The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.232 E Hallam St.HPC4-932/3/-U/J-14 -I.V Ill- ..1 -, -, , -h 49/139 *F 1 6ox A ?352> MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 232 E. Hallam Street DATE: July 28, 1993 SUMMARY: HPC granted final "Significant Development" approval for an addition to 232 E. Hallam on April 14, 1993. During the plan check for issuance of a building permit, it was discovered that the addition causes the parcel to exceed site coverage requirements by 189 sq. ft. The applicants approached the Board of Adjustments to request a variance, but the Board tabled the discussion, finding no hardship. The variance request will be heard again on August 5. Attached is a letter from Wayne Stryker, who would like to discuss the the project briefly with HPC. STRYKER/ BROWN ARCHITECTS,PC July 21, 1993 Amy Amidon Aspen/ Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Amy, Please accept this letter as a 'request for discussion' with the Historical Preservation Committee of the design implications of the Roberts Addition, a Historically Designated Structure. As you are aware, this duplex addition was presented to the Hl?C for final approval on April 14. Approval was granted per observation of the detailing by Jake Vickery. This was done and the project was then submitted for building permit review. At that point it became apparent the design was flawed. Due exclusively to my error, the design as presented exceeds Site Coverage requirements of the R-6 zone by 189 sq.ft. Because of this situation we then appealed to the Board of Adjustment for a variance based on the fact that the only other way the property can fulfill its ability to achieve a duplex is to do so in a two story configuration. I believe this configuration would then conform to all aspects of the Municipal Code. However, the increased height and bulk, in our opinion, would be unfortunate and counter to the intent of the Community Plan. When presented with this reasoning the Board suggested that commentary from HPC would be useful to their review. Therefore, I appeal to your committee to discuss the implications of these possibilities. If I can further help you understand any aspect of this please call. Sincerely, <11 -h /14-'. 11, 6/vt - V Wayne Stryker S SPRING STREET, SUITE 3 0 0 A % p b N (: 0 L <) RA D (1 8 1 6 1 I 303 925 2254 925-2 258 (1 AX) wâ€ž~r,i~~ r f. 2 ., 1 ./.. . , 7.~ I BUST-1 ht a AIDD {T-lorÂ·+ LED<UCTÂ»as- -7 KID Â»A/ValÂ«A, i 1 1 1 . \\ ! 1 \ 1, . '' 1 1 1 \ 1 1 44] luyJEE .1 'I ' -11â€¢16'll I ': ' -- . i:A i - \\\ L . , 0" * 1 -1-- - // 7 \ El 1 /\ t \ r-n Â· t 0 , I - .â€¢1441 I / ' 0 ' , 1 Â£023>P- 1 Â· i 11/ \ 1\ 1 . 1 I .' 1 / 1 i ..O./ACEL 1 1 .. 7 /1 , , , '1,0 , / , 1 t SITE PLAN SCALE: lit . 30' APR - 9.-L- ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM ST REET ASPEN, COLORADO , 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, 1' ' 300 S. SPRING STREET,SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO , 81611 1 (303) 925.2254 t r--/tfas 1Â»~ tÂ«%1 \\<- Â«31 - 2 3-1 ~1 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 -- m' , 11Â·~~IÂ· ~I' I'l I'l I I'l I.I<'I I. I 1. .. . 1, 11, .1. 1 . 1 '. 1 1 ' 1 CE-lt. L.=> 4-, 4 1., 1.- 25: 1 1 11 11 : p JA-- I 1 1 11 1 1 . 3/ 1 1 i ty. 1 1=1 3: 4 g Ill L.1.- .- 1.1 -11 4 -1~. Mkli- |OBils . --- . 1 0 III. 1=i[ -- 3 1 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 ,. STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, 1 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 - 4 ===4 N t : ...4 -7-' it 'I' It 1 1 -n 4-7 11 . n 1 ; Fl III tr~ ~ L 1 . 1--1 -0 . SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0"Â· ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET - ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611Â· (303) 925.2254 4-~ - + - 01'-i !- - ---------Â·--------======ep=~~=2'-P----~eeFEE~E~Zi.-2 1_- -Â»2 i..-09.-112:-. 1 -7--Il-- - 1 1 lilli 1 224.172-75LF 1111 0 lilli 111 - Ii---#.-+--. il#-*i-il-.--i-=.Il--I-- --- 00---2 - Â£31=1 23 7- m WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 i Pr . . f/L' -Aini. \ , Uumuummu - 3 ==== rd<Hâ€žArg,Immi,imgni , 24 XÂ«L n //0.L- il U BUILDING SECTION SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET - ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 3 OO ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611. (303) 925.2254 0 0 0 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 L.- 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 26 (ST 6 . 1 1 .. I. 1 1 /1 1 -XI '0 ip~ *.- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- - . I 34 ' 1 1 1 1 i 1 Ii-'li 1 -0 i I ..1 7Â« / 1 -- 1 . T - - . 230/912&5 -4 . , ..... . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 . . 1 -- 1 1 1- . 1 .. . .. ....... .. l 1 , 1 1.. 2 1 .1 m-L: 1 r 1 ;!1 -- Ill . 1 - Il -4 1 1 14= ----1- --fjo --- . . . . . .. I. . 1 1 I I 1 . 4. . .. , - */57-<5 L/f''Â·.:0 I 1 ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 . I - -C-- \ 1 Plew/161 v,=iva 9 9 , 1 1 1 1 -ij- - 1 . - 1 < 1 m 1 ---- ----I-~ . 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 -LIV//9* AN\Â· . -1 ----- --- Fhl-10 1. 1 . .) ~"11-1 \ - 4/7-6+1 8./4 rr x, . OR l_"_9 1 --_-1- 16&mheabb(JityMMOOMMO Mbl.&2~a*xeÂ®*Â®Â®de#WW#Me.008680068MN -_---_-_-_-1 - | m 1 1 . 4-DA></577/y6__ - _: FLOOR PLAN ~ TE>7:Ucl-C/&21 - SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" 1 1 1 ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 0 9 0 1 1 1 1 WVYÂ¥~W-7.F=E,-Fb-- --- -- -- - -- -- -- 1- - -- 1 EXAS 77/Ve 1 1 C>7-fill 676/ Ae- 1 41 (1 ~-11 -1111 _1 ~1 Llf- _l 1111 _1 -111 _11 -1- -1 -J 1 -1_ ] 1 -11 JJ~ HJ_. 1 _1 ~1.11 4 up 0 1 I- 1 m- m = 1 -- -- .- ----- -- --/ --- -C 2 ) i UN &84 - J . MÂ«xxx)42<2*23:,C,<3<3<1*1*:,t> f 1. U T/L/'TY \ SINA 69411 1 1 U Â£ 1 1 l/1 1 1 Lil~ ~ --LI_____ .______ ___ ___ _- - 69 9 8 // c \N / tipÂ°\4 1 7 Kaza- h 75 1 j}IJ_~LEN FILL \/ '1%11_111]11-f-j- 1 4- -,51/5 7-/27(2, â‚¬377Uford//24- BASEMENT PLAN 101? SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 I STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. - 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 Historic Preservation Committee 77; Minutes of July 28, 1993 Mrs. Block: We already have the four in the front. Mr. Block: I do not want to cut up the back yard. Why take green space away. Roger: P&Z had a problem with this. Mr. Block: Six spaces were approved by P&Z and it turned out that there was a cottonwood tree there and six cannot be put in the front. The Eng. Dept. brought up the statement of the cottonwood and said you cannot take that tree down and therefore you cannot have all six spaces up front. Since we can't have all up front we agreed to get a permit on the basis of two in the rear. My request to this committee is clear and hope approval that the parking spaces in the rear be eliminated because they will cut up the land. Amy: P&Z did care where the spaces were; there concern is the shortage of parking in Aspen. The site was approved with six spaces. Martha: How many cars are you dealing with? Mrs. Block: We have a 1951 jeep and a car. Roger: They are required this many spaces due to the bedrooms. Bill: Four cars in my opinion would be adequate. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC approve the request for deletion of two parking spaces in the rear with four to remain in the front of the house as requested by the applicant for 311 North Street; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. 232 E. HALLAM STREET - DISCUSSION Amy: HPC granted final significant development approval on April 14, 1993 and during the plan check it was discovered that the new addition caused the site to exceed their site coverage allowance. The applicant approached the Board of Adjustment and the discussion was tabled. Wayne Stryker is here to discuss HPC's view on this. Wayne Stryker: The design that was created is over the site coverage. I realized I made an error to the tune of 190 square feet. I went back to the drawing board and re-thought this. The site carries the ability to be a free market duplex. It is a 20,000 square foot site and an unusual size in that neighborhood. It is an historic house and the alternative to doing the plan as HPC has reviewed is to do a second story on the existing portion of the house because there is enough FAR to achieve the duplex. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 28, 1993 In terms of the Aspen Community Plan "less bulk, less height" we would prefer that. But the only alternative is to go to two stories. Doing so creates a larger building. The Board of Adjustment asked if the HPC had seen the alternative and you had not seen this alternative. That is why it was a continued meeting. Does the HPC feel that the design as is has merit compared to the alternative. Karen: You would have to take off at least 9 feet in the living room if you had to take off the 190 sq. ft. It would be about one third out of the living room. Wayne: In terms of area yes. The livingroom would become a stairway to the space on top of the garage. Karen: Your alternative is to build on top. Joe: You could build the second floor bigger to take up the lost space. Wayne: If the unit now downstairs becomes the unit upstairs we couldn't go any larger. Bill: There is precedence for site coverage on historic structures when you want to save the integrity of the historic structure and ~ keep a lower smaller building you might go into site coverage but not exceed FAR. Joe: If our intent is to not have a second story then I would be inclined to say grant them a site coverage variance but to say they couldn't build a second story. Bill: This Board would have to give a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment before they can grant a variance. Don: I feel it is a big issue to not have a second story as it would compromise the historic structure with regard to the issue of scale. Going up two stories makes it a very awkward structure. Roger: I concur with Don. Bill: We have always discussed the contemporary addition to the house and I have yet to see anyone wanting the contemporary addition expanded. There was a lot of discussion on that at the last meeting. The hardship would be that we find that forcing a second story would be incompatible with the historic structure on the site. This Board is attempting to keep any additions secondary and lower in nature. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 28, 1993 Don: It burdens the historic building. Joe: I would urge the committee to have a restriction that they couldn't later come in and request a second floor. Bill: They would have to come to us for the 500 sq. ft. variance and prove to us that it is more compatible. MOTION: Roger made the motion to direct Staff to communicate with the Board of Adjustment stating that the HPC requests that they grant the variance of 189 sq. ft. and that we feel any second story addition would be a burden to the historic structure and would not be compatible to the historic structure. It would be a hardship to the existing historic structure; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: The second story addition would be incompatible to the historic addition. Bill: We won't let them go up so that is the hardship and they are forced to go out. You will have to make a strong argument. Joe: They will say make it smaller. Is it a hardship to make it smaller and make it fit within the site coverage? Karen: I feel it is a hardship to whomever lives in this space if you have to take 9 feet off the livingroom. Wayne: If this lot was a standard size lot this addition would pass and not require a variance. Bill: We are giving you a hardship and asking you to add on out not up. Joe: Your argument is that there is a hardship because the HPC will not approve a second story. Jake: Which means they cannot build up to their allowable FAR. Bill: We are creating a hardship because we will not allow them to go two stories. He is allowed or would like to go out to his FAR and he can't do it due to his site coverage. 935 E. HYMAN - LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF U.S.L.M. UTE #4 Les and Linda were not seated to vote. Amy: This is an application that has been initiated by the Planning Dept. and the Board is to determine if there is enough 5 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation' Committee From: Kim Johnson, Planner Re: 232 E. Hallam: Final Development for rear addition (duplex unit) Date: April 14, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Final Development approval for a rear addition to the "Vigoda" addition at 232 E. Hallam. The proposed addition, a free-market duplex unit, does not interface with the historic resource. No variations are being requested. The drawings in your packet have been revised since this item was continued from March 24, 1993. APPLICANT: Dick and Linda Roberts, represented by Stryker/Brown Architects LOCATION: 232 E. Hallam, Lots M and N, Block 71, Townsite of Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. The applicant must verify the new FAR figure for the Zoning plan check with the building permit application. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: The HPC granted Conceptual Development approval to the 232 E. Hallam project, with conditions, on February 10, 1993. Attached are the minutes of that meeting. The HPC seemed to not object to the proposed general location of addition. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: None are necessary, as the lot meets the minimum size requirements .for a duplex unit. Ordinance #1 affordable housing mitigation applies, and the applicant must pay the cash-in-lieu amount in effect at the time prior to issuance of any building permits. Payment is based on the square footage of the new construction. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: All four Development Review Standards are required to be met in order for the HPC to grant approval. Please refer to the applicant's letter and set of drawings (most recently submitted on April 9) as a summary of the revisions. Development Review Standards REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations 1 defines the four standards for Development Review. All. four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, beginning on page 47 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 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 an 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 of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The proposed duplex addition is being added to the "Vigoda" addition, which was a mid-1980's expansion to the landmark. The proposed addition is not readily viewed from the street edge or facade, however, is primarily viewed from the post office and ACES parcels to the north. Our primary concern and responsibility is in either the contribution or deprivation the development impact has to the landmark, neighborhood and community, within the context of historic preservation. For the past 5-6 years, since the Vigoda addition was completed, the HPC, National Park Service, Colorado Historical Society and visiting preservationists have viewed the design approach of this addition to a Second Empire-style structure as being a radical departure from the idea of "new yet compatible". The distinction between old and new was made in such a way as to detract from the architectural integrity of the historic resource. The HPC has found this addition's positive contribution to be in the use of compatible materials, quiet roof form and small, articulated scale. The addition is small (under 500 sq. ft.), is tucked into a rear notch of the addition, and does not significantly impact the facade. The architect has changed the design to reflect the Second Empire style of the original structure. Four small and two large dormer windows have been added into the roof to allow light to penetrate the space. The new roof projects above the modern addition, and is perceived from the street edge. However, it is well back from the front property line. No variations are being requested. A basement has been added to the proposal since Conceptual review. All required parking is being handled on the site. It appears to staff that the proposed materials meet the Guidelines and are compatible with 2 the historic resource. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The "Community Church" neighborhood of the West End contains the greatest concentration of small historic resources. We find -that the addition's small 'size and placement on the site is not inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood, which contains a variety of architectural styles as infill. 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 adjacent parcels. Response: We find that any detraction in cultural value to this parcel occurred at the time of the Vigoda expansion, and that this addition is relatively neutral regarding this standard. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: In staff's response to Standard #1 above, we ask the HPC to carefully consider these architectural integrity points: a) By continuing to expand the addition to the structure, which ends up at maximum allowable FAR (4,670 sq. ft. FAR (+/-), does the historic architectural integrity of the Second Empire diminish? b) If the addition is not perceived to increase the inccmpatible design approach, does the proposal then meet this standard? ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following 3 alternatives: 1) Final approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met. 2) Final approval with conditions. 3) Table action to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards. 4) Deny Final Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Final Development Plan. Additional comments: %181 - 9* 016 41*44, 6 91,1Fet f fU--e 40 WUQ~ AL- 7 ear 604 - L 3 4 Co.Â»y24 .M~; d AWO,4<4 41744catb 0,pâ‚¬- 42 69 # Â»-U- gra hp.232eh.3 Ott rf/%2 4 ud- 4 94.t 4-4Â»p-- Â£41*jutsÂ»0 4/54.. 6 #1671 ib-1- 34 4 . fz> ke ~Â». 4 ill i Ill 1 111 1 ill -- 91,14'J>lt~ 6 44'MA N\Tl.00' Fu'r. 1 If t 07*7 My\ // / / 1 3 Iii // i i il // eMANe ATD Fsor 4707Â»1 4 44 0 4 OV l...cE**120 X , 1.0 27 ~4- bar f f ho - - 1 1 --1 , -444#-- f 1 -72 1 ' /J I 1 t . .-CLP , 44_j -- 1 - i \ j 9 / 1 44\949 412â€ž FANTED ' -----Vveff pe~ h Â· u t*F+64::*-T 1%1 6 11 0 fl: -7. - .-1 % 1 . \ 15 V-2321 i /.,1 1 1 â‚¬,97 l' - . I. i ] i 9---- 05-6 g, 3Â® 0,$ el..Arule.J (133 /2,6(===Ter' ~Th g'Â«-phr~- P"2+T {24Â»1 6.- All# lq 5 fl/ U & /10 STRYKER / BROWN ARCHITECTS,PC Orof) 2 April 7, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson Historic Preservation Planner Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: Roberts Residence Addition, 232 East Hallam, a.ka. "The Glidden House." Dear Ms. Johnson: Enclosed are our revised plans for the Roberts Residence Addition which incorporates the design changes suggested by the members of the Historic Preservation Committee. The following is an analysis of the original home, an example of the French Second Empire style, an analysis of the first addition, and a description of the challenges and goals of attempting to create an appropriate design for the proposed addition. The Original French Second Empire Home An excellent example of the French Second Empire Home, the Glidden House has many of the distinguishing elements of the period as well as an eclectic mix of elements from the Italianate and other Victorian periods. The house is designed with dominate horizontal elements in the traditional tripartite (base, middle, crown) elevation composition. The floors are separated by a bracketed cornice which acts as an entablature, the bracket patterns suggesting the classical triglyph and metope. Each elevation is modulated with the bay windows characteristic of the period: bay windows project from beyond the roof line and surrounded with molding. Each window and door has an arched "eyebrow" head which softens each opening and relates to the more decorative arches on the dormers above. The bays are set on a paneled base. The Mansard roof is set on a bracketed and molded cantilevered cornice. The Mansard is modulated by decorative dormers each of which have an exuberant "false front" with molding and a single star. As below, the windows heads have arched framing. Lacy metalwork sits on a molding which delicately decorates the top of the Mansard creating a "Widows Walk" and crowns the roof. The front elevation of the residence is squarely proportioned framed panel below the cornice with centered bay window and dormer above. The dormer sits above the bay window creating a centered "tall glass window" element. The front is further framed by two tall trees. As the facade steps back, a delicately framed porch with paired columns (a detail characteristic of the period) fills the transition. The entry door has a transom window with an arched top similar to the other windows. The base of the composition is a simple plastered plinth in strong contrast to the exuberantly detailed and textured elements above. All other elevations repeat these elements in a horizontal echo of the front facade: simple base, framed panel mid-section of beveled siding and bay windows, bracketed cornice, dormered mansard with lace metal crown. 300 S SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303 925 2254 925 2258 (FAX) Roberts Residence Addition, 232 East Hallam, a,k.a. "The Glidden House." Historic Preservation Submission, April 7, 1993 page 2 Goals of the proposed Addition To complement and be compatible with the original historic structure. To be appropriate in the context of the neighborhood. To enhance the cultural value and architectural integrity of the historic structure. To relate to both existing portions and bring them both together. To acknowledge that this is of today, not the 1890's. To reinterpret the Second Empire themes, designs, and details. The Proposed Addition To complement the original and existing structures, we propose to recall the massing of the historic original, while using the simple and restrained detailing of the 70's addition. By echoing and paying homage to the original mansard, tripartite facades, and massing the proposed addition will complement and not compete with the original. By invoking the simple detailing of the 70's addition, a bridge is brought between the disparate designs. The mansard is recreated of black standing seam metal. This will complement and not copy the original. The metal lacework is of period and not repeated. Rather than many small decorative dormers, the proposed addition shall have large light welcoming dormers on the north and south facades, and smaller, understated dormers on the east and west facades. The semi-arched tops recall and reinterpret the subordinate arch in the window details of the original. The semi-arch becomes a dominate flavor in the new composition. The north window wall is centered on that facade echoing the tall glass window elements of the original south facade. The "bracketed carnice" is reinterpreted in the addition at different scale, proportion and material from the original. The location compliments the "cornice" of the 70's addition by continuing the horizontal lines created above the garage door and the strip of siding above the north elevation's horizontal band of windows. The brackets and all details of the cornice are simple, in keeping with the 70's-Style addition. In a new twist the "entablature" continues across the northern window wall/ dormer as a band of windows. The main middle panel is of beveled painted siding as are both the existing structures, but it is framed (as in the original) simply (as in the 70's addition). All trim on the new is similar to the simple trim of the 70's addition. The above efforts, designs and details achieve the stated goals and the mission of preserving the historic character of the original home while reinterpreting it in a vocabulary of "post-modern" materials and methods. We thank you for your comments and ideas in helping to make this a better and more appropyiate project in Aspen's historical context. Â·ll In n Fircerâ‚¬4 / / / -*-< / I M Wlf h/0 WÂ®ne Stryker, AIA David R Brown, AIA Whi~Hilia V f RD+./ST-72+ 27 ADD 1 -riopÂ·k , 4 JaULTUAL f / , E~} PA/ve 1,1/Ay t 1 :t 1 1 \ 771 1 1 01 1 \ 1 \\\ \ 1 t i -- I i \1 5 \\ \ i /1 / 1 - 1 \ /t>67- 1 . /1 / 1 , / / // 4/1 \ --/ 1 1 / / N / 1 - Â· Â· \1' /..'\ / ''\\\ // I ! / . 7 / , . / Â¥ fl,lt,13 \ 1/ ; . \ \ i i , /\ , //1 , r \LA / , 1 \ I I ' /7 / % : 7 //7 1 ./ Ji / i. -I -- ll /,/,/, 1//// \ 1 + / 1 1 1 / I , . ,/ i 1 ../ I / . \ /7 . \ f j : 2>/ ADE. , d . ; it -* i w.- -7 , 1/1 11 1 1 i 1 //// l It, \ / / / / 1 f -51% / 1 ' t SITE PLAN SCALE: P' . 30' APR - 9 893 ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 0 0 i 1 1 j 1 1 .-- - --In 2-- -- -- ---------1____ ___ ~t-- ZE><45 77/90 1 L 07-/16/Onete i tp- 1.11 _1 t i i UJJI nu L .l .Ii _I l IHI[f-lit N E- l l i lli 14 <1 1 ~ Up 0 - 1 1-1 1 1 lt 14 ---- ,2--1-7221Â«-2-JER?**EQ~~83 - I -' f f \ 1 - OACE:.AARP,07- ~ 6/7/L/77' - 1 SINK- f Tr [ %:-4.....27257%7773377;.<444%12*:#bdow)(WXX3<Xy'b"*-1-- - --- _____ ~ 0)4/,#vAL) L</ 1 4 0/AL h 1/\ FM/5050//i.43 e illl â‚¬ 4 1 l- 1-- 1- H l- 1 l l / h \9.--- te.* /ST/M & GTA-/CT-4/ F.JL BASEMENT PLAN ~M SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. 04 1 11 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 -Â»NONÂ«Â«062 Â»Â»Xi 5. I 9 0 1 1 3 - 4 1 + 1 4 I .0 1 /2. _ ~1 4 r 1 . - L/VINÂ¢> AN\, 31 1. - - -.-- f>%770 m - \ 76/7-CH e.vt 8 O :A u ; c â‚¬ 2---~ ~heop(/ 1 0/BU- 1 - 1 I 1- - - -~ A></677/y6 -1 - - : FLOOR PLAN -767XudlY//Kti -- ~ SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 . r STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. 2 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 / ILL t 9 0 0 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .L- -------L- ------------------O 1 1 / 1 rs. 1 1 04/57Â» / 1 1 XI i. 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 14, 421- ' 0- j L,0.- I 1 /irl .r , .. 7 .. \ 1 4. ;Dott/42/KS . 1 1 Â· - .. . 2 . . .. 1 lAi \ 1 'i .1 - - - - 7 ~ 1 , .... 1 1 1 ./ L 1 1- - - -~ I- <--- -- , - ., .. 1 A>(/457-4 63... Â·Â· ~ -AOOP. "-5 .. I ~ 1 ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" - 1 ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 t ~Tt~J--1- r f .1,1.1, 1 ' 1.1. 1.1- h iâ€¢ 'â€¢ 11 L 1111'1 'Illill l'11'illul'Ill ~11~Ill~liHil,Ii MI' ~ i, -4 4-41 1 u:li i b 11!ll 1.Â· ~| 11 4% 11 11*=T 4 ---9+- . 22[1]UL][220-ffiÂ« i L_-1 - NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. 1 I 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 1 . 4.il, .. ..42Â»[bl ' l , 11,11Â·- ..It 1,1.1..,1.1.1.1.1,1.1,1,1,11.111,1.1.1,1.Â·11,1.;1 -01 I. 1 , 15'Elt. -â‚¬'*h Lit t..ee'l- 4 L -f i E-t 1 1 :lie - i k f Â£ 1 1[ 5Â£ 41; il --Â· 1 1 A- 1 14 - - -=i|- --- 0 8-BT fl- i J' 1 11 1 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, 1 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 ./ - 11. ..111.11,~- Wax I~ 1 f -1-=---1- Er- 1 - - 11 11 ~ 21 %21Â«nor'.4 1 -14 h 143 \1 1 1 1\B 1 It f--1 \1 4 4. 1 11 1 H 1 E-9 - -- 1 I Et Ful tri .ri-- SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 - *f . â‚¬I . -1- - 2!11~11 + - 0 -1 0 , 9 +Pi'-Ith'! 1-1-'.4-4-.1-1--- 1 4--4---- 'VI-- 4/- -1-1 1-/1,-â€¢Â·, ,-; D--/4/ itÂ·,1 i '1,1,11'1/1/11't lilli '.1 -11 ----------=55 1mI -~ - =4**re-im' 11 . 11 11111#1 5 j + 0 1 -tl--ti --0---il.* ~ ~~ aE~ lid P 1 h. 1. l 1 11 - 1 - -- i-Lr- - lit lit t=1 ~~ ---- - M ----- r 00 1 - WEST ELEVA_T_LON SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. 300 S. SPRINGSTREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 - j . l & f *â‚¬: 1 7 1'1 ' _f - INÂ« \ 1*4 muummuum = YA r- = a-AM#MMRF),iMIIWIX,Ini I.~-%-i-Ill - AN# 29 LL Ll [1 1 Itt 11 BUILDING SECTION SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" ROBERTS ADDITION 232 EAST HALLAM STREET - ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 . STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS, P.C. 300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 30O ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 (303) 925.2254 - .19 - Â· .. ~i MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: ' Kim Johnson, Planner Re: 232 E. Hallam: Final Development for rear addition (duplex unit) Date: March 24, 1993 \46 /ut- N 4% 4 4 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Final Development approva 1 for a rear 496 sq. ft. addition to the "Vigoda" addition at 232 E. Hallam. The proposed addition, a free-market duplex unit, does not interface with the historic resource. No variations are being requested. APPLICANT: Dick and Linda Roberts, represented by Stryker/Brown Architects LOCATION: 232 E. Hallam, Lots M and N, Block 71, Townsite of Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. Staff finds that the FAR numbers do not match up. The applicant must verify the new FAR figure for the Zoning plan check with the building permit application. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: The HPC granted Conceptual Development approval to the 232 E. Hallam project, with conditions, on February 10, 1993. Attached are the minutes of that meeting. The HPC seemed to not object to the proposed general location of addition. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: None are necessary, as the lot meets the minimum size requirements for a duplex unit. Ordinance 01 affordable housing mitigation applies, and the applicant must pay the cash-in-lieu amount in effect at the time prior to issuance of any building permits. Payment is based on the square footage of the new construction. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: All four Development Revi ew Standards are required to be met in order for the HPC to grant approval. Please refer to the applicant' s two letters and sets of drawings (most recently submitted on March 19) as a summarization of the revisions. 1 . I. Development Review Standards REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, beginning on page 47 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 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 an 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 of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The proposed duplex addition is being added to the "Vigoda" addition, which was a mid-1980' s expansion to the landmark. The proposed addition is not readily viewed from the street edge or facade, however, is primarily viewed from the post office and ACES parcels to the north. Our primary concern and responsibility is in either the contribution or deprivation the development impact has to the landmark, neighborhood and community, within the context of historic preservation. For the past 5-6 years, since the Vigoda addition was completed, the HPC, National Park Service, Colorado Historical Society and visiting preservationists have viewed the design approach of this addition to a Second Empire-style structure as being a radical departure from the idea of "new yet compatible". The distinction between old and new was made in such a way as to detract from the architectural integrity of the historic resource. The HPC has found this addition's positive contribution to be in the use of compatible materials, quiet roof form and small, articulated scale. The addition is small (under 500 sq. ft.), is tucked into a rear notch of the addition, and does not significantly impact the facade. The architect has changed the design to copy the Second Empire style of the original structure. Seven dormer windows have been added into the roof to allow light to penetrate the space. The new roof projects above the modern addition, and is perceived from the street edge, however, is well back from the front property line. No variations are being requested. A basement has been added to 2 the proposal since Conceptual review. All required parking is being handled on the site. It appears to staff that the proposed materials meet the Guidelines and are compatible with the historic resource. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel propos e d for development. Response: The "Community Church" neighborhood of the Wes t End contains the greatest concentration of small histori e resources. We find that the addition's small size and placement on the site is not inconsistent with the characte r of the neighborhood, which contains a variety of architectura 1 styles as infill. 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 adjacent parcels. Response: We find that any detraction in cultural value to this parcel occurred at the time of the Vigoda expansion, and that this addition is relatively neutral regarding thi s standard. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: In staff' s response to Standard #1 above, we ask the HPC to carefully consider these architectural integrity points: a) By continuing to expand the addition to the structure, which ends up at maximum allowable FAR (4,670 sq. ft. FAR (+/-), does the historic architectural integrity Of the Second Empire diminish? b) If the addition is not perceived to increase the incompatible design approach, does the proposal then meet this standard? 3 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Final approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met. 2) Final approval with conditions. 3) Table action to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards. 4) Deny Final Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Final Development Plan. Additional comments: hp.232eh.2 4 MAR 16 '63-17: 54 S'TRYKER/BROWN~ ARCHS~. P. 1/1 ' 1 Â» 1 U ~~~U?m==~~EE@~e~EEEE6=Â·-=== 1-,r . - .I.. 95 1 f 7.-1 1 . rri i I.- , L - - - Â· 4/01 fl, , ..1.. r m - 71-k . - ?g*4~ L-------- 111 / Ur. 1 111-7- 11 1 Ill' 111 Ir' Il '111 ... 01 11~ Â· i L- Ill/'11 4., . . 9- 3 - \ .... T i- Gl X , CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee DATE RECEIVED: 01/19/93 CASE NUMBER: HPC4-93 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID#: 2737-073-14-050 PROJECT NAME: 232 E. Hallam/Roberts Significant Development Project Address: APPLICANT: Dick & Linda Roberts Applicant Address: 367 Terrell Road, San Antonio, TX 78209 REPRESENTATIVE: Wayne Stryker, Stryker/Brown Representative Address/Phone: 300 S. Spring, Suite 300 Aspen, CO 81611 925-2254 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: /~ 3 STEP: HPO Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: HPC Meeting Dates: 2-10'93-(46 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: 4 MAR 1 9 1993 STRYKER/BROWN j ARCHITECTS, PC MEMORANDUM TO: KIM JOHNSON, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FROM: WAYNE STRYKER, STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS DATE: 3.19.93 RE: ROBERTS' RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 232 EAST HALLAM, ASPEN NOTES: Please note that the February 26th submission for the Roberts' Addition is to be changed as these drawings now indicate. In effect, the addition of one more dormer to each facade. 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 300, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303.925.2254 925.2258 (FAX) ~ MAR 1 91993 FE Hif -lt_ _fiff>-4/111~-A._# - - Em ICES C Ell 1 It __-~Â·in~nmnmmr,iifrT'i'gm'm'm'51Â®E@1111111 11 ['FJ ~ Fl~li-Ilifl"ll"EÂ®~11'11"i?'3Â®~uimtwittuillitilitulium.mimiwilmmmimi NlEI@lfE@~EDEIÂ®Ilku 2-llull~TLIHIE-- - ------- - -T j , . 0 7-\\ -- /101 7-UI_- --==44 / _---- ----------------- __-- -77%123~ '' t' ~~Ir--- 1 \ /li 1 \ / 1 '' 0=0-20Â«. 1/ < i \ w /10) FIX)(A P)*T off' 0 1- -\ \ \ \ it U-\- \\ \ \\ N \ %\ \ 1 \ I \ \ --=k\ \ \ I - . 11_ 1 // \ L.. , 1 / \ \ \ 1 2 \ / N - \1 ./ \ / \ . / \1 / 1 / .L . =3-1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 lili APPmoll_ 09Â¥TW BLE.VATION 4 - 4 1).10.95 , . I . I ; . 4 . 4 \ 1 f = fl - 1 3 , 1 -======= 1======== ======4 - - C -................. j -. 111.. .; 111- f li - 1- Â·Â·Â· 1 -111 " 111 #11- i - I- - il E- Ill-- r"- 1 -i, = = 7, 8. 4 A/2/9)770N---# WEST E LEUATION %,12.93 76" = p- on ?EV# 4 ED . I . 3 ' A I c STRYKER/ BROWN ARCHITECTS,PC February 26, 1993 0,11 1 ' : Historical Preservation Committee , Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office FEB 2 6 !993 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Historical Preservation Committee: The Owners of 232 East Hallam, Dick and Linda Roberts, would like to submit to you their revised plans for final H.P.C. approval. You will recall that on Wednesday, Febc uary 10th, the H.P.C. granted the Roberts' conceptual approval with the anticipation that they will adjust their plan to your suggestions. The plans included herein respond to the suggestions of the H.P.C. to the degree possible. The Owners have decided that they would like to continue the theme estal lished by the original historic structure and create a "carriage house" effect at the rear of the property as was suggested. You will notice in the drawings that the new addition is barely noticeable from the neig iborhood (from Hallam Street) and only slightly so from the Post Office. Tb, e perspective shown from the Post Office is a completely accurate viev of exactly how the dwelling looks as it currently exists and precisely how it will appear with the new addition. Please also note that the new plans submitted will include a basement. However, this basement will not effect the exterior view from the neighborhood or from aitywhere beyond the property. It should be repealed that the detailing and materials of the new addition are intended to match the historic dwelling to the greatest degree possible. You will be able to review photographs of existing details of the historic structure at the next meeting of the H.P.C. Other than these comments, I believe that the application which you have received dated January 12th, stands as is, other than the differences that I have herein mentioned Sincerely, ~ / - ; i li Mrkij 0/Â»Vul u Wayne Stry<er, AIA 300 S SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303 925Â·2254 925Â·2258 (FAX) 1 -i.li- I.-I \ ===1 i - / 2- E-J r -JU/-103-JE-10-{1 ----1- - =-9 c==22=212] l 1 1 1 1 1 - -1=-=1-1=4Â· eÂ¥90 1 17 oN AORA EL. ye:, - 9,10Â· 43 /I' i t----1 f f 1/Ef . /~TJPI>, ===== f n[fl e== -*1 2--r--1 L ' :11 1 11 1 : 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 N . 1 1 1 -F- 3 MY) Dino N EAST EL . >1(2' 2,0,93 IEI~lillillillillillill"I P*'01TIOti .P -7/ f /. 1-7 â‚¬ 1 "11 '1=LL=1 il i L. 1# Lirl Al-99-1 I ---ifiEFEJ---* Di --LTIC --7-1 f 1 [1- 1 Et--lin-1 93 42(/94 EL . 1//6" 4 'go' 13 11 rf - '-itur.ji ill e '|f 3 I , 500 rnON --9- 1 WEST ELEVATION 714 - 1,3 62 13 _220'V_J92-5.- *NI.Lozly-2 v\1*-119H 9004 md//1 \ \ 1 1 \\ - \-1 Off\-ff 1-\\1 Â«\ 11 \\ 1 1444 --7----- -- ---- - :00\30- .-I -CURE -\.-\UN.Ill lili i ...2111 2 1 1 lili ' 1141 911 11 MiNE M 811* IM- -FR k 1 i; LrtÂ« ///90Â« M~â‚¬0333~~~ *-* 1 - f ILITILLÂ«1//- i 1 09 Â»t ju utÂ«LillÂ» \retti\Oxil - Off>ffÂ«--~-~f>--Â«- 41-09 1 PIEW FEDN\ H Al,LAA/\ 4) )TH MDDITIPN 1'16Â·13 - 4 9 li k Inl iMI 1Mll ElamrnE-17=1:,â€ž. ii- ~~9**Â¢111%1#EiMIjiM~?PF795Tmmi ~ --------------------M------- JOI F~ aw mpon '*r opÂ·v c ca Â·. EX 1 4[(blt-~ 1 Â·16 0 93 [1--1 E-]El[-]Fxn-19 r --'F-' "-'""'-~M#Frf9MI:miss;-12**<-- <-+ 1 % __________--~-r------------j~H.--IW%~%i~ 941 0- --- 1/// 1 4 94/4 f 7/ 20) F120(V\ 14f oppite W FTH APP11-ION MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 232 E. Hallam: Conceptual Development for rear addition (duplex unit), Public Hearing Date: February 10, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Development approval for a rear 496 sq. ft. addition to the "Vigoda" addition at 232 E. Hallam. The proposed addition, a free-market duplex unit, does not interface with the historic resource. No variations are being requested. APPLICANT: Dick and Linda Roberts, represented by Stryker/Brown Architects LOCATION: 232 E. Hallam, Lots M and N, Block 71, Townsite of Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. Staff finds that the FAR numbers do not match up, and asks that the applicant clarify whether 420 or 496 sq. ft. is the proposed new FAR figure. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: None are necessary, as the lot meets the minimum size requirements for a duplex unit. Ordinance #1 impact mitigation applies, and the applicant is reminded to meet with the Housing Authority regarding this. Development Review Standards REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, beginning on page 47 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 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 an 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 of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC 1 shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The proposed duplex addition is being added to the "Vigoda" addition, which was a mid-1980' s expansion to the landmark. The proposed addition is not readily viewed from the street edge or facade, however, is primarily viewed from the post office and ACES parcels to the north. Our primary concern and responsibility is in either the contribution or deprivation the development impact has to the landmark, neighborhood and community, within the context of historic preservation. For the past 5-6 years, since the Vigoda addition was completed, the HPC, National Park Service, Colorado Historical Society and visiting preservationists have viewed the design approach of this addition to a Second Empire-style structure as being a radical departure from the idea of "new yet compatible". The distinction between old and new was made in such a way as to detract from the architectural integrity of the historic resource. The HPC has found this addition's positive contribution to be in the use of compatible materials, quiet roof form and small, articulated scale. TO expand the modern architectural statement now with another addition may be viewed by the HPC as increasing an already incompatible situation. On the other hand, arguments can be made in favor of the addition's ability to meet the Development Review Standards. It is small (under 500 sq. ft.), is tucked into a rear notch of the addition, and does not significantly impact the facade. Originally, the architect had designed a flat roof to carry out the established form and height; however, in revised drawings (presented in this packet), the roof has been raised, and styled in somewhat of a mansard pitch, in order to incorporate windows to allow light to penetrate the space. The new roof projects above the addition, and is perceived from the street edge, however, is well back from the front property line. Staff finds that the height of revised roof form is troublesome, bordering on incompatible, and asks that the HPC require the application to lower the height above the existing addition's roof by at least 50%, or return to the original flat profile. We are unable to support the proposal as submitted for this reason, finding that this standard has not been met. We support the applicant's desire to obtain light into the space, however, we feel further study is necessary to achieve a better design balance. The windows make a strong vertical statement, which greatly contrasts the north elevation. Should the HPC approve an addition to the addition, staff feels that the windows should 2 respect the established fenestration vocabulary, and gesture to the historic resource as necessary. No variations are being requested. All required parking is being handled on the site. It appears to staff that the proposed materials meet the Guidelines and are compatible with the historic resource. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The "Community Church" neighborhood of the West End contains the greatest concentration of small historic resources. We find that the addition's small size and placement on the site is not inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood, which contains a variety of architectural styles as infill. 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 adjacent parcels. Response: We find that any detraction in cultural value to this parcel occurred at the time of the Vigoda expansion, and that this addition is relatively neutral regarding this standard. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: In staff's response to Standard #1 above, we ask the HPC to carefully consider these architectural integrity points: a) By continuing to expand the addition to the structure, which ends up at maximum allowable FAR (4,670 sq. ft. FAR (+/-), does the historic architectural integrity of the Second Empire diminish? b) If the addition is not perceived to increase the 3 incompatible design approach, does the proposal then meet this standard? Staff asks that the HPC table action at this meeting to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the height, and submit revised drawings indicating a substantially shortened or flat roof form, which would quiet down the addition, and allow it to become more of an organic expansion rather than trying to make a new design statement in itself. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met. The Final application presentation shall include material samples. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, which would allow the applicant time to revise and submit the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. Additional comments: memo.hpc.232em.cd 4 I - 11-61 L MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 232 E. Hallam: Conceptual Development for rear addition (duplex unit), Public Hearing Date: February 10, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Development approval for a rear 496 sq. ft. addition to the "Vigoda" addition at 232 E. Hallam. The proposed addition, a free-market duplex unit, does not interface with the historic resource. No variations are being requested. APPLICANT: Dick and Linda Roberts, represented by Stryker/Brown Architects LOCATION: 232 E. Hallam, Lots M and N, Block 71, Townsite of Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. Staff finds that the (FAR numbers do not\match up, and asks that the applicant clarify whether 420 or 496 sj. ft. is the proposed new FAR figure. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: None are necessary, as the _lot meets the minimum size requirements for a duplex- uniti bidinaribect #1 impact mitigation applies, and the applicant (is reminded to meetj) with the Housing Authority regarding this. 4-- --k Development Review Standards REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, beginning on page 47 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 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 an 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 of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC - 1 shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The proposed duplex addition is being added to the "Vigoda" addition, which was a mid-1980' s expansion to the landmark. The proposed addition is not readily viewed from the street edge or facade, however, is primarily viewed from the post office and ACES parcels to the north. Our primary concern and responsibility is in either the contribution or deprivation the development impact has to the landmark, neighborhood and community, within the context of historic preservation. For the past 5-6 years, since the Vigoda addition was completed, the HPC, National Park Service, Colorado Historical Society and visiting preservationists have viewed the design approach of this addition to a Second Empire-style structure as being a radical departure from the idea of "new yet compatible". The distinction between old and new was made in such a way as to detract from the architectural integrity of the historic resource. The HPC has found this addition' s positive contribution to be in the use of compatible materials, quiet roof form and small, articulated scale. To expand the modern architectural statement now with another addition may be viewed by the HPC as increasing an already incompatible situation. On the other hand, arguments can be made in favor of the addition's ability to meet the Development Review Standards. It is small (under 500 sq. ft. ) , is tucked into a rear notch of the addition, and does not significantly impact the facade. Originally, the architect had designed a flat roof to carry out the established form and height; however, in revised drawings (presented in this packet), the roof has been raised, and styled in somewhat of a mansard pitch, in order to incorporate windows to allow light to penetrate the space. The new roof projects above the addition, and is perceived from the street edge, however, is well back from the front property line. Staff finds that the height of revised roof form is troublesome, bordering on incompatible, and asks that the HPC require the application to lower the height above the existing addition's roof by at least 50%, or return to the original flat profile. We are unable to support the proposal as submitted for this reason, finding that this standard has not been met. We support the applicant's desire to obtain light into the space, however, we feel further study is necessary to achieve a better design balance. The windows make a strong vertical statement, which greatly contrasts the north elevation. Should the HPC approve an addition to the addition, staff feels that the windows should 2 respect the established fenestration vocabulary, and gesture to the historic resource as necessary. No variations are being requested. All required parking is being handled on the site. It appears to staff that the proposed materials meet the Guidelines and are compatible with the historic resource. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The "Community Church" neighborhood of the West End contains the greatest concentration of small historic resources. We find that the addition's small size and placement on the site is not inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood, which contains a variety of architectural styles as infill. 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 adjacent parcels. Response: We find that any detraction in cultural value to this parcel occurred at the time of the Vigoda expansion, and that this addition is relatively neutral regarding this standard. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: In staff's response to Standard #1 above, we ask the HPC to carefully consider these architectural integrity points: a) By continuing to expand the addition to the structure, which ends up at maximum allowable FAR (4,670 sq. ft. FAR (+/-), does the historic architectural integrity of the Second Empire diminish? b) If the addition is not perceived to increase the 3 incompatible design approach, does the proposal then meet this standard? Staff asks that the HPC table action at this meeting to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the height, and submit revised drawings indicating a substantially shortened or flat roof form, which would quiet down the addition, and allow it to become more of an organic expansion rather than trying to make a new design statement in itself. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met. The Final application presentation shall include material samples. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, which would allow the applicant time to revise and submit the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. Additional comments: memo.hpc.232em.cd 4 -v* An C bv 4 1-AÂ¥\14?4/ CJ N 0) 134 A-434 Â®AL 713% 8%493 A 6 -040-VAG (Yrgll -34 01 11-95 I-1 R]-ACKE> 3-4 ow sm Â©134 5 144- : 7 7/0(46,/66:BL 3%0 :~ gL) M.W+E> -9 a-21-g AÂ® El Â·9 71-3 N mo 311Â£- f /44,L d 3 14 --81 J im AL-j\J .Â»4 1 1 11 2 4 1 f j PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR Vincent J. Higens ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Christina Davis President 303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX Vice President ADJACENT OWNER'S STATEMENT Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list of adjacent property owner's within 300 feet of Lots R & S, Blcok 71, in the City and Townsite of Aspen on a portion of vacated Hallam Street, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADDRESSES BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF LUU.1 4. ~ALO AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ~ ALLEN H. ADGER -NIT 1-G, JEROME PROF. UNIT 106 BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN COMMUNITY CHRUCH LOTS K, L & M, BLOCK 72, UNITED METHODIST ASPEN 200 E. BLEEKER ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY 110 E. HALLAM STREET ASPEN CO 81611 DEBORAH D. WRIGHT UNIT 1-F, JEROME PROF. BUILDING 232 SAINT ANDREWS SAINT SIMONS ISL GA 31522 ESTATE OF NELS REINARD ELDER LOTS K. L, M, N & O, BLOCK JANET C. ELDER 78, ASPEN 202 NORTH MONARCH STREET ASPEN CO 81611 FERENC BERKO AND LOTS C, D, E, F, BLOCK 72, MIRTE BERKO ASPEN P.O. BOX 360 ASPEN CO 81612 FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN GRAND JUNCTION LOTS D&EIN CITY BLK 71 TRUSTEE FOR MONA FROST LOTS D&EIN COUNTY BLOCK P.O. BOX 608 71, LOTS N & O, AKA H & I, GRAND JUNCTION CO 81501 BLOCK 71, ASPEN HERBERT S. KLEIN UNITS 2-F, 2-G, 2-I, AND MARSHA L. KLEIN JEROME PROF. BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN CO 81611 J.E. ABELS UNITS 1 & 2, MONARCH NORTH CONDOMINIUMS P.O. BOX 4707 ASPEN CO 81612 JOAN ENID LIGHT LOTS G, H, I, BLOCK 72, ASPEN 733 13TH STREET BOULDER CO 80302 JOSEPH A. AMATO )TS K & L, BLOCK 71, ASPEN P.O. BOX 503 HIGHLAND HILLS NY 10930 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. UNITS 1-H, 1-I, JEROME SUITE 109 PROF. BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN CO 81611 KARL G. LARSON AND UNITS 1-B, 2-J, 2-K, M. MADELEINE LARSON JEROME PROF. BUILDING SUITE 101, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN CO 81611 LINDA PACE GOLDSBURY LOTS R & S, BLOCK 71, ASPEN ON A PORTION OF 4940 BROADWAY, SUITE 325 VACATED HALLAM STREET SAN ANTONIO TX 78209 (SUBJECT PROPERTY) MOSS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF LOTS D, E, F, G, H & I, ASPEN, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BLOCK 78 & METES & BOUNDS 835 ROARING FORK ROAD ASPEN CO 81611 PHILIP R. HODGSON S. 62' LOTS A, B & C, PATRICIA H. HODGSON BLOCK 78 212 NORTH MONARCH STREET ASPEN CO 81611 S & A EQUIPMENT COMPANY UNIT 1-A, JEROME PROF. SUITE 101 BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN CO 81611 SHERRY T. RYAN UNITS 1-C, 1-D & 1-E, JEROME PROF. BLDG. 715 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 THOMAS C. HILL AND UNITS 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, 2-D, JOSEPH B. KRABACHER 2-E, JEROME PROF. BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE 201 ASPEN CO 81611 TRUEMAN ASPEN CO. LOTS 1 AND 4, TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COM. PROJECT 4355 DAVIDSON RAOD HILLIARD OH 43026 UNITED STATES PO-_ L SERVICE 4- )ST OFFICE 235 PUPPYSMITH ASPEN CO 81611 WALTER P. AND ELIZABETH H. PAEPCKE LOTS 6-12, VACATED STR. , C/O MORRISON AND MORRISON LOTS 1-11, BLOCK 2, 105 WEST ADAMS STREET LAKEVIEW CHICAGO IL 60603 WILLIAM G. BRUMDER LOTS N, 0, P, Q, BLOCK 72 ASPEN 2054 FIRST WISCONSIN TRUST CO. MILWAUKEE WI 53201 WILLIAM G. PARZYBOK, JR. LOTS R & S, BLOCK 72, ASPEN 606 SKYSAIL LANE FORT COLLINS CO 80525 WILLIAM L. SEGUIN LOTS A & B, BLOCK 72, ASPEN P.O. BOX 2067 ASPEN CO 81612 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 232 E. HALLAM AVE., CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 10, 1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by Dick and Linda Roberts, represented by Stryker/Brown Architects, requesting conceptual development approval for a 496 sq.ft. addition to the property located at 232 E. Hallam Ave., Aspen, and described as a tract of land comprising all of Lots R and S, Block 71, in the City and Townsite of Aspen on a portion of vacated Hallam Street, according to the Willit's Map recorded December 6, 1949 in Plat Book 2 at Page 37 as Reception No. 97096, and a portion of unplatted Section 7, township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., the entire parcel being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the South West Corner of Lot M, Block 71, City of Aspen; thence N 14 degrees, 50'49" E 163.12 feet; thence S 78 degrees 23'00" E 66.08 feet; thence S 22 degrees 58'00" E 116.19 feet; thence S 12 degrees 59' 00" W 75.09 feet to the Northerly line of Hallam Street; thence N 75 degrees 09'11" W 139.65 feet to the point of beginning, City of Aspen, Colorado. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on January 22, 1993. City of Aspen account pub.notice.232ch.cd PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis President (303) 925-1766 Â· (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that LINDA PACE GOLDSBURY is the owner in fee simple of the following described property: PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Subject to easements, rights-of-way and encumbrances of record. This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is ~yrnisl~ed for informational purposes only. 6 A Tttj NU #ITKIN .rn /BY: at 1 awk?16(z~d s~nature DATED: ~Y~3-0~-1990- -3ftNUARy el 1 94 3 VS'~~'~1;40.72*:t~~t:. .771,- ' wa- --SESÂ£/14&24#8208*449*6*Â£<4--7 10- 47% -iAN;~p~*Â·.jQSY M â€ž _~ DEE--Od W- Pringâ€¢. *r.J Stâ€¢tt,r â€¢r, co. Celer.d. S.rl... oâ€¢.. ri,â€¢ 09%113_-- , --%.4 ..*-.-55.11:LF/' i *Maaw MadeXâ€¢K...the....1.612. dny of Februrry , in t' e >rar of mir T.rd one thimâ€¢ind nine : ine 4 Forty Eight. ., botwern..Fra.nces E. Metherly, R widow, Joser!.ine Votherly Ennlon, ~ hundred and. ,l~ Jaes.3 Â·....fether.17,..parties JOitkKAÂ®*:21:,t.Kkeole.dÂ». of tho first part. an,: Roma j no Anne Lill 3. her solo and serarDLe . t.wal//M Xi f esta te.,,...tte party. imkkoeigbetâ€¢ZI:dÂ£.bonodn, of the second part > ~ 1*fcÂ®~~. th, Tiwt tlic said part............of the first part, for and in m:Â·,Ficlerntir,!, of Â£1 c 1,~Im â€žf Four Hundred Fi f ty t. Utr.14&319Â·01130?..im@rfÂ·câ‚¬Â·,Â·- - Â·3 - -Â·Â·ZÂ· ------.---------- Ipe:,1.,At'Â·IÂ· ~'AtlÂ·Â·,baney.g.fi~~rierA'#rFEKir :iand paid by tlic wil I>:irt...... ...of t!.cÂ· 5ren!1,1 I,nrf, t' ed&61!3~tdÂ·:4'( iâ€¢ !;;1~~~5Â· FRM:%~M ,~rt.no,1- ~,;,~ ~ . to CDOS*AX'Â¤~mxxololm{*Â»01*77301*30*X=kbijl{OalrKIEd.X:]al 1,1 thes, pre9etti,4... . xps:Â®xy:*re,i..,Â·, 1:ext*XKXX=Z')1:tt-Clum/ -A bmt--do Wm L ~t;-he id pirt--y....-of the second part".'Uld...110 .-hellcirs and ass,gr Â·:Oxxocx 11,1 the 711â‚¬5:*i:Ex,dxkxxKx)[kx,QX)~1~Xmler'g:F~R~ . Iici mi*gr*b,xfv)Â£4114)c#]toExotbe]d. certal.n lots. pieces.. or . %*10617.!X:{Ixix*k:zzin tl:e norcels n lan s . n the 'ti. I~,1~~~~~~~~nd State of Colorado,*M:*Itx and bounded and particularly described ns follows, to-wit: Beginning st' Cor. No. 1, the S. W. Cor. of Lot M, B]cck 71 of the Asren Townstte, whence Cor. 90.5 of Asrgn Townsite bears N 37Â°32' W. 763.6 ft. Thence N. 14050 E. 172.13 ft. to Cor. ro. ; w. Cor. Thence S, 77029' E to intersection of easterlv line of Lot N, Block 71 extended north, ;Ai, being Cor. No. 3, Thence southorly on said easterlv line of Lot N, extendnd north to Cor. .2 the S,E, Cor. of Lot N, Block 71. Thence westerly on a stralght lino to Cor. No. 1 the 9 Noâ€¢ 4, ~ place of beginning. *This deed meaning 8 convey Lots 1 and N, also kno# as Lots R and 5, Block 71 or Asnen . -site, also that portion of a parcel of land deoded to E. D. Grenamvre bâ€¢ tho Hallam Lend ;~any end ov her to Michael Kelly, and by said Michael Kelly to Grantor heroin. Adjoining the Above described lots on the North, of the same width ns sold two lots And extending in the some direction in which the two lots lr'v to the northerlv line of sold noreel - of land decded to E. D. Grenamyre by the Hallam Land Co. ~ St ETE - AF NEW MEXICO, ) 1 COUNTY OF BERNALILLO )ss. On this leth day of February, 1948, before me personally appeared \ FRANCES E. HETHERLY, JOSEPHINE HETHERI,Y HANLON and JAMES A. HETHERLY, to mo l,nown te be tho > .ersons described in and who executed the foregoing Instrument and act,r.owled[Zed that: they executed the same as their free act and deed. witness my hand and seal the day and rear last above wr: tten. W. T. O'Sullivan NOT,1 RIAL 0 ,~ My commission expires W. T. 0'Sullivan, Notary Public / Publte. SEAL "otar>Â· conimi.salon expires 4-18-49 Together w: th all and singular the tenements, hered! toments and arourtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and reme;nders, rents, ~ issues, Snd profits thereo f. said premises, together with the appurtenances, r.unto 1 To Have and to Hold, ' - Lk,ZWERM* all and Bingular thel,puoc;:pcxxoc**Ixontootx:tte,co,xbolxboxp<Â¤.=DUOWCâ€¢6*~[ttl[M=mx - a-~~ m'tbrprKAX.Xxote:KABKOZZ+X~110(i]2(m,[RMON<BlwelXKKax only 3, u , w 1, , unto *knsithobolkolethe said part...y......of the second part,....A..aer... ..heirs an,1 assigna, forever. Gmt k I In Witness Whereof, The uid parties._of the first part ha.....Y.0..hereunto set.. their .hands and seat..8..the day and year first L ; above written. ' Franc.es.E. .Hotherl.Y.. ....... -8=26 SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN Â·rin, PREsINCE OF ~ 79 ..-UQ-, -Wa Josephine Hetherly Hanlon 922 92 / .--j ..U.J Jemes A. Het.herly. ':Ii' STATE OF COLORADO, iss. County of Pitkin. 3 The foregoing instrument wa,I acknowledged before me thf.. . day of................ ....... 'Witness my hand and omcial seal. t My Commission expires... NoTARY 1'11,â€¢Lte. C. STATE OF COLORADO, ' in .,1,1 for i lof County of Pitkin. E nid County, in t!,n State aforesatd, do hereby ccrUfy that... Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·+Â· 10.01 ; .... ..... ... . per-nalty known â€¢fore b ................. Â£ of + to me to be the person......whose name. ...Nubseribed to the foregoing If'ced, Appeared before ' i. me t},1, day In Porâ€¢OD, And acknowledged that. ..signed, stalled and de)lvered 11,0 in],1 initrument of i ..............,free and voluntary act, lor the ums and purposes therein act forth. , writing as............ P .{. t ' Given under my hand and. ...seal, this . .day Of ..,19 1 My Comminion expires.... ...... FBed for Jecor d the_...29th_..day of-APE.1-1-Â·Â·- Â·, A. D. 194.8, at_4Â·'.04..0'clock.-P.Â·.M. .._ y .M...Fe i hard t ...... ...RECOâ€¢DZE. : RPER. i D.ury. By ..41 ..C...Itaplaton. ---Am PITYÂ· i No 8 - -~ ~..1Lli_,_~.12~M~Â£1~6:.93*~.12=~Liz4~-,1.1.=L..~ 70- 473 jol Ir.- r.-1~1106*11[ DEE~412 W-, I' rintin, an,1 91*tin â€¢.r, co.. EZZS.EYZ122~-ELL~L___ E #92,1.L<- ~~~==a.315$:s:~=:=:sÂ·--INDENTURE, Made x=...the....lath. ..day of Februnry , In ItÂ·e year of nitr T..rd ine thni,ail nine undred and.. . For.tyÂ· Eight.. .,between..Fra.nces.E..Hetherly, R widow, Joserhine Votherly Ennlon, ; Jamp<.ft... 12'.th.orly'...Parti,es .-.- fir ~~~IDQ**1*~111Vdic#war*zx/ARDÂ»ledÂ»,of the first part, and Remal no Anne Lilly, her solo and separete ........ estate,...t.he. .party xÂ¢dblikixtrli rjo*oambst,Irt*:mlole/% of the second part F Witneâ€¢seth, TI,at the .aid part............of the first part, for and in considerntion of t!.rÂ· rim i,f ----- 14 owl. narl forever fi 'Â° *, *P~'~%31(RI)(INXR,flkxod-*ajox,0$*ck]KZ)(0â€¢kxâ‚¬kâ€¢=*XEd 1,1Â· t !~ese present* AE ..... 1,5,7**x re ,r.,s,â€¢ i * *x RÂ·*70(Auaf)11 It- (:11!n,/ 'aim , . Â· Jabxx,7.]EX,IJUR;t,CK H tlie ~. ~h~'~id pd-~lm~f~bxcxs~~o~dix~r~~~l~~citu~.Ga~~~~h~~a~~a':~:22:412Â°325:trK)tkmAU:Fxl:E9'ft ~%3 nOred19 ' the 5, Xid,~~1,~~~kint and State of Colorado, SOCK'tx and bounded and particularly described M follows, to-wit: 3 Mginning at' Corâ€¢ No. 1, the s. w, c or. of Lot M, 13]cck 71 of the Asren Townsite, whonce Cori c of A3â€žn Townslte bears N 37032' Wâ€¢ 763.6 ft. Thence N. 14Â°58' E. 173.13 ft. to cor, 1,0 2 ~'Â·~ Cor. Thence S. 77Â°29' E to intersection of easterly 1 ine of Lott N, Block 71 extended north, ~ thib being Cor. No, 3, Thence southerly on said easterlv line of Lot N, extended north to Cor. No, 4, the S.E. Cor. of Lot N, Block 71. Thence westerly on a straight line to Cor. No. 1 the place of beginning. %.1 - knis deed meaning t6 convey Lot8 M and N, also know~ Zots R anl*Â¥; Bloek 71 or Asnel?4 I te, also that portion of a parcel of land deeded to E. D. Grennmyre b, the Hallam Lend ti ~a~, end Or her to Michael Kelly, and by said Michael Kelly to Grantor heroin. Adjoining the above described lots on the North, of the sgrne width ns said two lots ord extending in the same direction in which the two lots 1" to the northerly line of se'.d nareel | of lond deeded to E. D. Brenamyre by the Hallam Land Co. h.21 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ) On this 16th dav of February, 1948, before me personal'.v appeared ~ OUNTY OF BERNALILLO ) ss. ~RANCES E. HETHERLY, JOSEPHINE HETHERLY HANLON and JAMES A. HETI:ERLY, to mc t.nown to Le tho ~ 4 -ersons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledgod that they i executed the same as their free act and deed. 1 Witness my hand and seal the day and year last above written. ~OTAMA~ 3 W. T. C'Sulliven (SEAL/ i 1 4 xy commission expires W. T. 0'Sullivan, Notary Public NotirÂ· Publ : c. coninisalon expires 4-18-49 Together â€¢dth all and singular the tenements, heredltament3 and annurtenances thereunto bolonging,E or in anywise appertainlng, and the reversion and reverstons, remainder and remainders, rents, 0 issues, end profits thereof. sal.d premises, together with the appurtenances, Imytti[MitvoX unto .Â· 1 To Have and to Hold,lapekillze41Â®qotjunou(* ail and Bingo tar thomâ€ž100:DocK,co{*trMits= 001; 6 St~et,tmKXm]ImM,tkIXIK*mtKNil;hx,djomatcton~lxet,!xkotiet=0QX~1~TanklrfirKXXXXotÂ¢j,Kj{MI,metm~MOAMmIRKINI??(KMREMOIPX 1 =to minejxeobx=6**Addeboxirilthe Haid part...y......of the second part'....A...n Or.........heirs ant! n.slign, forever. | In Witness Whereof, The said partles-_of the first part hL.Y.0..hereunto set.....their.. .. liands and ned..8.-the day and year first ~ 2 . above written. ' Frances E...Hotherly. ..2:B tt ' SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF ~ Josephine.Hetherly Hanlon .-gre@ ...James. .A... Hetherly.... ..2 . ..8 ======= STATE OF COLORADO,1 > SS. County of Pitkin. J The foregoing instrument wa. acknowledged be.fore me tid, . 19... .., by... day of....................................Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·, Witness my hand and omeial seal. d My Commisfion expire... ., NOTAHÂ¥ 1'111]LIC. STATE OF COLORADO, .... .1 1â€ž And for i for . County of Pitkin, Ed Co unty, in tl,n State aforesaid, do hereby certify that. own _ .... ... perMonally known ..iubecribed to the foregoing Derd, appeared before .fore to me to be the person......whose name. ot of . .. signed, aeated an,1 delivered the mal,1 Initrument of , me lib day in pernon, and acknowledged that. writing 88.............-.............free and voluntary act, tor the u,oa and purpo,es therein Bel fortli. ..rhy of ..,A. D. If). , 17. ...seal, this . Given under my hand and ' 19. , My Commiaion expires. j Â· IWed for record the.....2.Qth_.day of.AR<11 ........, A. D. 19_4.8, at-4.:9.5...o'crock..P.â€¢t.IL ._.M .M. ._Nelhard.t.. ............~...........RECOMDER. ~ DEM. -cÂ·rlÂ·. . By .,8.5...Stapleton..............~...--DuM'YL~~ , 9 I I .....-* . .' 11 43 98 iRa "3 Â»-Â·Â·Â·pi #Â·Â· Â·- /7-AffE.7~'*Â·~nf-.e=*r â€ž11 1., k. ~. 1.~ 4 STRYKER/ BROWN ARCHITECTS,PC January 12, 1993 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: The owners and residents of the home at 232 E. Hallam, Dick and Linda Roberts, believe that their desire to convert their home to a duplex is compatible with the historic nature of their dwelling and is compatible with the historic neighborhood which bounds the property on the east, south, and west sides. Their planned addition is situated in such a way as to be nearly unnoticeable, from any public area in the neighborhood. It will be visible, however from the commercial zone below the hill to the north. The addition therefore, has been designed to resemble the existing "modern" architecture on that side of the home. The proposed addition will match the existing structure's details and materials thereby exhibiting only a minimal visual effect. Based on my understanding of Aspen's "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" the proposed development: A. Is compatible in character with the designated historic structure on the parcel and on the adjacent parcels. No known setback encroachment exists or is anticipated, B. Is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, C. Enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel or on the adjacent parcels, D. Enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof, Please review this Significant Historic Development Application for "Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet," per your Application Package Attachment #3a. Please inform me immediately if any herein is missing or not correct. Thank you for your attention to this matter. t a sintereiyt i 9/ 4A4 ) P#*0Â«4-- Wayne Stryker, AIA 300 S.SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303Â·925Â·2254 925Â·2258 (FAX) ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name Dick and Linda Roberts Addition 2) Project Location 232 East Hallam Avenue, Aspen, CO Lots M&N Block 71 ( indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Lot Size 19,592 Sq. Ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address, & Phone # 303.925.2709 6) Representative's Name, Address, & Phone # Wayne Stryker Stryker /Brown Architects, P.C., 300 South Spring, Aspen, CO 81611 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual Use rorsr- Conceptual Historic DJ Special Review Final SPA 2nd Final Historical Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condominimization Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment GMQS Exemption 8) Description of Existing Use (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). Single family detached residence with approximately 4,250 sq. ft. and four bedrooms. The property has historic designation. 9) Description of Development Application: Single story duplex addition of approximately 496 sq. ft. which will be designed to precisely match existing construction details and materials. 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear, fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"x17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x 17" format. APPLICANT: Dick and Linda Roberts ADDRESS: 232 E. Hallam Avenue, Aspen, CO. 81611 ZONE DISTRICT: R-6 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 19,592 Sq. Ft. EXISTING FAR: 4.250 ALLOWABLE FAR: 4,669.6 (duplex) PROPOSED FAR: 420 Crew) EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): NA PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): NA EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 17% PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 2110 EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (commercia): NA PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (commercial): NA EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bld.: Approx. 28 ft. / Accessory Bld.: NA PROPOSED MA*MUM HEIGHT: Principal Bld.: Same / Accessory Bld.: NA PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 1% (for new common wall) EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 5 (lnew) EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 5 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 5 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: UZEL Front: 10 Ft. Front: ..17 Ft. Rear: 41 Rear: Rear: 25 Side: 10 Side: 521 5- Side: 10 Combined FrURr: 58 Combined Fr#Rr 30 Combined Fr#Rr: _42 EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ none known ENCROACHMENTS: none known VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Only:character compat. finding must be made by HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined FrVRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): a -7 p- 7 f 7:0-*LY# 1 L 8 9 to 11 1213 14110 18| .4, 1-,â€¢L 04 N/0/ 3, i I18456 654321 J.H i . 1 1, N\ - V,4LI '41 P D ---1 L.:9 :ECTY- PUPPY UITH 4 ---2- L - SC 1 . 345 843 4 H 1- . i r.[ e 9 :1 < 4k,4 7 7 . j 1 77 1 . , e 0 9 6 1 to ---- , . 4 11 (SPA) ' f K.: : t 1 Z. n - ' . 4* 8 _ . ...... 1 - 0 NC I . i H ~ h .- _9 , 2 .. . 6. - - -. 1 (S PA) 1. *8 W. HALL AM ST. * /--r ./I- _ - - -- t 00 I [H .. I ..t 1' f.. L- Z --: o - --r' . - -- ...'I-/'.,1... -I...-Il.- 'I- 0 a lÂ¥ P t. . 01 H ' 11' H-; - 1 ,.- -1 *,6 + , tr- ' 4 , ' ti | M I : ':bit - /.1--1/.<.- 1 W. BLEEKER ST. - Ll. 1 9 ... 6. -i.-' -&4*. * r Â·Â·, It ai ~ Â· ir - --- 1/7- 1 V w. .0 1 8 ' F - P 43 - , F 0 1-41 - 62 - , ir Z ' $ LiZ t:grvizr9 â€¢ (iD El @ 9- 41 0 L.- -: .= 1 1 4, 6 1 21 -1 0#0 .1 41' 1 Z $' D I , ! 0 1 - Ju,Tjr I i, '' --9 1 r 34 -7 -'r fll. *le. -- . ....J I .f . f I -I ---, 0 I ' I. I ./-* MAIN 4-Z#Z . 49-- . 3 274.1$/0 .1 1 / 75/ I:-/ . - t'.* 46-, -,4- ~, .1:4 1 .61 00 E': =pi & 2 0 06 -1 1, 2 4 *.. â‚¬5Â»E-f 03 0 0-10/1- 1-, .2 0 0 Wi - --14:21.0 0 . - I-/ - I I. . 1 5 lIli -Il - : [1 [ i-Â¢06.1 ... - 01 - 1 2 1 H H4 - T H It r. 13., L.~*it i ' irl . 0 94 - U. 1 , Â©1 : - r : 9 PAEPCKE .. 1 - 6. 11 - Â§ -1--'l 1 -J -9... 1, , .1 P . 1~-1- :; lit-11 k , - ' li -~ fÂ· 'â€¢E, PARK:,1 1 : H 9. - *11 3 c L.(ti,-T ,~Hy m - 1 11 1 11 1 . 0,1, ./4 ..-0-0.1 1 1. . 4. I 1 1--11 N THIRD ..}10&1Â¥N JUN- 5-90 SAT 16:56 PPI FRESH P.02 LINDA 111(]c GOT.l)SiNTRY :3(17 11Â·.REP.1.6 NOAH) SAN ANTONIO. 1'}EXAS 78200 June 05, 1990 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Eflin: Please know hereby that Wayne Stryker of Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C., 300 S. Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, 925-2254 is my authorized representative to act on my behalf in regard to my application for approval for changes and additions to my residence at 232 E. Hallam Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Sincerely, 1346-* 0-7 Linda Golds~ury LPG/slh ~ * j 1-â‚¬ lt- 3/Â· Â·ts/ /99 3 COMMONWEALTH ~ LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A Reitaire 6,04 Ip Holdiligs Conipairy POLICY 90. 128-015415 CASE NO. PCT-3906 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land comprising all of Lots R & S, Block 71, in the City and Townsite of Aspen on a portion of vacated Hallam Street, according to the Willit's Map recorded December 6, 1949 in Plat Book 2 at Page 37 as Reception No. 97096, and a portion of unplatted Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., the entire parcel being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the South West Corner of Lot M, Block 71, City of Aspen; thence N 110 1 -i 50'49" E 163.12 feet; thence S 78Â°23'00" E 66.08 feet; thence S 22Â°58'00" E 116.19 feet; thence S 12Â°59'00" W 75.09 feet to the Northerly line of Hallam Street; thence N 75Â°09'11" W 139.65 feet to the point of beginning. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. liliâ€ž~ F 'll -I'.-1.'*..al-=,1- 1-1- 1 9/0/Al#LE Â· - 4 11111:111 41 lit ROOF C'. ir Â· f 4.41,1 1 1 .... 311, 111111 . .1.1~ ; 1 iMI !111 '4 -111 11 1 :1 + f 14 1 -: .1*1 . ' ..7.).Fll Â¥ Â· 1 -:*2.no~.41, 1,=.p/'1.-aL i ~ 11 Â· L 3 11'll '14,1 . .11 6. 5Â¥ b .., .. 1 1$1 ~â€¢ 1-;~' 'lb*j: 1 Â·Iii.~*}Ilm., ~ 11:; .92 Â· Â· N. 4 . i 4 -r 9. 11.14+.1 411.i. . 4. I . ..11 2 ' 11,1 *fllÂ¢ : 4.' ' I ' " -' '",~11/ ty #,j. 1 11[146;111,9 . ..Ir-1.~ 1.1,111,111..1: 1.,1 1 , 1 f h . $ 4 .1 -'Ii=.9/ p. '~14 /4 w-H,1.97'".c.*.~A* 7F//" V. 4, WUMNE B LUE C 9 FA,7 4 - -1 / * / age/:2 4/0/9 t I./A J.0 1/ ki I-Â· 3 -/1, 1 ' .4 111.4Â¢ '14 li 4IA . 4 4, 1 9, . a . A- 1 . - . - 9 . i : 1.,3... 0:r:.. %6 -; * 7.L@L 21 .' 4 ' :.: '.. 1 )4-441 1, 9 A. . l.#14*41,:0. 9 +**Â·m 41 -- =-- ~~ ~: - -Â· l,-Â·t<91Â»Â»<2*7;7 - .....,ir.,42-1.-rflf...3,~Â·~ ' - ' r . i ; t 4 - . t, I / Â· 1 -p: I .. 4/ V- 1 9 57 1 -.....>/ r. I. y.,4 -/4.' I . \ 1% 4, 2/ t#r ..0.k Â· S ~ '7'i : 2 WIP,~ I , :rli -JTÂ·:,tri:i.Â·ur> . . l . 1 r 7-3 4 - â‚¬ tj'. V 1, , 1 4/3- /14/ ..7/41.44<461-j 1,/ Liwdwil....1 1 r /m. . . 9 , .//1 .AS k ... 1; P., -,/ 7 15 h 53',1 - 448-mul'IN!"'~Erra:900+ 7 -3. u. . 7,900'772125/ / - 4.' efrÂ·h' -Â· 0,1 .Kill~*:74'947# ..1 - '' 1 / r AL ..lÂ«-n , < ., 9 7 . . 3 1, c . 1~-ft?: 7:.Â·~:'23Â·t,>>Â¥-1,. - ~rp-Â¢.f. ~: . 1 t'Ofâ€ž5/: r . .h- 't , , A:F:i. i ~ ..1 , .. 20 - .r.. â€¢rÂ¥~ - ,=.0*â€ž.0..0..- ._ .\1 ) 'Dqi i'. .r I. , '**r,6â€¢NAL~=tz~ .t. ,~Â·EdÂ·Â· I- I 14 2.4 . 19 4-1 91: 4,241*69*, ' 0 4Â£1 5/M2Ge 8 1$ , 1 ' AT--4 '42 .. . ....1.- ' 7 9 *11 I ..b, , i,.1 , ~i; . a 8-/ -ff ~-U; ~i '~:liil 1-li'' . 1 '1 . :6... 0. '. '1k/} c :i , &1i 3,1/" li 5- .4.. .... 1 4. :â‚¬2 #i , lp 'ill'â€¢,â€¢.: 6 4. '11 4 j . , ,; 0,4 .} 0 1Â·14 W ' I: 4 1 1111111,- Â· i .f--4 â‚¬ 34 ':t ' , j' 1,&~. ~t'(// i,Â· 171. I .$ 1 /, *frat R. 1 -4 5 ' 44 32:.1 Â·1 21. '.:04:}~~ 1 ~ Â¢4LK-,iâ€¢ r i 4$.f.41 ; 10; IÂ·/.- I * ff ''1'*M! 4 if l'.11:@:. ..... ........b, El- f, f fli'lÂ· I 1 '/* . 7 ~/ ' .: FILL_ . 90 . 4 1 ./ . 1 .. Â· , .4 7 ~.Jt.d'â€¢. ,~3 9r â€¢ ' . ir ' I. t,Gh LEEET....* )' . ,4 0 +0 1 1 , 1 , , I .... Av K 1 *i WRE- * . L.- '. .. .0~~6 16.j~~l.4 , ' Â·', . Â· 193~1.- '.,2 t f I : ...' 'I j ' .. f Â· 44.-/. .1 ' 1 ' r u ... . 4. ' - 1. Â·Â·).1" , 9 .-im, . .. 43. V.Â¥ f 'Trf E 1 .41. t 1 62. , Thi:e f 43-4, I-, . f ,Â·?t/:Jâ€¢ -~-'I. I . - L *1 -- " c 'A . 14. 9 3 1 '' A f t. ;4.~ ./ri . 1 1 : 6. 3 3 1/4,1 1 ..4 . . L . i SITE PLAN ~ I D---1 , ~ _ SCALE l" = 10'.0" p / 1 7Â·:r 5 -- C .L r f . r 7 T v L L / 1. /\1 .// \ 1 f 1 - -- 1 4 , I 4 1 - .V . 0, EK,9. CotÂ¢24,77% p --~ / De vEWAN tw,F*68.---_ 8/ 15,904â€¢4847-,Ne - pia?rE. / FAU,â€¢r %-0.-I..I-- 1 1 I.-1 1 /1 / 1 , 1 â‚¬Al-7 kiNE / -- 11 .9222"/- - ).1 1 . 1 2 j Â¢50 6 .. 1 1 , -/// : 11 f J a / L---~1 i \ 0 \ 941-1< '0 ': 1 . . . . ... \ -1 - 44 ENTZY WAK *f"/INA 'RON FÂ®401-CS- 0 \P t. .. . 2 + L~: L T/ .C< . ..f' - L A A) 'ij . - C , 1Â£-O 2 1 1 -~15.IllICFT 92*WSÂ£/3> 4 0 9 m,N 9 F/T I . 1.. ... .- Tt~ 0 1, 0 j-2 01,7-Â¥ El tiE ~ MAsTER *061 64) nAN,ER - <sur,SLL..'C=/=1==1-3~1 4*9446 1 ~ FAMILY 12.M. _~MUPIfM__= 1{ I 0/7 11 -T- 2 *-trGMEN 64,2 Nt//~ *21 ED, *IMIN<4 6ML-1 7.DRA 27/2 'PhT 10 4307 0 ,rl pn,444 RM 1 j '?20/+ h T. Ir. LOWER LEVEL PLAN SCALE App mn#L-_- _ .. /9 1 EN **vul 4,4.r - ...rf: 0 .%/ 1 1 -3 I ir-Lb 1 . 1287 7 = trAP,V- -1 4/1 1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1 4 (11 ./M SCALE '/V â€¢ 2-00 Et -1 1 11 1 11 11 11 1 1, ty .. AN k . $ 0 -4.== ==- ..1 . -.Â· ,4 ,* 7-7 9 76.80 *OR rt ON ~ NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 9* , 1'- 0/' tii / 14 U r-f---1---3[Il ~ i 11 SOUTH ELEVATION 55$ VE' = C--0. Le= F' / --- If 1 .- P- 1 - 1 -A - 1'*OP.4" A-â€¢rr'-h' h a ki EAST ELEVATION SCM.Â£ 060 - 90' F f i 4 - 11 -L - int 00 -3 1 .,V. AN - - 1 L= 1 11 11=411 8242*t>520 AOPifioNL WEST ELEVATION j SCAWL.' kE-*11-22