The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19990414AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 14, 1999 REGULAR MEETING - 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 12:00 - NOON - Site visit 531 E. Cooper Ave. Meet at the site. 5:00 I. Roll call II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments and project monitoring Assign a monitor to 214 E. Bleeker IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS 5:05 j jo A. 834 W. Hallam - Extension of Conceptual Approval r (14 j '5:10 ' 2 B. 2 Williams Way, Inventory, Public Hearing tk y (9 ho A- Ovi A A AVAL d~i ii 9 4.- . A / -ALL U. 1 Atic' 4 U CA th-5 ;30 ~ 2 C. 531 E. Cooper - Minor Development -7- O N~Em,#:00 / 0 D. 134 W. Hopkins, Public Hearing, Continued from 3-24 4 vv.y 64 cits<,4_ 6:30 E. 735 W. Bleeker, Amendment, PuMie'Heamring- (4 3 7:00 F. -Â·330-teke-Aver-Wocksession NOTE: Dinner will be provided 0 CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 64 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 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1999 1. 117 N. 6th ST. Coulter 2. 920 E. Hyman Ave. Lot N. Block 32 3. 435 W. Main St. Lot A-I, Block 38 4. 930 King St. 5. 920 E. Hyman 6. 735 W. Bleeker 7. 234 W. Francis 8. 205 S. Mill 210 S. Galena 10. ISIS 406 E. Hopkins 11. 234 W. Francis 12. 234 W. Francis 13. 424 E. Cooper Ave. 14. 234 W. Francis (Mullins) nROJECT MONITORING Roger Moyer 406 E. Hopkins - ISIS 514 N. First - Ringsby 920 E. Hyman - Veronika, Inc. 930 King Street Susan Dodington 712 W. Francis - Hughes 811 Meadows Road -Tennis Townhomes 234 W. Francis - Mullins Suzannah Reid 702 W. Main, Pearson 414 N. First - (POLE) 406 E. Hopkins ISIS 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter Mary Hirsch 811 Meadows, Trustee and Tennis townhomes 420 W. Francis Street Halperin 920 W. Hallam Guthrie 930 King Street Gilbert Sanchez 414 N. First (POLE) 232 E. Hallam St. - nace D i 4 â‚¬- A b| FLE+20->2 Jeffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis, Mullin 414 N. First (POLE) 101- 105 E. Hallam (not active) 920 W. Hallam - Guthrie 240 Lake Ave. - Greenberg Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street - Halperin 712 W. Francis Street - Hughes 514 N. First - Ringsby 232 E. Hallam St. - Pace 117 N. 6~ St. - Coulter Lisa Markalunas 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood Christie Kienast 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood Maureen McDonald 920 E. Hyman - Veronika Inc. & ) 4 9 .11 k 404 i 0 0348 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ~ At~ --L THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director <~O FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 834 W. Hallam Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: April 14, 1999 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on April 26, 1995. Section 26.72.010 (F)(3)(c) provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. One year extensions have been granted three times, with the most recent set to expire on April 26, 1999. At this time the applicant, Michael Hull, requests HPC approval for a one-year extension of conceptual approval, to allow more time for study of the final design. The conceptual review packet is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 834 W. Hallam Street be extended until April 26,2000. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to extend conceptual approval for 834 W. Hallam Street to April 26,2000." Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999. A. Conceptual approval RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AT 834 W. FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael Hull, has requested a one year extension ofthe HPC conceptual approval for the property located at 834 W. Hallam Street. The conceptual approval was originally granted on April 26, 1995 and the property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, Section 26.72.010.F.3.c of the Municipal Code states that "Application for a final development plan shall be filed within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless an extension is granted by HPC, failure to file such an application shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan previously granted by the HPC; and WHEREAS, previous extensions of conceptual approval have been granted by the HPC and the extension is set to expire on April 26, 1999; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated April 14, 1999, recommended another extension be granted; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on April 14, 1999, the Commission considered and approved the request without conditions by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That a one year extension of conceptual approval for 834 W. Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado be granted, to expire on April 26,2000. APPROVED BY THE CO1MMISSION at its regular meeting on the day of ,1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 4/ 0 br. .. 21>-. - I I â‚¬ 4 . .. .. 1 0 - -134 - .. 1 - 1/1 I . . .. '. -./ I X i .... .. ....... U - .. .. 9 . . .- -1 ..- 11 ,/11 . 1 20/fl .. 1, . - FFÂ·3TEr . .. 15 4 _L_11= s -Â· -1 ~ fitil:~ ; 1 .. r- g~. . .- . . 6 Â· EX. SOUTH ELEVATION 03 L.* ... 5 I I 15. . . .. .. *88Â· â„¢WAVT%.6 -- .i J. D --13~terrIDHN- +. 441:14 & w 0, - 1/ , ~ - t. 23*710 . - 2 â€¢ t-1 1- - E â€¢ . ./ 1 -' -*tÂ¥2--:Â·Â£ '-r - * LL ..y, 9 -:unk.0.1 - 4 . - - . . f- 3.'-.~~:.1 --1- . Â· .. 4 .! -, .2--34-4- - . Â· .. - r . . :-=. T . - --*Il-- . . ======N-- 1. e . â‚¬42?**AMA - .. 1 - 4-91/*MNÂ»:-319/ZEâ€¢ -9Â·9.- , 0 . . a.Â»..."/iwix/m/*Id/.r.5Ft4 0:. I . . . ...1 LJ'... 'ryÂ«'iÂ« Â· - - . . c *diE 2 J Â· Â· *.1 .-I . ~ 6. JAKE VICKERY -- I- - -Ie=.-I - r,23*,2.46 . . . SM- Poer OFFICE. BOX 12'60 - 41,0 zr Â· Â· 100 sOUTH SnING 51: 03 -EX WEST. ELEVAT IGN . ~ tI - L>/>LA\.\O - -- ..... A V. .. . - 7(1=C .U----â€¢11-eM .....,1.- 7197E {30,) '33-3.60 ...:,-22Â».ok 9: -42# -.--. fu .4 '.:boit & I. . ... '.â€ž . .... .1 . . .. 1 .. ': ... ./ I 0 . /1 ' I -imm,04Â·#Â·iw--2F,i'*r. Â·Â·!,;. . IGaligerâ€¢,c. 1 Â· â€¢ r. ..... . I I , 0 rt . .. . I ... ... . .. . I . 4 I. . , .. I , . .1 0 . . ,.. . 4 + --9"/ --1- I . .. ; , .. .. . - 1 . . / I . .... . e...1 . e . I .. . . 1 . . â€¢, ' t. Â·I Â·' â€¢ , . 1 .. 4 1 I . r.....'ll-*-' . 1 . '... 0 . . .4 =3 .. I . 1 .. .. m : 31]Im . 7.j x 11 X 1. -1 1 . 4,61 . . I .1 7 I. 1 I . . 1 IZ \ 4 i 10 7' I i ' 1/2~1 . 4370 1 + :im .1 m: < Â·Â·Â· Â· r m 33 tw o -4 1 9. 1 - -* 9 1 Â»40 0 1, n~ Â· R - . . .1 . .. . .. , . . e . . 1.4 I I Â· â€¢ . V . Â· 1 1. .. I. 0 , . D , 0 I I . .. ., . -4 4. ... 1 . 1 . ... 1 . . . .. .. .. 0 . 1 . . 1 .. .... I . 12 . . . .. I I . .. r., .. F'. 4 i ;imfir-: Â·:j.:;:*1 3 :..1. .' .........:' ........ 6.â€¢ ' I . . '1 . . t . Â·: i[31 ' Â·it Â· V .L AlIa)DI -ill-------I-=.Il- .... ------------~ i ' .. ........... ... . :. . . I . I . e . : e .... I . . . . .. . . . . I . lit' I ... . - . I ./ ~'' r .. . . ... .. ....... . D 1.. I . .. IE .. i .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . ../ ... .... I . -.- 1 .. . ... - 1. 8 . . ... SOUTH ELEVATION, . . -. . 01 3 I. 7 ..- - . .. - 1 6.. . :1 .. . I. I. 4. . . I . 1 - . 4 ... Â· - I d ill. . 2. . 4 1 ... . ;1 . .. 0. / '1 67---te 1 1 . I-1 11;i Ill 1 i Â· . . 17 - . 4 1 IT-11 - - IL-----__! 1 . .... . lilill . . . . t . ,. . .to. . . . 4 I . 1 .. 1 . 4--9.- i .. . 1 1 . .... - :1 .==== -=~ . 1 e . . - .. .- 1. ... .... . WEST EL EVAT:I ON - ~~ .. . - Â·% JAKE VICK ...... 9 wascurly==M. 4 /7 kir i -- - T 0EE1*=_-â‚¬ArlÂ«% Â»Do 1-11014 - . E===I Iga POST OFFICE BOX =360 r. 4 AS..4 COLORADO .1.2 . 9 Â·'2.â€¢ . 3 A.: . .g.6... . * . . 0 7.Unte- , PACS..44 1103) '23-34â€¢0 ... ... .. I . . . .. .-- f I. I ':' . 1 . . 1. 111 1 .- ... .. : . I...Ilill- -- - N-O R T H ELE VAT--ION : .t J - -a i . 1 . /4 . 1 -: .a . I . . . . 0 1 \ i .. J . I . == . .. iÂ·. .. .. .. EAST ELEVAT ION JAKE VICKERY +Ap-rÂ« Â»rpo\11014 1 &0 100 SOUTH SMINGS!1 0 POST OFFICE 80* 123. ASPEN.COLOR.00.812 4 .... â‚¬,O,} 911.3..O -U-0. I 0ACS:MILE 1.=mi .. Â·4624-.. . .. >Â·- .Â· -1 uil<-Â·2;zÂ·~?~M;~ ~~~~ *2**~Z. .~~ * 4 lil . 0 Â·21-Â·. . .. --0- 0 . . *.. . . Livp. . e.. . .. I . . ... . .... . fc . . 0 -. . I 1 . 1. 4*/ 3 ./ / - -, ..:h--Lf. .. 1.--=1. I. - 11/ -Ialt[ I I . 1 ULAT#~<1.--9.... ~ / Â· . ""t-Â»69.,94 4.-*-- 1 1 . , 0 -7 . 1_ T 25,31(1.*24 J.: f- 2. 9 . ~~ . --. - 2.. Â· . b . 5 .- tz~ . * . / 4. . I . .... C - 2 -. . .4 . 111 1- 14 . i . 4 ..../ .. '.. I ./ . . I 0 .. f. .XI . - . . . . .+44 . /FF1 0~3 - - L. . - . -. 32*69 V. D. Â· : 'Â·Â·Â·Â· /4.&%/rj:-:.2, St j . .-:.4 .. . I. .. 1 k . . I --&h./.,6. . . 5 | . i - . ------1 â€¢ Â¥ - -- 5â‚¬1 t ela*.0* 3 ... . I . .../ - *tÂ· -*44 4 - EX. UPPER PLAN . 4 ...'./ I . I -1 . I - . ... r. 01 3 10 I -1 I 7 4 i,#Â·-Â·'1~ 45 - 1 Â·-> I.G :'b:- 6 -4 +2 i!+ * 12.4...A. : I 4 -- 7*89# &1114Â·t-ER /422111zpt-1- - - . 1.1 .. _ r JAKE VICKERk -39-er _ I * t - I . . I -'jt- 4.: 45 4,.:.x.- 4-:.. . - ~- .2,--14& . ~.gu ~ . 100SOUTHSPR:NGSZO - 4 27.~i-AN-*644-2-4.24-14, 4.-Â« . . Â· - *Ex 'OsT OFFICE BOX 12360 . - . .- - ~ .7 > -- i,~Â¢*6 2~JUI~)~25i,6.0 ~ - - I.Â· â€¢-1 ti~ ~â€¢8~ReÂ·~i~~~~~e.t'ZÂ£ <Â·.i 2-.2L;- Â«P ,-,~:Iml 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director - 1 FROM: Sarah Oates, Planning Technician-50 RE: 2 Williams Way, Addition to the Historic Structures Inventory DATE: April 14, 1999 SUMMARY: Per City Council's request, the Community Development staff is seeking to place 2 Williams Way on the inventory of historic structures. The property is not currently on the inventory because it was only recently annexed (within the past five years). The original portion of this house, which is located at the corner of Spruce Street and Williams Way and stands onthe west side ofthe property, was built inthe 1880's by the Warkentine family. The structure is included on the 1896 Willits map. The east side of the house dates from the same era, but was moved to the property from its location on Main Street in the 1960s. The two structures have an adjoining section. The house is currently used as a duplex. The west side of the house, although in its original location, has been significantly modified with triangular windows in the gable. Nonetheless, the building has retained its original shape and character. Although not in its original location, the east side of the house has retained its historic integrity due to details such as verge boards and designs in the gable. A barn and outhouse that were located on the property no longer exist. APPLICANT: City of Aspen. LOCATION: 2 Williams Way. PROCESS: The following paragraphs are excerpts from the Land Use Code which are to be utilized by the HPC in evaluating additions ofresources to the Inventory. Staffhas prepared responses to these standards to assist the HPC in its findings regarding 2 Williams Way. 1 . INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Section 26.76.090, Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures. Intent: Fifty (50) years old is generally the age when a property may begin to be considered historically significant It is not the intention of the HPC to include insignificant structures or sites on the inventory. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community. Response: The structure, both its original building and the portion of the house moved to the property, meet the criteria for being more than 50 years old. Although significantly altered from its original state, the structure has maintained its historic integrity, and is unique because of its location in relation to the original townsite and other historical buildings. The east end of the city contains rare examples of remaining Victorian homes, many of which are more modest than the buildings seen in the West End. 2 Williams Way is all that remains of a neighborhood that can be seen in a c.1893 photo taken from Smuggler Mountain. Further, the isolation of the structure from other existing Victorian homes in the east end makes 2 Williams Way a unique setting. Section 26.76.090(c), The HPC evaluation process is as follows: Structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic landmarks. No further action need be taken with respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence and categorized accordingly, as follows: A. Significant. All those resources which are considered Exceptional, Excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. All structures or sites within the City ofAspen, which are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be reviewed according to the "Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" in addition to the review standards of Section 26.72.010 and 26.72.020. Response: The structure does not meet this standard. B. Contributing. All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for Significant; provided, however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. 2 Response: The structure does not meet this standard. C Supporting. All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered Contributing once again. Response: The structure qualifies as a Supporting historic resource. Although the structure that is original to the site has been significantly altered, the structure still retains historic qualities. Further, the fact that the east portion of the structure that was moved to the property remains intact and has maintained its historic integrity, coupled with the unique location of structure, creates the potential for the property to become Contributing. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of adding 2 Williams Way to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures to City Council, finding that the criteria for a Supporting structure has been met." Exhibits: Resolution No. ,Series of 1999 Exhibit "A" - Current photograph of property Exhibit "B" - Historic Architectural/Building Structure Form 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT 2 WILLIAM'S WAY, ASPEN, COLORADO, BE ADDED TO THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUTURES RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, Section 26.76.090.A of the Municipal Code states that the inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has identified 2 William's Way as eligible for inclusion on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The parcel is described as a parcel of land situated in the Southeast M of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6m P.M.; and WHEREAS, Sarah Oates, in her staffreport dated April 14, 1999, provided a history of the house and supporting evidence of its age and recommended that 2 William's Way be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," and WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on April 14, 1999, at which the Commission considered and recommended that the property be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC recommends that City Council adopt 2 William's Way to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the day of ,1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk . 4 6 , :. 4 kil , . I , Â· I . I. ,Â·,,ma .,Â¢ 2if . . ti; I , , . ~ ./.6 4, L. 425 . I-V, 3 - r ' . t.01'L ' -4/ ..0 IT l ~ 'i -3 t-~ Â· ~ -*4.Â·.21~ AwipÂ· ~ . - i.Â· r r .Ffi'., 0 .. 4 A. 9 -lut~.~~1.~*.- - - A ' 7.-1 lifLI.1'tL, 11 1 1.G..11111 1 ... I. , i,is#* ti vit.U. A/J LL :- 3Â·i?jÂ·*.30:8*WI *Â·~16:.4Â·Â·4Â·42/*;2*4)WAQu,VZtboe#CE#2&gpl.fiF&-4114)41(Â·. :05..4iffÂ¥+199,<f:4,:Â·Â·3,~*t~~4O'ikfie' 1.544/.- . Â· ,--:12::574+P'-Â·Â· .9 J'S~:~''I@33-.4. *.. .4/~=EC.B.<8*4&94/9,1/*:VICT/,7--44:VMAT$/~T -f t-Â·]:3201099-f:'931:Ffitl:.di 5 251/2~,530.+40:=P.,Â·. Il-: ---D. -1 '- I. --. .. .. Sh,61- 8 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 0002iWW Photo Information: Township .1 0 South Range 84 West Section 7 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: None Full Street Address: 0002 William's Way Legal Description: SW 1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 S, Range 84 W of the Ath P.M. City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District/Neighborhood Name: None Owner: Private/State/Federal Private Owner's Mailing Address: 2 William's Way ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Miner's cottages (2) Fjoined together Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: 2017 (per 1 994 Ailrvey) Number of Stories: 1 Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): i rregular; east. si de is gabl e wi th side wing and west side is; side gahle; two separate house joined together in late 1950s or early 19608 Landscaping or Special Setting Features: atypical setring (off the grid, i sol ated from other hi pforic houges) r several 1 arge pi ne trees are on the property Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): no longer exi Mt; harn and outhouse lised to he pregent For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: wood shingle; verge board in gahl e end on past- mi de of house Walls: wood frame r cl ar>boards Foundation / Basement: concrete Chimney(s): no chimney visible. Windows : pl ain, no emhal li Ahment ; set of ri hhon windows, but prohahl y not historic; 1 window has decorated verge board over winclow; windows on west section of houge are non-traditional, triang,ilar Ahape Doors: glazed, mimple easing in eamt mide door and glass panel the length of the door; west side door glazed with Atained glass and panels in the bottom Porches: _large front porch; covers f he extent of the front- of the hou se ; porch i s covered over a sma 1 1 rart of the west Aide of the house arl ril im Aupported by furned Apindlem Page 2 of 3 State Site Number Local Site # QOQ2.-EN General Architectural Description: West part of house was hirilt- in 1880' s by John Warkentin. This house shows up on the 1896 Willit.Is map and im ptill in its original location. The east house was moved to the mite from town, either Madge Sodermt-rum! s house from Eamt- Durant-, * Mabel Rer,kerman' A house from Main St.reet or T,ney Ringrprist.'A house (photo attached) . See T,en Shoemakerts Pioneerts of the Roaring Fork. Jim Markalunast mother, aunt-A and uncles were horn in the house. The west Ri.de of the house has more contemrorary faa tures than the east, si de of the hoiise. FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: ResÂ·i dential (diiplex) Architect: none Original Use: fRame Builder: unknown Intermediate Use: Construction Date: 1880's Actual X Estimate _Assessor Based On: st-yl e MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS 'Minor _*_ Moderate _* Major * Moved X Date * Describe Modifications and Date: East- side of current house was moved to the Rife and int.egrated with exi Sting struct,wre; Ri gnificant- exterior modifications including triangular windows, estimated date of addition of house is late 195ng or early 19404 Additions and Date: see above NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on - National Register; -__ State Register _ Is eligible for - National Register; - State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A_ B__ C__ D_ E Map Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation -'Il.-I Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or A architectural integrity. o x Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark .. Page 3 of 3 State Site Number Local Site Number _ * Justify Assessment: * Associated Contexts and Historical Information: * Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pi fki n County Court- house Records; Archaeological Potential: i_ CY or N) Justify: other structuraA on property have heen removed; site was used for mome agri r!111 twral lise C i . e . animal s kept on sit.9.) Recorded By: Sarah Oates, Planning Technician Date: February 9, 1999 Affiliation: Aspen Hi=foric Preservation Commission - City of Aspen Project Manager: Amy anthria, Historic Premervatinn Officer./Planner I PUBLIC NOTICE --t DATEMNL/ :lj111 ilit TIME>jett_ PLACC '5!g..U. CÂ»P Â· ' 1 PURPOSE,yle Â· AÂ·Â· , 4.1 ' =0044 (A â€¢422*EL, 2-' IlÂ· =. .1 Jb ~ ./&*\ - 973= 1- 72=-- ... - 1 - --1.-- I...d -Â·-- lf' p,, j Â¥* CH -rbli lill .Y' 3,2, U:'41,<' / W t- . 1 D. 11 1, 1, 1. L- I. I. r=m, Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, 5 Â«-aL) 0Â«@Et , 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 Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing ofnotice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list on the 3 j day of rr>Â«ck , 199 <~ (which is J Ll~ days prior to the public hearing date of Ap' j ) 9-, /193. 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ~ day of Ap,4 ~ , 1999, to thel 5 dayof 42741 , 199_~. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph ofthe posted sign is attached hereto. j\-1 93 1 -0-.93 Signature (Attach:photograph here) Signed before me this ~4ay of(142,~c.<~,~, 1992~ by U . Jk*4:47-N-t Ad 20'LRY P/24k H*t WITNES# + WAdi~kA~~~FFICIAL SEAL ~ < LOâ„¢IAN j # My Com~~lexpire~t~19~023 '*LOF COM:607 Notary ~blic 0 / L- 1, .i ' - r 1 ' - r- EXHIBIT 73 1 11 1 1 / - 3 1 1 ..9,0â‚¬t--1 7:% X . , i ' 1 9/ 1 4 ./ '/ 11 . 1 - 1 m\. -1 -1 4 14 \ 1\ - 2.-,1 1 . \ 11 1 11 1 -9 r 91 . 3 J l-4 2 Williarns Way u 1 . 4 11},,\ 1 1 0\ -I 443 / - ./. \ i --I 1~_-~ \ .Â«9 all \~ /-- 1 17 /-- 1 I Â£\ -- ...Â«. 4.- ; 1 / it 6 \14 EETTIJ . L . J p\1 ) 't-11 r j--i J L--311---Â¢---1~~i~ / 94\#\ 9% e*(*.1/7 44'29/&.f 4%i l 1 <l, )--f 1, 1 9 ~bÂ« 40&~4,44* 1 -/ /+2442>- ~,e, *l . Nf, \111 - -1 i -1 1 4 \ 1/AL- I 124 . 1 ..IL-4 A â‚¬ 0% 4 /1 Ey/19.-IIIIIVT 'IN .7 A A./6..... J . 6 ./.I . e A>feÂ©Â·.- /0 '.. -- .4 fR A ... (4 ~.fl-/1 :. . lE Al_..:' . Â·Â·:1 1 / ' 7'Ll F--- 1-i-- 1,0 11 0 7,4 1 1 1 ut.L:. Ii'~ - 7 râ€¢ 1 1 up Â· & 410 f . - 1% *44<a :/tai,1/f:#*5*9Wmal:,- - -A -2-$ '- -5#: . 49967 . MJ,1 - 4.-71-~2.0 1.- 4 - M.1 - ..-if;-- ~Â·Â·~+ Â·47'' 2*4 Â«2'V.1 f >-+4-zeÂ·%521.9- .4.J.- 1. 36'. â‚¬51..Â·712'22'.475Â¥lr-i-Â·6 .F --: 5:*â€¢gÂ© 3-11'&Â·:.I . u - ' . -I -/ .' I . ... 44 0 2 Â£ Li< 9 C Â·12'it,1 -> ..1! -:111 211Â· 1 â€žH~1 H 9 3 0 4 4% EXHIBIT â‚¬ 9 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Ank THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development DirectoN JAM -U THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Directo~AD FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 531 E. Cooper Avenue- minor DATE: April 14, 1999 SIJMMARY: The applicant, Stein Eriksen, requests HPC approval to replace all of the upper floor double hung windows on the LaFave Block and the Bowman Building, where Les Chefs, The Art of Optics, and Aspen Luggage Company are located. The subject buildings are designated historic landmarks and located in the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Stein Eriksen, represented by Jim Geib and Brian Smith. LOCATION: 531 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots G,H, and I, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section 3*Gilo dr A exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(13)(2). Response: The applicant proposes to replace the existing windows with new windows to match. There are no other additions to be made to the building or requests for variances. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The buildings are located in the Commercial Core Historic District and are individually landmarked. In addition, the La Fave building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Preservation of these building, including their original features and materials, is very important to the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: Replacement of the original windows will not diminish the historical significance of the site, that is their association with Aspen's mining era and individuals such as Fritz Benedict, Herbert Bayer, and Stein Eriksen. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Replacement of the original windows will diminish the architectural character and integrity of the structures by removing original materials rather than repairing and retaining them. The replacement windows may be similar to the existing windows, but they will not replicate exactly the very narrow proportions of the window sash or any original glass that exists. They will also remove some of the authenticity from the buildings. HPC is to conduct a site visit to the buildings on the day of the review for a closer inspection of the window condition. From the street they appear to have a typical level of deterioration for windows of this age, and could be repaired. In terms of their ability to operate correctly, this is dependent on the original mechanism. If they used sash cords and weights, the windows can be dismantled and the weight system repaired or replaced. If pins were used to lock the sash in place, these can also be repaired. Any areas of rot can be addressed through selective repair and replacement of particular areas and the use of wood epoxies. [f the window glass is loose, new putty can be added to secure the glass. The specifics of the repairs can better be discussed following the site visit. It is the staff recommendation however that all efforts be made to repair rather than replace the windows along Hunter Street and East Cooper Avenue. The HPC may want to allow new windows along the "alley" that exists between the subject building and the Aspen Grove Building. These windows are probably original to the building, but they are of a different proportion, not as architecturally important to the building, and not easily visible from the street. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends the HPC conduct a site visit to view the windows up close on the day of the meeting and then give the applicant direction on appropriate repair treatments. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. Staff memo dated April 14, 1999 B. Application APPLICANT: Stein Eriksen, represented by Jim Geib and Brian Smith LOCATION: 531 E. Cooper ACTION: Minor Review All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet allfour Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name -m-,4 try,las,â‚¬,A /igo.., ...gu~1 95.ywh.1 2. Project location â‚¬3/ E. 6-ped Ave AseÂ«. B /6 L i (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning <243 4. Lot size 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Jt r -6Â© r 6 lote S . min 91 . â‚¬40 10= AsVA< 479'7â‚¬9â‚¬3 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number-B> 4 :44$ 02-lk ID(â€¢ S. kill st. 9-k Zoe /N,5gu- 21(011 92-49/ ps-95- 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD ~t Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) Appm,*,u-,45 /50 9. Description of development application 3?*,Al.Â£,0 *,3,4.~ dvinolows \U i-th A.942 ~ S.A, ~,144. 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form ~AttachmentZ=--Dimensionafreqtlirement~foon Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachment 4 -6 4 (6 i 4- 6 1/1 4 1/ <tzeh#44 12**s poo~q~g, Ap lak-/i e~Â·+ C>V h~-dÂ»' la/ Response to attachment 4: 2. The replacement windows will consist ofthe same components that are currently being used in the building. We will replace them with wood windows, double pane glass. See example photos. Those windows are located in the Chitwood Plaza Building on the corner of Main St. and Mill St. 4. The windows being replaced have been in the building for many decades. They are falling apart, the wood has rotted, and the panes of glass are about to fall out in many ofthe windows. The windows will not stay open without blocks of wood, books, or anything else to prop open the windows. Many ofthe windows are screwed shut because the top sash ofthe windows will not stay closed anymore. See enclosed photos of the current windows. The replacement windows will consist of the same materials. The existing window frames will not be changed. We will fit the new windows to the old open frames in the building. These new windows will represent and enhance the character of the building and enable it to last another 30 years. Once the windows are painted, which is slated for early summer, it willlook as if the windows were never replaced. 18 ,~ Mippiâ€ž,~ff '11 -2,1111 77. + 4*302,%*mi-Ab.,Â·Â·,rÂ»,4*.evi -. ', - L.144 _- 26-4 1.-'1 - Aspen Street Map Â· t. 1 . f >.'t ' ' 7 . Park ~ - Â¥ Â¥ 7 L' 'i W V U U (~ gt 1 446 , , 1;Â« t L Aspen :' 06 .4. .. 0 Â· ...t 1 ' .t-, J '4444 4 84*4 East i m 04. ' 0 1 , . *148 Rd 99 , a 4,14 + ~ 94 *# r " 7 1 3 / W.1/ 0, f 3,;L-:te.4* 0441 0. Rd y .f .t, '14 1 *-Rgi :GV . 1 tvÂ· 1'.* PX; 0/7Â·1 1.46*~f ' " ;'f~,3,:. 4744 -, ... 7,.i',:4,Â· w /~ Notâ€¢#roaâ€¢kmebeshownoinamedonmap ':LF 1 C !8 9100. ~m~ze< or Lis#din #reer,guide. Some mad, mly be private, proposed. or under cons#uction. .. ... ic d:4 4% 'f L .. Â» *4 lb,kimoh Basalt .,, , .2*,~~ I . t* .1.,9 0:- ,I; ,t. Aspen ..1 .0 k.â€¢.r ' Â·,1 * 4 ' 0 1~ '' H 21 3 7 4 . ) ''. TN'~0*., t.:~7.1 b >,6~11~~ ~V~ 1 1 4 . Chi'., melh ff - .. 46 .. Music.. , x,Y, Â·_.>/ Tent i \ /7 Wood ,p f,zÂ·Â·Â·Â·Â· am.41* 1"Hallam * ~' ' 1 mltp.. 1.. .... . 7-4 1 :. ..'. P . I ': i.4:, Ntnâ€¢ S , 4/i ... ..e C. 02.7,6 56 c, - :42. 2 6 I. - i Â¢ . 0 2 4 1. t , 31|p.~.. N'.:r. 'J V 9 V 9 , .'4. - ~- Maroon Creek Rd . : cys, 4,4 . 4 , '.9 4 1 .1 ~ '' 4 1 6,4.4 ~r.3 r.. /4 0 1 High Â· ~ ~ *.; ~48 4 :t ~1 by . , ..4 4, Â«)40 4, 94/ Ami ~ School (2 8 44.6. . . rl +., 44,4. * I. 1, 4. .D ~Tb Marooniake 4 444 ' 4 '' 4% - 1 0 1 t. 44' 3 9 :9 ~Wr~*'~ ~~ ~ .1 1- 0 1 - â€ž. .. . 2 0â€žÂ·42 1 + ;Â»Rd . D / 4 4.4.: , , h U611 1. .... 51 - , u!-Ir La 1 . ~ Aspen *Â£,2;1 " 0 '1, ' 'd!* P ..le. 14 Waters Av 2 ' 8.0,1 - 1 West ~; mit . 4. : \ Wostwew 1 IMM (4. ~ 1% + a. . 'b,*Â£~e '- - . 7.''L. A i k .E 4.;A "197/:7044"h:+428 64 - i 1 1 6 p - 991 60yncdhe. 4.p.... . 1 4 5. N vrrlt, i , 10 71â€¢Wn Lakes via independence Pass 4 i 1 70 Ashcroft / 8 0 1 4 .US WEST Oex, /ne 1998 r . / WEST Dex. tne. 1998 . .. 41..... 4-1%44â‚¬ G . I . 3,/ - 277â€¢~.'; f.+ 5â‚¬Â·-- ..11fip-.â€¢- -r *1 Y ' + 1 ' 43-, 7 ..1 . 4,42*47,6,57; 1"I 'g I . - 21' . ~i., 1.44... 'e/.9,'*#Vt:= . ... . 21 A. 43' I $.1/.7.. . I 5 1 6 9. .1 2-0- 1,11 = 1 15 f Al =MY ,/MA ' E ,-r RER . - U.,1. &*LE'ir 'bilibi#23/6/ # Â· ...~ ...K.Â· * i ll, f ==9-0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 531 E. COOPER AVENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, Stein Eriksen, represented by Jim Geib and Brian Smith, has requested minor development approval for the property located at 531 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots G,H, and I, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is landmark designated and located within the Commercial Core Historic District; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated April 14, 1999, recommended that the majority of the historic windows (those facing Hunter Street and East Cooper Avenue) be repaired, after further inspection by the HPC, and that the HPC consider allowing replacement of windows on the west side of the building; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 14, 1999, the Historic Preservation Commission considered and approved/denied the application with/without conditions by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That minor development approval for 531 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots G,H, and I, Aspen, Colorado, be approved/denied, with/without conditions. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the day of ,1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MEMORANDUM -4 1 Viat_ 1 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ~#/_ v # THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Directorj*D FROM: Sarah Oates, Planning Technician SO RE: 134 West Hopkins-Minor review DATE: April 14, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicants, Bill and Peyton Budinger, are requesting HPC approval for an addition to a designated historic landmark, a sideyard setback variance of 3' 2" and site coverage variance of 3.2% for a shed that has been added on to the back of the subject structure without a building permit. At some point between 1988 and 1997 an addition was made to the subject structure without HPC approval or permits. After purchasing the property in 1997, the Budinger's decided to make repairs to the addition, but ended up tearing down, reconstructing and enlarging the shed, again without HPC approval or building permits. The structures on Lot K and Lot L are in condominium ownership. As configured now, there is only 22" between the building on Lot K and the building on Lot L; the required distance is 5'. Also, with the addition, the site coverage is exceeded by 77 square feet. Currently, the shed is used as storage for the house, which has no basement or other storage. APPLICANT: Bill and Peyton Budinger, represented by Bill Poss and Associates. LOCATION: 134 West Hopkins. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: Although the storage shed is a modest addition to the house, the distance between it and the structure on Lot L (which is a historic structure that was moved to the property) is very tight. Further, although a variance may need to be granted to allow some sort of storage for the owners, HPC could take this opportunity to create an addition that is historically appropriate and more compatible with the historic landmark and neighborhood. Attached as Exhibit C is the 1904 Sanborn Insurance Map which shows an outbuilding on the alley. The garden could be reconfigured to allow for the shed on the back of the lot. Another alternative would be to decrease the size of the shed to minimize the need for a variance. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: As mentioned above, the development does not have a significant impact on the character of the neighborhood. But, having an outbuilding on the alley would be more in keeping with the historic property. 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 shed does not look appropriate attached to the historic structure. Further, the location of the shed in close proximity of the adjacent building makes the property look crowded and poorly configured. Historically, buildings would not be placed so close together. Although the applicants argue the back of the house is the most appropriate place for the addition, staff feels there would be less of an impact on the historic building if the shed were a separate structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Response: See comments above. Staff feels the shed attached to the historic structure is not an appropriate configuration to maintain the architectural character and integrity ofthe structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the addition of a shed, and sideyard setback and site coverage variances for 134 W. Hopkins based upon staff' s responses as put forth in the Memorandum by Sarah Oates, Planning Technician, dated April 14, 1999, and the Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code." Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. Staff memo dated April 14, 1999 B. Application C. 1904 Sanborn Insurance Map, Block 59 k.4- '..~..Â» r I 1 .vt 5 e 104, Am I 1 7 , t, 1 ; ..41 â‚¬ '.t>. ,- , *4...'.,t, 1 r,-7 1 t. 1 ~ 4 .Mi:.4 ... .rs- Attachment 8 ~EXHIBIT27 ~ 1 cz-.ofk L11_1.--~ County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, DAY/9 12Â·YMK Af 2166 rl' A,@6#6 / ATEÂ» ,being orrepresenting 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 Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing ofnotice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet ofthe subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 30 day of Ma41 , 199 9 (which is 1& days prior to the public hearing date of Aff,6 |4, l411). 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 6 day of APA & , 199.~, to the j ~ day of ~~ r â€¢ |' , 199 ~ . (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph ofthe posted sign is attached hereto. Signature ~ (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this & day of Ap â€¢, u , 1991. by 9#N m J . 114041<. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires 6/27/2000 My Commission expires: gudi-or#-- LU-Â«lk %.'., .t Notary Public ./ Li., ,Â·,Â· * ta*Eel:64.#TA*,22' f 14 1 ***, W; APPLICANT: Bill and Peyton Budinger, represented by Bill Poss & Associat~~ ~-/ 9-59 LOCATION: 134 West Hopkins ACTION: Minor Review All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet aUfour Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.01(*D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under Cottage Tnfill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(13)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. R RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES AT 134 WEST BLEEKER, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. - SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bill and Peyton Budinger, represented by Bill Poss and Associates, has requested minor development approval for an addition on the structure, and a sideyard setback variance and site coverage variance. The property has historical designation; 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) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.09003)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and e WHEREAS, Sarah Oates, Planning Technician, in her staffreport dated April 14, 1999, recommended denial, and the HPC agreed with the conclusions of the "responses" in the staffreport, thereby not allowing the HPC to make positive findings on all four (4) standards, and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on March 10, 1999, the Commission considered and denied the application without conditions by a vote of to to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That minor development denial for 134 West Bleeker Street, Aspen, Colorado, be approved as shown on April 14, 1999. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14~~ day of April, 1999. Approved as to Form: City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Chairman ATTEST: Chief Deputy Clerk 0 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 970/925-4755 FACSIMILE 970/920-2950 March 30, 1999 Mrs. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Budinger Residence - 134 West Hopkins Avenue Dear Mrs. Guthrie: As representatives for the Budinger's, we request a Variance Hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission, for a storage shed attached to their residence on Lot K of the Wyckoff Carley Condominiums. The property was previously granted Historic Designation by the Commission and therefore the variance request come under the Commission's review. As you are aware a shed was constructed on the back of the residence by a previous owner, and the Budingefs undertook the reconstruction of the shed this past summer. Unaware the original shed had been constructed without a Building Permit, and unaware the reconstruction would require a permit, the Budinger's have unwittingly violated two Zoning Code Requirements. The area of the shed increases the Site Coverage beyond the allowable. The shed's location also encroaches upon the required distance between two structures on one Property. Upon notification from the Building Department of the reconstructions violation of code requirements, the Budingefs examined their options. The shed is important to their use of the residence, providing the only storage facility for their property. The use of the residence during the summer months allows the cultivation of a garden in the North West comer of the site. The shed is used to store the gardening tools and lawn maintenance equipment. During the winter season, lawn furniture is stored in the shed. Removing the shed would leave the Budinger's without this storage ability, and therefore the Budinger's determined a storage facility is necessary. 1 UR 'b i-[ 13 k Andrassociates: . I l.-I . andl assocrates LI Budinger Residence Variance Requests March 30, 1999 Constructing a shed in another location on site was reviewed, however the options would detract from Historic Structure and still require a Site Coverage Variance. A location on the rear or west set backs, were space is available, would create a separate structure on the parcel and compete with the Historic Residence. This location would also result in the appearance of greater density on the small site. The construction of the shed at the rear of the home by the previous owner was obviously the least obtrusive location on the parcel, as it had gone unnoticed for quite some time. To meet the required side yard setbacks for the combined parcel, the development of the Wyckoff Carley Condominiums minimized the distance between the two dwelling units. As constructed the Garage on Lot L was 5' from the residence on Lot K, the minimum required per the U. B. C.. The construction of the original shed at the rear of the Lot K dwelling reduced the distance to 22", and a fence was built off the edge of the garage to complete the separation of the two Condominiums. The reconstruction of the shed lengthened the structure by 3' - 7 1/2", and further exaggerated the proximity of the buildings. A Variance is requested for an increase of 3.2% in the Allowable Site Coverage. The Allowable Site Coverage is 2,400 sf. for both Lot L and K combined. The coverage with the shed is 2,477 sf. (1,060 sf. on Lot K, 1,417 sf. on Lot L); the 77 st overage calculates to 3.2%. This overage is less than the 3.6 % Site Coverage Variance granted to the Property in 1988. This reduction in overage is possible due to the change in calculation of coverage, porches no longer being calculated as Site Coverage. A Variance is also requested for a decrease of 3'-2" in the allowable distance between structures on a Parcel. The actual distance between the shed and the Garage of the Residence on Lot L is 22". The required distance between structures is 5'-0". Please accept the accompanying package as a formal submission for the requested Variances. We look forward to meeting with the H. P. C. on April 14th. Sincerely, David Rybak, Principal C:\9741\9741-033099-hpcsub.wpd ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name *UD/NBEÂ·R. 114#DEFICÂ£ 2. Project location /04 VieT flof*'16 AY*N 91 2 67 k 0% 191 WYÂ¢*brf 4*#LLY '44 54*iNIUM ' (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning jE- 69 4. Lots\ze &!ON)*f.<UTk:Â·1141156TL,3,626) 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number t",64&7-m}1 8uD,#64 DZ.LAWMJL *9Â§44vp. '; WI)LMIN Frâ€¢N 1 DE 14 *do 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number /9/Uâ€¢ 1#00* ~ 46,4. 008 6. MaN *r. A,Plill, 60 01*Il j 955 - 9755~ #,17%'Â· Da,li /27&,A 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD / Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision TexUMap Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) -50 4*w. 644/ ut (DU*+Ad Rabl De.,4.A . l.,r k ~,bhOMB,0' Gr L 3 68,0 NOM*. Pktour! 4.61*Va,D A 941*Nct *TZ EMCUD MAXIMIJM 4,11 4*Vâ‚¬,f *61. IN /13% 17 3Â·446. 9. Description of development application ~411*0 2 114 1*F TO 64(2840 4/17& 4Â¥10$& 89 6.1.1/0 . Pd;43 A VÂ·*11*064. 11&0447 Fal * 91418*4Â£ d; 9-03 14 TAL PrUA)*66% 6147*401 NLTA) ta&} 0 *nAMT!)31~4 #?1 A f~MtÂ·t.U Â· 10. Have you completed and attached the following? 4 Attachment 1 - Land use application form 4 Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 4 Response to Attachment 3 4 Response to Attachment 4 11111111 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant BILL b PY,1-13# 8001#16*A Address: /54' MI.w Hop.0, Avi. Zone district: ,-6 1 Lot size: Adjob 4. F, (UT k 5 1,174 1 LoT L 51 0 2.6 Existing FAR: 51 3004.p.(1#r ki 1,lt & L,r L ,-- 116%03 * CH'##16% /Al !46010?100, Allowable FAR: 31 14, 4.P. Prcoosed FAR: 6 241*]46Â£ - 4, MAD IS Â®A &,Ar A# 491461. 90*t Existing net leasable (commercial): N. A.Â· Proposed net leasable (commercial): #. 4. Existing % of site coverage: 9%Â· &90 (f*42. PUO~ UD& dAL*VU!90,14 1 7#R.le#44 Proposed % of site coverage: 49.14 * Existing % of open space: W. 4. Proposed % of open space: N.6. Existing maximum height Principal blda: #. 4. Accesorv bldg: Proposed max. height: Princioal bida: N. 4 Accessorv blda: Proposed % of demolition: 6 Existing number of bedrooms: #0 24*waL Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on-site parking spaces: h , On-site parking spaces required: 4 ( 1. pe# 0,00*w,4,1 Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: /6.5 prÂ· Front: D PT. prott /'6 41#W,31, Rear: 1-6 FrÂ· Rear. /0 Pr Rear: Combined Combined Combined Fron#rear: 40 5 fF Front/rear: 10 FT Front/rear: Side: 9.4. pr Side: 6 M Side: Side: Side: EM Side: Combined Combined Combined Sides: Sides: /5 n. Sides: Existing nonconformities or encroachments: FA. A. len,1 6*#BA#*1 4 *Ba- 68*6 - 6#A.irl,D *R.j*NM,6 ZY HPLâ€¢ lA 11*0 1 Variations requested: 6-2 A/,461 1 *DA=461Â£ b.:not,O 80 i~.Did e; 031 A f*@44. (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft, site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) ALLEY PROPERTY UNE <1.:11'vi ~ ..- -Lity,rc:2 - | PARIGNG | ~- ' ~ i ~ = - SPACE ,~ ' -- 231,//Ill/1.-'F , ~ 2 4-~ -, C 3- 1% -1= Lit' - hi,/It A' - ~ __ ir -1 1 11 1 --1 1 . 1111 --'LE.- -h. 2 -1. Â·'_LI - 1 -1- - 1 -1 1 1 .1 - -14- - f Mor= 1 -'0/f=*f'+HIC< 40"11 -' '44* ' : womACE 1+ 044311Â·I N...Ati-n' I'~/- 11 +LlydZE /4-4.ly'Â·'/~24 - 52 *24, Â»44 - ILLLE- f., .-u -f='.â€¢IT'327 .7-'1'1.-212- ~f, I -- -L R'.billâ‚¬3@41--- 3, 3:,i.'13 24 I. 4 .711 - 1 '*/#--, .t.Â·Â·9= -1,7.- ' - A---L-1 P- I - 1 11- f,f.:93'U 2- t.Â·i-'-, --'-'.r#rE-:4-Y., 11 1 2 I 11 - ~'/41*wT Â» BUDINOER/9 P NEIGHBORE - *71-RESIDENCE[d . -- 19%-121/*glIT 1 . 1-6~WRIM~Elt?i'q~-~~ Â· - I 1- Â£95-t- , Â¢ 19., 1-'- --'-~TÂ£.1 -Ij~f..9: Tt ' 1= - II-L- I LiÂ·Â·hi.22491*6i'4,%â‚¬3 L w. 7-4,9 ,AL'" 4 Lâ‚¬~I':,-' ~TI-OIL--=27.7 - ,/ :.rr B r 1 1 -4 -1 4/ - 1- 0 r b 10 5- rl Â·r 41-1*4929 11 1 I - 1 721= t-NT 22'74 1 7- 1 -111 L; 1- - 1-11 I" * LOT'IÂ¢ LOT'C TOTALSITECOVERAGE 1477SQ.FT. AUOWABLECOVERAGE: 1400SQ.FT. AMOUNTOVER: 77 SQ.FT. = 31% < CURB W. HOPKINS AVE. 1 0 Budinger Residence Aspen, Colorado Bill Poss and Associates Site Plan AlchimctmeondManning March 30,1999 A.pm,Coloodo S. FIRST ST. . f..... 4 8 7(T-<st E i 04 -0 4 41--R 1 --, %% 11< 41}SAE> i 1 .1 CIPliI)~~ ~~~-,C,.t?~ Â»AVENUE 1, -, 1 / I* tbo 4.NOU k. C 1 -- I...1--. aof*E43 : .'. .-WI.JPÂ· fl P..j: 434Â» 11 ~ 91/ Ql- ST- rÂ¥Â°re,Fil f l!*C~Dr--4lm-LAy :--3 LE_ 5 Ir~--~2\.~/ Loc,Ki MA Â·-- DLI Iff:G:FlkÂ©l .4..Trp:%=:4441][ i.-3 1 i GY--~U~i~ It*1.*4#(IRpi~*:*1] Eil' .1r , 4 . t I .1 , 4/#377 r...â‚¬~,4 A (237/ r L l. y / 155, AF 31938 &*-/I /4 f o f,' VAOINITY MAY PLAJ> ' 16 + W. H of#' 04 APE" ' .thE#,-_ ,.h, 2 BLPA "-1 Lor K 4 LOTL WYOKOfr OAR.UPY CONDOMINUM* 45ATN CLUES 0 0 [9Ht<. /5. it=lt,5- .5, 41MY]_ Ll 1 1- rIHri-let:-t<b Ur r 2.Le. INg. 4 rd M . d PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 134 WEST HOPKINS VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday. April 14, 1999, at a meeting to begin at 5,00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission in the Sister Cities meeting room, basement of City Hall 130 S. Galena Street, Aspens Colarado, to consider an application submitted by William Budinger requesting approval for variances for an addition to the existing house. A shed has been constructed on the site without permits or approvals and will require the following vaziances if approved: a 3.2% site coverage vatiance and a 37' variance of ' the required distance between structures. The property is located at 134 West Hopkins. For further : infoImation, COntact Amy Guthlie at the Aspen/Pitkin Commuoity Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspenco.us. s/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Â· t MULLINS MARGARET ANN NEWKAM CLAIRE M OLIVER WILLIAM THOMAS & ANN GARY 1909 FOREST PKWY PO BOX 2808 542 WARNER AVE DENVER, CO 80220 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 PIETRZAK FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP PIETRZAK BOB & SUE LLC COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD BASALT, CO 81621 BASALT, CO 81621 RANCE CAROL PIETRZAK ROBERT J & SUSAN R POTAMKIN ALAN FLAT 4B MOUNTAIN LODGE 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD 4675 74TH ST 44 MTKELLET RD BASALT, CO 81623 MIAMI, FL 33143 THE PEAK HONG KONG, CHINA SEGUIN JEFF W ROSS PAULINE SEIDER DENNIS J & LEAH E SEGUIN MADALYN B AS JOINT TENANTS PO BOX 9969 26642 LATIGO SHORE DR PO BOX 8852 MALIBU, CA 90265 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC SMITH CHRISTOPHER H SPEARS NANCY M C/O HAL MORROW BEUTTAS DIANA H 530 MEANS ST #405 232 W HYMAN AVE PO BOX 12366 ATLANTA, GA 30318 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 TIPTON JOHN K TRUST NUMBER ONE STRnwCH ELAINE B VAUGHAN HEIDI 1996 TRUST 1/2 4327 S YOSEMITE CT N2322 SYLVAN LN 6477 E MANOR DR ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 LAKE GENEVA, WI 54137 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 WILKE JOHN H AND BONNIE K HOTEL ASPEN LTD WARSHAW MARTIN R & ALICE M TRUSTEES OF WILKE LIVING TRUST ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD PO BOX 8976 153 S BEACHWOOD DR 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOS ANGELES, CA 90004 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 PIETRZAK FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP HOTEL ASPEN LTD HOTEL ASPEN LTD COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BASALT, CO 81621 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 SMITH CHRISTOPHER H BEUTTAS DIANA H PO BOX 12366 ASPEN, CO 81612 CRAWFORD THOMAS B JR DACOSTA MAUREEN C DE TURRIS EMILIO PO BOX 8110 PO BOX I 31 BRAMBLE LN HORSESHOE BAY, TX 78654 ASPEN, CO 81612 MELVILLE, NY 11747 DIMITRIUS RALLI DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES DEAN MARY EMMA HUEBNER-DIMITRIUS JO-ELLAN INC PO BOX 8035 200 S SIERRA MADRE BLVD 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81612 PASADENA, CA 91109 ASPEN, CO 81611 ERB JANE FABER ROBERT G & EUNICE N FARLAND MARISA J PO BOX 3207 1921 BOULDER DR PO BOX 3542 ASPEN, CO 81612 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 ASPEN, CO 81612 FRIEDLANDER & SINGER LTD GODFREY PAULA GROSVENOR DENIS SINGER & FRIEDLANDER PO BOX 3071 505 N 8TH ST 12-4 RIDGEWAY ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 DOUGLAS ISLE OF MAN, GUERRA DONNA HAAN R E TRUST HARE TERESA J 4220 GLENWOOD AVE 7115 LEESBURG PIKE STE 309 20 E 74TH ST PHB DALLAS, TX 75205 FALLS CHURCH, VA 22043 NEW YORK, NY 10021 HOTEL ASPEN LTD JDJ GROUP LLC HITc nENRY H & ANGELA R i ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 300 PUPPY SMITH ST #205-220 PO BOX 155 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 ASPEN, CO 81611 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 KING LOUISE LLC KAUFMAN GIDEON KEY JOHN A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY CO 315 E HYMAN AVE #305 6476 MIMOSA LN PO BOX 1467 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75230 BASALT, CO 81621 KOENIG RAYMOND J AND LEE DAVID W LEWIS BRETT H TRAGGIS ELIZABETH G LEE DORA 548 FRANKLIN ST P O BOX 284 13562 CAMINITO CARMEL DENVER, CO 80218 NEW LONDON, CT 06320 DEL MAR, CA 92014-3849 LUBIN RICHARD G LEWIS EILEEN MARK CAROL KRAUSS 1217 S FLAGLER DR 2ND FL FLAGLER 108 W HYMAN AVE #9 PO BOX 9283 PLAZA ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612-9283 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 M i JUDY 70% MELTON DAVID MENDELSON ROBERTA L & MEL I CA Y POOL 135 W MAIN ST 5412 FRANCISCA WY 10 NicADOWVIEW LN AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLETON, CO 80121 ~SPEN KAY ASSOCIATES DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES 30 KAY MARVIN L INC INC 5610 WISCONSIN AVE APT 1403 730 E DURANT ST 730 E DURANT ST CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC INC INC 730 E DURANT ST 730 E DURANT ST 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC INC r INC 730 E DURANT ST 730 E DURANT ST 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES ASPEN MAIN LP ASPEN SKIING COMPANY INC ASPEN PROPERTIES C/O PO BOX 1248 730 E DURANT ST PO BOX 10502 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BACON SHIRLEY R BARNETT SAUL H & SALLY A 3 GROVE ISLE DR #1608 403 WEST HALLAM COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 ASPEN, CO 81611 BEAVER R HART AND JOAN S BERNSTEIN POLLY A BAR,=LL WINSTON 937 WILLOW ST C/O STRAZZ 7360 POINT OF ROCKS RD PO BOX 1140 212 W HOPKINS AVE SARASOTA, FL 34242 LEBANON, PA 17042-1140 ASPEN, CO 81611-1708 BIRDMAN DIANE BOWMAN AL BRENNAN JAMES C 307 S 21ST AVE 3580 NW 10TH AVE 417 ROYALE ST HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020 OAKLAND PARK, FL 33309 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 BROWN MICHAEL HAYDEN 2/3 BUDINGER WILLIAM & PEYTON 250 MARTIN ST STE 100 2306 DELAWARE AVE BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009-3383 WILMINGTON, DE 19806 BUTT CYNTHIA W CASSIDAY BENJAMIN B CHISHOLM EDITH 1/2 INT 944 HARMAN AVE PO BOX 1262 205 W MAIN ST DAYTON, OH 45419 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 Cl NSEN ROBERT M & CANDICE L COLES ELLIOT L COLORADO AZURE LTD A YMAN AVE 2929 E HARTFORD AVE PO BOX 11236 ASPEN, CO 81611 MILWAUKEE, WI 53211 ASPEN, CO 81612 4 11â‚¬-4 F *\ u -==1 1. 2.-11+2.7,1 W -1 . * 01- 1141 4 .,. I,~-- -----erÂ· 4 k X i 1 11 ~ 4 2 11..% a 14= b 00 -21- 21%- 52-m- 99 207 205 208 202 11 . //9 1 11 1.15 113 Ill /09 /07 /05 /03 /01 11 S.W ST. C Il 98 206 204 202 200 U J' /4f //r //.71,2-22 108 106 104 #02 100 8 0 FEE -ts. 3 , ier- 17,Â£ IN e DC li 4/ 0 0 " &4 16 1 11 4 ri --1.-1 L 41 7-_ 5i ~ 2 lit J 6 ~f-ck [2 A r 1 rI, 5 . tx tar_~ \1619 i .1 1 ~L n 0 - 4 51 Af â‚¬ 0 9, r== - -=2 1 01 4 0 12; i N 2 Fl 44 -1 1 m 4, _riz-/ 92 |~1, 9 4 - ICI 6 11- It ts r 4 10 1 - ,- 4 Al r\ ii 4 0*6; ~'-~_It . U 11 4 . 1 0 1 14 4 Na_ | Ve 1 & E Â« r'\,R><4 ..t 0 1-4,%% U 1 1 6Â» 1 q k * 1 %2 & Il & 1.- H /4 - kaÂ»43 49 2 *-1 Ud 11 94 -11 W 1 40 .Dg 40 yx' F.2,- 9 -*i. 6 L . 1 ( 3;4 k 20' / 7 Â»7 205 203 20/ Â· 119 /17 //5:I //8 1/1 /09 /01 /05 103 101 1. ACENTER . . ./ - :' i : 'lit I. 1 -- Exk(bit- 0 0 J _ 04,11'N i--It-i-~ 17 2/3-!3 WI-9 207-5 203-20! 135-3 )3#-29 )27-5 123-2/ US-)7 lek/3 /#l-9 103- t- . -4 42Â»U I . ..L t' .. - .... dv . g- .-C ...A - '14 . '- '3:. - - I . 1 Â· I-{I'... *- > . /1 - * ~ 125-6-0 :e.Â» . . . - .... 1 ' i-'- - 9,1 er L..1.7Â« --am s Â·,Â«5â€¢Â·e:Â·. 1 '2 - 9..... . ~~-:-s ~~14;;*A 3~mu~;-2*3~j;j,p/*~*L~ -~i.4,-~~~ - --MF *.*2-iÂ·4-E~~Â£ Â»-1.-1*1.P'Fa&,0r *. 94 )-P -3 0 - '11 -39Â·â€¢ w.Â·--- JI_.. u:321Â»2 - --Â· 2 ~7~~74-Â«.3-'e<42-Â»ra=&f~*6~~ ~6--~__ D--~ upwc-Â«N*,3~.1. C Â·-flt-~'2â€¢,Â·.If-*f-435:23 t-423~43771-tu;~ULJVÂ»h~ C Â·-31:4 &67#vb# )-49â€ž1.-P Â»~7,-~ ~L---'3624 -M~B' .-- ~2.-4,4:22:~-3>77=-1-- .~.~-22*42 1'-~~7*444/04~~, L-*-~ 33*2.IÂ¢- 2:--'42-11 74,g 2 ....2.72,14=.2 .--,21.23.24.3-9'ti~ irÂ£.-L- -14'~i'' Lfilit-6<2*<69**I<<wi&0.ETT=Â¢L,Q.J/#412/Seety r. Ji=z-3 .'~$'IJA id Â·-77Â·t. 07 L yÂ»~ .' -ow: ~ ~ -Â·~7â€žN S ' -14& 0 - , '4 2<4'5'22, 4., ........ -. . 01'' ; - 1 ~ -4Â·-2.1-7-' : 1 4 'E ..54%an ; 1~N -- :S f. 1, 1.. . , .-Rf..'~-Ct.7 9,1<7â‚¬114' C J -., Â· A ..57Â· & . I Â·~ '?h-Â·zÂ· ., r . *4 . .1.. re,) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission A 1 A ) THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director W V 1 1 THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director4.00 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 735 W. Bleeker- Amendment to Conceptual (Old House), Amendment to Final (New House), Variance request- PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 14, 1999 SUMMARY: HPC granted conceptual approval for 735 W. Bleeker in October 1998. Since that time the design for the new house on the property, Unit B, has received final approval, but final approval has not been applied for on the old house, Unit A. The applicant has chosen to focus on the construction of the new house first. To that end, the applicant has determined that it would be desirable to set the new house further back from S. 7th Street than was approved. The house was approved to be 5 feet from the west property line and the applicant wishes to increase that distance to 8 feet. (Please note that the required setback along the west side is 6'8," so that HPC previously granted a l'8" variance to allow the building to be closer to S. * Street.) While the proposal eliminates the need for the 1'8" west sideyard setback variance that was already granted for the new house, it necessitates pushing the garage on the old house towards the east, so that it can be accessed. A 3 foot east side yard variance for the old house would be needed. In addition to the request for a 3 foot east sideyard setback variance, the HPC is asked to amend the conceptual approval for the old house to allow the garage to project towards the east, and to approve the elimination of a porch that was shown on the north side of the new house. APPLICANT: Randall Bone, represented by Jake Vickery Architects. LOCATION: 735 W. Bleeker St., Lots A & B, Block 18, R-6 zone district. 1 U~Â£66( 4 6 ig,1 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The HPC has authority to grant setback variances when it is in the interest of preserving a historic structure. Typically these variances are granted to allow a new addition to be located in the most sympathetic location, to accommodate setback encroachments created by the existing location of a building, or to allow multiple detached buildings on a site. The latter reason was the justification for the three variances previously granted forthis project; a 1'8" west sideyard variance, a five foot rear yard setback variance, and a five foot combined front and rear yard setback variance. These variances were all directed at moving the new house to the rear and away from the historic house, and they all reduced yards adjacent to public rights-of-way rather than adjacent to other private property. The application that has been submitted does not give adequate justification for how the new variance request would benefit the historic structure. It creates a larger yard for the new house, but it pushes the new house more directly behind the historic building so that it could appear to loom over it. It also places new construction close to a neighboring house. The applicant may provide additional graphic information, such as a streetscape elevation or model to make their case for the variance. In terms ofthe change to the conceptual design for the old house, with the garage projecting towards the east, Staff does not find that it is incompatible with the historic house, however it is not an improvement on the design that has already been approved and continues a piling up of elements along the east side of the house. Staff also has to assume that the design shown is over the allowed floor area since the project was maximized at conceputal approval and additional space is added to the house by shifting the garage eastward. This e would have to be amended. 2 In regard to the porch on the north side of the new house, staff does not find a justification for removing it. It was provided as part of the response to the "Residential Design Standards" criteria, which require a front door and/or porch face the street (in this case Bleeker Street). It is appropriate to have some expression of entry oriented towards Bleeker Street as is the case with the historic house. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The applicant has developed a project where the scale of the historic house is preserved and the new development will be an appropriate and successful infill in the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: By maintaining the old house in its original orientation and very close to its original location, and by taking most of the mass that could be added to it and placing that in a detached home, the applicant is protecting the building as a representation of mining era housing. 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: Staff finds that the requested variance and amendment to the designs of the new and old house do not enhance the architectural character or integrity of the historic resource, which is the HPC's primary focus. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not support the requested east sideyard setback variance of 3 feet, or the amendment to the designs of the new and old houses based on the information presented in the application. The applicant may provide additional information for the April 14~h meeting, or request to table the application to May 12th (the next available agenda) to allow development and presentation of additional information to support the requests. Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated April 14, 1999. B. Application C. Conceptual approval for the old house, Unit A. D. Final approval for the new house, Unit B. 4 APPLICANT: Randall Bone, represented by Jake Vickery Architects LOCATION: 735 W. Bleeker ACTION: Amendment to Conceptual, Amendment to Final, Variance Request All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet aUfour Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Vectorspc Research / Planning & Architecture / Project Management serving the best in communities since 1976 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS March 22, 1999 Amy Guthrie Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 735 WEST BLEEKER Dear Amy, This letter is to request HPC consideration of a revision to the HPC conceptual and final approvals for 735 West Bleeker. The applicant would like to increase the westerly setback for "House B" along 7th Street from 5 feet to 8 feet (see attached site plan - item #3) by moving "House B" 3 feet to the east from the location previously approved by HPC. This shift provides a larger "front yard area" for landscaping, low fence, and additional separation for the 7th Street. This increased setback is more consistent with historical development patterns than would otherwise be allowed. In order to accomplish this shift, the garage for "House A" must also be moved 3 feet to the east so as to allow vehicle access to this garage. The applicant is asking for a 3 foot variance to decrease the easterly side yard of " House A" to 2 feet for the 23 foot length of the garage (see attached site plan - item #2). This portion of the garage would be single story, with a plate to match the rest of the house and a 3/12 roof pitching to the east. There would be no windows of other openings in the garage wall surface. The basement stair (see attached site plan - item #1) for "House A" currently approved within the easterly setback will either be relocated within the regular R6 setbacks or eliminated. The applicant is also requesting to eliminate the porch roof on the north side of "House B" to improve clearances from "House A" (see attached site plan - item #4). Sincerely, Nial I.. â€ž Architect Jake Vickery Architects VectorsPC 735hpcrv.doc 100 South Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado USA 81612 tel & fax 001 (970) 925-3660; email: vectorspc@aol.com 13*1116 l-# 9 .. I. m m - Cev leâ‚¬O luci Q 4 Ar** 4 8 EXISTING HORIZONTAL SONG I . 1 1 1 UNIT 1 - PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 00 - O -- 1 *4424-i -Ii-LOJOrÂ«4 1231 43 g,k? 2- --ty./--3 VIT 1 - ROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 4 0 9417 %87 912 E ICe E- ds- ) 19 1 cr-7 0. .- - L#./ ' Â· # /7 Jil Â»7/ / \\144 1 \ 1/ t . 9.- . 042.4 Va_\\N - - 1 61'c*Al-) f h \40 1 Â»51/1 , ---, 6.7 . HORIZONTAL WOOD Prl.- Sit]ING - MATCH gdr-J- 1 EXISTING COLOR ~ , ~ 0,0- = 1 - -i-I.--i- I --il--I - - 4- TURNED wOOD POSTS- EXISTING HORIZONTAL Â· 2- Eligil 1 - *-Li@- ~i_%&Imf#&~E'Va â‚¬AZONTAL SIONC - . - KEY,emp_ .' ' 1 ' 1 1 1 4%42.- ./ 557 l UNIT 1 - PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 01 4 8 7616 + Dl/Â«â‚¬F - OFFÂ»42 1 fit - TEV \4â‚¬t35 -_-Â»PE---tu=T\OR 4/4,/17 - \\ 5.- 0/ ./ Â· f 1 0 \ r 0 0 i' 9 1 11 1 . I . 1 - 1 1 $ 1 - 1 jz 3 020 --I-/.Il.- f 1 *45* ? 4 1 1 11 kia -9% -:Â·<~ l 0 + rug C 7 -7,6- *4#4 . -1 g 1 i 1 1 Il. 11-4 El dD 1 i 08 7(E 1 . 65 *39- R 2* 1 h 4ix 0% 9 itti Fil 1 21 4 3-: 1 4-f iq ~ 1 %2 1 h M 0 4-9 rlil N 1 = 1 -112Â§ ~ ill ,- 3 1 it H e 1 U-Ju r 00 0 1 1 m -1 000 i Ill com I ytt l mx 4 6441* 1 1 7 4 1 1,1 -0 m rm 1/ 1 B Fiti E Ki 1Â· itl ' ' 2 --*t*-** 11 e -- . VECTORSpc RESEARCH ~~ ~ : JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS * 1 L-/ 1 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET ASPEN, CO 81612; (970)925-3660 ~~~Frt 4939216 wimip#Ed#m< 4 ---=4 == ==g= 5=23*.-61.# .Al....i=ne--I--4 ~IE-,9~61=-2 1~-W:--'le=-iwiw: i---' 1 -===~ ./Ill'll'll'll'll'll".Ill........Il.ilill'.6:.--I.:6,6--i---In: - .'. I ' ..'11,1 1= 10 . . - -li~jillih 1 Im#11-~-1#â€¢1 .. . A A . ..... 1 .- .0 - . a . . 26'==fiT-----~-#T~-l#jilk~~#9#--=-="~~ . m--07-I-------i=-2232%2SifJ'EM'Witmm~, 1-1-Il-'--I."A#::..0--196==6-'=M::/I.Al-:.:/I:--1/6-:I---- I. . I 52~ --1.1 . =~ 1.1. - , I ===67--1~ ....../........./.../.././.Ii ,---I'-I'l'.'-'-. - -.pil- I ..: 'A . -- En-~11~1.1 .LJI. -11.'lillial- ~ .. . .11-1. -1 .............. .............1 1.-1 ...... A . ..... D . A. L .: , 1~,Illili '1Â¢I ~lill vilinli: I~nia 1 1. . .. 0998-926 C0L6) :2 19 18 00 'NEidSV ' 4 133~319 9NIHdS HlAOS 00L I S1031IHOHV AH3)DIA El>IVr H0HV3S3H odsb'0103A Z 0 1 > i <01 4 - _ _i~m M LU P -- 1Â»g Ki 1 - I---- .- C \ I i --I \ - 1 1 4 , V. *+I * 4 1 1 Â«3>/1 jul 111 4 1 4 li - i y Â»21 - 1 1 1 1 1. . 00 NÂ¢2' 4. / o 46> 7/ :f I -31 1 - 1 - 1 1 /X - 306>li -- l} ,r f //47 Ax- - -. T . 1 l' i. i 1 . V . H. Sin ---- - --- 31 1 -0, r 0-V - . --/ I - . Vl 4 1 ... 11 -- T 1 1 . e 113-\- 1.0 1 - 2 1 1 1 1 \ ! 14 : : 1 t . , 4 1 â€¢.! 1 1 , 1 1 bla>I3318 ; FAM) â‚¬6 1,Imrr Â· Â· 1 9 0 f . Â£ 4 9 1 1 . .-. .- i .0 1 " till.11 17 - -1:4~ - 3 11 4 1 1 t :Ii! 1!1 1 1 11 1 . , 4 1 1 J, 1 1 11. , -J~ 1 1 1 bil 11141% 1 1. ii lo i - 1. , 1, - C:~ A ; i 2 W /4 t 202 9 i i -- I-- - - ve -. 11 1 1 1 -- - 1 ji 44 -tf I . 1. il 1 -_1.1131].20 1 4, ~ . 4 1 3 1-t i j. 6 .2. .Â· 1 0 . , 4 - --. -_ . Â· 1 -- 1- -1.- i---61--1-1. J-,1111.-,L-L t= .4 <4 -I . 4- .-â€ž- - - .-- 111 fl : ./ 0,66 r. - 14,11. '. V' w, 111!-1,Â»Â» .7.- --1-~111* Â·. r 11]k>C C y - --'0 -aryi . ... 7 *':Fugfite#2/#emi:655:iw k Ti 1 9./.,1 + 2 'Ax 1 i Ir . . Iii .- f q 1 - 9 8 2=1 A r. yet & K <1*2 Â¥ ' A % -0 C K i VECTORSpc RESEARCH JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 1 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET ASPEN, CO 81612; (970)925-3660 6 Nt,516 44â‚¬99 f ' 1 EXHIBIT..,7 7 4 iii D_19- 1~ *-f~ p: 1 . . J2 t-Â·, , b. 0 9,6/ - . c~/~--7~/~#/; V'/T _~_----u//P+00~7/~//aht~// ;1 , $ F '1 9 , MEN" , ..W SÂ· Mof - / jruâ€¢Â· 1, 1-4& I.- , - 1. 4 4 , r < 177-314 -,1 11... i :4 -4- 1 ~ et -i ,-11 .3 . , : 2 .- --SA-T-TT-f '' f /1 " 1 1 . 1 . . a -1 A 'fi 1 . f L , j I.. 1 t P lit i 9 4 4 1 5 , P. j 2 â€¢huj. .rk J ..a k 1 .-3 1 .....91413, .3- ... '61 4 4/6, h Â¥ 1-- )----- deir/=24**34;9-um&/H//./ - , 9, 1 Fr 44.- .0,44 1 11 1 V 1/.Ll M. 7 1,5 til t . hi U fil , - - + 04/. 1. 1 . L.,9'YP k- - /9 64&5.Fli 2 4 3-J ,$47/ 3~ //// 4 1. rj, f r -\ 0-0; i 444.6.3 1\Â· k L ' 1 Â¥ 1 ' ' 1 j 4 5 21:* . I j ..42 \ + 0. 29./ 21- ' . 4 .- - 4 ..'. S -A ./ - u . , L . . L 12 141, It . -,16 : 1 .4.. $.4. 1 ibilltilliÂ·li'~ . Â·Â·'1111.!!11Â·litili 1 . ./f 35 11100 ... * -/9,/.-b ~i~-1,"~- 32--2Â¢. bly -1 - . 11.- Ji~ . - ' 4 4 - Â¢Â»- 1 4.l.*43 ./.f ~ 7(1 \At - Jfv) 32 v 0 * 1 Â¢ 1 + *,j i 4- . 9 1 13 1 1 ..6 1.71 -, 1 21. bl ~ i . 1 1. 1 44 1 1 11Â· i .1,#I i >1., - . 1-41-0-*4 -Li: , 74#,4.3 +11 <A B--:. hy , il'Aft A... ~..illf-0,Â·~f~ ~~igit~*~jâ‚¬~jtf09 ........~I=.W....In./- i.,f~-â‚¬27, , i - 1 r if 1 4 â€¢ . B 1. -7/li.-1/ - Wri,J'IMA. - 4 Vt T, ir,9 1 - 'r. 1~- . 1 11. @ r. a I. . 7. A <0:19*MI.k 044 . .: . '74 N . . ... Â¢434,1,2,24L~bRK, . ' :1140'or': 1 1 kf~1Â£...k' 1 *W- â€¢ 4--I- -. *2.' D; , 6111 40., ., l' 1<2. 21 2 GO' 9427-Â« 1 .-4. lil-- / ''4, ...., '. 4 , 3, r 1 -0., I V .0-17/.4 ' V . '9Â«.5.0/4.4/ . 1 - 4 . 1 . 04-.4 1 ., 1 9, 6 : di . I -+ U....,Aga.~ Â£ 4347 77 7. 773!=*71 1 ' 42 .\,1 ' , .,A ' -11 I i .1.. 1 4 4 r:' l , â€¢k I ... 1 94. 0 2-,r: I i -â€¢-..A .;11.I: r.'.' 'Urn,6.--- ... I .. 2,2 ./- 0 Y f f . 6 41 r . ..L '. 1 Â¥ , 1 , '' I./ Â·r - - *6#72 45.-.1 , . 4 , . b. I . . Jâ€¢â€¢r . , ' 1, 1 - . t. 32. I i -t? ~ . 4, :4 4 1.<94. ldp- / Ack 1.3 *44 7 Â·ty,ARÂ£.r 7 ' 12 1 4 h 't. ... / 2