The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19990113 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 13, 1999 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of November 11th, November 18th and December 9,1998 minutes II. PUBLIC COMMENTS III. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS A. 930 King Street - Final Development 5:45 B. 920 E. Hyman Ave. - Conceptual, Historic Landmark, Partial Demolition, Public Hearing, Ord. #30 Variances (~-/- ~d~-/(~'~/~" 6:30 C. 117 N. Sixth Street - Final Development and Variances (Continued from Jan. 6, 1999) 7:00 D. i35W. Hopkins Ave. - Worksession 7:30 E. ADJOURN AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 13,1999 REGULAR MEETING, S:OO p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of November IIth, November 18th and December 9,1998 minutes II. PUBLIC COMMENTS III. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS A. 930 King Street - Final Development 5:45 B. 920 E. Hyman Ave. - Conceptual, Historic Landmark, Partial Demolition, Public Hearing, Ord. #30 Variances �-/ rid9 1,,,- A44 , 6:30 C. 117 N. Sixth Street - Final Development and Variances (Continued from Jan. 6, 1999) 7:00 D. 135 . Hopkins Ave. - Worksession 7:30 E. ADJOURN l PROJECT MONITORING Roger Moyer 303 E. Main, Kuhn ISIS 514 N. First 112 S. Mill St. Susan Dodington 712 W. Francis 918 E. Cooper, Davis Meadows Trustee and Tennis townhomes 234 W. Francis 203 S. Galena, Gucci 516 E. Durant Suzannah Reid 303 E. Main, Kuhn 702 W. Main, Pearson 218 N. Monarch, Zucker 414 N. First 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis Mary Hirsch Meadows, Trustee and Tennis townhomes 420 W. Francis Street 203 S. Galena, Gucci 920 W. Hallam Gilbert Sanchez 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis 414 N. First 303 E. Main j � cal_ 520 E. Hyman aC ( yr 112 S. Mill St. 307 S. Mill Jeffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis, Mullin 414 N. First 701 W. Main 101- 105 E. Hallam 920 W. Hallam 240 Lake Ave. Heidi Friedland Lisa Markalunas 420 W. Francis Street 712 W. Francis Street 514 N. First 520 Walnut Street Christie Kienast 520 Walnut Street CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26, 1999 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 13,1999 214 E. Bleeker Street (Greenwood), expires August 12, 1999 920 W. Hallam Street, expires August 12, 1999 EXHIBIT TO: FROM: RE: DATE: 9 MEMORANDUM Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer r 66 -- 920 E. Hyman Avenue- Historic Landmark, Conceptual, Partial Demolition, Residential Design Standards, PUBLIC HEARING January 13, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Historic Landmark Designation, Conceptual, Partial Demolition, and "Residential Design Standards" approval in order to remodel and make an addition to the existing building, which is listed on the historic inventory. A rear yard setback variance is requested to push the addition towards the rear of the site. APPLICANT: Veronika Inc., represented by Roger Kerr, architect. LOCATION: 920 E. Lyman Avenue, Lot N, Block 32, East Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, City of Aspen. HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of the City Council to landmark insignificant structures or sites. The City Council should focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. Response: This structure is a good example of the traditional Aspen miner's cottage, built in the late 1800's. It is one story with a gable roof, typical door and window proportions and materials. Minor modifications which have been made to the house in the past are all reversible, so that the house can be restored to its former character. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The structure is part of the East End neighborhood, where only a handful of Victorian era homes still exist. Preservation of the remaining resources is important for the neighborhood to retain a connection with- its own history and earlier character. E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The majority of Aspen's historic resources are Victorian era homes. These resources contribute significantly to the town character by representing, through architecture, the lifestyle, values, economics, technology, and aesthetics of an important period in Aspen's development. The cottage at 920 E. Hyman Avenue is part of that historical record and its preservation therefore has important value to the community. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) 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 coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: HPC reviewed and rejected an earlier design for an addition to this house in October 1998. Subsequently the architect attended two worksessions to present alternative schemes, one of which involved landmarking the property and asking for a rear yard setback variance to reduce the visibility of the addition. HPC encouraged the applicant to pursue the latter alternative, which advice the applicant followed. (Please note that this design is referred to as "Plan D." "Plan C," which does not require a setback variance is also provided in the packet for your reference, but it is not the proposed plan, unless the HPC is not willing to grant a variance.) The existing cottage has had several modifications, including replacement of many windows, installation of skylights facing the street, and an addition on the back of the original cottage. (From the 1904 Sanborne Map, attached, 1896 Willit's map, and Building Department records, it appears that a one story lean to which was added onto the house sometime between 1896 and 1904 was either removed or consumed by the second story addition made in 1977.) The applicant proposes to remove all of the construction at the rear of the house and to restore the original cottage. On the original cottage, the applicant proposes to remove the skylights and fill in with shingles, to retain existing materials and repair what cannot be salvaged, and to attempt to install more historically appropriate windows where original ones have been removed. Staff is in support of these actions, with the condition that all window replacements on the original cottage be based on physical evidence such as cuts in clapboards, framing evidence once the structure is exposed, or photographs. Additionally, it should be investigated whether one of the two original front doors (the one that would have faced E. Hyman Avenue) has been filled in. If so, it should be restored. In terms of the new addition, the applicant proposes to add approximately 1500 square feet onto the 500 square foot cabin; a substantial addition, although about 400 square feet less than the maximum that would be allowed by zoning. One variance is requested; a five foot rear yard setback variance to allow some flexibility in the placement of the addition. The lot is only 3,000 square feet and the house is set back 23 feet from the street, causing some restrictions on where the new square footage can be placed and what character if will have.. Generally speaking, staff finds that the project raises the same "hunchback" addition issues that HPC is very opposed to allowing to continue. The situation is mitigated on this site because the property is dwarfed by adjacent construction and the addition will not be easily viewed from anywhere, however this argument should not be used to allow inappropriate construction. Acknowledging that the applicant has a right to a certain amount of square footage, it is therefore required that the architect be very creative in how that square footage is handled. As stated above, there is no particular flexibility in how the footprint of the new addition can be handled without sideyard setback variances, which may not even provide a 3 significant benefit in this case. However, there are other aspects of the project that could be modified to some benefit. At the previous worksession, the applicant was encouraged to push the addition back five feet from what was shown on "Plan C" and to ask for a rear yard setback variance. The variance is requested, however the addition has only actually moved three feet back from the house and the addition has become 2 feet longer than it was initially. Staff recommends that for the variance to be granted, the five foot setback variance be used entirely to distance the addition from the old house, so that the south face of the second story is at least 11 feet behind the east west ridge line of the old house. Secondly, the floor to ceiling height proposed on the first floor of the new addition is 10' 6", which is excessively high, does not match the historic cottage, and forces the second floor to be even taller than the old house and the deck to land right on the old house. Staff recommends that the first floor height of the addition be no taller than 9 feet, to match the old house, which will also cause the deck to move further off of its roof. (In fact, staff finds that the deck should not encroach onto the old building at all, but acknowledges the site constraints given that the house is set so far back from E. Hyman Avenue and cannot be moved forward because of the large spruce tree on the site.) The applicant should also re-examine the windows proposed for the new addition and the detailing. The addition should not be given Victorian detailing, however there are long unbroken surfaces and windows which are dissimilar to the old house. The idea in general is that an addition is to broken down into modules which relate to the size and proportions of the historic resource. While the east and west elevations will not be particularly visible because of their proximity to the adjacent structures, the intent of the design should still be to create a compatibility with the historic structure that is to be preserved. In terms of the site plan, the storage and trash areas at the rear of the site are not historic structures and are to be demolished. The applicant must work with the Engineering Department to move the utility pedestals currently in the alley onto private property. The gravel parking space in front of the house must be removed and all parking shall be accessed from the alley. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The site is located in the East End, where relatively few of the original Victorian homes still remain. The entire neighborhood is in a great stage of transition and very affected by large scale redevelopment. 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 Response: The house will be preserved as a representation of Aspen's history and the history of the East End neighborhood. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal improves the architectural character of the cottage by restoring some of its original features. Issues with how the proposed addition affects the architectural character and how those impacts can be reduced are discussed above. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 26.72.020.C, Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (For the purposes of this section, "partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of that parcel.) 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish the rear section of the building. The 1904 Sanborne map shows a one story addition existed in this area historically, however it appears to have been demolished, or consumed by the second story addition made in 1977. Staff finds therefore that removal of this portion of the building is acceptable. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: No original or significant features are proposed for demolition. B. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is discussed in detail under "Standard 1" of the Conceptual review criteria. 5 COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The proposal does not comply with one aspect of the "Residential Design Standards," the "volume standard:" Volume: Areas where there are "...facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi -circular or non -orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor" are counted as 2 square feet for every 1 square feet of floor area. Response: All windows on the east and west sides of the addition are either in, or partially in, the "no window zone." The applicant may either amend these windows or ask for a variance. Staff has already recommended restudy of floor to ceiling heights for the addition, and window character. At the same time the windows should be adjusted to avoid requiring a variance from the "Residential Design Standards." ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: • Approve the Development application as submitted. • Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. • Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) • Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application (to a date certain) with the following direction to the applicant: 1. HPC recommends Landmark Designation be approved by City Council. 2. HPC supports the concept of restoring the original cabin. All existing materials are to be retained and repaired as needed. Any materials which must be replaced due to deterioration must be replicated to match. HPC staff and project monitors must be consulted before any exterior materials are approved for replacement. 3. All window replacements on the original cottage must be based on physical evidence such as cuts in clapboards, framing evidence once the structure is exposed, or photographs. Additionally, it should be investigated whether one of the two original front doors (the one that would have faced E. Hyman Avenue) has been filled in. If so, it should be restored. 0 4. HPC supports the requested partial demolition. 5. For the rear yard setback variance to be granted, the five foot setback variance must be used entirely to distance the addition from the old house, so that the south face of the second story is at least 11 feet behind the east west ridge line of the old house. 6. The first floor height of the addition shall be no taller than 9 feet, which matches the old house. This will cause the deck to move further off of the old house. 7. Re-examine the windows proposed for the new addition and the detailing. The addition should not be given Victorian detailing, however there are long unbroken surfaces and windows which are dissimilar to the old house. At the same time the windows should be adjusted to avoid requiring a variance from the Residential Design Standards. 8. The storage and trash areas at the rear of the site are not historic structures and are to be demolished. The applicant must work with the Engineering Department to move the utility pedestals currently in the alley onto private property. The gravel parking space in front of the house must be removed and all parking shall be accessed from the alley. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to table the significant development application for 920 E. Hyman Avenue to a date certain." 7 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATICN FORM 1. Project name .o ©/��/% � W/jA/ 04 Z. Project location 920 �. ya-�,ni✓�- (indicate street address, ';o and block number or metes ana bounds desc: intion) 3. Present zoning�5'u � ✓s�%'�ss• Lot size o�,_ 8. t's name , a re s a phone numcer Applicants 4A6c � .off✓ �l�/ 8. Representative s name. address. and phone number�� . — - • . - --- -* A A eZol WLa -4 Sri'. / a//_ // 4 �' - i . Type of appfication (deck ail that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA sPC Conceptual HP" S oecial Rev ie N Final SPA Final HPC —" 80a0 Greaniine Conceptual PUD .—. Minor HPC _ Stream Margin Final P!JD r Relocation HPC Subdivision _____ _ Text/Map Amend. Historic L namarc G,MQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partisi Demo View Plane Condom Design Review - Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee - A Adiustment' s 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures. approximate sq. ., number of bedrooms. any previous approvals granted to the property) 1� 9. Descrip 'cn of development application�� 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 Attachments 4 and SO v/0,rr DEC-23-98 WED 10:49 AM 970.925.8289 970 925 82e9 P.02 ATTACHMENT 2 01MV.NUIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM 0 • E d � end t r '� st . s � st er to • elopuoE) ueenp aenllS C s r 10 C',.4?6 t Av _ �!dlind A v as PEW 9 �. 'N O rr • 00 n c+rrgo►,y r C m 1 l� Joel Roger Kerr ana Associates 406-H Pacific Avenue Telephone (970) 925-8289 ATTACHMENT 4 Architects Aspen, Colorado 81611 Fax (970) 925-8289 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 2. Building Materials, Conceptual: EXISTING: The existing siding is to be retained except where rotted. Any new siding will match the existing. The porch roof and detailing will be rebuilt with members that are historic in size and proportion. The asphalt roofing will be removed and replaced with wood shingles or asphalt shingles. NEW: Siding to be 1 x6 ship lap cedar. Sidewall shingle detailing is proposed for the north and south gables. The windows will be wood. The roofing will be wood shingle or asphalt shingle. 3. Development Plan : The partial demolition is required to allow for the development of the building in a manner that will extend it's useful life for another 100 years or so. The extent of the restoration retains the Victorian character , integrity and details. The changes needed to accomplish the goals are to remove the skylight and roof dormer that have compromised the building. The new addition portion will be behind the historic cottage. The demolition of the rear portion will be accessed from the alley and allow for the new addition portion of the building. The simple roof gable and shapes of the addition are compatible with the Victorian shapes. The addition is similar in character to the Victorian and will contrast it by using a different siding and window treatments. 5.Neighborhood: The structures on Hyman Ave. between West End street and Cleveland street are a mix of high density, large scale buildings and smaller more modest buildings. The buildings across the street are new and large in scale. The residence adjacent and on the west is a very large and tall residence extending approximately 15 feet above this house. The adjacent property to the east has a new house being constructed. It will have ten foot front and rear yards. The side yards are five feet and it's height will be approximately 30 ft. .....mow �K / ;� /D0 F- e - i Iii 2 634 63� T38 840 & 9 3 835. N � N N � N J � N x v No� / o A.9 I Z � / f s � lic u.� I lit T 1 9/8 926 92,� 9Z4,926 928 930.93 Z 934 h 9 /9 92/ 923 925 27 929931 3 9.35 Q/ I 3 �Y OCnolN 909 sa! Oa 77 2 � 0 7I D 'A � (OLD) LIO /o o n F / CHH/A' 0 r / f i x CD' CD Z L N / a Li� / o /, . / ,c • � �l � asp t/ ` � � / ; � �lt -32 834 9nU - 74 906 90,9 0 9/2 9� 9/6 9i� 820 922 924 26 928,930 932 -34 ®low. f II , 3S 0 0/ /3 o II � � I � 9115 907 90 S// Ala / " Q 9 9ZI 9 3 9 927 929 9.3/ 933 93 / / '` 77 / o /277,c. / �Oc a O O z 2010 I' I �; I` �' � I I A_'t)4agrA� _ ----- --' ` ' � 7��';Ia (2 074;�-j -;A- �I /Pnllv /Ir� .4. a ----------------- .77 -7 r�l I I I 71 1 r 1 y ® 0.4 .y unune+ c IN 9 �a � j QQ ado/ 4 C/) LAJ ? (n U Cr- LW 00 m r) = CD 0 Ej- 0 LAJ CD 10 - -4 �u ON ,6 cu '00, ..... ......... . .. ......... X co LO to pl; 911 v Z Pei z J� "C JN - [tv CL C:c to LLJ LL- 0 ry ::-zemewu Q '6 0 a_ U) UJ LJ (D ED Z r) (/� (J) 0 o Q� LAJ 0 0 D L;j 0om< -9*6 F- 0 W cs F- S 0 o o 'r- 00- 0 Q zmo X C) C) '00 *0 1 44e' ce ��(Z) Q� 6 ftV . .. ....... . . .... ........... ... ......... ... .. . .. ... . . ...... ... ...... ....... . . ...... Coo �o Q ................... ....................... ....................... ............ k I 1 `M S r ----------- f P. .o 'g LE. wow MO. -- ... -_ram- i INC, � f 1 } � J �.- , Zs i - .• ,t wry+ew .tea , .v =-'• �" e ti. �, ,,,� - � '�� ,�,• 'mow• ��1� ` ;.• �, r`�• � ,. ri Y . a i � I , � -gal•' � _�� \ . � 1 . .. • fir. • , _ _ r -dam 1•, .�s a a , " I • � E 3 9 " t t�• ",-..�,-`• � :ate /. ; •. _ - ` j•�•� -=sit �.'iS.. � •� NiN Biwa .,-. ._.: .w .I�'''�li^�'a .. i� :� i�a..C'iQts.e._��,. �M1Fc sz: � ..: •'.., r �.: • -�' •,,,'L.---mat\ � . ,ate . ' ► •. 01 s A_ c , _mot ,.--�_•, •� �,' f+ T-4 let 90� fJFl,�c A� �, �o , 4'y 7z� �-6V l/t::��1 JL ki 14iv.,ot / - ' MIA -.. �o - M7 ^ All r ' || � ' v ` --- *V "I',,',',,, llll��::: ............. OV t /) D / -! `- -1C'- —17/-- —) . d iYl I LI 3,9 e2 ` . / . ' �� L--_ | | kO-- `~~~~ - \_ .~�/~. ^° ~ - ' ' «�~7n "- OFM ;-7Z �~� ' ,,� +� /�� / y- L x� / 0 I 14 /x/v dA Ajofflmr...wi A • - _ - 1- 2_—Il_A�l — I --I--- I- tZ_ _l_ . -1 1 _ Ih _ % I �r 1 • 1 � • r - _ •• M �.. ��.. 10 0 N. -ly ` f _ I O I •» -+r k a 16 r — a -0--% on. mr� 'A. � I /. 'o .0 - o'-s — '.., p I ) k w - j t • • A �� 7Ci�/ •• - I —•/ - _ • • �• mom wit EXHIBIT — .N s� County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUAN } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIO State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060 (E) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the-�i day of ,199ywhich is�� days prior to the public hearing date of/ ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 31 sr -- day of AL�-C ,199f (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. ih ` . 1 i PUBLIC NOTICE DATE 1-13-1999 TIME 5:00 PM. CITY HALL. PLACE -,15TER CITY RN. ,I PURPOSE HISTORIC FkL�tKVP.TIUN C me this day 2L, ,199q by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires MY commission Expires Notary Publicc V�4xlu Not Public's Signature p'',��p •,cS' p : l�o: L] S •�F� • CSC NAME OF PROJECT: 9.2 D CITY CLERK: STAFF: WITNESSES: (1)E Ap" (2) i�� v-,- (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (L_),, (Check if Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice (. (Check if Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( I,)- (Check if Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: VOTE: YES NO SUZANNAH REID YES Y)NO — MARY HIRSCH YES NO _ _ SUSAN DODINGTON YES _ NO'' HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES �NO _ LISA MARKALUNAS YES %' NO MOYER YES �? ✓ ROGER NO JEFFREY HALFERTY YES _ NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YES 1-AO 1 /No MAUREEN MACDONALD YES CHRISTIE KIENAST YES _ NO EXHIBIT ~ d •s • sic t << I - %■ JAN-19-99 TUE 11:09 AM 970.925.8289 ■ 970 925 8289 P.01 Roger Kerr and A55ociate5 406-H pacific Avenue Telephone (970) 925-8289 Date; 14 January 1999 Fax To: Kathy Strickland f 2,e Re: Mailing Not for 920 E. Hyman Ave. A rc h itect5 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1=ax (970) 925-8289 JAM-19-99 TUE 11:09 AM 970.925.8289 970 925 8289 P.02 11�� I IV �� N Ga N CJ N W N V W N �! (►5 ti N N i V W N V W N 'd W N V W N N N V W N. I V W N.. V Cad Iv N -J CA3 Iv � N V CA) 1V V CO N V W IV N"" V Cd 1V V Cil N. v Ca) V W Ny.. V W -j � Ny.. [j W ta5 N 4S V , V , V , �! r V , V , V r '�! , �I , V r �4 , V r V , -.! , V r V r V , �4 , V , V , v r V , V , 2.1 V r V . V , `mil , �l r V V V .MJ ti M�y N MMJ N JYf N M1 fV /�... N .J w N ..� m N .J m N J C[7 N , m N AJ, W N /4J. W N �A►. Cb N A� W N .AJ.... Cb N /vim W N /J. W N CD N Mr W N Mr w N /e W N M CD N M� W N Mi W N .M,► W N Mi W N ry� W N �Mi W N M� OD N /.y� W N /1 W N W N sM� W N ./� W N .M-� CD N� ��r. W N M W N ��y� W N U co lU �ryi� m N r 1, U-: m m voi rn m m core w w �' aoi 0 O 0 N 0 pp 0 0 0 o 0 1 qlv b ""— 0 0 0 A 0 .. 0 . A 0 N 0 O 0 O 0 -+ 0 O 0 O 0 M 0 O-� 0 0 -+ 0 O 0 N 0 -� 0 O 0 N 0 -� 0 0 O V -1 Cif -` 2s K -+ tTi -. N CD O N O -+ O V M 0 ^� W W W N V M V W Cn O J to O O 0000 0 O O 00— w O CD O O w O 0W 00 O O O OO co O O 7 -Oa U O/-V�►• �-OV+ O OT+� O JtpNOJt O O OQv O --L Cp 0 A h m N N o CO CD W W • �--►• O Cd-(O N -.A co W A V N V O 0 m O A m C WVO WOO�A N�WO WO��.j,• V-4 c0 -n m z m r- m cn v D< Q n C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 m p 0 O O m Q m Om m m D1 m m 2 m r m r m r m r rn r �w D �> v o D o D rn m z z 0 Z �n Y rmz0 m p O -� mc< -v v r' Cl) 'U clir v m p��mm v v z r -�i -i - -1 z m� m rO r i^n r 00pmzCncnv�)� m C Z rn m r m�-ls-a C c7 v D -mG �_ 7C m D o m D- C i y, D rr m O z m r r p T �t c? m (� -< r. p O O m a - D v Y 0 m` G� -1 D 0 O 7D O� -� rn010=�s-.m'iDbmZ ��'Or�vz�'��m`�cDrA�"�Omm��z�DDmz2r�- Km�0 ern mcD0<-oDOOrmcn0 �0� mw Y K > -i r- z� z A s 2 7o�S�x O z v C� O -� --i > �b -V � v m --r �o om D 'v 0 p m0 PC to �Ovrk'°Z y c- G rn mCovm-° -� �° z �O O m.° z rny� m z m z C D z p D C C y rn z n (� -� Q° v ji m _z in- r Z rn 0 D -D rr' n r mb �M z > mq c � to v -v rn D On DU to 0 rn c —mi z m C/) 0 ►+ CD 4` C70 V O o rO� 0 `` 0 D 'p O m0 O o -0 O� O m � Oaa Q p 0oo 0 0 0 C... S Z. , 4 ( Q � O co O O O fl m rC ?° z 0 ---1 m$ O n 0 O _° c m Ov T Q 0 0 0 0 0' z c" c t o p C) vj�r o o ��Onn O rn r A m r m r� Z a, X m x O Z D .� X Y X x G m X X X W `" T X z m a7 p V' X .� = c X D < m X x -< CD (,7 o > A CA J v T rn c n v rilo v0i cn emit v tmTt v m z cNi� D Cn'' 0 t�v m to -1 N .� z O m cn v O (0 -k '� N` m D m m r con N A� to b < > fOzTl C -�4 x x Z :0 D p �+ T m m d c� m n .-� c -i z = �o X � � ,n z m z o i + CA) L rn I m z m Cn M m o O � N o X O 2 iV O O Cil O O CN.1 trt g cn m 8 ao m o M to � � n oo c o m�� D DT ,n ry z0� -i i t m cn r- T Y G7 f 0 0. I I m can o A )� JA r O z z rn D W v Co D z p rn -0 X �0 v '0 z o v 7D D cn v cn -0 cn - D 0 '0 _ D 0 'o D> yr 0 v v D c cn Y Cn T 0 z 0 z 0 r m A m z :z m v pp C� CA -0 z O r cn T 0) cn v z D to v z m m m g D3 D cn -o O m-nm00 m tn-ammm=m mmrn_Im zZ Drn cmDm�rn ZmZ T.m m z�� v z,z D O zz ao0 mm p> Or "" r =z" mo va -°O �z vc�yz�zy z T z O x X 0 `A 11 O 0 z i�R 00r0 00� �s=Dm�r0.r00000•<Y z„� 04m003Ca888X `G3 N v C3) �p O� CD ...1. ll7J rn .J. -� tp .J Q) C7� �T7 ._► p N m Of C;E J J M-• -AJ 0) Or J -4 N to -a_ V o ZS - r rn rn V W V CO - m A N N" A (P Co " N O b. O - i O N W 00 J m Co (0 0)N ca CO m CD m W rn CD �..► N Ca m (] J V cb A O -� b �► ry O ut -� N Cn �O d_ -�► a r O _► N _a N O rn N N _a N N R Y -a N A N A N 0 �+ i -+ M rJ A N Cn t Cv N r N N ► .A N W rn .r N W ► Qo .� n I W z �4 3 1 1 n 0 a c p tD 0 z to e c CA) CO Q O 1N a JAH-19-99 TUE 11:11 AM 970.925.8289 970 925 8289 P.03 LN N Ci? t cv W N •yy GJ N W N yy CJ N V W N V W N V W N V W N .I W N VV G►� N V W N V W N y W N `� N V W N V W N V W N V W N V w N V CJ N V W N V w N V W N V Cil N V W N V CO N V ta! N V W N" V W V w N V til N V CJ N V W M V W N" V W V W N V W N" "J raS W N j V W' N W (yV 4� ta5 W �4 i �1 V V -,4V � � V , 11 , �l r V � `J � `�I '�! V V V y V V V V r V r V i V i V r V r V i -.4V r i -1 r 11 � N p C� ro Qi N Gi N (y� C� N qqo� N N Cb N „ CJ CTi !� O CD N O Cb N „ C!7 I� Q CO N r NCD CO N i ai N , CXt N r CO N r OW OD N , C7p N CO N GO N 00 N a: N , W G] N � W N b N Q N p N O N p 00 N o CD N ggpp N (� ��aa N Cp N O N N C� ppee N O C70 N W GD N O Co N N N CC N N �p N p CO N p C:O N p Cll C" CA N (� Qj pp ►a N (11 (O A m m 00 a �V Qt 10 �D CT) G� IV .. CD O� N �+ N W W W CJ C9 Ch 0 i 0 o o 0 0 0 0 r 0 'c� b b b o a o i 0 , 0 , 0 � 0 r 0 � 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Cl 1 r 0 r 0 i 0 r 0 � 0 r 0 r o i qN � o � , 0 r 0 N CJ N. -+ O O o S p -i s -� is N N 'J N. a �+ O r .a O O -'� -+ W -L O O -+ O Cy) A -► N M W W W W O CO tT� Sr. 0 O V W A N i+ O CTI O Cn W- N CD fD �l O CO �I GJ U) 17 �7 77 .X7 � 7C1 �1 Zl �7 a7 77 �7 37 �7 Z7 Zt � � � � 37) � � � ?1 � � � :7 9 � � � � Z1 Z1 � � ?3 Z) zi � 17 � 77 0 �-+ O 0 O w 0 O W '-1 0 O w o O CD QQ Q g N g N O -� �y.J g Ci) o ► M 0 O N 0 O O 0 O O Cn 0 O -+ 0 O " 0 -� m 0 O .+ 0 -� O 0 O O o O O c� m 0 O O 0 O O 0 O" w 0 VI 0 O O 0 O O 0 o w --4 o w O O W o O w o O O O O O o O O y 0 O co Cl O O 0 -� O Cph W W V O O �) _ _ �p N V 4 N N_ Cn O — Cn N V W V CD Q Cn W V W W O V O (��7 -QJ� N O o Cn Cb A N CD N co O W- Cv N O� N COD CA Cvl CA) co CNU O w O m CJ1 W coOJ Cl W tOTI N y m n o n C) to D �D D D O r O O d rn z p 9 �r D O O C z 0 m z m z m z m z m r- D x 'd 0 == 0 m z D �+? ko c m 0 to 0 0 0 0 m -< m to m :v D r D vy O r- O r D D 0 8 z %< z m z m m z z cc�tt�� cc-��I p m -4 0 -4 8 z z m -1 O � d z z(6 z m ro m 1 y. z � � z m X z o � 0 0= Cn r' C� � m a v b rn O o < E -1 z O 33 K m z 3 O z s m Do m O o G) 0 C 0 c v o= m➢ 70 -I z z 4 m M O O -n cn n V z z O s Y ,m- y p O m c �j n D z -v rrt m W CO 0 r _r = t o Z m n Cn 0 C� G9 � K m P m D D m- X Z x p � Z Z c- T. x G� m O x m r z z r m m �.. m rn m > ,- y r 0 O o= cn D =t -=� r r c O O r- D r- D 0 < m '� m n v N D n r -� A n m x Z O 17 O O z Z Om o -� i m p ={ v v --i -1 m r- rn o M o cn y 77 m O r -G 1 D An rn = �+ rrtCt) 3 O n �m Cn r- cmn n 0 0 2 0 2 0 m m 0 D a n -v D m s -ry D m z� -"� r m O n n 2Z O� m z m m m r -I z aD r yzo a D Cn m z r C n n r 'o 0) -1 z Q, m 0 r' f� O m R' C p C6 Z p j -�{ y 1) m co m 0 m m C- D E X z I �'i XZ 0 zz -t �1mmm O xr° --4 O ?� O x D 90 Q rn 0) U m r x D m cCj wX Wiz= z 9D K m En � -o -n c p > > D' D S .p-i. 8> � O O p � O N �% '0 O A CO 'D � O '� N O _ O CA 'D O (+,1 (�j ... N .. m j m CJ Q •. CA 'D -_' .- W m O 0 � 0 O 0 � � O � O W � CIS _. � O 1IVV a)OmmzOxK �o 0 o 00-rC: zC7Om ��rr W O=_Ozc~CnCoA)0C) rn6mm G)0mg W r C X=_- D x o D O x cn X O m x X= c 7C G? S O C) x� rp x X 0 0 m 77 c X _ X z 0 c C X X N r- m DD= h� O X rn W o -< r- O v co m z m N N O 0�> N D N .i D `� -p W co G� r~ A T �u 0 CJ D cn D L �. � r C Cfl D z .� N m v 'CI 77 D� 0 z Z m T X N m z .. z m -► o _. .. y v, m= z cn -1 �10 .� o -� M� -< ��, to co A ro n D z N� A z N o m Z Cn ul rm 0 Mr- cu0m > 8-1 m5a o m m p� C) x o mv-I-1< r,T- c yv� z v m v>m m � C7 �, , m D �C b T> cn m � r r-D rn O Cl) f iDi 77 0 b I [� x M N xi I A = En T u m _ W _m O o _ �1 Q (Jl O O M T co U O O D n, x O z v co > m �i x O i �J O 0 = m -n i i r r O � cn D W D cn A 0 r" O a7 D W v�� m m m D Cn 77CC D '0 D Q7 r- CD r Cn Q D D z z D to cn z D r < O m C) r > rn z -D Cn cn cn cn A cn D cn -1 C C� D Z -0 'D "a -U -p C t!1 -U z z z '0 C r C C r "9 b T z z .0 U r "a -0 "0 'o v "U 0 'D S G)rn.mrnmm�,z�Dm<00M �zzzzz<mc�zm z—y��Z�z-<Oz�z�o�m Cj)m"�mr'm �mr'mrn <mm z0vzzzzzzz0?�zo Dmrnrnmrnmmcn rn r rn w Z C m O m r z 0 O m v t7 n Q0 z m C 0 D Y I o88opo �Doo8� 8=8��Ox_O�>ozo" BDS u8888888 >88 0 6 C3) as I CD d� w co Cn N CD CD Bi CD CA i\l CD pp CO CO Cr1 (Jl CO CO CD O CO O .�. V CJ1 Cl) ) O A O A .. CA V (A N GO -... 0 -- O O (D N m Cn . CD W V O CA co -� CD O T C? V 8 W O N to 00 �i O .a -� Cp -L co w CA 00 — ._.► Cn CA ..... Cn — w — Cn �J C+ � b O �a GD (D d) N . ► N O O UT N O O -- O N O -- Cn -+ A r ► + N CD W Cn + N N Ui C71 j CA CA CA CA -+ O N N O N CA N O cD W Cn N to r r o t , i , , , r r r ico JAN-19-99 TUE 11:12 AM 970.925.8289 970 925 8289 P.04 w J NUJ N v c s FNJ w N w 13 �I w !� �1.1 J w N �j y N t y N c N ~w N c�, v w V w w N �I ca W N J W N 1t W N c N � ry V w ITT V w N V w N V w N V w N V w w W W N GJ.� N y N �1 w N cya N w cv C1,41 r N c� !v c� N c i N N v �! V V V �1 V v V V V V V V V V V V V V �! �1 V �! �1 V �1 �1 ! �! �J v v N -;4 V J .A OD J. OJ J co J W �► m r w �L w .i w .- m J co �► m �► co I. J w N, Y M r �► M r: W N �1 0o J ppoo J vo �► J CD J CD J CD r cn --� GO J oo J ��?? .► ��?? J m �► m J m J m J do J 00 Y Gb .-� aD J CA _t m N �► m N �► CD N J N .J. 1 yyN J ONGo o N Q �{ 0 06 - , NO 0J CO O O 1a � Co 0 0 0 6 6 p (A m 0 0 0 r 0 0 O Nw0)D moNo 0 co 0 0 (eN0Op rQCl060 w m co b. ("I rn `v r4 -i o J w 5S77 Nw J 0 O M O W N 01010 " N O co O-S V CD o -1 O N N r -+ ?J a�m-.� J7 �O �1 ®-rnd 77 oj 77 DN 77 ?m1 0 :o0 I -0 A mco xV b 37 00o " 000 � 8 jff n 00 0 777J o p0 b A J n I l O - 1 W 1 w W n CO d 0cp 0 0 O O — O D MM ! --► CA) w r• a Gx� to N o ao m w b 0 q crt N V w M N w m V � w cncncncncoCn0�o m 0 n n n D r D �% -< 70��o_rox7aDao�XM��y c c 0) 0 -i 0 0 �j 00 n n m m CO D � O r� -uro-vv-ov m-n m m D D r- x 1rt 00000zzz_;;f%l r (n r r c O X c SJ c 7J �n 0 C 0 C 0 0 r� T m >7 O=_ IZ m o Y m w W= Mzc. z cn 0 CD m� Wzz (n �_= 0 C7 � Z rn 0-Immm0�l7nD 0 -1 n -n �� rC- r R' 0 ozZ70zzrr-0-1yn 0 m G� a z 0 z m� O Z x w b z -a- z z t --I m -p D m m o rn Ty o 0 �, z `� 0 r y rr- p m C� 7C 0 cn m 0 � a W m Z m Z c c z O - 4 Q. 0 O O Z] Z z m m z n D O z n a -0 n1 T yv in m r r rn r r� Z M = O c. 0 0 m Z z Z 0 rn DU 7o CO Z D -�am�=�m��'xm z i m g D00007�Zcim>i0U3 3 z c r �Nrm.Dvv�m�� x n <-<�-�t�ZOw ?'y°z=�ccn c� Z r= r r D z_ c?o0X�?��mmm0rn D n �0 z 0 z �-v Dln co -i r m�Oz m -� a� A =<p {�� z O v D 2zcnmmm�c�_ v D c. T Nm vi m n - d c � m �° r � A o M � `" a 0 z= m m m m cn cn c s = m D zv cn c. 0 CO r n rn n z► �D m O �?�-4 --i z (n nD� r0 m m m m zl�jrz" Z .om0 � �� Q DI-N >1 � -� z D D 4 co M �z : 1 1 _= m IDI m T= 1co y Oz a i z O C 0 O w -' cn A p O L O .J ..� O _► o g di tJD Ui m V N >-4 c-c��1 V ��pA ,R J O � -° O I7 O (o N -� N _. x C z � Q m O t i � O N co cD J a -` -i � O - O � o � O w cn rn co 0) v 0 m� p x- toO Wm=0cocn X G� Dx Opz00 o�mZ0 W o o OO zzv oo t'j - m xx0< m m o cn m m00=�ZO ccpp xxn*zx92m co O O w N co o n m rn en O xxmp= oU O-i cnmc..m 0 cn-n -� O m°-o�.�=0 O 0 ooI��oo cN,�cN.�m m0N� ro mm r'�m,� m r co z� -� r c�=zz cn �� in r r' I = rn m T r W V C� y p C D m (n D== n v U? (A D G 0 a O 7:7 c " r o N X Z M Z O -n can N A 0�z-J� m to r z rn -1 m 77 N N rn z �7 O D z -i 7C C Y r� R DG v pnmm-►-4m�Zov m m D� U)c�0 z z o m m ��mn 0° � m -1 cn to 0 0 co O °° D ccn 3p .° Z n -t r m D-p m -n x7 --1 m m N Z Z �1 m N ' rn� > 0 (n 0 m 0 S rn D C- m I A m A A c 0 Z rn , tni Z O m m -+ o "r m z o 0 � N ONN O Ui o r m O m� = m x O- rn m z >� z D m -T C m yr G D 0 m m = m c ( I r z _Q �i Ul O rn m U) Y Cl) 3y z t7 m O D cn b Cl) Co cn 0 -4 D �-T Y c - t D -i v =_ ro __ cn D m r G� 70 0 70 0 m D 2 O D �_ cn p2 O D cn cn Z D p Co --I � O -n D r O D (n D Cn z m p cn cn cry � us -t r vzzyv-ov m z `m p rnmmm z Z Z vyx�Ocr� Z> ao_rr�r+ --� G v z DSmrn 3 mmnmxm� z Z� z= -i Z mo= ao Dmm�m-° y z z m O�°wmrn c-n> A z z z 0 mmm Z Z Z 0 O p 19 O zZ -z-1 m z m U) m � X O A� D M r M r r �C O 0 O a) m 0 m z Y D m� 0 m r' � Irri c 0 O z c 33 O u) x 0�0m0 0rb'rn >>>n>�00�0x0nDm0 �g��DDOO <0�'8� -+ N O w J J J .1 - -+� CA .a O CO w w V ,p J �O w .. t0 CA) CO ? w 0) CA CO) O(� CD m O V ) J. J Qi J V N ► J. w J -� Ut J w N r cn Oo N J •-+ -� a J "'� c►t W s W W w © N N (� w Cl N W J CD I � v -+ I O CO co J J O O CA) i O V O r O 1� �O ► N GJ1 •• V O A N N IV �' -' � - LJ , T N , N , 013 I N I N N ( JAN-19-99 TUE 11:13 AM 970.925.8289 970 925 8289 P.05 N V v Vni �) V�J V y V V �! V y N y V W y Ny L►5 V tiJ v Nv Cad v W (►? C+� 4 W .4 CJ V r CO V r W y r (,� V , (� Cp V G3 V , W V r LJ `J r co V r W r W r C� r , W r (� , W , r , r y r v r V V � .► Or7 N W N r OD N r ��oo N .� �n N w► tf0 N 1 m N J w N Y m N .6 co N " 04 N .i N J N j S J m N �i. m N J co N J w N Jl 00 N ._i w N ,..h. 00 N ..A 00 N J m N J m N N J tV J N J N J N W �j N r rQ N r C011 � OD " � QD N r N r ca � M , N r M" r r r N 90 r J f011 r ONO r N p 0 0 0 N 6 b 00 'O gQ O D� b b �% COCS� O 6 N O _p O O O b O 66 Crl W N ro N r+ N CTi CT� W N OD OD O G V [fl A J 0 m 0 x X 3Q x 0 D3 O �. x O �. O Q o .i1 Q SS � T t� x O Du O � O w O w Q Oo � Q Vv x O ;II o �7 37 Q--010 ``-�d�a 77 37�1 - ?� 0 0 _ v 03 p? cp y cp� cif o A CoW �NT� c� fN � o un " o ¢w COt� -� � M r�.� m cJ0 p p O r m O aoDD>ac-a--4-i e n m m m V D XXA_=___ rn m D D <0o-n0O_-izmm00�Dmcn bSr Cl)0 co N 2r-r-n � -a � =1rr _ ��: cnO n m to cn m z z o � z � O M n � `-" � C- cb z D> � m Z m c Z p O m to T r m � D z A z> CD O =1 Z �O[rV�<=r"o�D0 Z� 2 z Am�d�Oty�'ZOAO D Z p c0X CO r �l t7 y= rn I -1 n rn z 0 _ jD r'm=rn S,7 '� m �,7 C7 )J m=� rn p Y m n m m mCD o rn C Cl)- rj > 7 i c ^► C- � r- y-, 90 m m ,- X --4 --� b pp Z D -4 (n c Z n O -ri m Z --I O c CO _ z ,ma cn O O' O o o cu rn$ .+ t0 cn j .i N CJien o p o Ts, O = m z°°�Do=x=x=x UO�=mmomgrnO�mmmZ"'�Om�ccomEr. �On °_=z�mzx=rn�pf zyz'zc oW°'r<rt o < O Z �p ch m 0�"mC� p s X w< D N M �OO�zmmzaa5Dov -4 r0- rn z D Z m z-" z°'�zco.,zZz < D �M' mm�, X -��mrn '4 r= a D < m �<D�zp0Z m m< ?� �=v�Zp rr, x �o - I 0 � z n m 0 = M o -1 z O m� m m Z m $ m co Z cn m rn S Cl O O n O C ClO O N p0��N m tn v o =to0 K J < -0z o m cn rn z m J QQ o z z N cncncn -v-vTzzz�-v-0VMT D D O S Ov�cncncncncn�v�tom=mcnOco > D `d D T Y -uv Z n O 'a = _0m m aJ Z(n D -U rn S 0co 0 V mmmco Z z z N p pmmrnmmm z Z Z Z z z <mm o z z Dz O O � z O z z IXZ IV �z-i M m = m z c� c m z p0m z � cn Z nnO z -4 Cl)Z to v�rC m )' Z 0 M O = rn CO m S ^C � yA D a 8'880�=000000> 8 �p8 o�norr�ooF O 00 O d0 to Srn• J N J tP CO O O C) 0 0 0) (O N 00 to tb 0 A G) to Cif 00 Qi N 0 N O -" W O Ln O CJi J 0 Co 0 co _ 0 N N m J J N J N ••• N ED W- .-L L J - L tJ1 x J A J N " J J " J Q .. M y " .. M 01 .� UI (] N r V " ' C� z CD • •i Y ' EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM Ll 3 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 117 N. 6th Street- Conceptual and Final Review, Partial Demolition, On - site Relocation, Variances, Residential Design Review -Public Hearing DATE: January 13, 1999 (Continued from January 6, 1999) SUMMARY: HPC reviewed this application at a public hearing on November 11, 1998, and continued the review to November 18th with the following direction: (1) revise the proposal for the historic house to include replacing the existing windows with historically appropriate ones as shown in the photograph of the house from 1980, (2) study the request for a variance at the back of the new construction to alleviate the neighbor's concerns by using different materials, or in some way changing the character or placement of the west wall and area above the garage, (3) when the shed is relocated, place it at grade to lower its height to address the neighbor's concerns, and (4) provide drawings of the north and south sides of the historic house. Aside from these items, none of the other variance requests or design elements was of concern to a majority of the board. Historic landmark designation has been approved by City Council. The applicant provided the requested drawings and amendments for the November 18th meeting and addressed the HPC in a worksession format. The application had to be tabled again to December 9th to allow noticing of variances needed to accommodate neighbor's concerns and for some other architectural elements, and then was required to be tabled when it was discovered that a significant spruce tree on the site, which was intended to be preserved would not survive the construction as proposed and was also larger than the architect team had realized. Since December 9th, the applicant has worked to find an appropriate site to relocate the tree to, since no location was available on site. It was their feeling that redesign was not possible since the tree and tree dripline occupied approximately one third of the property, leaving only the area directly adjacent to the old house as buildable Although it looked as though the Aspen Historical Society would allow the tree to be moved onto their property, which is across the street, but finally decided that it would not benefit the organization to do so. Stephen Ellsperman, City Forester, then offered to allow the tree to be moved to the Municipal Golf Course, with the condition that the applicant hire a very experienced tree mover who they had located in Texas. The • owner is also required to post a bond for the tree's survival for a period of five years. The architect has submitted the signed tree removal permit as well as a new cover letter explaining why they will not alter the proposed design even with the off -site relocation of the tree. It is their feeling that it is still not appropriate to move the new house forward or towards the old house, in order to keep the most appropriate relationship between the two structures. Conceptual and Final approval are both requested at this meeting. Staff recommends approval with conditions. APPLICANT: Lynne Coulter, represented by Studio B Architects. LOCATION: 117 N. 6th Street, Lots G, H, and I, Block 18, R-6 zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) 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 coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: In previous discussions about this property, the HPC stated that any addition to the historic house must be detached, or at least visually detached from it, in order to preserve the integrity of the cottage form. The project accomplishes this by placing all but a very small amount of the new construction in a separate mass, which has the appearance of being a second house on the property although it is connected to the original building by a breezeway. A generous yard is created between the two buildings, and the breezeway is far back on the site, so that its visibility from the street is minimized. The large cottonwood trees and irrigation ditches on the site are maintained, as is the historic shed, although in a new location. 2 Old House In regard to the architecture, a small addition is to be made at the rear of the historic cottage, to expand a bedroom and bathroom space. This addition will require the demolition of the north and west walls of the back part of the house, as indicated on the attached demolition plan. The existing construction will then be extended 3 feet to the west and a new addition will wrap around it along the north side. Materials are to match those on the historic house, but the addition will be distinguishable because of the changes in wall and roof planes. Drawings of the proposed modifications to the historic house show that three existing windows on the north side are to be restored to double hung windows as existed previously. On the remodeled area in the back of the north elevation, an existing vertical window opening is to be eliminated and two smaller square windows are proposed. Staff is not opposed to this because the area is being remodeled and the windows serve a bathroom, so privacy is desired. On the south elevation of the old house, the applicant intends to leave existing non -historic windows alongside the fireplace. Another existing window is to be retained and the applicant will look for evidence of its previous appearance during construction and work with HPC to determine the appropriate action. On the rear portion of the house, the applicant will retain an existing door, add a new window, and remove a window where the breezeway connects to the house. Staff has no concerns with the proposed west elevation of the addition on the old house, which will be new construction. On the east elevation (the front of the old house), the double hung windows will be restored and the applicant will remove the small gable over the entry, which has been built sometime since 1980. Also the front door will be rebuilt to replicate the historic door that appears in a 1980 photograph. New House The new construction is a modern interpretation of the traditional house form. The main volume has a traditional gable roof, while the other masses that are hung off of it have more contemporary roof shapes. By breaking the building up into these smaller components, the house relates to the character of the historic cottage on the site, which is also comprised of a series of masses. Windows and doors, and solid to void relationships on the new construction are also compatible with the historic building. The architect has indicated the materials on the drawings. Primarily, horizontal and vertical wood siding will be used. Metal panels and corrugated metal, and concrete will be applied to areas of the building further back on the site. At the November 1 lth meeting, it was suggested that some restudy of materials on the rear of the new construction be done due to the neighbor's concerns, and this has been accomplished for the final submittal. Staff finds that the project is very well done. The debate as to whether contemporary architecture or traditional styles are more appropriate when adding onto historic structures is on -going within the preservation profession. At the National Trust for Historic Preservation 9 Conference in Savannah in October, several examples were shown of infill or additions which copy historic architecture. While these may be somewhat more comforting to some people's eyes because the character is consistent, it also confuses the history of an area, making it difficult to distinguish what is old and what is new. HPC's job is to balance the importance of creating this distinction and the importance of allowing new thoughts in architecture to be expressed with their mission, which is to preserve historic architecture and to ask that new construction be compatible at least in its basic components. In this case that balance has been achieved. The project requires several variances, which as a landmark the property is eligible for. The variances are: a 5 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance (for the five feet of the office space which sits in the rear yard setback), a 20 foot 6 inch combined sideyard setback variance, a 2 foot north side yard setback variance (for the addition to the old house), an 8 foot 6 inch west sideyard setback variance (for the historic shed), a 3% site coverage variance, and a floor area bonus of 102 square feet. Additional variances have been noticed for this meeting to accommodate the design and to address the neighbor's concerns. These variances are: a west sideyard setback variance of 2 feet and a combined sideyard setback variance of 14 feet (for a storage area and deck at the rear of the new construction), a rear yard setback variance of 9 feet and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 9 feet (for the overhanging roof canopy at the garage), and a 2 foot front setback variance and an 11 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance (for a front porch.) The setback variances are all driven by the fact that our setback requirements are based on the expectation that a house will be built on the center of a lot, rather than two smaller masses separated from each other. Also, the applicant has worked to create as much separation between the old house and the new house as possible. Likewise, the site coverage limitation does not accommodate a building which is spread out across the lot rather than in one taller mass. The floor area bonus is requested to offset the portion of the shed which is counted in floor area, as well as the breezeway. As mentioned at the worksession, although the project has the appearance of two houses, it is a single family home and is therefore allowed a smaller amount of floor area than if the buildings were actually detached units. On November 1Ith and 18th, the HPC members expressed no concerns with these variances. Staff agrees with the applicant that redesign is not appropriate even though the spruce tree will be moved. There are only a few variances that affect that area of the project. They are a five foot rear yard setback variance to allow the office space above the garage to be within five feet of the rear property line (the garage is allowed to be within five feet of the rear property line,) a nine foot rear yard setback variance to allow the roof canopy over the garage (this is an architectural element which does not appear to be of benefit to anyone if removed), and a 2 foot west side yard setback variance for a storage and deck area (the applicant has already redesigned this area to address concerns. The variance is minimal.) 4 To summarize the status of the review, after the November 18th meeting staff provided the applicant with the following conditions to be addressed: 1. Satisfy HPC's direction to restudy the west facade and garage area of the new construction to address the neighbor's concerns. 2. Place the historic shed at grade level when relocated. 3. On the south elevation of the old house, restudy infilling the existing window and replacing it with two double hungs in new locations by examining existing clapboards for evidence of previous appearance. 4. On the south elevation of the old house, retain the existing door. 5. On the east elevation of the old house, the double hung windows must be restored and the applicant should look at removing the small gable over the entry, which has been built sometime since 1980. Also the 1980 photograph suggests that the original front door had a pair of arched windows in it, and consideration should be given to recreating this door. 6. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation (the shed). 7. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure (the shed), site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. The financial security shall be in the amount of $10,000. 8. HPC must grant the following variances: a 5 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, a 20 foot 6 inch combined sideyard setback variance, a 2 foot north side yard setback variance, an 8 foot 6 inch west sideyard setback variance for the historic shed, a west sideyard setback variance of 2 feet and a combined sideyard setback variance of 14 feet for a storage area and deck at the rear of the new construction, a rear yard setback variance of 9 feet and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 9 feet for the overhanging roof canopy at the garage, a 2 foot front setback variance and an 11 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for a front porch, a 3 % site coverage variance, and a floor area bonus of 102 square feet, 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. 9. HPC must grant the requested variances from the "volume" standard of the "Residential Design Standards" for the windows as shown on the new house, based on the following finding: The proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. The project in general addresses pedestrian scale in a successful way, which is not diminished by these windows. 10. Submit a landscape plan indicating all trees to be removed and any new trees proposed to be planted. Any amendments to this plan in the future will require HPC approval. 11. Submit a demolition plan showing all exterior walls/features to be removed. 12. Contact the Parks Department prior to December 9th to discuss your plan to protect the spruce tree during construction. Be prepared to discuss your plan and Parks' opinion on December 9th. 5 13. Examine the siding on the old house. The HPC is assuming that you will retain the existing siding on all portions of the building except for the remodeled area at the back, where you will use new siding to match the old. Label your final drawings accordingly. 14. Provide all items requested on the attached form, minimum submission contents for final review. Include identification of all materials to be used on the exterior of the buildings, including things like light fixtures. If you don't have those selected at this time, remember that you will need approval before installation. Staff finds that all of these items have been addressed or incorporated as recommended conditions of approval. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The character of the neighborhood is a mix of both miner's cottages and large newer second homes. The applicant has prepared a model which shows the immediately surrounding neighborhood. From this model, which was viewed at the worksession and on November 11 th and 18th, it is clear that the massing of this project is much more appropriate to the historic character, of the neighborhood than many other infill projects have been. 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 historic significance of the resource is not affected.. It will remain an excellent representation of an Aspen miner's cottage. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The historic structure is being maintained in its original location, without even excavation for a basement. Restoration of windows and other elements is included. Modest changes are proposed at the back of the house, but they are one story in height and architecturally compatible with the historic house. The adjacent construction does not directly affect the architectural character or integrity of the house. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: In order to make the project work for the owner's needs, the existing house becomes a guest cottage (without a kitchen) with the main living space then placed in the 2 new construction.. To make the guest cottage more functional, a modest expansion of one bedroom and bath area is proposed, requiring demolition of the north and west walls of a portion of the house which appears on maps in 1893. The roof form of this addition will remain in place, but the exterior walls will not. Staff finds the partial demolition required for a small addition acceptable. The applicant also intends to demolish a small wood storage area on the lot which is not historic. Staff has no concerns. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: It is unrealistic to expect that none of the original fabric will be affected. The architect has placed the modification to the cottage at the rear of the building and has designed it so that the roof form of the original construction will still be present. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is discussed in detail under the significant development review standards. ON -SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The historic shed, which currently sits along the alley, is to be relocated behind the historic house. This is necessary because the current location of the shed is the most logical place for a garage and the shed cannot be adapted to be a garage stall. Rather than incorporate it into the new building or in some other way significantly remodel it, the shed is moved behind the historic house and maintains it association with it. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re -siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Said report will be a condition of approval. W 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The relocation plan and bond will be a condition of approval. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The project requires variances from the volume standard for windows on the new house. Generally speaking, the regulation regarding "volume" was meant to prevent large windows which carried from the first floor through the second, creating the appearance of large vaulted spaces and a poor relationship to pedestrian scale. Although the windows are more significant than others in the old or new construction, they still only relate to one story spaces. Staff recommends that HPC allow the requested variances based on the following finding: The proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. The project in general addresses pedestrian scale in a successful way, which is not diminished by these windows. STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends Conceptual and Final Review, Partial Demolition, On -site Relocation, Variances, and Residential Design Standards waiver be granted for the project as presented on January 13, 1999 with the following conditions: 1. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2. When relocated, the historic shed is to be placed at grade level. 3. On the south elevation of the old house, examine the area of the existing window (located in the new hallway) for evidence of its previous appearance. Work with staff and monitor to determine the appropriate restoration action. 4. Prior to submittal for building permit, a structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation (the shed). 5. prior to submittal for building permit, a relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure (the shed), site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. The financial security shall be in the amount of $1ONO. 6. HPC hereby grants the following variances: a 5 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, a 20 foot 6 inch combined sideyard setback variance, a 2 foot north side yard setback variance, an 8 foot 6 inch west sideyard 8 setback variance for the historic shed, a west sideyard setback variance of 2 feet and a combined sideyard setback variance of 14 feet for a storage area and deck at the rear of the new construction, a rear yard setback variance of 9 feet and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 9 feet for the overhanging roof canopy at the garage, a 2 foot front setback variance and an 11 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for a front porch, a 3% site coverage variance, and a floor area bonus of 102 square feet, finding that such variations are more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. 7. HPC hereby grants the requested variances from the "volume" standard of the "Residential Design Standards" for the windows as shown on the new house, based on the following finding: The proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. The project in general addresses pedestrian scale in a successful way, which is not diminished by these windows. . 8. Any amendments to the landscape plan presented on January 13, 1999 will require HPC approval. 9. Retain all existing materials on the exterior of the historic house, other than those herein approved for restoration or replacement. 10. When selected, provide cut sheets for all exterior light fixtures, for approval by staff and monitor. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. Staff memo dated January 13, 1999. B. Conceptual and Final Application. C. Minutes of December 9, 1999. 6 oil o W0jiITT,, i A Li NAME OF PROJECT: /) 7 A/ CITY CLERK: 71 a. /�-v-� J ' ' / , C- STAFF: (� w Y WITNESSES. (1) o (2) AA (3) K/a-Ao (4) 0- Y'v1 (5) mt--k a--" EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (0 (Check if Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice( ) (Check if Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check if Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: VOTE: YES NO SUZANNAH REID YES �' NO MARY HIRSCH YES _ NO SUSAN DODINGTON YES 1. NO HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES=' NO LISA MARKALUNAS YES _ NO v ROGER MOYER YES / 'NO JEFFREY HALFERTY YES _ NO _ GILBERT SANCHEZ YES NO MACDONALD YES _ NOZ MAUREEN CHRISTIE KIENAST YES _ NO _ / '' — I I � Y / I D lfD D I r rJ 1 tOi D). Lx y9. x F/ T X l(. L. �!• N. 0, P. Q. R. � , / r n � o Z n D icu M. 114 al./ (vo) W BLEEKER ST i• 1 F 44 r1 F 44 r1 FZEIXHIBIT�7T�-fig RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AT 117 N. SIXTH STREET, LOTS; G, H, AND I, BLOCK 18, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. / , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, Lynnie Coulter, represented by Studio B Architects, has requested significant development, landmark designation, partial demolition, on -site relocation, variances, and Residential Design Standards review for the property located at 117 N. Sixth Street. The property is a designated landmark. The project involves a small addition to the existing historic house, restoration of doors and windows on the historic house, construction of a new house, connected to the old by a breezeway, and on -site relocation of the existing shed; 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, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(C) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: I.Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel; and 2.Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a.Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. b.Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure; and WHEREAS, all applications for on -site relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the following Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(D)(2),(3), and (4) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 2.Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 3.Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re -siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and 4.Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and WHERAS, all applications for Historic Landmark Designation shall meet two or more of the following Standards for Designation of Section 26.76.020 in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance; and WHEREAS, all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 must meet one of the following statements in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated January 13, 1999, recommended approval with conditions, and WHEREAS, public hearings, which were legally noticed, were held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on November 1 lth and 18th, December 9th, January 6, 1999, and January 13, 1999, at which the Commission considered and approved the application with conditions. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That significant development, partial demolition, on -site relocation, variances, and Residential Design Standards review for 117 N. Sixth Street, Lots G,H, and I, Block 18, Aspen, Colorado, be approved with the following conditions: 1. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2. When relocated, the historic shed is to be placed at grade level. 3. On the south elevation of the old house, examine the area of the existing window (located in the new hallway) for evidence of its previous appearance. Work with staff and monitor to determine the appropriate restoration action. 4. Prior to submittal for building permit, a structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation (the shed). 5. Prior to submittal for building permit, a relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure (the shed), site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. The financial security shall be in the amount of $1MOO. 6. HPC hereby grants the following variances: a 5 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, a 20 foot 6 inch combined sideyard setback variance, a 2 foot north side yard setback variance, an 8 foot 6 inch west sideyard setback variance for the historic shed, a west sideyard setback variance of 2 feet and a combined sideyard setback variance of 14 feet for a storage area and deck at the rear of the new construction, a rear yard setback variance of 9 feet and a combined front and rear yard setback variance of 9 feet for the overhanging roof canopy at the garage, a 2 foot front setback variance and an 11 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for a front porch, a 3% site coverage variance, and a floor area bonus of 102 square feet, finding that such variations are more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. 7. HPC hereby grants the requested variances from the "volume" standard of the "Residential Design Standards" for the windows as shown on the new house, based on the following finding: The proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. The project in general addresses pedestrian scale in a successful way, which is not diminished by these windows. 8. Any amendments to the landscape plan presented on January 13, 1999 will require HPC approval. 9. Retain all existing materials on the exterior of the historic house, other than those herein approved for restoration or replacement. 10. When selected, provide cut sheets for all exterior light fixtures, for approval by staff and monitor. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the /3/ day o — 1999. Approved as to Form: City Attorney Approved at to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ;�Jk 4 air n ATTEST: Chief Deputy Clerk a r c h i t e c t s 7 January 1999 Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Committee Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Amy, We have resolved the tree relocation efforts with the Steve Ellsperman, City Forester and the City Parks Department. We shall be moving the tree to the city golf course 1 April of this year. I met with Steve yesterday and delivered to him the completed Tree Removal Application along with the qualified tree movers information. Today he gave us the Tree Relocation Permit which I have enclosed with this letter. I want to address the possible conversation that may arise at next weeks meeting. If the tree is now moved, why should the house as designed stay where it is? The proposed house in its current location provides the ideal massing, proportion, and contextual scale between the old cottage and the new structure. This 'reading' appears as two distinct structures and this relationship would be totally diluted should the new addition move closer to the existing structure. We researched this possibility with the tree staying where it is and the space between the two structures would then become a deep dark void instead of a garden space. We also cannot move the house closer to 6th Street because it would then take prominence over the cottage in its relationship to the street and the proximity to the large cottonwood trees. The area that will be vacant by the tree removal then becomes a perfect spot for a private south facing terrace off the kitchen and living room for an outdoor space. The garage itself is not in the variance request and is within our boundaries. We have made several concessions to appease the neighbor in our design. These include the elimination of the tower deck, the height of the tower itself, the addition of several aspen trees to screen the structure, and the addition of wood siding to address their 'industrial' concerns. The house could be made 5 feet taller within the present height restrictions and we are removing the tree at our cost which greatly improves their view to Aspen Mountain. I would also bring to your attention that they have elected to design their house at a 45 degree angle which directs their view directly at my clients property. We do not feel we should make further design concessions in regards to their view as we are within our parameters. The current office that rests above the garage is positioned in that location to obtain views to Aspen Mtn, ShadowMtn, and to downvalley views. I trust this letter addresses your concerns and we look forward to continuing this project and its construction this spring. Best Regards, Scott A. Lindenau, Architect cc: Lynnie Coulter 555 n. mill st. aspen co. 81611 970.920.9428 fax 970.920.7822 F F » {'4/1 m11W ,x.a. Parks Office 920-5120 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION Tlhe following is an outline to assist in t1Ie preparation of a tree ren10val permit. 1) Outlilie/Sketcli/Di-a\�linv of property to include: (please aaacll 2 copies) a) Property address. b) Propert}, boundaries. c) Locations of buildings on the property. d) Location, diameter, and species of trees on property and designate \\rit11 arro\vs or circles v. liiclh trees are to be removed. 2) Site address117 _.North 6th Street Aspen, Colorado 3) List tTees to be removed, species and diameter at 4.5' above grade. One Spruce tree with a 23" caliper trunk. 4) Reason for Removal Construction conflict. 5) 14itigation Plan (relocation of trees or replacement of comparable words trees as referenced in Aspen Municipal Code Sec. 13-76, (e)). Add to Property Drawing. a) Location of replacement/relocation trees. b) Size and species of trees to be replaced. 6) Completion Date of Project April 1, 1999. 7) Person responsible for project (applicant): Lynnie Coulter Property Owner 117 North 6th street Address & Phone Number 970 925' 8756 Signature 1. . t W^421 (. �' e-( I Scott Lindenau/Studio B Architects Name of Architect or Construction Representative 555 North Mill Street Company name Phone Number 970 920 9428 Signature Date AA- ril-I 11'qq (:To- . 6-(10 ,ie followil1(_', is to be complete( by the City- of Aspen Parks Department. Property/Tree Inspection: qq Inspected by Date Signature Date Comments: Permit for tree transplant is approved with the following conditions: 1) Tree will be moved with the strictest adherence to arboricultural and engineering guidelines. Proposal submitted by Environmental Design was singled out as the only proposal which shows the ability to provide a high degree of success in this endeavor. 2) The location of this transplant shall occur at a location to be determined. The contractor will be responsible for excavation of final transplant location, transplanting of the tree, final stabilization of the transplant, providing the .proper backfill soil mixture, inoculation of the transplant with a suitable VAM mychorizzae, construction of an appropriate watering cirque around the tree, placement of 3 inches of mulch within the watering cirque, and final site cleanup. Final site cleanup will consist of restoration of the pre-existing condition (including seeding, sod, or grading) as inspected an approved by the Natural Resource Specialist. 3) The applicant will contract with a professional horticulturist to care for the tree for three years following the date of transplant. The applicant will provide a letter addressed to the City Forester detailing the contract for these services before the transplant occurs. 4) The applicant will provide an approved Letter of Credit addressed to the City of Aspen Parks Department in the amount of $14,949.54. This is the appraised value of the tree. The Parks Department will hold this Letter of Credit for 5 years from the transplant date. If the tree should fail or signifcantly decline during this period, this amount will be forfeited. If the tree survives -the 5 year period, the Letter of Credit shall be released. The Letter of Credit must be received before the transplant occurs. 5) The applicant shall notify the City Forester of the Date and Time of the transplant. (:::Accepte Denied Stephen Ellsperman Forester and Natural Resource Specialist, City of Aspen Permit Valid for one year after completion date of project (line 6). Signature Date ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 Amy Guthrie, planner disclosed that she has a friendship with Lynnie .Coulter. She assured the Board that her recommendations on the project are purely professional and in no way influenced by that friendship. Amy stated that the project is an outstanding preservation effort and has the potential to be a role model for the HPC in future projects. Condition nine relates to the tree on the site and it is the spruce tree that they are building the house around. At the last meeting they were to confirm that the construction method would be appropriate. They met with the Parks Department but the Parks Dept. requirement will be that they do not build within the drip line of the tree and that was the intention by their plans. In fact, the tree is larger than they thought. If they are to stay out of the drip line it will push the house six feet closer to the old house which does a lot to damage the relationship between the old and new building. It also effects the living area space which is toward the front of the new house. The problem has to be resolved and HPC might have some input. Scott took the site information from a topographical survey that they had and it is not normal procedure for them to measure trees on the site and that was why it was designed as it is. They feel confident that the tree can be moved and that is the direction the owner would like to go. If the house has to move six feet then the relationship to the historic house is lost. Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director stated that the survey submitted was misrepresented. Stephen Elsperman, City Forester informed the Board that the tree in question is of outstanding character to the community. It is a mature spruce tree and adds quite a bit to the neighborhood. Trees of that size have been moved before successfully and it is something that can be done. One of the problems that comes with moving of this tree is that there is no site on the site where the tree can be moved to. It is not possible to move the tree off - site. The tree has character to the neighborhood where it is now. The direction the Parks Dept. wants to go is not remove the tree. They are trying to come up with a solution to save the tree onsite with everyone involved. Keith Howie stated that the previous architect David Panicco was dealing with the Parks Dept. and they took his information on the tree which 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 showed a sixteen foot canopy also the survey also indicated a sixteen foot canopy. Keith and Steve measured the tree and it is a twenty four foot in diameter tree end to end. In order to accommodate for the drip line you would have to move the house over four feet and move the garage over four feet and have to move the house, forward four feet. The architects feel that is close to a total redesign. Scott said this was brought up late in the game and when the drawings were distributed to the various departments they didn't hear about the problem until a day ago. Questions Roger asked if it is possible to build the house and save the tree and what are the chances of the tree surviving? Stephen said currently the plans call for excavation on three sides of the tree. Part of the soil has high compaction so there is not high active root growth on one of the sides. In his professional opinion you would severely jeopardize the longevity of the tree with the current plan. He doesn't feel it would kill the tree immediately but over time it will begin to decline. Mary asked what is the normal life of a spruce tree. Stephen stated in a native environment a spruce can life 200 to 230 years. In an urban environment maybe 170 to 180. Stephen cored the tree and he feels it is about 71 years old plus or minus five years. He feels the area is more of an urban environment with the compaction issues. That would put the tree planted about 1925 and he did not know if the house was there at that time. It might be part of the historical landscaping as well. Lisa asked if there are any ramifications to the owners if the approvals go forward and the board elects to leave the tree in its current position. Do they have any requirements to replace the tree. Stephen stated that there are ramifications from the Parks Department regulations in the Municipal Code. The code states that you cannot excavate in the drip line and the applicant would be responsible for the full 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 value of the tree to pay for the loss of the tree. Stephen stated he met with the original architect back in April and the issues were discussed. Scott stated if the house is moved closer to Graeme Means's house they may loose the parking space that is required. In the past Scott has moved eight, sixty or seventy foot trees with a crane about a half mile and they all lived. One possible scenario that would work would be to move the tree to the golf course and then plant additional trees on the property to mitigate for the loss of the tree. Stephen stated it is the Parks Department direction that the tree is outstanding in its place. Gilbert asked if there is another spot on the site where the tree could be moved, left of the breezeway. Stephen stated that the tree will fit in that area but there is not room for growth. It would fit like a glove in that site: Certain soil conditions need to exist and in this situation there is too much building and not enough root zone. Susan stated on the north side .there is not excavation being done. Scott said if we took out the lower level, footers still need poured. Even if we moved all the development ten feet away from the drip line that will still cause a shock to the roots of the tree and there is still a chance that it would die. Logically it would be best to move the tree. Stephen stated no matter what happens on this site there will be an impact to the tree. A compromise of the design would lessen the shock to the tree rather than removing it. The girth of this tree is 22 inches about four feet above the ground. Keith stated what he is hearing is that the tree isn't going to have the root system to grow in its current spot even if they get out of the drip line. If it were to be transplanted to a spot that has unlimited root growth wouldn't that be better. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 Julie Ann recommended that the item be tabled in order to research for more information regarding the tree. Roger stated historically during the mining days there were hardly any trees and when the mines were opened canals were dug along the streets and people planted cotton woods. Walter Garish felt that the ditches needed closed in order to let the cottonwoods die. Henry Peterson came to town in the 40's and planted 90% of the trees that now exist in Aspen. He retired in the late 80's. In fairness we need to decide what is the most important thing to the historic resource and what someone is allowed to do and what your sacrifice or not sacrifice. Suzannah stated that tree issues have to be resolved when an applicant comes in and it is important for architects to review previous plans etc. that were given to them and not to assume it is the correct information. Suzannah opened the public hearing. Graeme said it is difficult to respond until he knows exactly what is going on. He is the neighbor to the west. He would be resistant to planting the tree near the property line by the breezeway. They live in the shade of the tree presently. If it were moved to the property line it would impact that a great deal. If it is moved it should be moved to a space where it has a good chance of living. The other option is to possibly move it to the Historical Society and plant vegetation that is not quite majestic but more appropriate to a dense area with deciduous trees etc. Briston suggested maybe put in mitigation measures if the Parks Department views this tree as a public tree even though it is on private land and the client is willing to mitigate where the public can experience new trees. Put the energy and resources in some degree of certainty where you can control the situation. MOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and Conceptual and .Final Development for 117 N. Sixth until January 6th, 1998; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes Vote: Roger, Jeffrey, Suzannah, Gilbert, Mary, Susan, Heidi 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 Graeme stated if the tree is removed how does that effect the present design because a lot of the design decisions were made due to the location of the tree. Suzannah stated if the tree is removed the Board needs to discuss the setback issues. 920 E. HYMAN AVE. - worksession - no minutes AACP - worksession - no minutes MOTION: Mary moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12 24'-f 1/2" 201-611 11-51/.211 Niu Im X-'RK EXHIBIT/, FA �� 11 i IV S A X i-I-�T New go, I PI NC ko.;r� -A N 0 RTH S L E E K E R S T. scale 1/4' woo NORTH E LEVATION' scale 1/4' = 1'-0" 'IN(S ? AAAIn eVir WEST ELEVATION scale 1/4' = 1'-0" WoU: �; �� , wrlob.v. �w Im S 0 U-TH E L E V A T I ON scale 1/4'= o "74,�-i oR�GINN- _ EAST ELEVATION scale 1/4' = 1'-0" to .r .... .ter T p� r ��r! r.r.. Fs t •YY.�� ' P, t t F- y3 l j t ii yt• y ''. ok IN ZL i;'•'a.,n,...:'j,. S= ..,,.a,,;e..,... j }B y [y. ,2Mr.�• OA; ..,,rv..-.v.b,•y'\..N++•�n.r•�!Mw+.'s`•�M'�rr..+R..A�i. .�.< � Y � f • � 1 � � � {}(l 4 � < , � may,. F` :+ Y.•^r:val•s...'�'.gay!Mfc.yyMry.'M•J t.i1s •. .-. }"•- `^,�� iiiLLL Tl 46A z � .y • ,,,,�,. .ate--`. f a� ?'�' : W , ?]t� k�;.�:''-c�2� I .. z`. ::•sc>^: .. .. ,.�ra49CrL'.,:.''.,.ayK�-'�i►.G oil . . . . . . . . . . - \— we7oc:7 r-alvcz- 7 0 A57� IV -El Cl:::,A7 25L;) LAA�o 0 ,�� *`y,,�,, ' may'` , r `• :� %�! � <w e "" s.��, Lam_ i•—'• �_ "�{ {r � i . � _ % '� a `y ��"• � � ' " ��'il �t�/ � 1 1 r%4 '� - - 1 i Tp-Es m EXHIBIT 44 o) �T MIA 46or (AN evaa 16 rr' . / ,� �--�- -�..� ... . ..� :� . {t F � � . .� S .. � � ` ` _. _. ... � y' � f � �� 3 • _ �._ _ t ' •Y '. \) } � , + _ ` wrw�►��+i {two � t 3C3 . i . � �- � � � � :� :_ � { � �4. �f1wa� � #wrrn. �,�r �i �.'� � .t�� 2 7 F. �Y r 7 r� �u- swo. ~ ./-� 4"ef �,- -:27- -----v-' - r'--- - '-- --'- -- l.4 L 7