The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.525 W Hallam St.HPC17-95WYCKOFF HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 525 W. HALLAM HPC17-95 -~ j 60% 112 63 P I Â«tii 8 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 525 W. Hallam Street, Landmark designation, Conceptual Review, Relocation and Partial Demolition DATE: June 28, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation, conceptual review, relocation of a historic structure and partial demolition of an existing non-historic structure. The house, the Horace Severeux House, was built in approximately 1886. Two outbuildings exist on the property. APPLICANT: Julie Wyckoff. Black Shack Studios is the architect. LOCATION: 525 W. Hallam Street, Lots C,D, and the west 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen. LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the five standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least two of the following standards: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of 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 1 .. building form or use), or specimen. Response: The house is a simple Victorian miner's cottage with some alterations. The applicant has suggested that the building was originally a duplex, which may be supported by the presence of a pair of chimneys and a pair of bay windows. Portions of the rear of the original structure appear to have been removed and an enclosed porch at the rear of the structure must have been added after 1904. A historic outbuilding with it's original siding is located on the alley. From examination of the roof framing, the roof appears to have been changed from "parallel gables" to a hipped roof. Asbestos shingle siding has also been added. C. Designer: The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The architect or builder is unknown. 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 surrounding neighborhood contains a number of significant historic structures and Aspen Landmarks. This structure represents the historic scale and character of the West End neighborhood. 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: This site is representative of the modest scale, style and character of homes constructed during the mining era, the community's primary period of historic significance. Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " 2 .. Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 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 subj ect 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 5%, 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 5-510(B)(2). Response: The applicant proposes to add a new bedroom on the east of the structure, to widen the front porch, to add a small amount of square footage to the existing non-historic garage and to relocate the historic outbuilding to the east. Some restoration work is proposed, although the applicant does not wish to restore the original roof form. The applicant has placed an addition to the east of the original house. The addition is not large and will impact a small portion of the original house (although an original window is to be removed), but it's placement may be somewhat problematic. It helps to create a private back yard and works with the interior lay out of the house, but it requires a substantial side yard setback variance. The requirement for this lot is a minimum of 5' on each side and combined total of 22.5'. The existing house is 3' from the west lot line, so a variance would be required. As designed, the combined sideyard setback is only 8', so a 14.2' variance is needed. In terms of mass and scale, the addition is compatible, however, the front facade of the building will be approximately 65' long. Staff has attached a 1"=50' scale map of the neighborhood. Several of the surrounding houses have a similar width along the blockface, although most are new construction. The architect should detail the hardship or reasoning for the location of the addition. 3 .. The front porch appears to be original. On the Sanborne Fire Insurance map, it is indicated in its current form and has a tin roof. (Another porch-like element with a tin roof appears to have existed in the northeast corner. The house had a wood shingle roof.) Staff does not support the applicant's request to alter the front porch because it is a historic element. The applicant wishes to add on to the existing garage and to place a studio unit above it. At 24' tall, which is 2' taller than the historic house, the garage will not be visible from the street. It is completely detached from the historic house and will have no negative impacts on it. The garage appears to exceed the height limit by approximately 1'. Under the Cottage Infill program, the maximum height of an outbuilding with an a.d.u. on the second floor is 16'. Under the new regulations, the 16' is measured to the point 1/3 of the way between the eave and ridgeline. There is no limit on the ridge height. The garage currently encroaches on the west sideyard by approximately 6". The historic outbuilding currently sits on the rear lot line. In order to improve the yard area, the applicant wishes to relocate the garage to the east. It will meet the sideyard setback of 5', but is to remain on the rear lot line. A rear yard variance of 5' is required. The applicant has requested a site coverage variance. Because Ordinance #30, the new design standards for Aspen exempt porches from site coverage this variance is not needed. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The overall scale of the new construction is in keeping with the neighborhood and creates an interesting site plan. Staff is concerned with the long front facade. 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 structures are unique and the proposed project includes many elements which will help it to more clearly represent it's original appearance. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not 4 .. diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Minimal demolition is proposed. ON-SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The relocation is not necessary but is desired by the property owner. 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: The applicant must submit a structural report for Final review, or prior to applying for a building permit. The barn will probably require substantial interior bracing. If the structure cannot be moved, it must be preserved in place. 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 applicant must submit a relocation plan and bond prior to Final review or prior to applying for a building permit. 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: The garage is not historic. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: 5 .. A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The demolition does not impact the historic structures. B. Impacts on the architectural character of 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: The architectural character and integrity of the historic resource will be preserved through the new development. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation of Lots C, D, and the east 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Staff recommends that HPC table conceptual review with the following comments: 1) Provide more information about any proposed restoration/repair work 2) Provide more support for the location of the addition on the east of the house. 3) Do not alter the front porch. 4) Review the height of the garage. 5) Verify that the recently adopted residential design standards, namely the calculation of primary mass and F.A.R. are met. 6 .... Table of Contents --*1 1 Existing Site Plan 2 Proposed Site Plan 3 Existing / PlanProposed Plan J \7 - 3 4 Existing Elevations / Proposed Elevations 5 Proposed Garage / Caretaker Building r u Dz n - ./.-I--.4 41 Wyckoff Residence 525 2*CHallarn Aspen, Colorado Historical Preservation Committee Conceptual Review Black Shack Architects 20 June 1995 Aspen, Colorado , 3-Call GLYYL *Lce el - 9 , C W K :t s 9 5Â°09'lil" LE - 75.00' 45 30. ocr -9 7,Â· - 30.00' * 5.00" el f )r- Lot C i 3 Lot D C-DEE 1 -O t '5 . 17..Â·k.=,1 * .-Block 29 18.8' , 7 90*ctut~ 3 reÂ»Ul Scrllâ‚¬: 1% 20' m 0 7 ' t 3 r\ 4Rd 4 8.3.91?.::21 It L- 1 ik, 6 ,~ faeÂ·lo-c-ke 1 claraje 4,30 - 1 4 0 0- 0 'm N 24.1, - I. - I -r ... 1 - sked. - /12,1 9 1, .f ., 14Â£Â·r~'OC>901 -1"W . +4 78IcÂ©' 4 â€¢ - cÂ·n-cllcales sal. reba-*v- Q cap 'Ace-Eect. L.S. i Ll 1 ( 1 I hereby certify that on May 20, 1983, a survey was conducted under my direct supervision of Lots C, D and the West * of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen, State of Colorado. A single-story frame house was found to be on said lot as shown on this plate The location and dimensions of all buildings, im- provements, easements and rights-of-way in evidence or known to me and encroachments by or on the premises are accurately shown to the best of my knowledge and belief, based on corners found in pl,#e at the Nqrthwest and Northeast Corners of said Block 25. Y ~ 1 1 By: /0'7.69.-Uy/ Sydg,@ Lii#fcome P.L.S. 14111 'f~40;PDISTERâ‚¬6.221% ueâ€¢ ~*i 14111 2*F .. 0 . 3. ..9 . . 1 'Ir,50*ro-Ve,Ywd SUNVeÂ·u i.//4,Â·7:, :u/::3:::Â· :(f Of 1 525 Wasâ‚¬.3,â‚¬0_l laMi_ 5-Great - Â·-- asve91.~,. Co lo fajo BY: LINES IN SPACE SYDNEY UNCICOME (L.S. 14111) BOX 121 CARBONDALE, COLO. 303-963-3852 13â‚¬e-v LsÂ« 51 1 q.5 2-3 2/Ca:~ 1983 1 SCALE: 1"= 520' 6 3-El 05-0 4? E 100.00 ,90 ocv a.,biq,05+1 91, bc '16 1% A f0 4 0' 1 ,~ ' Mfld .16 1 5 4340~10.2.1 001 2% 4441* *21 .1.91,#1-- 1Mll A,",0,-1 - -T n - 1 1 - -- 1 - / 1 . ----31-2 r- i., r - IA, 1 - r - li .1 1. . - 04 % 1- --262 -ai_26*2 1 FLI 1!- --- r 1 - I -i. ./ , - 1 74 0 064 B , 4,1 hi + - , b $ ~101~00Â¥ o,qu,/IM ~~~r = I 14"Â¥Â» MlIN 1 -1 - , 4co~ I 1 -HQ.ed MÂ·#N 1 11 1 - 1 311Â¥ 1 1 1 1 77 0 Â¥11 V+W 1 1 14 N. , r ------ +401.U<Nor 312#,0 114$4 1 - Woo, 431 2 4. 1 1 I 11:911 11; 4 - 0309 .141+11 1Â£690101 11 1 1-%1. ili!; - 1 & 0 11-a , 3, 1 . 'IN'-1 317.9 1014 116.19 - k. - 1 â€¢- I j .... --4. - i lili lili .... t 1 S Et 4- *j r It 1 \J I U L. 11 t to 1 d , : ...1 1, i - -Ill.. . -31. 9'24. 1 - . 4 j -E= - -314 4- -=e- . T . . .,ji.. * 4 ' :E . I . ' . . -- -- Al 1 1. , -41 - J. -I '7791 = 4 J I ./. I L 0 1. i CD 4 - Tt!' : Ill # 41 11 N e w 1,0 Â£,1, :==-= )4' to . 1 i Â® "404 1 -- Te - Aâ‚¬W X --- *-K-tâ€¢6 -Cl bl-,4 -62,2 - - AE W W 7 0 6 of --7- r EXT,1-'6 1 1 Poo fd *' '2440 4 i 1 - .. 1 - 1 1.\ 1. ~ . -11 '41 -71--1'~7*--17_ur ir--Tr--n[- ~--1 --~Un Â·..7 -~,-1 - 1 â„¢==jor 1 ' 1 1 1 1 '11 1 j - 4 ly#28Â£L#66* --,t~ ELI-- ry.WUP '. 64.0,--:C~.- I 1 75 7/ . 0. t vi 21 -02 1 -,p I + -773 -~ I F --41 1 &,'.4- 1 - b' ~. 4,','0. i Â·, Li A LE:ild 1 1 1 .1 t K ,C=Â»1--hd G>< N 6 W c,ouT 1 --- 1--1 181.0. 1 11 - I. i 1-v~A 1 1 1 27-11- Â· -- -. -9% I. -' M.-- ./ ---Â·.--Â·---Â·--Â·Â· --~-- ---Â·Â·--- Â·-Â·--F - 1,1-]FÂ» ~~.S.~~ \\1 , 1Â·--- T - rl 4\ - ! ' - r ----Â· 1 1- , 1 1 - T --7 1 1 - -- 4 - i , i I -,; 1 }I P. 1 1 --11 ilp ' U -- --Â·--- --11 4. ** Tr l 4.1 .r . 1 -42 -1... 1 1 4 4.... 4.-------..U--i.... .......---- --- M E JEW 2 5-19TJNG, 1 ( K e 4 f 0 6 6 6.-) X 9.A 41' 'dof-'(~_ wete 1 ' 11 $ 1.0 -91-vu-u- .... . 1 ID 1 10, 1,0 '1 1 - -1.--. 1 4 1- 1 ~ - r-1 -r-- 1 I i Lli - 1 1 11.-1 - - I NX F==r K I fl H Â£ Af ..1 fi r _ PN 1 457 /' 4=40 1 Â« 7- -lES -19 Â« 4-=i~ 3 x. IN]11 Â·T r,\> 1 -- - 1*Â»2 0 t 74,To g - -6- ; ; 1 114-Ki 1.4 U 1 -L=] 1. i 41016'IM ~ ------__ IPEVICLEO CLe.Z 1-4 + 1 :~ 1 F-1--2 ; : "~"ui l 'If--Ili 71"r i 4 11 11 :.1 1 DVIKE: i . 7 2 Ali 1 11 ! 141 11 -1 ! 1 01+ 4. N /. i--1-!L 1-'-1- 1 4-r u 17 1 2 1,Ir 9 IE U ('L*N (r ' 1 6 1 i/'17 10 ~ h' 0 e T W RL Evari.14 ur*T â‚¬ ', 1 1 1 - A-\ -- 11 0// -Vkx ' * =4-1 100% - 1XX J , 510416 0 11 1 / 1, Â·I -- -~-I - g- 11 1 W /23 - - L_ 1 - __- 1 7~Â¥ 1 2 1 11 - .4 04 1 bi - \It 13 --- 1 1- + --) f 2 -4 =Â· - f - i T--7--r f. -" -L 61[NE>/O 6-â‚¬0Â». 41 2104@1 -1 1 i -4 ,Â»Lg!04 1.--1 - .3 - . _prlic, i-0 .fv-<10.- 4 -- 41 i -- \ I -w i 9--9-3 ' 7.- - 4Â¥4 1 - -1 11 1 1 -1 #.......--4 : F D- f - 4- - UP ,- -1__ I -62~45 4.6,1- 2â‚¬.7,10 ~- 1 16==Ei --'14 94 - E --- --- i - -~ - --- -- ' CO 1. O 1' 0>WAL,C vtÂ©/ fl- r v= 4 -'_- - --- .-, Â£ ' 4 0 u' w g u Â£ 4 **: C.; 4 12 A '7 1 !52 6- .. .. '- ,=1 -7 L =3 1 i 64 KKAWK - 6 Al Â¢ â‚¬ ' 6 C !00 114 15> L 1 6 0 1 N Câ€¢ - .~- -.~li~ -~p.-- -i-/'W.- - -.i . **I-. i * .;-.-Il.--.-I -..i~ -Id-u.~- th L E--- 4- 1 Index Contour f ~ L-----1-T-Â· W : 143 Intermediate t! 1 : It Â· It 11 L ~1 11 11 1 I. 1 I 6/ 1 I It *11 / X x h!, -1.. 't '. 1 11 -,7 1 1/ *f 2 11 ' Index Depression- 12-.. 1 i 1 ' 1 1 P.*, 1 1 .* (D 5-- < W 0 t 1i Depression - r 0 - 1 .0 L \ . -e / ' 0 1 0 1 i , b &1*. 9,0 6 - - f Equit/1&43191 1 , \ , - U r- SCALE : 1- = 50' 1 + I 41 1 1 79/nÂ° <C' 0 ' i~ 5~~6--60 0 11 - 1 1 /1 J , I - o \ CONTOUR INTERVAL 2 FEET -- -- 91 - .. HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 525.WH Photo Information: ASP-E-32 & 34 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Horace K. Severeux House Full Street Address: 525 West Hallam Legal Description: Lot C and the West 1/2 of Lot D, Block 29 City and Townsite of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: West End Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Hipped roof cottage Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1-story Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Square Landscaping or Special Setting Features: 2 30" cottonwoods at north side Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): 1 shed-roof qarage, board and batten, approximately 200 square feet (contemporary); 1 shed roof livestock shed with original board and batten siding, approximately 200 sq. ft. For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Hip with corruqated metal Walls: Asbestos shingles Foundation / Basement: Unknown Chimney(s): 2 at either ends of center peak; both red brick; 1 red brick at southwest Windows: One-over-one double hung bay with simple brackets below and mansard roof above Doors: Transome. direct light. wood panel Porches: Hip gable over front door only; supported by turned posts General Architectural Description: 1-story Victorian Cottage .. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 525.WH FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1886 Actual X Estimate X Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate X Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Asbestos siding Additions and Date: NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation 1 1 Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or Zl - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. This structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated bv the silver mining industry. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: January 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner 1 1 10 1 01 16 [ 1 - riA 1 1 [IN 1 -4 j/,1/,<1/ 0 22 28 S & , \F 0 3,1 09 4 1--1 1 -A| 4 v. 0. .Â£ i J. 4 M. N. 1 0. La P Q -~R. 8. r elt< 0 6 - / L N 4 - 6 7-v 4 1 0 --4 1 Rk 3 f 03~ 2 ' 5 0 3 0 31 h r -- , 2 9 0 Lr 'D rr~ ~ JM / 1- 26 0 kn % Ch 03 ~ 9-J .lf 68% 620 618 6/6 6/4 612 610' 608 606 604 600 (82) (506) 534 632 530 528 526 524 522 520 6/8 576 514 510 508 500 504 5023* ========== Ca. l; / 21./ ==== - = - = 41/K/Â£16'E= _/68114*filgm'/pMT i-/l l.3 0 V~ l./1-2-, W.HALLAM r.,-/ uu - 4 1-T-!EL. f./ L . 1 62/ 619 617 6/5 6/3 6il 609 607 605 603 Em 339 .fty 33 3 gil 509 507 mf 503 50/. 11'lls i 1 r, -4 7 -<r mr -c j XI, 01 1 & Z 71 177 1 / JL---~ 7-7/ 1 Â£061 -4 A i 72 1 4 --Fla CO a s y \\ ~ ~~ C. 1 0 E. â‚¬ G. H 35><12 17-:1 1/ XI 1/ 1 /0 23 NOT 0 PEN. 04 -63.,0,/ 6 -C- 84 2 1 , /4 2 )â€ž4,25~~ 1 /9 1 67. R. 0. Ap K, L. M ilâ‚¬F:tf-*911#773( j e ~ R. 0 i.44~12ffith~'=iimÂ»Â».1 , : I I ..Trl-- 0 1 F- a /-6...Vt.4,/19,4..Â·'Â·:,1~~3}1 Â· U) 9-4 04 0 5 1,&***~p-Â£ t\C Qi N. 0. Ill 1 1 4 & 1 -1 1 1 1---1-- - B4 I 'A- . 1.-4 ... 9 --, --- .... --- 9.01 9.nR On< 9.n, ena 4,1 9#1 O#C 9/9 90 . PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 525 W. HALLAM CONCEPTUAL REVIEW AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, June '28, 1995, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission in the second floor meeting room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Julie Wyckoff requesting Landmark Designation and Conceptual Review to construct an addition to the existing house, which requires an east side yard setback variance; to relocate the existing garage and to add a second story, which requires a rear yard setback variance; and to relocate an existing shed, which requires an east side yard setback variance and a rear yard setback variance. The property is located at 525 W. Hallam; Lot C and the west & of Lot D, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/ Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. 920-5096. s/Donnellev Erdman, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 10, 1995. City of Aspen Account ~1 ~Ch- &1 ) 2 4-f f al-Dk U L (0 < -1 . B. . 11?'%41~Lu t'Â·- 4/al. wi -J,r.,PtÂ· , , ,;:irwrit '44 U & iii '* 01 I I u- 476.6 4.442<*-~.2,2- 4 2'44: .: /,r, 4 f, fÂ¥hili t i 4 Â¥44)4 ' Â¥ 7 - A '11 grbil.,1 , 1 1 '.IE 1 0 Â¥11 .1 d #, ..$1 $ - . 4 764 ..; - ... /6. I + h /914 1 tr 'N-\C, l%4--41 +4ccl -41 â‚¬i Yk 4- sjs- LOAA- 4146 *m 40%86 Maidcut *L RÂ« \045- 349 --.---X *9. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of June, 1995. -4. /f&-4 i<- 777, %-1.1,14~0 1 0 :. A --4-1: i ARIYCE M. KAUFMAN j H 4 34 /0 -A.... /0 weh.4 oF CoU) My Commission Expires.21 - 57 - F\19 1,1 = .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 Roger: Also that no structures should be built on the right-of- way. Martha: The Parlor Car could have traded easements and I also thought part of the area was a trail easement. Amy: I am not sure about where the trail easements are. Donnelley: It seems we have consensus that the right-of-way should be on the inventory. Donnelley closed the public hearing. MOTION: Roger moved to maintain the Red Butte Cemetery on the inventory and that we add the sections of the Colo. Midland Railroad right-of-way as shown on the plat and that we delete 437 W. Smuggler and 325 N. Third since they have been demolished; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Amy: I will bring that back to you in a form of a resolution. 525 W. HALLAM - PH - CONCEPTUAL - LD Amy: They are requesting landmark designation, conceptual review, relocation. The structure is eligible for landmark and it meets standard B architectural importance, standard D neighborhood character and standard E, community character. Under conceptual development the basic explanation of the project is that the applicant requests an approval to construct and addition to the east of the existing structure; to take an existing historic outbuilding and move that to the east and to add a half story to an existing non historic garage and to alter the front porch. I feel we need more information on the rehab of the restoration work. For sideyard setbacks there is a minimum for each side which in this case is five feet minimum on each side and 22 1/2 feet total. What is being proposed is three feet on the west side because that is existing and five feet on the east side which conforms but they are 14 feet short of their combined total. This is a one story addition, small in scale and compatible with the historic house. The facade is around 60 feet long. There are structures of similar length in the neighborhood but they are not historic. There are also two large trees that will help mitigate it. I have provided the 1904 Sanborn fire insurance map and although it appears to be altered, some of the detailing and some of the form the existing porch seems to be in the same location as the historic porch. They are asking to expand that and alter it and I do not feel it is appropriate. The height of the garage appears to exceed the height limit of an accessory structure, only by a foot which have no limit on the ridge height. The mid point 2 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 is now measured 1/3 of the way up so the architect needs to confirm that. They also need to confirm that there recently adopted residential design standards are met. Amy: The remaining part of the project is an onsite relocation of the historic shed and they would like to move it to the five foot setback line which is conforming and they would like to retain the zero foot setback line which is not conforming. My main concern is that we are sure the building can withstand the move. It probably requires constructing an entirely new frame inside and then picking it up by that frame. If that can't be handled then the building should not be moved. Glenn Rappaport, architect: The addition is hidden fairly well behind the conifers on the site. We also stepped the building back a few feet and changed the material attempting to break it down. We have dropped the height of the out building a foot and that was an oversight. The client does not want to do much to the historic building so we tried to not touch the building. The outbuilding was disconnected on purpose. The other addition to the east will cantilever over. There was a lot of desire to maximumize the south facing yard. We realize when you combine the setbacks we are asking for a large variance but we feel respecting a five foot setback on the east side is consistent with many historic structures and it gives us the ability for maintenance and snow removal. There is some concern with the neighbors on the setbacks. We are working with the neighbor to the west to understand what their view concerns are and possibly modifying the outbuilding roof line. Although the existing square footage of the house is large it only has one legal bedroom and one bathroom. The client needs more additional bedroom/bathroom space and that is the reason for the addition. The building originally was a duplex and when we climbed up in it looked like there were two gable shapes over- framed with a giant hip roof at some point. We still do not know the date of the porch. CLARIFICATIONS & QUESTIONS Donnelley: It looks like the property to the east is set back from its property line five feet. Jake: Is there any change that you would restore the form in the roof. Glenn: We had looked at creating a bedroom in that space but there was so much structure randomly running through the space that it was not feasible. Roger: Does the addition to the east follow the original form from your observations when you went up in the attic? Originally there 3 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 might have been a gable running to the east. Glenn: There were two gables running north and south parallel. We intend to use horizontal clapboard siding and some board and batten to match existing. Donnelley: The eave line is also carried along the same as the existing. Roger's point was how do you differentiate the old from the new. Glenn: One idea was to change the siding. Roger: You have two very different windows on the street side and one even looks lower and why do you have two windows that are so dissimilar and how does that relate to the streetscape in reference to the neighborhood character guidelines. Glenn: One is in the bathroom and one is in the bedroom. We aren't particularly wedded to a style other than that we felt it should have a vertical proportion. Glenn: We are actually exploring a two story addition. Linda: Can the shed be moved without being damaged? Julie Wyckoff, owner: Yes. Amy: The height of the house is 22 feet and the proposed garage is shown at 24 feet. It was two feet taller than the house and now it is only one. Roger: You are asking for the setback variances and a landmark designation tonight. Susan: Why do you want to move the shed? Julie Wyckoff. The shed obstructs the view of the park so if I could move it over to the east then you can see the trees. Walter Bauer: I live to the east and it seems to met that the setback should be greater if it is a two story than a one story. Donnelley: The application is for a one story. Walter Bauer: I would think a two story would change the appearance greatly but I do not have an architectural perspective on that. That block of land has very few setbacks. They are minimal. There might be argument for a greater than five foot setback and I would personally like to see more because it effects my property but to the other point that block is crowded. 4 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 John Sweeney: I live to the west side and our concern was the height of the garage and it looks more like a tower. We would hope the architect would come up with some way of modifying that. I do not know the regulations for an ADU, if they like it on top of the garage or not as they are getting so high. We just did a modification on our house. Jake: Does the garage effect your view plan Mr. Sweeney? John Sweeney: Vivian's studio is effected. Our house is five feet from the property line. I am also concerned with the snow falling off the roof. Julie Wyckoff: This design is in sympathy with both my neighbors but the Sweeney's are more impacted by the height of the garage and I would like to see the garage come down a little to make their view corridor more visible to the east. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. Les: I feel you are going in the right direction. Jake: I am looking at the five yard setback and the relocation of the existing shed. In general this is a low impact. In order to justify the side yard 5 ft. setback and the rear yard variance for the relocated shed you have to make a finding that it is more compatible with the historic resource. I am not sure why you have to press that window toward that property line. You do have drainage problems with sheds in the alley. Linda: I feel uncomfortable approving something that they want to change or are going to change and with the neighbors comments it looks like they are going to have to do a restudy. Susan: I would OK the one story but not the two story. Glenn: This building was a duplex. Martha: I wasn't sure about the encroachments but it sounds like something that can be dealt with. Most of the activity is toward the back of the lot. Moving the shed is not a problem and I need convinced about the ADU. Jeff: Perhaps, if the height of the garage is a concern story polls could be put up to adjust for height and view. I like the idea of a shed roof on the pop out vs. the gable. On the setbacks I do not have a problem with the five foot setback if it is a one story building. If it becomes a two story we need to see what impacts it has on the historic house as well as the eastern 5 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 neighbor. If it was a two story I would go with a larger setback on that side. I prefer a two story outbuilding garage and it keeps in pattern with the neighborhood. I also am in favor of the designation. Roger: I would recommend landmark designation. I agree that the five foot setback maybe OK but I would like to see support for that. I have no problem with altering the front porch. I also feel working with the neighbors to the west on the garage in some sort of design is appropriate so I have no problem granting a variance for that nor do I have a problem moving the shed and maintaining the pattern of the neighborhood. Donnelley: The eastern setback of five feet maybe ok. The landmark I recommend and I don't find a compelling reason to relocate the shed but I do not feel it is a major issue. The garage ADU has ways to mitigate and can be worked out with the neighbors. Roger: My motion would be to recommend landmark designation and table until some of these issues are worked out. I would like to see a massing model and models of the houses next door. MOTION: Roger moved that the application for 525 W. Hallam for landmark designation for Lot C, D and the west 1/2 of Lot E. Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen finding that standards B, E and F are met. I recommend tabling to July 12th, Conceptual Review to a date certain so that the applicant can provide more information in regards to a one story or two story addition. They can come back to us with design considerations dealing with the east yard setback. Also that they restudy the ADU reconfiguration; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: I would like to see a model and historic photos of the house and the east and west side. Possibly a streetscape photo if you can see houses. It would help us to determine the relationship of the historic building to the addition. Glenn: We are talking about a model of the houses and the ADU as well. Amy: We need to know what you intend to do with repair to the historic house. Julie Wyckoff, owner: Once the asbestos is off whatever story that gets told will tell. I plan on using what I find and copying. Amy: My second concern is the front porch. The proposed porch stylistically not in keeping with the house. It just does not communicate with the house. 6 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1995 Glenn: We can show a few porch studies. Julie: Regarding the concrete abatement, the asbestos will get wet and then put into sealed containers while it is still wet and then it is taken to Colo. Springs. 217 S. GALENA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: This is a proposals to place a hot tub on top of the Mark Justin building. We do have a roof plan and there are a number of structures up their, a deck, stairway and satellite dish. The hot tub is three feet tall and has no reflective material and I do not feel it is visible from the street. Les: We went through this stuff with Harley Baldwin on his national building and we did not give him this stuff as we did not want people seeing different uses on the roof. I feel we possibly made some mistakes there. Is this on the National Register? Amy: No, but it is on the inventory. Roger: I have been on the roof and you wouldn't know it was there. Les: I like roof top activity and it is part of the messy vitality. Roger: There is a deck with lawn chairs. Don: My only recommendation is that the Building Dept. ascertain that the roof structure is capable of carrying a 5,000 lb. load which is approximately what this would create and it is a concentrated load. Usually structures need altered. Sven: Do they need a statement from a structural engineer. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC approve the minor development application for 217 S. Galena, a portable roof top spa with the following condition that a structural engineer evaluate the existing condition of the roof to determine if it will support the requested addition; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. 939 E. COOPER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Jake stepped down. Sven seated. Bob Langley: We need help on the FAR. We did calculations for the historic unit A and we came up 50 feet short. We captured 16 feet as Jake moved the staircase SO we are now 34 feet short. We 7 .. fa, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 525 W. Hallam Street, Landmark designation, Conceptual Review, Relocation and Partial Demolition DATE: July 12, 1995 (Public hearing continued from June 28, 1995) SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation, conceptual review, relocation of a historic structure and partial demolition of an existing non-historic structure. The house, the Horace Severeux House, was built in approximately 1886. Two outbuildings exist on the property. HPC reviewed the application on June 28 and tabled directing the applicant to restudy the design of the front porch and the design of the garage to protect the view from the neighbor's property. The applicant suggested that she might prefer a two story addition instead of the one story shown on June 28. A poll of the members indicated that most preferred the one story solution and that a two story solution would have to provide a greater east side yard setback. APPLICANT: Julie Wyckoff. Black Shack Studios is the architect. LOCATION: 525 W. Hallam Street, Lots C,D, and the west 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen. LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the five standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least two of the following standards: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of 1 .. historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of 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: The house is a simple Victorian miner's cottage with some alterations. The applicant has suggested that the building was originally a duplex, which may be supported by the presence of a pair of chimneys and a pair of bay windows. Portions of the rear of the original structure appear to have been removed and an enclosed porch at the rear of the structure must have been added after 1904. A historic outbuilding with it's original siding is located on the alley. From examination of the roof framing, the roof appears to have been changed from "parallel gables" to a hipped roof. Asbestos shingle siding has also been added. C. Designer: The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The architect or builder is unknown. 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 surrounding neighborhood contains a number of significant historic structures and Aspen Landmarks. This structure represents the historic scale and character of the West End neighborhood. 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: This site is representative of the modest 2 .. scale, style and character of homes constructed during the mining era, the community's primary period of historic significance. Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 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 adj acent parcels when the subj ect 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 5%, 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 5-510(B)(2). Response: The applicant proposes to add a new bedroom on the east of the structure, to widen the front porch, to add a second story a.d.u. to the existing non-historic garage and to relocate the historic outbuilding to the east. Some restoration work is proposed, although the applicant does not wish to restore the original roof form. The applicant has placed an addition to the east of the original house. The addition is not large and will impact a small portion of the original house (although an original window is to be removed), but it's placement may be somewhat problematic. It helps to create a private back yard and works with the interior lay out of the house, but it requires a substantial side yard setback variance. The requirement for this lot is a minimum of 5' on each side and combined total of 22.5'. The existing house is 3' from the west lot line, so a 3 .. variance would be required. As designed, the one story alternative provided a combined sideyard setback of only 8', so a 14.2' variance is needed. In terms of mass and scale, the addition is compatible, however, the front facade of the building will be approximately 65' long. Several of the surrounding houses have a similar width along the blockface, although most are new construction. The two story addition presented tonight provides an 8' east sideyard for a combined total of 11'. The variance required is 11.5'. (Please note that the new site plan still says 5', but it will be corrected to be 8'). This addition is exactly the same design as the one story alternative, except that the roof pops up another 6' to the ridge. Staff finds that this solution is not as compatible as the one story addition and that the large variance required is not as justifiable in terms of limiting impacts to the historic structure. An addition of this height might be more successful if it were pushed further back on the lot, but it does not work well in the proposed location. The front porch has been modified somewhat. The footprint of the altered front porch seems to match that of the original porch. Some further study may be given to the detailing of the porch. The applicant wishes to add on to the existing garage and to place a studio unit above it. At 24' tall, which is 2' taller than the historic house, the garage will not be visible from the street. It is completely detached from the historic house and will have no negative impacts on it. The garage appears to exceed the height limit by approximately 1'. Under the Cottage Infill program, the maximum height of an outbuilding with an a.d.u. on the second floor is 16'. Under the new regulations, the 16' is measured to the point 1/3 of the way between the eave and ridgeline. There is no limit on the ridge height. The historic outbuilding currently sits on the rear lot line. In order to improve the yard area, the applicant wishes to relocate the garage to the east. It will meet the sideyard setback of 5', but is to remain on the rear lot line. A rear yard variance of 5' is required. The variances requested are: For the one story plan: combined sideyard variance of 14.2' west sideyard variance of 2' rear yard variance of 4' if the deck is provided 4 .. height variance to 16' under cottage infill program rear yard variance of 5' for shed For the two story plan: combined sideyard variance of 11.5' west sideyard variance of 2' rear yard variance of 4' if the deck is provided height variance to 16' under cottage infill program rear yard variance of 5' for shed (Note: no variance is required for the east/west expansion of the front porch.) 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The overall scale of the new construction as a one story element is in keeping with the neighborhood and creates an interesting site plan. Staff has been concerned with the long front facade, but this should be mitigated by the large existing street trees. The two story addition is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood as proposed due to its proximity to the street. 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 structures are unique and the proposed project includes many elements which will help it to more clearly represent it's original appearance. Staff finds that the two story addition, while simple in design does detract from the original design and character of the historic house. 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: Minimal demolition is proposed. ON-SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and 5 .. integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adj acent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The relocation is not necessary but is desired by the property owner. 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: The applicant must submit a structural report for Final review, or prior to applying for a building permit. The barn will probably require substantial interior bracing. If the structure cannot be moved, it must be preserved in place. 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 applicant must submit a relocation plan and bond prior to Final review or prior to applying for a building permit. 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: The garage is not historic. A small portion of the historic house Will be demolished for the addition. Staff finds that the applicant has minimized the demolition required. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The garage demolition does not impact the 6 , .. historic structures. The demolition of the historic house is limited in nature. B. Impacts on the architectural character of 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: The architectural character and integrity of the historic resource will be preserved through the new development of the garage. As mentioned above, the one story addition is more compatible in terms of massing with the old structure than is the two story addition. Residential Design Checklist The project is in conflict with two elements of Ordinance #30. Primary Mass: A primary mass is a building volume for which two of the following three characteristics do not vary: plate height, ridge height, wall plane. The floor area of a primary mass in excess of 70% of total allowable FAR shall be multiplied by 1.25. Issue: The existing house is 1,624 sq.ft. and does not vary in terms of plate height and ridge height. The one story addition is 648 sq.ft., making the existing house 71% of the building volume. HPC must waive the standard. In the case of the two story addition, which is 813 sq.ft., the standard is met because the existing house is 66% of the building volume. Volume: A calculation has been added which counts interior spaces at 2:1 FAR where there are exterior penetrations (windows) between 9 and 12' above the floor height. This affects the window on the east of the new addition and the windows on the north of the new addition. The architect intends to alter and lower them to comply with this regulation. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to 7 .. be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation of Lots C, D, and the east 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Staff recommends that HPC approve the one story addition as proposed on June 28 with the following conditions: 1) Provide more information about any proposed restoration/repair work for final review. 2) Limit decorative detailing on the new porch. 3) Review the height of the garage. The applicant may provide story poles for final review. 4) Provide a report from a structural engineer for final review stating that the shed can be moved. The applicant must a bond for the relocation, the amount of which will be set by HPC at final. 5) HPC shall grant the appropriate variances described on pages 4 and 5 of this memo. 6) HPC shall waive the "Residential Design Checklist Standard" dealing with primary mass due the dimensions of the historic structure. The architect shall revise the design to meet the volume calculation. Staff recommends that HPC not approve the two story addition, finding that the development review standards are not met. 8 .. 07 ~r BLACK 06 95 SHACK STUDIO Historical Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 Re: Landmark Designation for Wyckoff residence and conceptual review for Lots C, D and the west half of Lot E, block 29. Original Aspen Townsite. 525 East Hallam Aspen CO 81611 Dear Committee Members, The residence at 525 East Hallam is a typical Hip Roof style miners cottage with a square floor plan and an applied front porch. It seems as though this structure was originally a duplex with a small central entry hall. The owner wishes to propose a number of minor changes which are intended to respect the original structure while preserving private outdoor space on the parcel. *Secondary changes are denoted by BOLD text. Presently, this site has a single family residence of 1,624 sq. ft. with two bedrooms and one bathroom, a detached garage of 250 sq. ft., and a tool shed of 243 sq. ft. We are requesting: 1. an east side and setback variance for a two story addition of 688 sq. ft + a porch of 125 sq. ft. TOTAL = 813 sq. ft. This addition will respect a 8 ft. setback from the east side property line. The existing setback on the west side is 3.3 ft. This lot has a total size of 7,500 sq. ft. This implies a total combined side yard setback of 22.5 ft. with a minimum of 5 ft. per side required. Thus, we are asking for a variance of 11.2 ft 2. a rear yard setback variance for: a) a 40 sq. ft. garage and ADU expansion. b) the relocation of the 243 sq. ft. shed to a position at the south east corner of the lot respecting a 5 ft. setback while maintaining the 0 ft. rear yard setback already existing. 3. a front yard variance for the enlargement of the existing porch by 24 sq. ft. This variance would be utilized in the east and west direction only and not used to move the front porch closer to Hallam street. We are also requesting to rebuild the existing garage with an additional dwelling unit (ADU) above the garage. -garage = 312 sq. ft. (exempt from FAR) -ADU = 424 sq. ft. (net livable to 282.75 sq. ft.- half of which 141.38 sq. ft. is exempt for being above grade) BOX 276 ASPEN C O 81612 FAX/TEL 303 920 1134 .. 6/ BLACK SHACK STUDIO We realize that this seems like a lot of variances; however, the net result would be a collection of small scale structures with a combined floor area of 2,962.62 sq. ft. on a site with an allowable floor area of 3,450 sq. ft. We feel as though the massing of the proposed addition to the existing house is compatible with the original structure. We are also trying to preserve as much of a backyard as we can given the constraints of the program. We hope that the board will agree with our efforts. Thank you for your consideration. /Â«07 Glenn Rappaport, A.I.A BOX 276 ASPEN C O 81612 FAX/TEL 303 920 1134 0 0 . -9. i Table of Contents \ 1-7 ff -:L7/B 1 Existing Site Plan 2 Proposed Site Plan Lri 2121 tE iR f 5142 3 Existing / Proposed Plan I . ..AÂ» '121 4 Proposed Upper Level Plan 5 Exixsting / Proposed Eleveations 6 Proposed Garage / Caretaker Building L/Â«3 - 4-zo v - 4 ' 4 ~t 4-i o w I - - Wyckoff Residence 525 East Hallam Aspen, Colorado Historical Preservation Committee Conceptual Review Black Shack Architects JUL 0 6 1995 Aspen, Colorado 1 I 1.1 3-6-a-1 1 a.yl <itre el - ,/ 1 Â£ YE K V 975Â°09'130'2- - - 75-. 00' 2: 30.00' -47 ., - 30.00, 1 5.00' ' C 4.:, r ) r-. 1 Lot c, Â·56 3 Lot D LoEE 1 -01 /15 N . 58 lock 2-9 ~ 18.8' ~~.~1 T sixglesÂ·lori~ .~rcs.le o Rouse 0 Sc.ale: 1% 20 m 0 1-Ot f 1 1 3,3 40.9 a 62 + Â·, -1 , 4 6 k F a.elia-cke A gara-je - 0- .Â· f er C . 09 0- ' m 1 24.1' -3 - s ked.Â· - iÂ·.:'SE? .t . ~3<i-'<5Â°04' 11"W lf.%73;00' 'L a.-1. [e*â€ž-~,.0- 0 -CAell c.ales sal rei>a.*v- cap *Laor(â‚¬Rd- L.S. 141 11 I hereby certify that on May 20, 1983, a survey was conducted under my direct supervision of Lots C, D and the West 3- of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen, State of Colorado. A single-story frame house was found to be on said lot as shown on this plato The location and dimensions of all buildings, im- provements, easements and rights-of-way in evidence or known to me and encroachments by or on the premises are accurately shown to the best of my knowledge and belief, based on corners found in ploe'de at the Nqrthwest and Northeast Corners of said Block 29. ~ ~ Sydg;@ Lip~come P.L.S. 14111 #69 al Q*i 14111 31*f , Clk .. Â· 1. 3.:~yQpÂ·rove,ut:L SterveÂ·u <4'Dy" P sur24 14.1 , 7 r ...... 5-25 Wast-,3-â‚¬0-l laÂ«. 5-l:rÂ·~2&41 - - a.slpeÂ«i ,Â·. ColoÂ·radto BY: LINES IN SPACE SYDNEY UNCICOME (L.S. 14111) BOX 121 CARBONDALE, COLO. 303-963-3852 1 32 ev <-sed 5 l 1 q.50 2.3.>Caw 1 9 83 SCALE: 1"= .20' 0 100.00 '90 00(21 Wy, .1 6 17 00 5 + 1 St. -, '- I 3.0 14Â°5049~ EL ~ - " . 1 + 1, 011 ' - s t, 01 ' , C r &â€¢ C 1 ~ 1 - 1 N f c, - ----Il---A-- *I.I.I..I- I -I---- - -.*i' 1 ' ': '''I 1 1,1 -11 1 11 ; 1 1 1 1 Ir-1 - - - I :/1 1 1 1 ; . $ 1 </ Iii 1 Pâ‚¬61< '20"CY-ft 1 Ew **r 5 40 --. 1 9 4 ---9 S '- 1 1 11 1-1 1 i , 2 $#DmooM ' 4,01:Â»Ir'04 4--1- 1 1 O It: 1 AbleÂ¥ 19 1 j RALLA MI 4-C \ r : 1 13 1 1 1, .....21.ILL 'i: r ib 111 + 1 .1 1/ ' 1 N *61 Fb.C.Pt ~ -Xi rtc- 39 . L___-1 - N liW AA- RIC ' 1 =0 k 14-Â« At/*th'>10 A.OVE, \\\ 11 1 1 , 1*41 )*5 . 0 4 14 f ' e fl,009#C i _ L------ ----7 1 - I - 9 3-11.5 0 -,0 , l â€¢i , -1 - 5 -4-~12 -3%2222___ ..i--U:j 11 1#37--22_23...-1 i -.---. - -ill '02=-22-2.-2--- - .-/.77 1 1 1--1 HUU HZ 541 -T-%2$y-- -I -- 2 1 1 . 1 .MT - 1 17 ji 14 --1 ft'1.- .r- r % - .i.~ . -2/ 1, \ -- 1 f '4, 1 - - 1490 / 1 I. lillitili -7 & , / 2-1-/liz 4 1- - - - I.I. 1 -- ~ - ---=-22;- ~#14â€¢~ 16, 4Â¥~444'7 - r coricâ€žr LIWIC~ . 26 L 00 1 I --- , reoroÂ·>Cp , i Â·rc ruL,w 11, 6 101-, 01' - 4 -1 C .1. .... ~-~----1 lili 1- tt 1 F I 4 4 I -il f -t -/. - i 1; 11* 1111;:hl* ffEE..Ill 1 1 18/1 i '' 11.1 , 1 111. TI: 111 1 DTP li -1:- INÂ·Â£11 0- Ii[ i:*D};i~ift----ti--1 It. 1 ill 1 Â¢ h r i i '; I ' '/1 . 0~'Â· l ~-~4--4--..4." i, , |1 b|It,-" 11 (Irl.j:. 11,3.--'--'-. 4/ Ut 1 J - 1 :illill'"'I""I- A * ~ 4< .- - 1 . 4 C I 6.KMÂ· 11 il L I. b M--2 1 TI 11 h New For<.4. - 14' 10 4 Â® 1 ; @ Ill 1 <404 11 1 blâ‚¬W g-,<16-0 ht-61 X A E w 1---1-t - - O F- O W '3 i x r,r'& I i tv oCR f#AU .... . goof J - -.#*-T~IrtiL-Â»__._______ D 1 90 &14â€¢ - - 2,1 1 - 18'.oN - r M d e W EX,41' '4 6 14 e 4 *16 A O f f R K 19 + 4 j _.3. 4 0- fy o O f\,AN 40'. 04 01â€¢J I dll 119 *,1 01 .0-6-31=r,/ 7 -3 4 4 2 X W 0 - | 3 li 9/ 1 1, 1 *\ 1 21 0 rl 1.J r49 1 2 3110021410 r -- j-7 - - -IN - 552-_- - -A-- + --- ---404-0-_ci--1->_ --_ M .cil~ ,>Nâ€¢p, 1,;019 03113 A)10 -,.-7-- ,-- N/21 4 00/M 9 :CÂ»19- LUE 3Â«02_-9---411Â»2 -i. - - 7*1 H/ i 0U 004 7Â®NIHS 1101.0 ly - ~1 Â·fellw - **#GA -1, 4 Â¥ 31 ..1 1 rl 0 4 M <1 2 01406 9 6 4-- 1 + -7~ - eD .01 --=-.z , -1 4 ------ . 4--- --- - 0 - ji '143 1 - 13/VI 344%Â¥e ' 77 ---- 1 - k --" ---11 & I .4 *= <- -- 111 1- . -/1 1 1 | 1 11 2--0--414-__r __ 4 Â·--------- ---12--1 2-LiÂ«-I~-120 r~ML*= 1 1 - - | . .-VillÂ·r- 1 6 01 0 - -- 11 -- - ..A 1, I ,t- Â·7- 77 - i .... - f. T 11*31 0,del,69 . 1- - ... 19 - 1 - -- -- 7 -- - Trl / , \ 01â€¢TIJ,4 - - Â·*latl '0'1 -_26~L 1 1 11119>y , /@, 021 31NVIAVA ) 1 -32- \ - tu~' .LIH'l ILM- iel - 1 ~~ - 0641.9.-- - 1/ tz-' - 1_L_ __ --- _Li-f__2 34/tn -r---2-N - - ---- -'*1 - , 11 '\ 7.1 /41 HÂ»10 3 . 1 r. - 6 _ li E 1 L_-1 Â£ _-1 V ; LLU d .1 1 1.- r 1 1 C'#430 ' ' yÂ«e~ 641*9 j o NNI,1 , 'pit .. 1 1 1 1 0 r -- fl 0215' f o " .. . 11 1 i I ' iiI ! ' 1! ' i || U : i 4 1 1 LIlli i t. _ --- h #2 1 . 1 - .1111 11 U 41 '11, \11 11111 ~ . i Â¢J '1 #11 .1 11 Il & 0 . d N. L 1 1! li " 11 4 . I---I . --.1- 41 h 'AL - A 1 ;9â‚¬iuclf . b W 9 0 U â‚¬ H 4-2=: F=T --- --- - - -- --1--- 1-ti+4 - / r f 1 1 - !17~ 1 11 1 - 'v _- -ff. 2-_f =-i~Â«~Iin $,ti~~ M-x \ L- - ,- 1 J=LL-k-- :,-itt..- i _ _ --$- - 9 -3 r ..., --- -- ~- -21 -r=zr _31- _1 .J ..a- - 7 - - - - LE If- 1.. -I t--t- A..'.1 A --,#â€¢ 1 . I.-- :-1 I 4 1- 8-1,6--r'6- N e w ti 4 1 exi Cl 14 4 f Â° f. c Vt J X Â· X B A 4 4 U O 1- f ---)6 - 0 -f Â¥ -'-.--- - - - - --- -*.k .4. -Lf' 1 0 " - .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 more reasonable and that is keep as many windows as you can. I am not as much of a purist as other members. When we talk about an individual house we are talking about saving one or two windows. Amy: It sounds like the Commission is sending us back to the drawing board. 525 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL - PH Sven and Jeff seated at 6:15 p.m. Amy: We went through the landmark designation the last time but will need a motion. They are proposing a two story addition to the house in basically the same location. It has an eight foot setback off the east property line. In our previous discussions most members were not in favor of a second story but if they were to review it they wanted a more significant setback on the east side. Eight feet is three feet more than the absolute minimum but still requires a substantial combined variance. It is staff's opinion that the two story addition is less sympathetic to the overall design and character of the original house. The trees in front of the property are dense but trees can go away. They are also asking to widen the front porch and that would be true for either proposal, one story or a two story house. The new proposal for the porch seems more accurate and maybe we need some discussion about the detailing. On the garage addition they have made changes to accommodate the neighbors view on the west. I sent the project through the new residential design check list and they do have a problem with the primary mass calculation. Only 70% of your building can be unburied in terms of plate height, ridge height or wall surface. Because of the size of the historic house existing they do not meet that criteria with the one story addition. This commission has the ability to waive that. They also have a problem with the volume calculation, they have windows in areas that are not considered no window zones. We now have a penalty system when someone carries a window through where we expect there to be a floor structure system and they have done that in several areas. I feel that can be easily resolved. I recommend approval of the project and the landmark designation with six conditions: More information about proposed restoration. Limit the decorative detailing on the new porch. Review the height of the garage (they are one foot over height limit) Report from structural engineer regarding the shed. Variances from the residential checklist and setback variances requested. I recommend we not approve the two story addition. Glenn Rappaport, architect: We read the committee clearly at the 6 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 last meeting regarding the two story but we would like to explore that anyway. I feel the model is convincing. We intend to put story polls up for the neighbor on the left but we have incorporated the shed roof approach. As far as the neighbor to the east we pulled back to 8 feet. We feel the location and size of the addition is a good proposal. It does mitigate the concerns of the neighbor to the east. If the addition were put farther to the south it would impact their view and sight more. We would also like to address the height limit with the ADU. It is to our advantage to connect the building to the main house so if we attach a breezeway to the house we would not have a height problem. The fact that we want to detach it and give it a basic vernacular shape it is not doable under the code. If you want to encourage people to build out buildings with additional dwelling units on top of them and you want them detached which I think that should be an option you should not be penalized by the height and I would like the board to think about that. Glenn: In the memo it was mentioned about creating a 65 foot long street facade and I do feel the trees mitigate that. I also feel it is difficult to talk about how buildings were added on to historically with any real accuracy. The fact is if most of the lots in town were narrow and long the obvious way to add on was to continue to add on towards the back of the lot. This lot is a little bit wider. The owner has that option of making a viable back yard. If you look at this site everyone would say they would like to make a nice back yard out of it. I feel that is a reasonable use of the parcel. When you see the shape and the general scale of the addition you realize that the plate height on the street side is only an additional few feet and then it goes up farther on the south side. Even if the trees weren't there you could make a good argument for compatibility and it echoes the little shed in the back. Donnelley: We should deal with each element in question. Lets address the variances. Amy: They are identical except for the east yard and the combined setback variance. For the one story plan it is a combined total of 14.2 and they are supposed to have 27.5. For the two story plan it is eight feet and three feet. Jake: What is the height of a variance we can grant for a second story bldg. under the cottage infill? Amy: They can go to 16 feet to the 1/3 mark because it is a 12 12 pitch. They are showing 17 feet. Glenn is worried about that from a policy standpoint because we are encouraging that but it is physically impossible. .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 Jake: They would have to go to the Board of Adjustment. Glenn: We do not have a hardship. It would have to be historically compatible or a code amendment. Donnelley: You would have to drop to a four foot plate height on the second floor. Glenn: That is not unreasonable, the problem is that we have a garage underneath so that makes the stairway happen on one side or the other and we will have head room problems. Glenn: We modified the front porch and brought the pitch down. Donnelley: We do not want to give conceptual approval if there are drastic changes that effect the outward appearance of the garage/studio. We have no ability to allow you the height variance and do you think you can work within those parameters? Glenn: We can work with the stairs. The easiest solution is change the pitch of the roof. Amy: It has to be 8 and 12 or 12 and 12 for that height to work. Could you not add a dormer above the stairs. Jake: If you used a steeper roof you could drop the plate and gain space. Amy: There is no limit on the ridge height. Susan: The studio garage has been modified for the neighbors view. Glenn: Yes. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Mr. Bauer: I have no trouble with this as it will not negatively effect my property or view. What is finally approved by this HPC. Donnelley: This is conceptual approval and the scale of the drawings do not have to be larger than 1/8 scale. Final needs a lot more detail. We do not encourage additions to look like the original historic house. Mr. Bauer: That would imply the more different the better. Donnelley: No it also must be compatible with size, color scale, shape of windows etc. Mr. Bauer: I can gather it will be an eight foot setback. 8 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 Julie Wyckoff: I was unable to get the letter from the engineer by tonight but I am interested in keeping the shed. I am afraid that it will fall down. Donnelley: We can give approval with conditions. Glenn: It is only ten feet wide and it can be braced. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Donnelley: The grain of the neighborhood is such that there are no setbacks typically at this magnitude but we are dealing with an historic resource. The applicant is requesting approximately 11.4 feet of variance. Roger: I do not have a problem with the variance. Martha: I had a problem but it looks like we are working toward a reasonable solution. My concern is the impact of the neighbors and he has definitely demonstrated an effort and resolution of that problem. Donnelley: I will not take general comments such as the massing of the new element and how it works with the historic resource. I feel we have dealt with the height of the garage studio. We also need to discuss the deck. Jake: How are we dealing with the one story or two story. Glenn: Either approval for a two story solution with an eight foot side yard setback or a one story solution with a five foot setback. Donnelley: Either one has the same solution for the garage studio. Jake: In looking at the variances what is being proposed is more compatible with the historic resource than what would other wise be allowed under the code. There is a side yard variance for the two story bedroom wing, a rear yard variance for the relocated shed and an upper floor variance for the ADU. The neighbor doesn't have a problem on the east and I do agree that the 8 foot side yard is consistent in that area and it does free up more area of the site for a yard for usable open space. Historically outbuilding were located on the alley so I do not have a problem with that variance. The 16 foot height will have to be lowered or lower the pitch. The deck is allowed to encroach 1/3 of the distance and I do not have a problem with that. In terms of the variances I do not have a problem. I was concerned about the relationship between the old 9 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 and new. Typically I would be looking at something that keys off Of the historic structure and that reiterates some of the character. Here you have a hip shape guy and a shed shape guy and they seem to be from different worlds. Donnelley: A hip is a closed form. Jake: My concern is this a compatible addition. It is interesting and fun but what makes it compatible. Glenn: One argument that I can make about compatibility is that we took the cant of this existing roof plane and pulled it through and tried to differentiate it so that it wouldn't look as one continuous thing. Linda: Not only is the addition not compatible but all the different roof shapes, the gable, the shed, the hips. It seems like a conglomeration of stuff and nothing is drawing it all together and I am having a real hard time with that. It doesn't seem that all those things should be in one yard. Susan: I am bothered by the addition and I like the idea of a one story. It has always bothered me that the additions are higher than the original. I will not vote but that is my comment. Les: I am having a conflict since I just came back from Santa Fe. I would rather see the eight foot on the east side to the neighbor and the five foot setback. Melanie: I am having trouble with the three different pitches which are right in a line. It definitely feels like Sante Fe and very different to me. I like the proportion as far as size but I just feel that this should not be the final solution architecturally. Jeff: I would prefer the massing of the two story to what was opposed before, the one story. To me it felt like the building bled out to one end. As I understand it the hip roof is not an historic piece of the structure and this is the most bothersome part of the project. I would much prefer shed or gabled roof styles. I do not have a problem with the setbacks. I like the porch better. Roger: In regards to the one or two story addition we had a house that was long ago ruined by the new roof that was put on at some point. I would recommend landmark and provide more information and the decorative material on the porch be simple. Variances are not a problem including the deck on the garage. We can waive the design checklist in this case. 10 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 Glenn: The only rationale for changing the roof was for weather protection. Donnelley: The applicant wants us to deal with the two story rather than the one story. The two story is presented in the model form. Staff is recommending approval of the single story. Amy: The addition is pushed all he way forward and whether the trees are here right now or not it is a 65 foot long facade. I feel the second story does not work well with the house. Our reasoning for giving variances is that you are supposed to find that this is more compatible with the historic resource than would be development in keeping with the setbacks. I not sure that is really true. Donnelley: The facade steps back the same amount for either scheme and is three feet shorter on the two story scheme. Glenn: The hip roof structure is a difficult design to add onto. I really think the one story addition doesn't resolve anything and actually ends up hiding the problem behind the trees and doesn't resolve it architecturally. The only other viable solution is putting something above the house. We did not find other solutions that were compatible. We are only touching the structure in one place. This is an unusual lot. Les: You are telling me that you cannot restudy the roof line to make it work for this committee in the double story. Glenn: If we have to do that we will but I feel this is one good solution. If we go to the single addition we will not have a legal bedroom. I have not heard a convincing argument why this is not compatible from the Board. If there is another solution and we all can talk about it I would be glad to discuss it. Donnelley: Maybe there could be a hip reference on the street facade and a shed reference on the internal facade. Possibly clipped and a manipulative termination. Glenn: There is a five foot plate height facing the street and that would be on consideration. Jake: Our focus should be on the old house and I understand that it is impossible at this time to do restoration of the old house but I am curious as to what used to be there. Glenn: It was a twin gable. Amy: Like an M. 11 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 Glenn: This proposal is the closest the ensure that possibly some day the twin gables will go back as we are not changing what is there presently. Jake; It would still be interesting to know what was there and someday try to get back there and have a restoration plan on file since you are asking for designation. Donnelley: You are saying if the addition reacted more to what was there you would be more comfortable. Jake: Yes. Amy: Buildings evolve and who is to ever say they have to go back to what was original. Donnelley: There is consensus that either a five foot setback on the single story or the eight foot setback for the double story would be acceptable to the commission and that the relocation of the existing shed provided proof can be given that it can be moved would also be an acceptable approach. That the new porch as shown for the main entrance which is widened be shown in more detail. We discussed the garage studio situation that would have to be worked on by the applicant to make it conform. The motion would have to include a variance for the second story above the garage as it will be used for a dwelling. No one has a problem with the approach as well as the deck variance. The commission is somewhat divided as to whether a one story or two story solution is appropriate. I would accept the two story as it is articulated for the main mass and secondly it is effectively screened by the spruce on the street, however; I am still ambivalent about how the one and two story addition terminate toward the east property line. I still think it can be restudied and a better solution resolved. In terms of compatibility and mass and general form of the project as read from the street I agree with Jeff that the way the project is organized around the rear yard and the usability are both positive features and therefore the rather extensive street facade is a good approach. I still have reservations as to the termination of the east side. MOTION: Jake moved that HPC approve landmark designation of Lots C,D and the west 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen finding that standards B,E and F are met. Address what efforts could be done in research of a restoration program even if it is not proposed at this time. That information can be integrated into a landmark motion which will get us to a more authentic location and restoration; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Don: We had an extreme situation, the Hernandez residence and it evolved and there is no indication that there was a cabin there at 12 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 all. We know it happened as it is documented and the cabin is in the interior. Glenn: I fully agree with what Jake is saying and we could do some kind of analysis of the property and could be part of what is included. Don: A new owner may want to take it back to its original. MOTION: Jake moved that HPC approve the two story addition as proposed tonight with conditions: 1. Provide more information about any proposed restoration/repair work for final review. 2. Limit decorative detailing on the new porch and present that at final. 3. That the height of the garage be lowered to the 16 feet maximum. 4. Provide a report from a structural engineer for final review stating that the shed can be moved. The applicant must post a bond for the relocation, the amount of which will be set by HPC at final. 5. HPC shall grant the appropriate variances described on pages 4 & 5 of this memo and a garage variance of an additional four feet for the upper floor of the garage ADU structure on the alley south side. 6. HPC shall waive the "Residential Design Checklist Standard" dealing with primary mass due the dimensions of the historic structure. The architect shall revise the design to meet the volume calculation. second by Roger. DISCUSSION Les: I would like a restudy of the east end 2 story addition. The abruptness does not seem historically compatible. Out of your research something wonderful might come. Don: It maybe that a total vertical chop off of that end which is totally consistent with shed roof structures doesn't appear quite as consistent with the hip roof structure which one knows is on the street facade. There might be a way to accommodate both aesthetics in a slight restudy of that portion. 13 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 Roger: Could the house be set back three feet on the front? Glenn: It is trying to match up with the existing porch on the side and that would not be possible. Don: Is the east end too much of a problem for a condition on the motion or should we table? Glenn: I could present some options. We just want something that will work for everyone and we can do that even with conceptual approval. AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended his motion to add condition #7 7. That a restudy of the east end addition occur at a worksession. second by Roger. All in favor of motion and amended motion. 406 E. HOPKINS - ISIS THEATRE - WORKSESSION John Wheeler, from Cunniffe & Assoc. presented: We are here to talk about the H. Weber Building 1892 circa approximately. It has been a theatre since the 20's when sound movies first started. The intent is to utilize it as a theatre and add more theatres. There is a vacant lot between the fire station which is intended to be expanded into the 9,000 sqft. parcel, all three city lots. The first level will maintain the existing facade and be restored back to its original condition. We are pulling the facade back and there was an assayer's office in the vacant lot that is presently there. Is it more important to have a street facade or an open space that steps back. Upper level will become two theatres and the lower level will be excavated with smaller theatres below. The project buildout will require additional space on top of the building. The upper levels will consist of employee housing that is required by the site. The house onsite has been moved as far back on the building to the alley facade and there is a lower mass with a open market housing unit and we have pulled that back to relieve the facade to preserve the integrity of the original facade. We are in study mode only. Fox photo is to the west. There is an elevator tower. One free market unit will replace the existing unit and there are four two bedroom employee units. Amy: They need to mitigate 60% for employee housing and they are showing 100%, so they are giving more. John Wheeler: The application is going to be an exemption from Growth Management for the expansion of an historic landmark which is approved by the P&Z. It requires the HPC to recommend and the 14 . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: July 26, 1995 RE: 525 W. Hallam HPC granted Conceptual approval for this project on July 12, 1995 with eight conditions. The conditions were: 1. Provide more information about background of house, and any proposed restoration work. 2. Provide more information about decorative detailing on front porch for final review. 3. Lower the height of the garage to meet the 16' height requirement. 4. Provide a report from a structural engineer for final review stating that the shed can be moved. The applicant must secure a bond for the relocation, the amount of which will be set by HPC at final. 5. HPC shall grant the appropriate variances described on pages 4 and 5 of the July 12, 1995 memo. 6. HPC shall waive the residential design standard dealing with primary mass. 7. The applicant must restudy the design of the roof form on the east addition and return to HPC in worksession format. 8. HPC granted the rear yard setback variance required for the deck on the garage, as shown in plans. Following the review, several HPC members indicated that they had not felt comfortable with the approval and with some aspects of the project and wished to reconsider. Any member voting with the majority can call for a reconsideration of a decision at the following meeting. Again, as discussed on July 12, the Commission must remember that tabling an application for more information is always an appropriate solution when there is significant doubt about a proposal. Since the projects that you are approving are permanent additions to our community, the Commission should never feel rushed to make a decision. The project architect was informed of some Commission member's concerns and is very willing to attend worksessions to restudy aspects of the project. r, i t . 6 ? I ' 154,/*im*&*LE. :AN ' .2 . .4*'2 ~41,240:Â·7 4'' inÂ£.41 : 5Â·.,Â·4143/,tâ‚¬,& At,%9,7~44 @?6,4' ~~ 1 1,/7834/4 t 1, ~, 1.1 1 1 ; â€¢: r 'T.9 . '';: 2~.4,1,6,.,â€¢,. " .,Â·. i . 2' 9,Â·.,. %' ,~i.Â·41* Â· 4 '' :A; 1.1 1 .4Â·I-v .0 ' El~,' 2'41 I ~1,, ~<1,~ Ct''t Â·;,Â· ;tziÂ·,~i ~i# 0,Â·;:;10{Â·if,4 L, =1-TA-'r,I irrtl-#h~~~15,k Â·1'J 11 ~r Â·f*,1, â€¢ - I . - . --i - $Â»i~ ttzâ€¢>'17,15/'-*Aha//44%2244~NA~Â¢.4 1:,E. 1, 4 S , A 1 , 1.10 1 . , r ' F, .. .%: 1 , , I : , t. I - 1 1 1 , . 2Â· i d i . . . ... .41 1, 11 f .t , 11. 7 r , 1 r. Ill , .6 . 4 1 1 . T ' '' 4 4 1 . -14.1 ' .- 1 i J.4, 4 + 1.4 4. , 4 . .1 . 0 C.%'ll . ' 4 4 â€¢ Â· ,- â‚¬ 1 4,1 :â€¢ 1 4 I 9 . "'*'2 .4:.0,- Â·Â·2 f .Il: 'Â·, r.' r Y.4 1 ?,01:'14 '',fi,%:1 â€¢. r . -J a .,i.,1 1 - &,42 +4 'Len. 1~ . . PX; 4'' 44 '9* 1.14. . i, 4., l., I A p.. 1 0' it 1 e.. 0 b .1 : p, f.*~4* liN !41-7. 0 0 0 ' ' . . , , 12' i ' 1.,3211 ' 29.11,1' : , i 1 .1 4 1 1 . 4r j . 41,45.4 1. , 1 1 1%,1 1 .. 11 I . ' .:'. A â€¢Â·~Â· u*e . 1, , 1 0 . FLA, 1 1 ,ew *4 i 1 11 Â·1 4, ~ 0 4,2$ 0,4.1 0 i 0.1/2 ~PÂ¢t' 1 '6 0 i r V 41 :low',1,6 'A,14,1)13 i. 1, 1 . ...1 w ' r rd 4,*>:. /2 6 ..Â· ' I b 6-- is I & , 1 , -1 '.9 4 . % A' J ,-3 /4 1-';ru 'dtÂ· ' i 4. i â€¢ I A .., 6*44001 i.18:65.F 7762({5*!t ...0,Â· .'' 1 4 6 .. 2 'râ€ž r 1 4'' -. ... 19,- r g 6,4 04,01 9 . -f- 1 4 P. ' . i, *'4,Â· 6 1 ,1,;Jr .1 Â®, M W , 'b - ..e u..13 . 1. . 644.13.41 , pke 1 j , 2 - if 4 2.1 1 1 *-, -3-:I-z: i 1"p ".1:i* 9,-,i '*FilÂ·- . , t iF ~ 1 --11, .1 1 2 , , . 4 1 1Â·,kÂ·4 ,/ h j I 1 j. 1/ ' 9 ., â€¢ N Â· .1 e' ,~ 1 1 ., ' ''t '' 0/41:41 f f.-TE:< P~ i'#6$fc;:1~1~'*2.~ ~, 26,Â·,. 1 ~ 4, ' : 44 .'r{ C Â· .P':'"9 0 1 1. ' c,1 1 1, 71: i li #*5;,YA ~Â·S, t,,1?~ 2 . 344, ,1 1, 2. . ..t ., , v. - 1 . 1 1 . *HIll I 4.1 1 , . 1 \L , â€¢1 , I 6 â€¢', 'f i ,* 1,4. :, t ,,t F â€¢f Vi - f 1' 452111 1 1 :.i,1 Â¢ 1 F., r i lÂ·, i Vi. :,1~'l , , 1... 1,6 I . '.,41: 1, , , U -...' 1 , 44 j 4. . j . 3 '44 -/4 t . d ./A:12,11 :;!11,9, 9 0 5 11, ~fr~WFy*/24, 1 r." 1 L i 1.,Â¢40.1. 24 1 , 1 ...... y; I 4 - '1 .,8, 1 11 , 6 Ib."I 14 ' . 1 ,, L >0277- ,~01 1 +4 4Â·â€¢.rze # .'f',$ : 4,/ 4/ â€¢ I 5Â·Â· 3:,6 3#6196/21Â·0 Â· F:4- 6 ,Â· 1- : , 1:{4 . 4 . '.4. ''4!' '24 Â·-- . uty=#it=E 2-' 'D' e I E 4 . 0 * W,fz * r t ,11 ...1' 4 : VQL 1-'-20=Fld . '3â€¢~ Vr'... -91%--1--wi.-r -. 1 ., , 4 4 . '' . , '' , 2 A la Â·Â· 1 l . 6 ,&14.,1 ./ . 1- 4 '$ r , 1/1 1. I. , ~ , . , . 1 ,,.6 47 : 73 04. :10.Â£3#3, 4 1 . 1 . 442 6 6, ,Â·t S 4 1 1 1 .1 , , : 13. , : 1 , 4 r. 4 4 11 , i, AA 4*.11 .%1 + *2.- 9%2:- , 2 .E Â· 0 4 149:~'-ti I; ' 4 1 4 , '1*4 i 44 '00<fir i} fÂ¢:prg: , iâ€ž * f i ,IiÂ·*:'; ~t' 4. / 1 ,4/ 1 3#6 d'â€¢Â· '--, F:'fit . ..;e ..l d Â·, B f ' 4 1/ Ag, TÂ· Â¢ to . 4 .. .... 2 -I f 0 K . a. 71 k :, L : 1,.f#*Mi,5 N. r . ' il.. , i I. . ... , J , 1~' 4 rv De ., , 1, ... t.* ,â€¢ 01, , ./ 1, 1. '. 2 2. r 0 1, '* 4 $47. 2 ''f'#4'*DU4~- '0.1. Â· 0,1.*Lit#,i ' ..,ket' 1, ' :; 1 1 1 1 4 4.. .. . 1 â€¢ I /. *â€¢4 4 % + ' . 1 & V I L ,~19 ': 4,1,Â·((11.,r ' '; ':9, . 10 L 1 42( - ... I , 1 f . ~ 41{~ ...{ 1.. $f ' . . 1.1. 6. 5 n , 1'#Al JIM i , If .4 -0 } 'Â·â€¢ t. 3 4 .W . *' : :44,Â«'= '-' D ... 6 (11,11#Me.(Eul=.1.,j~t , .r':,141 ),1.,4. 4, , 3 4 44 - - 4 I.,114 +L. t, Â· -U d. - 11- g:# ~iti '1 U Â·t ijl ..1,>Ff $4 4 ,A lit':1 -'p'. '.i Al.:A e $4:11 r,~7'~ 6~'09 k.. ~ - '41 4: ' :'c i'tÂ·,-Â·14:11.,1,1,1 1 I it, 51~'FÂ·)-;4~ 4Â· ' Iti 4:9~~4,taÂ· 0 4. â€¢1" 4 , 4 ~, *.â€¢1$~rÂ¢.0 4#~0~1*WI~2~ # Yâ‚¬ ~ , ~ ;.w. 8192'rmflip. f. 4 'A .?, 7,11 t. ' 1 1,Â·i.44 .4,â€¢f. :~i; ir~ . ' 1 L' .. -1 A, f I J' t. 1. 1 .. t g C, h . 41 W * ' 0 $ 4 i , .Fu, 2 d.. : .1,731,2&'t=-- 11 . . i 1 '4. 4 ,,41â€¢ ili " + 1 4 1 1 .,1 1 24,1,-..Al â‚¬ f 2.. 14, 0- , I . I 811: f. AE:.t-$â€ž("' '*" '141Ba1*Rhap,7.,1/.41#4't,~ 'tra ' ./NI# Â· / 4% .. -- 3 --2 2 ' . B.-ril :~tit~:tli.glift':51(3*.#ififi.,rat;r#*:r; MI 164 1 & 17 % M.. f 7 3 4.26-2,(24'n. ~72'.1Â·# 00:Â·:irrif?/43~ f Â· " ~ 7 - ~1 14'11+ 11.-1*- , _ Â· i ~:~, 1<1#1;F,~' 1- r tr , . . .1 j. ., 4 4% 4 1 1 0 .1. a- i Â· 1 - I CL O .,4.' ..'i, ,Â· 'j,{'t iAl :,2/Zilt, , - I ;4 ' ti .1 P.; 21. O/ A , :.1 i *.J'*'1~it J ' * -- - llÂ»~.1/Ew--*444 1 . .0,-* 2 .1-â€ž . 2 k b, 4 .-141; 4 =.=#*-19 '4 1 , . B.W.8, .'.,1.: 1 . ' I EÂ¢*Fle, v - 4.&79Â·- i..~,eK, 7.111:.4Â¢116 / 4 1 '14.: ; P -4'%1.Nit ti . 1.~. , 1 0 '# 5 5 uÂ·.u: *4, ' 1.i, 7 45,i,24 ni M~ A,62â€¢, r: ' Â£ â€¢ ' 1 : Ji,Â£i~.1, t.11*1 41 4,9, 441 -4 * . ,~A~~T e 0 â€¢ 4.4 , 4 jl . ' 'b vy 5 21*,7: .tÂ¥, 4 h - I -m - - -- - . S,-2.-~ -21 4 4 KI . I ." 5 Â·â€¢-r JW ' . 1 .1,+ 4 '4 11 0 - 001 5 Ir ' w'4: ~. * * .,z19#Al, +1.:i. 'r;,#tit,~d~ 1 - 1. I k , 0 +~ : ' *i' '; ~~I.~6'.Â·'Â·51,3~k",I - 4.. '4 , 4 '' . '- d p Â·Â·'1 . Not\'flrt\) 4-440.dd'U M,Va 11 4; 6<4 5 1 G 1% 3 ~ ' Â· Â·44 -4 1 i il *1 1 114'i il'i'' I ~ ~ 1 , '1 p lilli t 1 11 1, - 11- 4_i j ' 1 IL , b , 1,9 - . , A. 1.11 1 1, - 1 .1 V . ,/1 ' 4,1 ' fi ' a 'IN ,; ..,. .19 Q,'262/17.4:.4 . 4 1, 1 4' / 1 .4 1 .1 . . . . 7 . 11 # 'm. . 6 il Il fiji jit:, I , 4 1 1 1 1 1,11 , . '. 4 I .. 1 11 11 11 1 1, r 6 - S. 7. , C '' 4 #$4.#Pd!1 ~11*)A'h~*el Â· . '% b . ' 0 , '1 1 , r. rt crt)i, Â·Â·: gniÂ· > ' , '' .1 , 1 1 1 6 , : 1 1 1 1~11!:1 1 I '' ill' 11 1,1 z ifililli'li , i# '% ' 43,; , â‚¬4-'1(i My,A 11 111111, 11 4 2 49,\ 1 11 1 ,c. , , i,w.-i, r ' 1 , 11 i J. 1 . 21:4 1, 4 , L'. , 1 ....I T '',j ' 4 '''E' 54 4 4 111!11 1 . C .4 # 1 - '' I # 1 4 b..4,0 1 ' 1 /rel. - .t '341'' I .....f .,- .A A*Â· . 4 41 $ 1 1 , ,%,1 '4 1 . .1 '' 0.14 - Cl 01 91# 11 %. L F t' " 00 3- ' .ei I d } , ' i 11 4 '11 1 . 4 41 k L:&'4 "1>r,i, 2- i 1 6 1, 41 44 7 . 14. ./,1 0 1- -1 .. ~ I ~''~ ~'!; 824: /4F~:2'~. ~~. 1 .A f -â€ž t. *'. 1 06.: 1 A],i, 9 '#& . '' , ./ 1.9 1, Kjal 9%51 4-'e'~41, Ed'/.1.Â· 2 - .9 16 /N/Pal ...16 1 1 Ill , 1 I t - 2. ...04..4 â€¢ *04- 1 ' , 1 1 4 0511= '' 1 H - A. 0.. A .f AP':' 0 " *1 1. 11. i ' 4 ' . ~ â€¢4i!r. 4'' 1, 1; 1,â‚¬ % 1 f. f ,i~ l ~b ,, .,vÂ·:.'~.Â·: 14 ,*T,-*'-4 I I i. it':1 4, 4,Â·,Wal' ;1 4 1 k?? ,,14,>.2 4jt'/p;j-~f#*kWH.2<<.1115W** ' 1 }:,D.prik!44..#ti.'4'* 1.** . I li e ' ..'*U a.: 1 -47,42 *-7 i - : 1-dif 24 -4,5 i,:r,~Ed-A!1:'-7~235, 11, 01, .., 4 0 1 A.:â‚¬1. . 7 , ~ ~,rz,Â·.20*4*,8*'4-4 '*Hi~~1)~,'h-S~,/E~&,1.9 fe ~@ 9 1: ' . ,: ' f4': -,,4-~'4225:t'* , , .. , 16 , Al' 1,1 ' 1 4 .. :,thle:AL'*91/0 ;41%{ 0 4 -, 8,~&4 Â·,A.,RA'41>Â·. 4 2 . Â· 'p'Â·11*4 '0*JE' '1 Â·/01Â» jtewâ€ža 1 .. 9094 1.6 . , .l . 21* Ii, *.'. 7 3,5 ,2 '14,1 1 4-4 .4 - I . j,1119'. 1> 01 Liz -414%~ - f M :41 If , 1 1/ fl , f, 1 , 1 't;?54 :24**AMIC. 1 + A.:, 1.9'dA?921 :**. I 4*L*44 r. 3 I , ~. ' tjAdRE;fit:71,18*taÂ·.-4#k#~*4TS; 14~~~~~- 1. 1 1 ..... 9. , #444 ' Â· r~, 1 #i ii>11.9,$ 1: 3;47/) : .42-f L Â· 1.9 3.6 '000 9 - ~, FT...,ft, f,44516,27*449t Â·22-Â¥1**N . Lvin,Â· F ,~ Â· KAâ€¢ â€¢*54* t' ..112 - 18 1,1970Â·,, .4,'in-"d- 140 . :6 24,%**41-2 114?yi~ ' , 1; fl :% '', 4 3, 4, . 11, t"V~f Â¥ " 1 1 1 1 ,Â· * i -7 >Â·-19='.: 4.k<pi, #A,Ju d,k9~-2,~~ ~ f-JÂ·, f z - a Â· If=~ 9.4 1 f.: , 1 1 .i: , 7.1, . I P I , I. F'Z#Zi;k.'.- I .Â· d & r 'A â€¢Â· A . B -I *. 21, 1~Â· ail *~ I i : , 9 4 r ...' *7 . '/ 14 - - ' 4.09 94'4Zima Â· I. 1 1, Â£ 124- ,, 4.-se,1,12 9,11.%04. - 9, 1- I ' ' , ki.377 P r.t ..0 . 4.i -- A 7 * : f -19/1/1''I , .1 ... 1 . .Â· 4 W-- , . . JU#Ate. 1, 41 9 ' 4 ' : ~4>:I~: i ,~i,~,I.~21. .,iÂ¢!* *r .Â¢:ttâ€¢* ,~ 'Â·t'~' fr:~':5 ~ M21Â£ lan.~2 4, ~t- 1 . t.5 9. 43 Â»94-pr,9. Z .4 .11) , 4il*B~9 * 4 ... f , 1 1 . &.1 ./. , 4 #Â· / I Â£ WR .}2/ = Â¥... 42,0.. ': i . I t 1 4 "01/4, '. *Â·,a ~vl'Vit,t:, 2 .(Pi. 4 7., 1,ij. *-f;(F $52 7,12>, .~ , f ' ' V.,r 44 1. 4 I , i . . 4 1 f 1 1 V, .41 el - - 4 'n .. la d . 1%2 . t'' I . Â·, 2 jtf: 7.1 1,1. 3 fl : 1 7 T *3 .*95Â· 1*0 ,/'R.Â£1;11/1,4.W-.thit) 3,7 +,1 4 0 1-1 . IÂ·, 1/,rÂ». I '6 1 . .1.~ 4 P., 41'11' 1 49 44Â¥,09'~'Â· #4 4 1 :1 .: 0 ./.1 I lâ€¢ ' 1 0. 4* 1 + 4F'%-i:* -Â·./-Â·, i ,~~~ 19,k ' . 121 1 3 ., 4 f.0 . .1/ 0 # 2 - 1 11 , I . 1 ... Â·r , ~ -_-_ Â· ,, ' 1...1 1 , * 1 , . Â· 1 i~; i*Â·i;Â·*~1:Â·~iiÂ·.0~ 14-1 ~,1 f,c,f :;,c)B 2 i , ~ .-I . - - - ", 4 Â·. 16 ,. '' : t f , :. I' 'J /:ft I '' ....1 , ' 1 1 lij .1 .1 r -, .. 1 4 r P ' 1 , + . . itt, .1 Â£ 1 - - -- . ... I. -- .....-4- , .*LT, r' >4.â‚¬(4:'fâ€ž:A: . 26?j4 li , ~El ~ * .0 - -' 6 t./ I 1 1 'th. ....4 1. ../ R , I , 1 %'' 4/,7 â€¢A' i I 4 . . , 44Â·" 't '< 4.6 t Id. r ' ; , , .............. V-.---4- I 1 ' r â€¢ 4/ ' , X Ir F' I 441,7 4 ' 1 -Il. .--- --*.----#P ..Il--*.I...'.I#...I-/*-I.-*-..I./.Il./I.--..- 1 2U1-i; Cdi:'1Nf' ?'~-i',T. Â·:61 1. 1 . -- .2 ' , , , E; *Â¥Z :44*' 1$4Â¥42 414'' ;C 1.1Â¥," 1;*..k 1 , 1 0 r ..., /0 1 2 I 4 â€¢ ' ' ' *Amit k 24 z . . . 6 . 2 *A % , --- I , e 'FÂ· tivt*i '!. -- " h, 1.,1.'. 4 1 Â£ 04 1-- 1 - ' 4 ,.A.'V . 4 1 1 41,1 ' . -- f,1. i Â»VYR' 4%49#b '' T - %'I- 4. b' A * â€¢ U . , ' 41,4 ..P' Â·494 "'tOâ€¢Y"Aâ€¢qLAE'h .W 1 1 4 t. . .1 . I K .2 - ' M -4,kâ€¢'- ' 4 'TW*7::..49*t : D --- ." ~ 2 - I. - . 4. . #4.$.â€¢ Â· 1.1 .4 / biÂ· 'd - , r ~ *Â·4414:Â· -Â·. , r . ir./ ....,4 f , r, V.. I . -- Â· Â·5, 0 . I :4*it,;Â·,Â· : 49, 020.Â· -'Ah, ..,i ~ ~1 - Â·'~ ~Â· 44 Â·eÂ·f' s . le,J . - ---- r .4, 4 0 - I P.r '% .1 0 4 -, 2 .4, :0. /1,1 , 1 4 0 1 LE' .,JI'l'/ 8./..~ I.?t,A;*'. 1-''lp. 4, b ' * 66: .# 1,1 9,4.1,&/ .1 6.11 , ., . . ,... ' . - .49 , .9 1, Irt. ' 111 . k'-16â‚¬*b - .,t4 lit i ' ----ILI.--I.- *$, -434% : 2 + 'f '' '.' rA]! : 1 -- --- 4: 4 * 54%2460$"304*M)*. 444~24 li, .4 , 31711*4*:4 .lanjt<,4240 4 1 D . B .4 r . 4" . I .F r 4%,li 6-,;teÂ· iri'Â·:'Â·' 2,$~+ 'j ~ E L,% 0,1 1, 1, I %06Â·2* I r..~:r.,p.>7.,310,*9 :- 44.=a 4 4 Ll ,.1 ' lu.," 4 , 67 â€¢ 1â€¢ . -. , 'e '46.44'20;904*<99:}14 Â· :tiS~~ 3.Â·,fet Ft#'* 1,2.8 '11 4 Â·Â®1* 1, , - f. (" .. 1 / Â¢ 2 I , I ' .4 al ./ , 4 -' 21/6 *.Wat k '. ~19427*# â€¢,4/~Â·,2=~7?:Cik *42 Â¥i,j 224*E. takd ;,ij~j:,7'11Mi - --- fl , 1 44'Â·;4â€¢ * Â·.20' V': Wy; " . 1 'tÂ·trva Â·Â· Â·1* 4. ; . ,.2 >1':.?Li447Â·'Â·Â·, .A,-,42-uff, Â·Â·,02,1 Â·itÂ·.i'9Â· '4 1 1 10'86' D -1 I '- 2 0 â€¢54â€¢ t'..1Â£44':4 tr,1.44. 41:.4 I -'1 Ake KA.10 *Â·1:ty 4* .q, . 1 . : . 4 1 1 4 - .,11 41 /1 -4 1 A. 6. , r.,4 1. , ,fi , 1, 9,4 ALâ€¢ 1 4 - V .. . 41Â« p , v, , 1# .' , 1 , ~62.'1=L f'*,$.,iÂ·. Â·!i#'' .%.14Â£ . A. -A rÂ·U:~[ . . , i.. 4 i> 5 I . 1 1, : 1 , ar., , r e# . 4 : .'e - - ' 00+Y 1 1!11119'.:24 fl'#9~: ,, 10 '' - 1 111 ,f K ' a z -'' , 9 11'114:+cr:4,11,17 'e.,11.-1,1 - h., '...,0.D '193*f :, : ~'' . '10 1,9. . 1 - - L 'P / 4 - V 1 â€¢ , , .1 - 4 6 Al'i" 0 '. KIt 4 - ., 1 I E LVEL . r ' .%. * Ip 1 W.,1~# Y . -.f . , h J. S Ir ''l , ,./ I. t.,11 C/Nut*1 + Â·iftl41't. 'ItÂ·'4 -fi~4 1; 5 .2 :.4 MZ~d:~~Ar)&4~V1~2&~Mj~j#.1 Â¢ Â·, , 4-41.-'.4 , 4. I ,Â·,91,."i .4 '21't' t,,Â¥1,9+49 .0 11 ' I .il: .:i W ''Â·. 'P, : 1 2/leilrsr ANâ€¢. 1473*:279<1~** *â‚¬: Â·Â·Â· ,Â·Lld:*,3, 4 , ' '. J , i h '' ' ,-:i-:, }.Â· :Â·'f':r-fÂ· 76 -t :-~::~c.:'$:I'Â·4.% . , 4,4 '.. '. 7/'. ''101: .21Â¥:20 6 .4,46. 19,11.13Hvs.'14 3 4, i " . 1 ./41 %35269 #0:Yil'~ A,~ .,~1 ) 1f'Â·gtÂ·fiÂ¥?, 1 1 ( i ' 4 ---- , A ... 1. 7 'i,~ :,11,1.,0 b:1418.~1;4,-~4:4&411 .1,; :A %, 6: ' ~~k~if 0~t 4.1, Â·44'. bw t , ' '4,64 1 a e ki, 'Â·-i #,Pil;;, #3*44 1 Â¥ 1;L 4/. , 1 I . 40, i, ~T ., 42: 3:. . , ..' .611 ~7 , '.k.Li=ist Â¥,t -1 i 4 1 - r :17 4....4,62%-rPL--177--trL=.i' t'.ic,J. ./1 VI-,2.-fÂ¢N:,4;4 . 4. i." . .. . 4 , 2 Â· , %46 'Â·i,t . LE: @Â·'34 1 '4.'4*1. ( E:it:,:Â·.43 .1~,Â¢, , , - Â¢ p ' 4 1Â· 4 1 1/ 937 .: 1 814, 382.Md ' r 1/ . 9 1 L ..1... ' fi i : 01 j, ~* ' :'Fl 1.32 '.34 ;g.Â·r ..tÂ· Â·.'A ,.tÂ· Â·~Â·-,1-..; Â·4: '-, ,,'1 , 0 4 0, ;.'â€¢t d" . .....e ,, - 6,114 . , 1 ..0,1 1 , I -Â·,1 Â· '9 Lk'"' ' k Â· ' 1,1 I 1--Â· -I:. -f .,11'jr,~ f'<ij.,I~.j 44,~Afitli b '1. -,~441@ti, ~ Â·104*16 ; I ,4- v ('.'.,ti'.\,,-Jilikiff,-LO494Â·:Â·fis"s; 49 ... . ., 14 e. 1 - a. 1 , .4 -' r 1 , ,Â·' . 45 ''4 , t. 1 .%>1'. 4 +11*,,i, :i.4.'*11-3~,,9<f '?l:., ; :,; ./2 19.. 'al . %4.uÂ· r .,. 4 Â·, r. ',,aN '.h ft;~ 11~ 1 4 %,1,1. *,ew, i Â·& 2 16:;kiki:f'Â·XÂ·3*1 .~ ' ~ ' -' - *% . 19/ 7 ' i , 4 $ 4''V ' 2 . Â·;,~ â€¢ 4 72' ~I ~ ~0 ' I . '- fÂ°-Â·-7-..1~> -- .548-:#t.E --'-Â·4:kâ€¢41/342 At,;.494 -:14146.-Tii/4/121 â€¢ ~ .:E ~kE-~ .'13' .1~..'.f',9'M. :r; i ftlt#*ihi.. 0-'~'*~4.14 3./5, %2%09 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 Sven: I like Jake's suggestion to preserve the line on the west wall and I do not feel it has to be brick. I would like to see a more modern brick except where the two come together. I would also recommend looking at colored mortar. Donnelley: There should be an articulation and break of materials between the old and the new both on vertical and horizontal planes. 525 W. HALLAM - WORKSESSION Sven stepped down. Glenn Rapport: I brought drawings of the east portion of the addition and that basically is all we are dealing with today. The first option is what we presented the last time and the only change being horizontal siding all the way around instead of vertical. Alternative A is 30 degree pitched roof. We are reworking the size of the porch. Glenn Rappaport: On the last option we reduced the height to 22 feet and it is smaller than the existing house. It is 1 1/2 foot lower on the floor level. If the direction is B alternate we will pursue that. We will use a gabled piece connection on the roof. Susan: Is the new one the same height of the roof? Glenn: It is lower. The new plan works well with the old house. Jake: The direction of alternate B is much more compatible with the historical resource. I would like to mention a few things. I feel the end element, now that you have a hip on it, can afford to be higher. That would be your call. I like the idea of utilizing the angle of the hip roof on the big house with the angle of the hip roof on the addition. It relates more directly. I like the gable idea also. Susan: I am in favor of it being lower because it doesn't detract from the original house. Donnelley: The link between the vertical element and the house is quiet. I personally prefer it to the shed aesthetic. Glenn: I wouldn't mind having the room to play with the height a little to see where the connector piece hits the second floor. Donnelley: Everyone is pleased with the new design and you can proceed with final. Amy: There is really no discussion tonight about the garage but 11 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26, 1995 is it resolved with the neighbor? Glenn: We have been working on this and we are staking the corners of the addition and I will go to the Sweeney's and see where the line is. We will work with them. Jake: On condition #7 that the applicant must restudy the design of the roof form on the east addition and return to HPC in a worksession format; does the board feel that has been accomplished. , MOTION: Jake moved that the HPC finds that condition #7 has been met from conceptual and that alternate B satisfies that condition for 525 W. Hallam; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carries. Mr. Sweeney: I had a nice meeting with Julie this morning and I showed her the bedroom that we just put on the second floor and a garage under it and we are only 22 feet high. On the model the garage is considerably higher looking at it. Glenn: This is a garage with an eight foot ceiling and a one foot floor system and right now this is a five foot plate height. It is not as if we are creating something huge. MAROON CREEK BRIDGE Amy: Back in February 8th we had a public hearing to review a proposal to either add a bike path underneath the existing Maroon Creek bridge or detached and adjacent to it. The unanimous decision of the commission was to vote in favor of a detached structure. Since that time various people from the City and County have been working together to try and refine details. We have been stalled a few times by lack of funding and trying to get all of the decision makers to agree and now we are under the gun for an Oct. 1st construction date. This is already a million dollar bridge. There was concern about the aesthetics of it but it is an engineered structure and that was not the direction we were able to go. We also need to discuss the color. Martha: The old bridge is green and it should be similar. Jake: Is this still envisioned to be a temporary bridge? Tom Newland, County Engineer: We plan it to be the non vehicle access across the Maroon Creek canyon until such time the Dept. of Transportation builds a new vehicle bridge in which case the old structure would become the non-vehicle bridge. That is the way the Dept. of Transportation has given it. CDOT will be the ones to remove it. We could conceivably use the bridge for three trail bridges when it is done. 12