321.46? Minor Moderate titajor- * Nhoved Date Descri Modifications and-tate. comoletely renovated in 1967 on to 1980 ~AFIA{Al Re--ket.nd A+LJ .9Â¥3- 14966 Additions hnd Difte: Turret. 1987; west carport NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register . - Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A ,-' B_ C- D ...*.- E--.- Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation I-! - Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or - architectural integrity. 0 - Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: 0 Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of this residential structure historically is not of those who owned it or lived in it. nor of its architecture. althouah this structure is representative of Asven's early minina era./This modest structure is of historical imgortance by illustrating tlfe family/home environment _ and lifestvles of the average citizen in Aspen which was dominated bv , the sily,r mining industrvl 0/*st Other Redor*IngMEformattion -he.i v'h Specific References to the Structute/Building: , Pitkin County Court- house Records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance Mans Archaeological Potential; - CY or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Asnen Historic Preservation Committee - Citv of Asnen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner L-0- 1 jo lA 2 6 l~- E- Historic Preservation Committee ~ Minutes of March 18, 1992 the neighborhood character there are two new huge structures near by and then you have the Holiday House and across the street from the Holiday House is the Molly Gibson Lodge and those are virtually next door to Mrs. Day's house. I don't think there is a community character left and do not feel the house is old enough to qualify. It has no architectural significance at all. Roxanne: Our form indicates that the property was built in the 1880's or early 1900 hundreds. Age is not the limiting factor for being on the inventory. There are buildings built as late as 1952 that are on the inventory. Tam Scott: The house is non-descript and basically falling apart. It has leaks etc. Bill: Do you know of any work that has been done since the last time we evaluated this house? Tam Scott: I don't think any work has been done. Roxanne: This inventory has never been re-evaluated as you are doing right now. In 1986 numbers were applied to the existing inventory, they were not re-evaluated structures. I agree that the context in that area has eroded over time but there are numerous little houses in that vicinity that are important. Its overall contribution is to the character of the town. It is an example of a residential structure representative of a working class family of the mining era. Bill: We will take the information given to us and the members of the Board should drive by and look at the house taking everything that was presented here into account. 124 W. HALLAM -7R Catherine Lee, owner: In 1987 I came to the meeting when they were / ~ i numbering the properties as you Â·can see by the letter in your packet. Since then there has been more extensive work done. I also have the blue prints. I am opposed being on this list. The house has no significance in *american history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture. The integirty of the location, the design, setting and materials are new. The feeling that you are looking at was created by me. I added all the trim and all the details. Everything on that house that you see that looks victorian has been added by yours truly. There are no events associated with my property that has made it a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of Aspen. No one of historical significance has lived in this home. I created a ~ victorian look with my artistic bays and these are my creations. 2 Historic Preservation committee i ~ Minutes of March la, 1992 I would not be eligible to the historic register as the house has been changed 360 degrees. If you notice the Sanborn map shows the foot print of the present house. All private property owners have the right to object to be listed. The. qualities have ceased. to meet the criteria of the list. I have petitioned you in writing to be removed from this list and I do not wish to become legally responsible by being on the fraudulent list which my property causes due to lack of integrity. I went through the structure form and it is incorrect. Bill: Do you have pictures of what the house looked like before it was redone. Roger: I think the Stroh's added the glassed in porch and moved the fire place. Catherine: The Taylor's did the kitchen and added a wing. There is not a corner on that house that has not been changed. Jake: What is this house on the inventory. Roxanne: It is the lowest rating. 0 Jake: Is it retrievable? Roxanne: Barely, and it was given a 2 in the 1986 rating. In the 1980 rating it was the lowest which was notable. Bill: I feel all the committee members should site visit this property. Roxanne: Your final action takes place by a resolution the 25th o f March. Between now and then you have to be thinking what action you want to take. It then goes to Council in an ordinance form. The public hearing for Council is scheduled for May 13th. Bill: Do you know the square footage of-your floor area? Catherine: The main house has 3750 sq. ft. and there are two separate garages. Bill: Thank you Catherine for your input and we will take everything into consideration when evaluating. We will add your photographs to the file. 707 N. THIRD Carol Craig: In my way of thinking, I didn't realize that you could just designate something an historical structure without the 3 --- (10 - - ----- WMAirl:*M==-=-=47:,EL= = 100 "6 124 134 - - 4*0475' % ---- % 6----Vi MR--C 1. -P %1 Fqi,Lk, AA. 1- 41 Li u ae, -1 1 L-- 4//'Â·/ e. f 4 1-49 A - u~.22~ r -ar| 9'N 1. r Co 4 b 0008 2 Li** / -- 11Â· ME><E FE --- .0 .- liz] N 01 0 63 A. Rio >*2 - MILLE' LE' 1*3 91*4-1.3 A, /1~ 3, r-'. - _J 1- r- 1, 5 .,.1 . w p - I -- 0 I 1 1 I 1 L lot 123 129 135 C.P W. FRANCES C W. Pipe =-==== b .k .. 120 126 84 11 11 * t -1 0 IZEr C - ~ 4211 & 8- , W llc 2 orS *,d - 5 CD 20 211,1 kÂ«'5 +04 *i - 0 -7 -il * -i k Â· 53 4 :149 19 114 1% -1 F-=1 F-9 z Ul 01 k 3.e, 41 11.11*~ 1 -~ â„¢ 0 -00-9 ======-= ==Ul--*F======= 4." U w. pipe . 412 420 434 N.-Is-T 301 11 hi 3 IN30 " N li_, a. 1* 6 4 9 91+ bffÂ·â‚¬/14*J 4:1.3-: F *-Â«r.Â·~;*tÂ·Â·fÂ·439372 75=41,:. ' .ft..0 J.~ 4*1~:~7Â· 3: 011 &.: U -- \-' NF==E: e LE,O ' 1 ..Z - ... 2 t. --244 1277.'' ' 1 ~029=3< 74/ . ..r . 1~-4,\ ./.'/7 -T- 7-1// ~ ~ Â»2.9/, / I , - t./. YNt149 SHINGLE .- V// 0-77â‚¬R" 4 . 12 7 1 .1 P TYPÂ·Fi: \ l , , I-. - 'â€¢11 ' . .. 1 1== I , ,~ Â· _ . , . 1 Â· Â· .X.337 U.Â· .. 1 . - 1 .. *3Â·2 2,4/:- - 2 REÂ¢26M' 1:NEFSÂ¥,61 el-r - E ~:. . 4. 1'-~-rd-. ,-~.1..7-,2=2Â·.- C ...t. +*rism-_2 W?â‚¬, .. Â·Â·. -4.-9 +. - . 9 .. . 0-. ' ll; ty Â»9Â·JZR. . .4 1 m. 1%4: 4 -3. ..1 galut Â¢1 4*1 -: ' p. dly#*. - -I Â· . I v==R / a A--4 ,Â· C cm ' , ..UE> - U 0 4. 1, Â·,. . -7'INâ€¢ . I . I- . 4 - : - <41. .9.0. . 2Â¢76 -- \ 533 .. r. ===== . - vi~$1~1,-ij 11-,!120 .11*/PY)&-.,:Â·.f~ .... DA.\ Wâ€¢- . 1 .../Lf.% *SCâ€¢:, 7-A..1 11~%0Â· la-* Â· :. F=---- 11111 ''t k ts-l.v , .. 1 - I Â·t.uar - 23[JB ~-3 r 3 + 74 -U..tixul- 11*aÂ·- 0 ' 4 ' . -1 i 1 111 >*IjlliI.3.: , ": 1 4. ER[ 1 i, a -re - f 3 1: 5 . r.. ---I ......Â·t:L ! 1 1.. 1_1_.1 t. 'Al 1,2-Â·.Ai-1.1 10+112 1 8931.. 11 L..2::SJ ~YEtifl * - 1Fri I c . -1 -C 1 -11 Ill L-1111 t! .CO bu : / i #-=# 1 - . -- (M--J Le-5 .2.4.Ca i * - 1 1 -- , 6 'A,Kic,nJ ---0-- .- 7 ~ 13-Act TY-trl Â·~- -*.< - 0 0 i, -1 _::;t- t f - 3- . iiiâ€ž B -'*ANCOW ' Â· 1 . A.Fely Gus ~f~ === *--- 7 Urâ‚¬: ,C op- Aad=\Â©Sl ;r---11 r F.~-04\ I -. 1.L_ - 1 - -. 1 -1 i A 1 et-EEIT- 2. t- \33/ .. ..:':.2244Â· AQ*!*.ir -6-74296710:>td ~* - .~-'~5 V 83 EXHIBIT22 M. 7 f i MEMORANDUM [7-1 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ~ THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director '. v Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Planning Director-~1) FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 520 E. Durant Avenue, Peaches en Regalia- awning fabric DATE: May 26, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant, Peaches en Regalia, would like to replace the fabric on their existing awning. The subject building is not historic but is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Peaches en Regalia, Patricia Straight. LOCATION: 520 E. Durant Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the 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 covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(13)(2). Response: In 1987, the Polo Store was the first shop in the Ajax Mountain building to request approval for awnings. HPC approved the application and established a policy that each building in the commercial core with awnings must have a single style and color for all the shops to use. At 520 E. Durant, the color scheme was established as navy awnings with gold lettering. As long as each shop adheres to that policy, staff can sign offon replacing the awning fabric. Subsequent to the approval for Polo, numerous businesses in the building put up awnings which did not match the blue and gold scheme. In 1994, HPC took enforcement action on the unapproved awnings and they were replaced. Apparently the one affected by this application, at Peaches en Regalia, was not brought into compliance at that time and remained blue with silver lettering. (Staff cannot confirm whether Peaches en Regalia was asked to replace their awning in 1994.) In August 1994, Chanel applied to the HPC to ask for white awnings with black lettering. HPC reviewed the request and decided that the Chanel awnings could be black and white because the shop is located on the corner and could be a transition point as the building turns the corner to face Hunter Street. The only other awning on the Hunter Street side, at Malo, is black and white. This is the only downtown building where the awnings have been such a problem, probably because there are so many shops. The building owners are aware of the HPC requirements and seem to have conveyed these to the shop owners. The Peaches en Regalia owner, who has made the application currently before HPC, was apparently not aware of the requirement and has purchased a new blue awning with white writing, to replace the old one. She requests HPC approval to install the awning. (Note that each store has a small signboard, which is blue with white lettering.) Staff recommends that Peaches en Regalia be required to use the blue awning with gold lettering to be in compliance with two previous HPC decisions. A separate sign permit will be needed for the awnings and any other signs proposed. The Aja Mountain building owner will be asked to remind all the shop owners of the awning requirements. In the future, HPC should require that when a color scheme is selected for a particular building, all the shop owners agree to it, rather than having one businesses' signature colors (Polo-blue and gold, and Chanel- black and white) be imposed on the other stores. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: The idea of selecting one color for awnings was to give each building a uniformity, to be in character with patterns that are desired in the historic district. This is a policy that the HPC has established, therefore allowing one awning to be different would affect the character of the 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 proposal will not affect the historic significance of any building. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development does not affect the architectural character or integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 0 â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to require that a new awning be installed at Peaches en Regalia in navy fabric with gold lettering, to match those currently existing on south facing side of the building. A sign permit will be required." Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. Staff memo dated May 26, 1999. B. Application. 0 EXHIBIT 77 1 54)5-75 APPLICANT: Peaches en Regalia, Patricia Straight LOCATION: 520 E. Durant ACTION: Minor Review All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet aUfour Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DENYING AN APPLICATION TO REPLACE AWNING FABRIC LOCATED AT PEACHES EN REGALIA, 520 E. DURANT AVENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, Peaches en Regalia, has requested approval to replace the fabric on an existing awning for Peaches en Regalia, located at 520 E. Durant Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District; 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. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 26, 1999, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the standards were not met, and recommended denial for the application as proposed; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 26, 1999, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application did not meet the standards, and denied the application by a vote of _ to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the application to replace awning fabric at Peaches en Regalia, 520 E. Durant Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen be denied as submitted. The applicant must install 0 navy fabric with gold lettering, to match the awnings currently existing on the south facing side of the building. A sign permit will be required. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day of May, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: 0 Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name Au--AÂ·k Â»-ret . -t w id i n . 2. Prpled \Ocauorr .,â€¢ D Â·fÂ»92Â·0'u.7'- /h/e / A-f /-.07-Â£>Â» .3 + CD/dge,M/1 4 cferciES â‚¬,er-yvI -76 .GeÂ·Adolcu lbj\.c) 00//9921 (indicate dreet address, lot and block number or metes and bounds discription) 3. Present zoning dy,>9?22 Ocip 4. Lot size 5. Applicant' s name, address aniphone number 9Aold a v o 9>eachea en Wea a jiÂ« -5-20 Â£ .-D WAt-Un* Ave * 1-0 L Rk p â‚¬71- 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Carridl â‚¬L 6*ai yA_ + 9 ao-/ a W o 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Cor~eptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC 0 - - Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumizatiori~ Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment -2- MfE' UÂ«,t/' pÂ« 6/1 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft, number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 9. pescription ofdevelopment application .*-/1/U/ ~440/7 //MI 5 - 7-Uve 46 r 6.46 had Na,jv- rn/ov u, f u/kir-e 2,[VÂ« -+3PÂ·L Lon#+ --t-n i/Ast-011 co/64 ~ Ativv w< 1.<,h/Te_ 1-9242 - . a,Ailolijog hct:~ tÂ·*u '/wkWo{ ) '11) 141Â·Fe- ruf-m iq.c/C ' Nol-:4;/ 0/}f/SOV -j:uoy vbilk Aynbe i * ' 61< 349'}ollÂ« hqâ‚¬ t.JcuoyAl.)~ Wh ffwu 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1 - Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form - Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachment 4 11111111 iiI 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director CIMJ - Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 400 W. Smuggler- minor review DATE: May 26, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to add dormers to a historic outbuilding. The subject property is a designated historic landmark. APPLICANT: Larry and Sara Dodge, represented by Steve Weaver, Insight Construction. LOCATION: 400 W. Smuggler, City and Townsite of Aspen. 0 PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the 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 covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The applicant requests HPC approval to add dormers on the north side of an existing historic outbuilding. The outbuilding currently has a non- original shed dormer on the south side. The applicant is willing to pursue either of the following: (1) add a shed dormer on the north roof slope, or (2) add gable 0 roofed dormers on the north slope and change the existing shed dormer on the south to gable dormers. Staff finds that either solution would be acceptable since the historic house already has a non-historic gable dormer and a shed dormer. The shed dormer has a slightly lower profile and is preferable in terms of keeping the form of the outbuilding intact. The dormers should have clapboard siding that matches the existing siding on the outbuilding. In terms of windows, the dormers should have casements which match the size and proportion of the ones that have already been installed. Staff recommends against the triangular window above the casements because it introduces another non-historic window pattern onto the building. The drawings also show decorative bargeboard to be added in the gable end of the carriage house and in another location on the historic house. This detail should not be added because it is not authentic and changes the architectural character of the building. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 0 Response: The neighborhood has numerous historic outbuildings which have been adapted to residential use. The proposed development allows the historic outbuilding to be useful livable space by adding head height and additional light. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal will not affect the historic significance of the buildings. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will not affect the architectural character or integrity of the historic structures if designed as discussed under review standard 1. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: 0 0 â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the minor development application for 400 W. Smuggler with the following conditions: 1. The new dormer shall have a shed roof to match the dormer on the south slope of the outbuilding. The contractor must submit a revised drawing, to scale, for staff and monitor to approve prior to submittal for building permit. 2. The dormer shall have clapboard siding that matches the existing siding on the outbuilding. 3. The dormer shall have easement windows which match the size and proportion of the ones that have already been installed. 4. The decorative bargeboard shown to be added in the gable end of the carriage house 0 and in another location on the historic house are not approved. 5. All representations made by the applicant or applicant's representative 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. 6. Any amendments to the approved drawings must be provided to staff and monitor for review and approval prior to undertaking the work. 7. Retain all existing materials on the exterior of the historic buildings, other than those herein approved for restoration or replacement. 8. No other exterior changes, beyond what is approved herein, may be undertaken without further review. 9. 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. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. Staff memo dated May 26, 1999. B. Application. 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 400 W. SMUGGLER STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicants, Larry and Sara Dodge, represented by Insight Construction, have requested minor development approval for the property located at 400 W. Smuggler Street, Fractional Lots R and S, Block 33, City and Townsite of Aspen and Fractional Lots 18 and 19, Block 33, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 26, 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 May 26, 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 _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That minor development for 400 W. Smuggler Street, Fractional Lots R and S, Block 33, City and Townsite of Aspen and Fractional Lots 18 and 19, Block 33, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen be approved with the following conditions: 1. The new dormer shall have a shed roof to match the dormer on the south slope of the outbuilding. The contractor must submit a revised drawing, to scale, for staff and monitor to approve prior to submittal for building permit. 2. The dormer shall have clapboard siding that matches the existing siding on the outbuilding. 3. The dormer shall have easement windows which match the size and proportion of the ones that have already been installed. 4. The decorative bargeboard shown to be added in the gable end of the carriage house and in another location on the historic house are not approved. 5. All representations made by the applicant or applicant's representative 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. 6. Any amendments to the approved drawings must be provided to staff and monitor for review and approval prior to undertaking the work. 7. Retain all existing materials on the exterior of the historic buildings, other than those herein approved for restoration or replacement. 8. No other exterior changes, beyond what is approved herein, may be undertaken without further review. 9. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to IiI'C staff as part ofthe building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day of May, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk i I 1 ; 11 14 ~ Â·-1 2- '4 +3 1 1 : 3 9 .4 t! Property Under Revjew: P.03 Larry and Sara Dodge Residence 400 W. Smuggler Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920-5470 11'Sight Construction Steven R. Weaver 820 Laugo Loop Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-8514 Regarding Twc Roof Dormer Addition To Whom It May Concern We are applying for the addition of two roof dormers to be built. They will be located on the north side of the existing second floor of the carriage house The siding which primarily exists on the house is 8' beveled lap The north side has plywood with batter boards on the gable ends. The proposed dofmers would be consistent with the existing siding of board and bat. The dormer addition would Provide adequate light in the room without changing the existing Style of this period home. SIncerety Yours, ,-A f. , / 1/* 3 i . /4 L c ( l; Larry D Dodge and Sara P Dodge C Dihib,4 8 ADJOINING 2735-121 - . 4*Â· n.Â·12Â·1Â·13003 4~-27*2-1 16Â·001 49-2731-12Â·11! qf?9 42712-UÂ·} 04Â·0017 ..27*62Â·r.â€¢002 1,411 14#/ hul Â¥2>, 8 LE..1 J~ 041~ 424*r i KLL[ L Il - 9 â„¢-J n i 10 ASPEN OTYUM\T < 414~7~ iliTE*i#*265,1-,1 %4 rr- â‚¬2/21 . / /0 11 STREET / HALLI - 1 1 1@/ 7k -.3442/7/ 74 ' LAKE 1 1 /0/9(04Pild.J , I ' 11 )~'1 eah 1 l b - Rld G l.lel J @ *-\44[-; LMI + 11,0 1 , !3 msr*w./c./ 7./, / *//7..71-~ 4 @ -t4 / X Â»I- 15 " . 1 //1 793(33L-Â»<Le lai I li vatj/n < e-- 434*44 4.12 - 10 ~ I / 06/~D // EX @ 66 c 1-1 111 lig)ft,fli. * Â® .' 21 09% G â€ž . 45 7*/ SHAW pw Â® 17 0 2 l.241*1 1 /1 0;1 ~ 16 '4-k . -- 8191.JprL, /,4 e 02 4 -lfuil, 1 l l l#Th-~ XCU .41 l@ Â®@ - 44,0/41 / 10/ - *j , 43 /*771& 4 2. JOINT VENT SMUGGLERSTREET R L M 60 dek 1 4Â»1 1 444'U A 1--7krÂ·2*UZ Fl Â»Al ~ @ 'E* 4 -1054- SEC,K. LoT*S Pktr 1 4. i /wgile k NEO 4-2 1 /ek Â»P .9 a9 klit/ ; 7 / 4. 1 /wl 1 7-1 . u i. i rkJ. 1 11) '(Al.2 I 6 /1 9. l. 1 1@1-=FIRZ Â»461344, ~U r / Â¥+ALrk; / prÂ·-~ e L. 1 1 ' â‚¬271 s 41 1 .1 1 1 1 1-11 < rÂ·-= P---7-(3eU F I G j Â»f- ~ ur r-FC 6-1, 140 /Â®1 Â®/ 74-1 Â£t44/i /~i /0-1.61,LU . 27Â·Â·2229\ (~ TAX DISTI 1 CF)[ illm i f72-~pr-~- - ~ 20 DIAxTRICT 70034.Z:75Â» /. l// / iÂ®l PTA ,-Tt 1 -4 1 AR)ill 17*... \ " 1 / hLÂ»*U7 -f AFS F /9/1 n 1 11 1@10 IATTA 1-1.1 IEEk*,7 - 0/8 1 FRANCIS 44-LJrntl. 1/'/1 c*68,#d f Ji Â»41 1 1 3*glgE 112-1 1 STREET rZL*Lo hi r I il $19Mzy"Cj i /Â®' 4 0 I rÂ»(48,1 ,/ 1 7-1 17 G 4 22,5 *s~ 00Â® i A 41~ r 544 1.01 / ft JPl 0 / 4 S 8 7-/ / f * L C 4 0 0 4 0 94291 i -1* 6 Â® 44&41 1,1 78 @ *43 4 0 F . S 3 0 LK.. 1 A 1 11Â·Â·r-29AL., 1-1. Â» l. W @ A rhÂ·Â·CÂ»4Â£Â£ / 7/4./ * g i /@l--7*031811.d,-1 /3~ S -4./. 1 -/(#fl 4 4 HALLAM STREET . 1 J 1 1 1Â®1 1 --r-Â·-,- 0 /O 1 ~ 4 f-Â»Â·E? / Â¥ I 1 a ...4 C J /// 7@r-r...2 .92/.4/ 4/ W r~ v--LEVI / 79~/ / / 29.32 ' 41 1 /Â® 1-11~Ye 6 2Â» i Â»L i i i /11 2 1 4..l #/ -h/->,ts 1-71-24*d rÂ» 1 L.Â»tzÂ«/Ji iÂ®1 --n ~ 1.-192-11/ /*/1 0 .4 1--2 L-/ -4,mr/ 1 10/ 1 4*2, < mJ L fÂ».1\ 4 0 A /1 '' A 4 36 3 F -28 -12 l i h~P*Â£4472 i "7- *20:4,4 - . 0 ,/ ,- 4 /orn~ l46 I +1 1 flÂ® 8 i / -7---k â€¢ ,A:.3â‚¬*07*4.0/--7~2 4 40/4 / / 4.J i /@Mph- P~\%06, /2 i Â«1 1 / /98.64 til 4.1 1% 1 # @:33 Lu L r.1.Â· 1 -1 1@1 1 1 1 /*1Â¢19*Â·F lit 1 "' lÂ¢361 1%75<- Â· t.., - 1 2 (7-~-k~ f -Â»141 Y+ 1 , .-1 3%27-2 L -Â¢ -Â£41 Uk l.4 1 J#/ 1 /Â®1 -Â· 1 -11.1 4*/ 4 /*7 0 c ITÂ«-f*LUN + 1 / /@FTÂ·Â·-AJA- s+REEr -U.46-th / 49 44 ~ 4344 -r---~ 4-756/ / / /*<*â‚¬29 @ 0.50.31 4 P / trY.A.i.kx 01'18/ 9 0 / 1 1--k / 1 #/ 1 77* t., r- Â®@ LEAL 1 1197% ~- 0 Cle,IL, 1 18*Mi 1 -N . r-42:j~i[. 1-Â»i*--i i N L . f @hÂ·>L S.le I I l(ahl323*M.U..UE / i / 1%)1 #-,Â»h- +43%126/12/1~1 0 l' 9@17*4 -<. " I 41 1 1@f-Pra AbL ALL@Prl S ile/ O Rs 4 - i 1 â€¢44 E-1--a /7-1 44672.1 + Irl,- - 44Â£.4-/ 4 /fâ‚¬:CAilll/M / --.41"57// I 44/Al .L 1331#19 HOSIPÂ¢U :700 Â· 60. bm ugj le f G - - Exist, 13 . .4 - -I . ---* 7-i - - --7' 1 - 6421.& .TK:M BÂ¥: Â· i ,9 /2 ,--WY-,"01 '* 1 <Cr LIMP>=22-,424[5 4, **<161:Ar;2AEF:1* L.J /" ,/77, f 3~,;Â»â‚¬-CANk' 5-0 1 4615622 i 70*15. . 11 #lit! iii. ./.% \04. 11 4-- - * $*mi fbEACK#ri lt,Y: CD' ' 4;2512.21 rÂ» !2(4 ~WZNIP 2 AL >12052.AFTS 4 62 0 -- L 1/77= I 04- 64Â«46 1 IN)- |u' 4- MIDULUING MA..52.ALS 2 Kilihia VU--EgiALS .35 82 1-7?LE.C: 1 ' dskiNEâ‚¬.. 0 0 '3,03 ALL L...1/27z -5- Ft=:6 2~59 Cr<-24427* W Jf Â£ 6- - - 74 / Ex i s +i h.b - -FEED Ic:> C.4,1NgÂ¥ 0 +C-*1 -X!'67: 5!2-IC.Ic -M i NS ova +4â€¢Jâ€¢Ace.Es-4,2 eaaSEâ€¢-Er-E 0.'/ L.ArtULE-72 60,42Â»142: -- 56!EKLE --2,-1 - 2-11 2 2-622 - . './1 -/.1- ; ! ! 1 1 , %4: ... I. i 0 - 1, ff .11:3.T.*F'Ii--. . E-loo# 646% 0 â€¢r -: 99-t: ~'.~ 7. Ill 1 .ll, i T- 960 W. S.:934r- ... Proposed -boriners 1 - F-- ?ropo5201 -Dormery - ... /f 44*r#ANk 4 ill - 4.04. li '11 m % 1! VI - - li m h jti Um 1/ '1 H Viillili I O 0 5s4 dert O 0 - 900 W. 5 mug?ler Proposed -bekers r - UY - ; - -1 r L 2.FWIr=--- 1 413 / --711:I -7-0 1/4.--uu.-..E--i..... 1 11 . 1 0 - -0 lue v#1 6 949>9443 Z 7 uu U.J. Ornl.~3 11-r Existig 1 1 11 1-11 iii 11 - h- O CARRIAGE HOUSE 900 W Smu33'Lr Prope sed bar-mers 1 1 / \ - 1 \\ 1 1 1 31 11 1 1 1 , r. I 11 4 1 11 ,1 1 11 )PI,9Â¥ &'47 4 ; 1.' 4 r Stag. R O Qaver 96,3 *85/9 PAwl-A ZE.5;Q),+ CÂ»,5+rucha , 0 *pU U~,4 131 97-8708 Br~ 8&0 60-*130 Loce Â¥~4 - 1 DOV - G,60"ela; C , Co F '62. 1- -. - - 15- LI E EX 12 FL 0 .tev//44 --. -1 \-3 .-. t- --=, 19 0 0 .-/ , 0 4~Ill-lll/49, ~41ll MA~ $#VI//20, / 1 *71 11\ 'S> 1 ZÂ» .32) 1 j N /1 -E)<JUN 1,((3 / -/loose ,~48 1 / \ 1 /\ 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 M. 1\ 1/ -9...-- 01/ \ 11'\-1 LAp i \ POEL 2 1 u 0 7--1 f j 1/ 2 ARCHITECTS ALSTROM BERNSTEIN 121 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO 81611 ~ - 970 920 3201 ROOM cable.| Re/0 ,-- - Â·-- ~~ ~ c;4mm~e eoese ~ SHEAR RESIDENCE 233 BLEEKER :TREEr - g S>Cl 67--' ASPENCOUIRADO ..: 2* MAY 97 6/7-2 a,AM 6 PR.Oof= PLAA 0 00 â‚¬ I LON i , ~- I . 1 0 U MA5-,ef 4 547-Pr -171 A - 0011 L-,~ 0, DEN< 0%/1 1 A BOVE I 1 Up D 1 . --0- - 1 Il- 1 0 --- -/10- 6- 1 1- MANiT'El:4 . &22Â¥200'YK -t 1 - UNP POOL-- 0 : .I;' or r-6 - r--1 1 '3~ 7:Te F227- noari 11 >c i 5479Â¥ . - PLAN 0-6'4 Ll_. - - 1.-te'.17 WELL -- â€¢P. 9 COAT 0 ALSTROM BERNSTEIN ARCHITECTS 121 SOUTH GALENA D al ASPEN CO 81611 970 920 3201 u AD eAFRA,PE AC* WEORY SHEAR RESIDENCE 0 m BLEEKER STBEET UN/4- 000 e= 1 1 mal MUUM 1 - ..Ir*-04 141 /12?r 11 I M lut o IF'j ~i-7~U~-7[ - LAL 111_L 0 4 -1 1 . r. 1 0 l 1%- Lt\) ING] - Foom 1 7 0 1 - Di,J -1 . -bEGORD t--1 71-00*2. PLAN 41 MING& - - 45304 - -*--#*-- 1 -1 DUO Iii: ; 1 4-1 L_ ALSTROM BERNSTEIN - ARCHITECTS BEDBOON\ 121 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO 81811 b . k/TCH,=,4 970 920 3201 22:i P SHEAR RESIDENCE r- I I_.1 eEDROOA\ :22 BUEIER 3TREET All'm C0UU00 DECK 1 - 1 2-9 /Mof 9-1 0 1- 1 -1 --< -- 1 - 0 Ctil . r~ Den. 1 1 = --,rÂ» 1 17!N' lili 0 I -- 1 . i. 4-- - .U - --5 1.Lili Jig.367- ELE Â»IlfloPA . THI 119.D ALSTROM BERNSTEIN ARCHITECTS 121 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO 81611 970 920 3201 SHEAR RESIDENCE 323 BLEEKER :TIEET ASPEN COLOHAU[1 14 M147 97 0 0 - 74=6- 1 -JL-2 -1~ ~- -_-- C 1 +=4 7 f 6.1-1 - 31"1 t=-- -- ,=L=u-~=th=:21 *SLI~3---4- tr--1 LIE[(-3 i v Til + 0 7 ---7-- -- 1 1- 1 .1-===+ r ln~ - fE~3---~ 1 1 000774 ELEVATION ALLEY_ ALSTROM BERNSTEIN 0 -- ARCHITECTS 121 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO 81611 970 920 3201 SHEAR RESIDENCE m BLEEKER mEET ASPEN COLOUDD 2Â¢7 /1/90/ 11 0 - & -i -r -- - * 1 1 8-1 ill lili U â€¢1 - 1 -I l - fc-1-3 2 - - - 3-]~ 3 ~- 1 - 4 1=[El -11 -41- IliTJ t - I-' - -6 C 1 1 1 LE- 1 =:=:4*f~=~14 LL 1, I . -MA 6-7-- - Irls.E ~~77 0/4 POOL GOOR-TYÂ«80 0 - ALSTROM BERNSTEIN ARCHITECTS 121 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO 81611 970 920 3201 SHEAR RESIDENCE 132 BLEEKER STREET ASPEN COLORADO 249 849 97 1 .. 4 . . r-=I. [-mr OVEI- 1 2 -I L . 44 - a -. T 1--- - - --r 1 'P 77I ~ - 1 1 el .1.. 1=LU- - NORTHÂ· E LE*E l 91\ EjUILID/140 :5EOTION\, ALSTROM BERNSTEIN 0 ARCHITECTS 121 SOUTH GALENA --(9 -POOL - (3041 g-I--NPÂ«ED- ASPEN CO 81611 970 920 3201 SHEAR RESIDENCE 32: E :THEET ASPEN COLORADO 24 /~17â‚¬f Â£767 mm ... i - 1 1 illi--1 -=.-4.- . 1, 1 11 --- t =4 1- Â« 11 11 Â» IT ill - 6 224*-I ]1 11 1. - 1 . I 1 - A - - I t / i - LI 1 11' i 1 i - : 1-: 9 : It.d ..1 1- 149[[ I - 1 1 - I - 1 i C- 11 1 1 ' J ' I ALSTROM BERNSTEIN ARCHITECTS 121 SOUTH GALINA ASPEN CO 81611 ' 970 920 3201 SHEAR RESIDENCE 121 ILEEKER STREET ASPEN COUIIA[la EWST/ tÂ© T:NRa 1 - M.OCFL- EXIST//4(2 EEGORID FLOOS- 24 MAY Â¢77 ' ILÂ·41] â‚¬--â‚¬~2.-~~:C ~ 10<4 0 MEMORANDUM , L./-R TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission L THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director yi Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director~,)4'0 1 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 333 W. Bleeker- worksession DATE: May 26, 1999 This property, owned by Ruth Whyte, is listed for sale with the profits to be donated to the Aspen Historical Society. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is nearly unaltered. The lot is 9,000 square feet in size. An offer has been submitted and the owners architects, Alstrom-Bernstein, have requested a worksession for HPC input. Attached are the Sanborne map and National Register nomination. A site visit is scheduled for the day ofthe HPC meeting. 0 0 ============ 75/ 5 335-3 331-29 327-5 323-21 . 319-17 3/5-t3 31/-9 307-5 303-1 1 73-, - 77711 -i, C~71 12 1 '407* 1 1 A - 1 1 3 11 1 L2 1 K// 4 . 1 0.1 V J 4 - - -OZE~ -,Lir CE...~U Ki 3 1. / 41 1(LL /7 8-COEFG, nÂ® 0 21 17-51 8 43 1/ X /XI 110 Lt' ID><4 1 luID><E / 1 0 KZ Al L.-41 0.07 4 7~1 /7 ~ S A N TTE jT-X] - & i . 7---7 0 0.4 % 5*h u R :'Q N 3%25 %3 PER Q Z f k 4 4.Ij Lo Li I -ED M L-cr 5 1 g X , W xI 1,__r~% / '11 1 - U--31 % 0 % N j 334-2 330-28 326-0 222-20 3/Â£9463/4-/2 3/0-8 3064 902.900 \~~ ~~ . ~,4 234 SoO Â· /BÂ· i . ,/ 4 I 6,/2/F- p~ wri/N..1 >,-1 93> .: 335-3 331-29 327-5 323-21 319-/7 3/5-/8 31/-9 307-5 3034 \ 230 11 1 \ %3 17 1- 1,- X.,1 8 W\6a 17/ .1-i Flj.W 4/ $37 1 S. 0 4 1.1 UD J I a \ 5 1, - rn Z 4 \9L 1 1 / XI .X iwi 10 1 A 1~-*- 8 rE33 ( D LAEFGH . 3 S# E 'll r 2 LEI 1 1 A , 1% / Al P xI : . _12 Ill 44 P 'X %-7- X %- ~/ ~/I frEI /0 N ~ Q f><f I ,1 /71 / 11 1 % IE P 4 0 , id f F 0 _31 Z' 2 m ~ 1 2 7 00 1/2 * 1 le =z, 4 1 . 2-- 29 ..La31 3--- -1 z ~ L.-1 /111 1\ 11 - 334-2 330-28 326-4 292-Â« 318-/6 3/0- /2 310-8 3064 308-300 n.n .PKOon L, C Â£ 9/2 9/3 1]12 212 202 902 00/ 201 001 100 lot,924~4 Kle 1 10~~~~~~ fle fle 000 202 204 206 208 2/0 6ll 601 01 901 80j lot HPA N.3'iD 1 8-80 Expires 10-31-87 NPS Form 10Â·900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior -. National Park Service For NPS use only l National Register of Historic Places received -. Inventory-Nomination Form date entered , See instructions in How to Comp/ete Nationa/ Register Forms Type all entries-complete applicable sections 1. Name U historic D. E. Frant z House (Historic Resources of *spen - MRA) and-or common D. E . Frantz House 2. Location -1 street & number 333 West Bleeker Street - not for publication - city, town Aspen _ vicinity of n/a state Colorado code 08 county Pitkin code 097 - 3. Classification ategory Ownership Status Present Use Z@district .Illapublic .X_ occupied -Illaagriculture -Illamuseum _X_ building(s) _X private Alaunoccupied -1*acommercial _DZ@park - Alastructure -nalboth -n,lawork in progress -alaeducational _.X_ private residence 33/asite Public Acquisition Accessible Ill@entertainment n/areligious -- -Blaobject -nLain process -Illayes: restricted -Alagovernment _nlascientific Â· .I],Labeing.considered -n/ayes: unrestricted mlaindustrial _Blatransportation - x multiple resource -2!L- no _1._ military n/aother: rY/a - 4. Owner of Property name Ruth Whyte - street & number P. 0. Box 202 city, town Aspen n-/a- vicinity of state co 81612 5 Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Pitkin County Court House - street & number 506 E. Main Street city, town Aspen state Colorado . Representation in Existing Surveys State Inventory of Historic title Sites has this property been determined eligible,n/a yes 1_ no - date Ongoing n /a federal Xstate n/a county n /a local depository for survey records Colorado Historical Society - OAHP 4 # Â¥4 {Â»f. --1~ kia; - - ir- 1 4-- 1 1 8 j 4 1 )24 132 4 -- 4-, .- I. 5% 7. Description Condition Check one Check one -X_ excellent Bla deteriorated _4*Unaltered _K original site n/a good Illa ruins X altered abl moved date ala fair nta unexposed Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance The D. E. Frantz House is a two story wood frame dwelling,with a cross gable roof and faced with clapboard. It is sited on four corner lots with a large side yard to the east fenced with a six foot wooden fence constructed in.1972. The front of the house has two very large blue spruce trees on each side. On the west elevation there is a row of mature cottonwood street trees and a small irrigation ditch running parallel to the street. At the rear, on the alley, is a gable roof, wood frame garage, which is a converted barn.* The house has changed little over the years and still retains its original integrity. The north front elevation of this houses a vernacular version of the Queen.Anne,style, features the important design elements. In the center of a gabled' bay .is a large and elaborate oriel window with paired windows with one-over-one, double hung wood sash. Above the windows is a, divided sun-burst design topped by a band of fishscale shingles. The peak of the gable has- a decorative bargeboard projecting out slightly from the bargeboard on the lower part of the gable. The west roof slope extends down to the top of the first story level and creates a roof for the front porch which has a spindle frieze and a turned post at the outside corner. The wide first story front window has a wood label mold and one-over-one wood sash. In the lower portion of the gable is a wide frieze of thin vertical wood strips. The regularity of the clapboard facing is broken up by board beltcourses Fit' the top and,%6-ttom of the first flo.or.windows.ai).d the , bottom of th* becond floor 71.hdows. The frihch do.ors on the.'6'*cond floor Of ther rear and a rectangular windaw in the gable peak.Iiay,. 492...... later additions although the date is unknown. (photo #3, 3a) On the interior, the moderate sized rooms have high ceilings and unpainted woodyork and panel doors. (photo #3b, 3c) The kitchen and bathrooms have been updated and the back porch enclosed, but little else has been changed on the interior. * *The butbuilding is considered as contributing. The date of construction is not known. El U - 8. Significance 82 U Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below n/a prehistoric 11(@. archeology-prehistoric nla community planning DZ@ landscape architecture 2% religion DZ@: 1400-1499 nia archeology-historic nla conservation ala law Dla science n,/a 1500-1599 nia agriculture n/a economics n/a literature n/a sculpture n/a 1600-1699 _.Xarchitecture Ilt@k education Illa military Illa sociall 9,41- 1700-1799 nia art nla engineering Illa music humanitarian _X_ 1800-1899 Illa. commerce nla exploration/settlement Illa philosophy DZ> theater Ula 1900- nila communications ]3lA industry * politics/government Rl@ transportation nla invention Ola other (specify) Specific dates ca. 1886 Builder/Architect D.E. Frantz ( possibly the builder I .4 . . .. . . .A. I Statement of Significance lin one para'graph) The D. E. Frantz House is significant for its vernacular inter- pretation of the Queen Anne style and for its unusual design elements. The prominent oriel window on the second floor front elevation is the only one of its kind in Aspen. .The extension of the gable roof on the west side. which creates a porch roof, is also an unusual design feature. This house has further significance in the use of local lumber and the excellent craftsmanship found in the architectural details of- the oriel window which has elaborate brackets, a sun- burst design and. band of fishscale shingles above the window and wood corbelling below. BACKGROUND .* t. r The house was construdted ca. 1886 and:1Nks owned by D:,E. Frantz, who also owned a number of other houses inclu'ding the Miner'~s Cottage L at 131-West'Bleeker Street. - It is not known. 'whether Frantk ever lived in thit' h'*Clke; Pbut it is likely that Frantzlidilt the house with. lumber - --- from his saw_*11 He was first listed in the Colorado Business Directory in -1886.. The Frantz House is a locally designated landmark. 6.- f r. *,r--1-rl-r-L-r-1- -1-91.1-f 0 240 LAKE AVE. - CONCEPTUAL - LD - Partial Demolition - PH Minutes ofMarch 25, 1998 Gilbert stepped down. Chief Deputy Clerk sworn in the following individuals: Charles Cunniffe Jennifer Cohen Janet Greenburg, owner Herb Klein Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer reviewed the affidavit and HPC has jurisdiction to proceed. (Exhibit II). Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the HPC that there are several components to the application, they are asking for landmark designation, conceptual design review, partial demolition, variances and a variance from Ord. #30. Regarding the landmark designation the requirement is to meet two of the standards and this property meets four of the standards. It is a Herbert 0 Bayer design and is a terrific example of his residential design and almost no modifications have been made to date. Stucco was applied over the concrete block. Staff recommends approval of landmark designation. In regards to the house several work-sessions and site visits have occurred. The proposal is to leave the house essentially intact with a small addition on the West Side and a larger addition (two-story areas) on the East Side. A two car garage is proposed on Lake Ave. and they need a variance from Ord. #30 for that. The architect has done a lot of research on compatible styles. The two story area is in an appropriate location. The only concern is the clear-story window that pops up in the back of the building. Set back variances are requested and a FAR bonus. The setback variances are necessary because there are really no other location for an addition and it is the least impacted on the neighbors. Charles Cunniffe, architect relayed that they are making a minimal breezeway connection. The clear-story was at the request of the owner due to the height need. That area is their main living space and light and volume are needed. It basically keeps the same form but raises it slightly with a band of windows all across to keep the theme of the Bayer 0 architecture. The plate height is 8'1". 1 The chair opened the public hearing. Herb Klein, attorney represented the neighbors to the east. They have one concern and it is the placement of new improvements within the setback. The proposed plan has a five-foot setback. The Koatsen house is an old house that has been remodeled and in its current condition lies five feet off the property line. With the proposed plan there would only be a ten-foot separation between the houses. The two-story element creates an urban alley effect with the ten-foot separation. There is a problem with snow and ice in that area right now and the windows and door on that side would look up to the two-story element. In the spring there is water that drains in that area and aesthetically their views would be blocked. The code indicates that if a variance is granted the design has to be more compatible with the historic landmark and the neighborhood. It maybe more compatible with the historic landmark it is definitely not more compatible with the neighborhood. This design places the burden on the neighbor. The owner feels there is room for compromise: (Respect the minimum 10-foot setback.) The existing conditions for the main house are 15 feet and they desire to keep that footage. Ifthe applicant needs more square footage the West Side should be taken into consideration. The two-story element could be altered on the East Side and have some of that square footage slide to the west where the stairway is. That would enable visual relief. Roger asked when the Koatsen house was remodeled was there a variance given and was the house moved over towards the alley or is the existing wall the historic wall that has been there since the 1800's? No one could respond to the question. Barbara Burger, neighbor sworn in. Barbara Berger, neighbor feels this would be a lovely addition to the neighborhood. Merle Ford, sworn in. She lives in a house at the Meadows and on the south side the design is similar to the Herbert Bayer design in which she is familiar with as she lives in a house designed by him. Lloyd Sherman, sworn in. He lives to the east on Hallam Lake. He complimented the HPC as a board. The final product due to the input of HPC was excellent and they were very happy the way their house turned out and the suggestions by the HPC members were great. The proposed plan looks great to him. 2 Donna Thompson, sworn in. She is the caretaker of the house for twelve years at 230 Lake Ave. She believes the wall in question is original. The windows of 230 Lake Ave. as drawn are not in the proper position and they do look up to the proposed two story structure. All ofthe windows will face the two-story structure and will have to be closed at all times. Janet Greenburg, owner relayed to the board that she tried to be very respectful to the nature of the Herbert Bayer design. They lived in the house a year before deciding on the design and at one point the courtyard was proposed as a big room. The existing ceiling height is low and her way of accomplishing the task of raising it is a clear-story that Herbert Bayer used. In response to the neighbors their house and garage is very close to the property line. They have been very careful to not impact them at all. They were careful to not impact the house, garden or anything that they use. She has never seen anyone come out of the side door. Their main views are in the back. She is surprised by the problem ofthe second story. The chair, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Charles Cunniffe responded that there are houses that are less than 10 feet apart. He feels in order for the neighbor to get the garage in they had to have a side yard variance. He also stated the windows are as drawn on the adjacent house. Jennifer Cohen relayed that there is dense vegetation in the area that will be kept. Donna Thompson stated that the pictures are not clear and do not show the existing conditions ofthe neighbor's house. Chairperson, Suzannah stated that the issue of the wall/windows would not be resolved tonight under the circumstances. The Board requested information regarding 230 Lake in regards to variances for that property. A site visit by HPC was requested for 240 Lake Ave. Commissioner Comments The majority ofthe HPC members agreed that the garage works and the location of the stair appropriate. A site visit for the variance is recommended and a site visit for the location ofthe adjacent property 3 owners windows. Clear-story windows should be deferred to the architects on the HPC. The majority ofthe HPC were comfortable with the design of the house. Some members disliked the garage facing the street and the long linear corridor. Concerns of the neighbors need addressed. The Board was in favor of granting historic designation. The clear-story represented on the model is closer to what is acceptable as opposed to the drawings presented. Don't loose the horizontal design ofthe roof. The Board had concern ofthe height of the stair tower volume as it over powers the house, possibly adjust window portions or add a band. MOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and table conceptual review, partial demolition and landmark designation until April 8, 1998 on 240 Lake Avenue; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried. Site visit scheduled at NOON, April 8, 1998. 240 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING - LD Minutes of April 8,1998 Gilbert stepped down. Three exhibits were entered into the records. The following individuals were sworn in: Charles Cunniffe Gray Ringsby Jennifer Cohen Herb Klein Charles Cunniffe presented. The main issue the applicant is facing is some objection by the neighbor because of the blockage of the potential effect on some windows next door. They have tried to provide the owners program in a manner that sensitive as possible to the neighbors. Obviously there will be some objection to change. There is some objection from the view from a window. It is not the living-room window or primary living space of the neighbor's house. There was a site visit today and the HPC needs to decide if this design is reasonable in order to preserve the integrity of the historic resource and how we added onto the historic resource in a most sensitive way as possible. If we have to move the mass around it will not satisfy the 4 0 owner and it will not necessarily be the best solution for the historic resource. Charles requested that the board approve what has been presented. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed that she was not at the site visit today but she wanted the Board to know that there is a protection for Hallam Lake in that no construction can move too close to the top of the bank. It states nothing can be built within 15 feet from the top ofthe slope. From the top of slope point there is a 45-degree angle that is projected up and you need to stay under that height. There are constraints as to where the addition is placed and she does not know ifthe project meets them or doesn't meet them. The Planning & Zoning Commission reviews this particular condition and it seems that they can give some relief with things that are build within the 15 foot setback but she doesn't see them giving relief to the height limit. It might be possible that it could go to the Board of Adjustment for an appeal. Amy also indicated that she did research on the adjacent building to see if a variance was ever granted and it was not. The house was built in 1980 and at that time only a five-foot variance was required on each side and no 0 combined setback. Now, this property has more stringent requirements that they are being asked to meet. The adjacent building only had to provide five feet. Charles stated that they are trying to put the bulk of their addition to this house in the most sensitive place to the neighbors and to the house itself. It is placed where the densest trees are and it is the most logical place. Charles relayed that the only issue is the windows looking down on the neighor. It is not our responsibility to maintain their view of our yard. There is no other way on this property to reasonably build an area of the house that allows them to have the view of Aspen Mountain. The master bedroom and office are on the second floor so that in the winter they have a view of Aspen Mountain. The proposal minimizes the damages to trees. Susan inquired about a letter from Donna Thompson who states that the house will be demolished and it was concurred by Cunniffe & Associates. 0 5 0 Charles stated that the statement is not true and he never used the word demolished with her. Charles relayed that the only portion of the house being taken off is the shed that was seen on the site-walk. There is no demolition anticipated and he never saw the letter. Amy stated that Donna probably misunderstood and Charles clarified what was happening and it is good to have that information on the record. Jennifer stated that at the site-visit and at the last meeting there was talk about moving the building in five more feet so that there was a ten-foot setback. The negative impact between the five and ten foot setback difference is minimal (drawings were presented). Charles stated that the damage to the historic resource because of the encroachment of the mass into the courtyard area and moving that bulk over is far worse than leaving it where it is. Charles addressed the height of the back clear-story windows that was brought up by Melanie and they were lowered once. They did not bring 0 back up support for the windows but in Herbert Bayer's work more often than not he did clear-story band windows. Jennifer stated at the last meeting it was requested that the Board wished to see a banding where the existing roof is now and a banding has been incorporated on the drawings. Amy asked about the divisions of the windows on the stairwell. Charles stated that they have options for the windows on the stairwell. Jennifer relayed that three different options were given for the HPC to review, (included in packet). The owner is comfortable with any ofthe diagrams. Charles felt that the simplest drawing was the best as it is the "Bauhaus ethic". 0 Roger asked Amy to expound on the clear-story recommendation. 6 0 Amy stated that the clear-story window basically demolishes that roof surface and raises the roof. On the side you have an addition being added in and on the other side you have a little addition being added in. She is concerned about how much of the building we are actually retaining exactly as it is and she wanted the Board to evaluate that. It is not that she doesn't agree that the clear-story will probably make the space better and probably are sympathetic to the architecture, she just wanted the Board to think about whether that was compromising too much of the original building. Charles stated that the roof has to be taken apart and rebuilt because structurally right now it is unable to support the snow. Jennifer stated option C was the original submittal and B is represented on the model. B responds to breaking up the grid, which was mentioned at the last meeting. Charles stated that the owner is comfortable with any ofthe three options. The most important thing is that it is a glass grid. Whether it is the exact mullion location on the grid is less important. 0 Suzannah stated having a different proportion of window openings might be preferable. Susan stated that she understood that the roof has to come down and that there will be minimum demolition. Charles stated that the back roof would be removed because it structurally needs rebuilt. The minimum impact on the house is where the addition is planned now because the majority of the house is left untouched. They felt that it is good because the largest space in the house is the kitchen, dining, living room and that space is the most effected by a low ceiling. As long as we are rebuilding the roof in that area of the house the span is the greatest and the snow load isn't being carried. As long as we are doing the roof we felt lifting it up a little and putting in a clear-story will provide more volume to the space. Susan asked if the only part that needs demolished is what is underneath the 0 addition and the rest ofthe house stays. 7 Charles stated that part and the sheds. They are non-conforming because they encroach in the setback. Susan stated that the sheds were not historic. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Herb Klein, attorney represented the neighbors, the Koatsen family stated there are in fact windows that the two story addition on the east side would be right across from. It was determined at the site-visit that the two-story addition has halfthe windows across and the other half aren't from the neighbor' s room. The room is a large bedroom and has a full bath and it has a spa/hot tub right next to the windows that are going to have an obstructive view from the two-story element. There are guidelines to help the Board out. The applicant is seeking a variance and if they weren't seeking a variance and adhere to the minimum ten-foot setback we probably wouldn't have a very solid basis for objection and it wouldn't be as difficult. When a variance is requested several standards have to be met. You have to find that the variation will result in a building that is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. He doesn't see how HPC could possibly find that it is more compatible with the neighborhood by granting the setback. You are going to put a two story element within five feet of the property line and on the other side of the property line within five feet of that is the neighbors house with these windows. If the two story element were slid toward the North, Hallam Lake and cleared the windows we would have less of a problem and it would not impact the neighbor as much. He feels the Board will be hard pressed granting a variance that is more compatible with the neighborhood because this is not. Another standard which says the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and at the last hearing it was pointed out that there aren't any other houses that are separated by ten feet in the neighborhood. The vicinity map doesn't show any. Herb felt that the applicant has come up with a program that meets their needs and the neighbor is the one who has to bear the burden. This proposal is putting the burden on his clients. The discussion about retaining the integrity of the 8 historic resource, the historic resource doesn't have a two-story element so the integrity ofthe historic resource doesn't require that they put a two-story element anywhere on the building and especially on the East Side. There is room on the West Side to movethe square footage over and it could be put there as a one-story element. If they want to deviate from the code requirements they need to do it in a way that doesn't adversely impact us. The neighbors are deeply concerned and the impact needs mitigated and there are ways that it can be mitigated. The Greenberg's have very talented architects. If this committee said do something to mitigate the impact he knows that the architect could come up with something and still come up with a very fine design. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments: Jeffrey said that the scheme presented is favorable. Possibly to address the neighbors concerns and satisfy them a portion of the two-story could shift toward Hallam Lake. He is unsure about the clear-story. He sees the delineation between the existing ridgeline and what is the proposed ridge. The simplified glazing is appropriate. Melanie indicated that she would be more concerned with the one story solid element that is going to be in front of the neighbor's window rather than the two-story. The placement of the one story is appropriate and you cannot see it from the street but it does impact the neighbor. Right now they look at trees and when this is built they willlook at the wall. She informed the Board that she is not 100% on the project. Susan felt the same as Jeffrey and see if it could be pushed back to the north a little to satisfy the neighbors. That might impact Hallam Lake. She is in- between on the decision. Mary stated that she is for this project and does not agree to Mr. Klein's argument for his clients. She went to the site twice and feels the design of the house is sympathetic toward the historic property and enhances it and makes the house livable for the people that have purchased it. The horizontal banding which was requested by HPC enhances the addition. 9 She recommends landmark designation and would grant the variances and 0 OK the project. Mary likes option C. Roger agreed with Staff to grant conceptual and is OK with the clear-story providing that it meets the requirements of the view plane of Hallam Lake. He would also grant the variance and designation. He like option C with is a simple design. The architects should look at sliding the addition slightly forward towards the Lake. He would not move the addition to the other side of the historic house. Suzannah supported the historic landmark and the issue with the variances is something that the HPC struggles with all the time. In this case there is no question that concentrating the addition to one area for the most part is for the benefit ofthe historic house. In terms of the neighborhood the house next door should be part of that context and it is five feet away and this house is consistent with that. Asking the applicant to look at moving the volume back, both the one and two story volumes a little might in fact benefit both sides of the discussion here. She would like to see that studied and possibly an incremental amount might do the trick. 0 The majority of the board liked option C on the stairway, which is a simpler design. It is recommended that the applicant look at sliding the addition slightly to Hallam Lake. Charles Cunniffe relayed that the stairs are located in the center of the courtyard in order to maximums the openness of the court yard. There is a room on either side of the stair. If you shift the volume you loose one room. Suzannah relayed that the HPC is only talking about a one-foot shift not loosing an entire room. Charles said he probably could move it a little. Jennifer relayed to the HPC that even moving it one foot will effect more of the existing windows. Moving it one foot would encroach onto another window. 0 10 Charles stated he will restudy that elevation and tweak the plans and then show HPC the best solution at the next meeting. MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval at 240 Lake Avenue with the following conditions: 1) Grant thefollowing variances: 2 feet on the west yard, 10 feet on the east yard, 27 feet on the required combined side-yard setback, an FAR bonus of 250 sq. ft., a site coverage variance ofup to 5% to accommodate the design as proposed, and variances from the "Residential Design Standards" related to volume and garages. 2) Recommend landmark designation to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. 3) HPC will look at stairway options for final. 4) Restudy tweaking the East Side two-story back toward Hallam Lake. 5) HPC finds that in granting the variances firstly it is a new mass in which the HPC does not want ACES ajfected and the proposal of the new addition is compatible with the neighborhood and historic resource and it is the most sensitive design. Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 240 LAKE AVENUE - FINAL, FAR bonus, Public Hearing September 23, 1998 minutes. Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer reviewed the affidavit and HPC had jurisdiction to proceed. A mailing list will be presented to the City Clerk's office the following day. Amy Guthrie, planner stated that the house was built in 1957 and designed by Herbert Bayer. Conceptual was granted on April 8,1998 with conditions and setback variances were granted and 250 square foot FAR and variances from Ordinance #30. The design considerations were to look at the stairway and design ofthe stair tower in terms ofthe mullions that divide the glass. Restudy pushing the addition back towards Hallam Lake due to the concern of one of the neighbors that their views were being affected by the design. The applicant has responded to these conditions. In terms ofthe mullions in the addition they have chosen the direction that was different than the one 11 endorsed by HPC. They have added more mullions and Staff recommends a reduction of the mullions, as it would be less competitive with the historic house. Instead of moving the addition back on the property they have instead removed the front 1 foot 6 inches from the addition itself to open up the view corridor for the neighbor. Staff feels pushing it back toward Hallam Lake is not the right solution. The FAR request is 500 feet instead of 250 square feet due to the steep slopes on the site and Zoning calculated their allowable FAR lower than they had thought. The building has gotten slightly smaller. Staff recommends final approval with conditions outlined in the memo. Sworn in was Jennifer Cohen from Charles Cunniffe's office. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Charles Cunniffe, architect relayed that the central issue is the stair tower. More mullions were added due to the study of snow buildup on the two roofs and the ground plane and fiashing on the windows as well. In order to have the mountains to relate to the minimum flashing height at each roof that indicated a horizontal plane that started to set up a lineal determinant as to where the mullions would be. How many mullions should fit that void. The stair tower is a new element and a regular pattern of mullions was added and that led the house to be different. In addition the glass color and mullion color will be similar so the mullions will not read that much. It will be more of a textural change rather than stark black/white pattern. The mullions will be a steel gray and the glass will be a solar gray. The roof of the stair tower will drop down about 9 inches lower. The bigger panels of glass were interacting with the roof. A site plan was provided for the meeting. Jennifer stated to address the neighbors concerns the garage has been made smaller and the two-story building has been made smaller. The space between the two buildings has gotten greater. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. 12 Roger, Heidi, Susan felt that the nine-inch reduction in the height of the stair tower is sufficient and they had no other concerns with the variances. Melanie thought that the biggest impact in change on the house was the garage. Jeffrey was in favor ofthe project and his only concern was the same as Staffs concern as to whether it delineates the new from the old. Suzannah felt that the four divisions of mullions could be altered slightly with a thin one at the top. MOTION: Roger moved to grant Final Development for 240 Lake Avenue amending the original FAR bonus from 250 squarefeet to 500 square feet as proposed by the model. Final drawings of the tower and mullions to be submitted to sta# The following variances have been granted at the conceptual review: 2 feet on the west yard, 10 feet on the east yard, 27 feet on the required combined sideyard setback, an FAR bonus of 250 square feet, a site coverage variance ofup to 5% to accommodate the design as proposed, and variances from the "Residential Design Standards" related to volume and garages. As an amendment to these variances, the FAR bonus shall be increased to 500 square feet, in recognition ofthe size ofthe lot and the excellence of the design; Motion second by Heidi. VOTE: Roger, yes; Susan, yes; Heidi, yes; Je#rey, yes; Melanie, yes; Suzannah, yes. Motion carried 6-0. >fil-c Aft---, dauri-j Kathleen J. Strictlland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13