Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.HP.205 W Main St.HPC25-94C) ON Lft L ON ...4 U f kl A-1 tom OC girl •,-1 CO EX 43 3 32 CO /3 rc O U N d. p -1 g Le &(2131 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee DATE RECEIVED: 08/18/94 CASE NUMBER: HPC25-94 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID#: 2735-124-54-003 PROJECT NAME: Chisholm Minor Historic Development Project Address: 205 West Main APPLICANT: Edith Chisholm 925-3306 Applicant Address: 205 West Main REPRESENTATIVE: Karen Chisholm 920-2661 Representative Address/Phone: Box 961 Aspen, CO TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: 3 STEP: HPO Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: HPC Meeting Dates: P&Z Meeting Date: CC Meeting Dates: 1st 2nd REFERRALS: Planning Building Zoning City Engineer Parks Dept. City Attorney DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Clerks Office Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: COMMENTS: -. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 205 W. Main Street- Minor Date: November 23, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant has constructed a 120 sq.ft. storage shed on the property without HPC approval. They were told by the Building Department that no permit was needed for a storage shed, however approval is needed from HPC for any construction within the historic districts. This site is listed on the Inventory and is located in the Main Street Historic District. APPLICANT: Edie Chisolm, represented by Gerd Zeller. LOCATION: Lots H and I and the east 15' of Lot G, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 24-7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The shed will not be easily visible from the street and has been placed as far back on the lot as possible. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There will be no impact on the historic character of Main Street. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The shed does not detract from the cultural value of the historic resource. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: No demolition is involved, SO the architectural integrity of the historic house is not affected. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the minor development application as submitted. 2) Approve the minor 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 the minor development approval, finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the shed as submitted. . . 20. .- I + 4. / 1. .t. 4% - , e "Fil// .'* /1*:372 -1-/2/,VA¢l 41,/ ¥r,t. -/ 1 743«. ic : ..r,;0%224, - 4411';Liff~7* '* I. 4 N' Y t. e.. i, ,4'Jitg J ~ 4 9 334 V 't,- • - 4 *#kle -4 -,. .. '11 . 0 - J =' , *I« 2, ..4 M'.4 + 4.01 =?34- : f.1.,t, 3.%¢17 4 .ixt JO; 0 1 '. . :- 0 d#.9 /:-i:/ - .ta kfr.&*il.. ' . 1.7 9'; $2*p.- "'' :'' ~ :' · P:e··Agy'll 'L - . .i g ..4 · di~k@.J;f,+04 ~ 1*,- · ·7. y;,% .-,2> ~1.2 2 . , · <An Mi.· -4341.33 <4 - . . .- -445 1 4- ~74 £ ATmaNIENr 1 - .. _-0 USE APPIIaTICN FCIRM 1) Project Name 2) Project Incaticn 209 43 H 4,51 Aspe 10 E 15' 4 £07 8- 9,04 4073 H +I 4, ELock Eli.q.tie 4£. 41£1-4.- ·-•-*~.£ (inlica€h street adiress, lot & block n=i,er. legal description tiere 722.404.4 ~f/95~644 awlcuriate) 3) Present Zoning 4) Iot Size 5) Applioant's Name, Aairess & Ehone # 62 111 C R \ ske\M - 6< 0 5 U/. Pr}91*/ 67, 925 - 3366 €h I=ires£,Iit/~ve,sl~, MLriEss 62*xe # KA REN H . (LhiS /1.5 L-,-n; - 144,-4 L a -5'C- 94 loti#=:-4 L 011-1 - €K &2 9, c.8 f?0.Box 96/ >1¥at y/6/0~~4t~zi-~ 9'4b -33<* 66/ 7) Typd of Application (please check all that gply): . 4 Coniitioral Use - Conceptal SPA 0--*I 00[¥¥€~,al Histaric Dev. Special Review Final SEA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Grenline Conceptlial RD ~ Mimr Histnric Dew. 1 Stream Margin · _ Final ED High-,ric Th:nlitirn Historic Designaticn lamtain View Plane __ Stibdivisirn - Co lniniumization Tect/Map Amenchant ---- (2*33 Allotimift Iot ®lit/Int line - QUS E=luticm Adjust:ment 8) Description of Dcisting Uses · (rimber ard type of existing structures; approocinate sq. ft.; n=ber of bedrocms; an~ p•:evious apgrivals granted to the prferty). EAM Ues 1 4 00 96 El b,tegl.% 3 fbe& 2_0019€ 9) Description of Develqment Application l,0,2 £2 O CO [Delk Ad & e.4 0,0 EAST Ad /Dest si Je 54·Al we f\ feik Access CYArs toas A- P EeD /0 <S Access pciwi Ge cohl b 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minin= Sulmission Contents BARD(nse to Attadment 3, Specific all:mission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards far Your Application li'lilli CURB AND GUTTER 0 STREET LIG WITNE99 g,ORNER SET 5/8"STEEL ROD WITH SET 5/8" STEEL ROD Wl 9 75009 11 E- PLASTIC CAP MARKED PLASTIC CAP MARKED 2.56' ~ "BUETTNE~ 13166 WC' . N 750 09'll"W . . 75.00' . " BUETTNER 13166 WC" .a 1.2.21 1 (30') (30') £\TB. 10© LWITNESS .WOOD FENCE 4-- I S 75*09 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY -~~0~ + W 0 Z (ENCROACHMENT 0 EAST 15' L OT G LOT H LOT I . b 100.13 STEP | PORCH 99.89 WATER n METER + 1 (15.09') 24.6' . - 1 0 PROPOSED-+ v i WEST IS' OF WINDOW WELL -w f 1 0 LOT G - 1. N o I al 0 2 STORY ) 6 HOUSE WITH 0 BASEMENT 1. Z 15.02' 99.27. 1 6.1' 1 1 6 ---1 ' 1J 99.78 1 J - -4 4, =.==1 OW ---1 Fcc ==-1 2 4 25.6' -- - -1 9 916.05, U GAS \99.6-2 ELECTRIC METER TELEPHONE TV DECK tv 1 1 5 «.10 > , 9 , 1 ~WOOD FEI A bil 2 -1 M '1<SPRUCE 8 WOOD FENCI~ M-~ 14 18" o D »/1 10" F . '7SPRUCE 5-· 3SPRUCE 100.34 (15') r (30') . 0 .', 99.85 S 75009'll" E 75.00' FOUND PLASTIC CAP 1222, CTELEPHONE SET 5/8"STEEL ROD PROP. CORNER MON PEDESTAL PLASTIC CAP MARK MARKED "LINES IN SPACE "BUETTNER 13166" 14111", N 690 45'06"E O.15' OF PROP. CORNER BLOCK 52 ALLEY 21.01' ALLEY, RECORD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOUND PLASTIC CAP PROP. CORNER MON. MARKED "PESMAN 2376" 0 LOT I (16£ .821 (eYS'94) (,4019) 113 M MOONI '00 toi 3 „6 *,05 0*l N 10. 8' S 140 50'49"W P...1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 23, 1994 Meeting was called to order by Roger Moyer with Les Holst and Linda Smisek present. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy: The Langley's and Kuhn's projects went before P&Z. P&Z had concerns about the Langley's setbacks. The Kuhn's tower is in the Main Street view plane so that will need to be addressed by HPC. Roger: Why did we not pick up on the Main Street view plane? Amy: Jake and I knew it existed but we looked at the tower so many times and it was never established what the maximum height was. - Les: The system does work. 205 W. MAIN STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: We do not have a quorum tonight but will review the case and vote at the next meeting. Roger: Why did the building dept. tell the applicant that they did not need a permit? Amy: It was asked in a general sense and the historic question was never asked. Gerd Zeller, represented the owner: The shed was brought in on a truck and could be removed at anytime. We built it without a permit but no one told us we needed one. Les: Everyone needs a shed. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the application submitted by 205 W. Main Street; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. 316 E. HOPKINS AVE - HOWLING WOLF MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: When the permit came in there was a walkin refrigerator and it doesn't touch the building and my only concern was it is an awkward way for a handicapped person to get around into the entrance that we approved. Also the refrigerator door and the back door of the building could hit each other if someone happened to open them at the same time. Stephen Levitt, owner: j The refrigerator is modular and it is a walkin. Amy: Is it shiny metal? Stephen Levitt: The refrigerator will go by the back door. d yal-X+--6-9-L /42--"1« « 0 47 2,/ I »9 A 11 AF S7-, AspE-N 4 8 93-9 - 1 1. o C r. I 2-VE':2'. . 1 / :* + 1 * AL,%'' " .4 4/ --- f '.4.41 1 m .0, i < N<. 1 -4 *e , / 1, F : ·,76 , *+9 - , 4 f#/•ir" t .0.7..,2 M . - ./4 .4. 4 . A. . 4. 2 - .:1.-41- 4 i 13 li >- r 1 < -4 11 ---22 4.-a I. .- I ·« ' . 2 * ...gi~laht.r'. :Ux .9,Fmailillilill"i 'L,VAL@&..12 . 2.3'iu:.~g,~ *rag- . ....er.6.SM'.4.-g?R'*e,4,... , i >:·4: .2121.,f-ir,4. & <424 ~ 4 1 . ial·4·79 131*:MALY'.'. r .*.*Ae la= ~149,-m-- .4 - *+AT-.64 1%42= > 4 'Q. f.-61'# ---lavt- *.ttt,94, 1 . . . 1. e. '>144 #4