The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.302 E Hopkins Ave.HPC021-99rly: 2/0/-U/3-ZyUUD Lase HFCO21-95 302 East Hopkins Conceptual HPC - \ Rax MP -50 CASE NUMBER HPC021-99 PARCEL ID # 2737-073-29005 CASE NAME 302 E. Hopkins Conceptual HPC PROJECT ADDRESS 302 E. Hopkins PLANNER Amy Guthrie CASE TYPE HPC Conceptual OWNER/APPLICANT 302 E. Hopkins LLC/John Davis REPRESENTATIVE Jake Vickery DATE OF FINAL ACTION 9/22/99 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION HPC Reso. 44-1999 ADMIN ACTION Approved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 6/18/02 BY J. Lindt PARCEL ID:~2737-073-29005 - DATE ji896: 16/9/99 # COPIES:~1 CASE NO|HPC021-99 - CASE NAME:~302 E. Hopkins Conceptual HPC PLNR:~Amy Guthrie .:e. . PROJ ADDR:~302 E. Hopkins CASE TYP:~HPC Conceptual STEPS1 OWN/APP: 302 E. Hopkins LLC/ ADR do ACB P.O. Box 966 C/S/Z: ~ Basalt, CO 81621 PHN:i 927-9610 REP:~ Jake Vickery ADR: 100 S. Spring #3 C/S/ZiAspen, CO 81611 PHN1925-3660 FEES DUE:~600 (hpc) ~ FEES RCVD~600 STAT: REFERRALS| BY' DUE:~ : ~ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED -122* . .94@27 . Â· DATE OF FINAL ACTION:~ 12*M J CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS| pz: 1.-4Â·r ki,,9,0 6,1 - /9,?90 CLOSED:| %(R#k BY: 1 1 1.-4 MA\ DRAC: BOA: ' ' M . I .sU PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK,PG): ADMIN: . A#FtsÂ¥4 -". 1 2 ~/ 0-1$ 6Â· 6Â· y..14 '.Â· M. Â©ME k .. Â· r :ls,Â·s.:slÂ·*6 2 L y***4 ~ 2 ~~+ 1 '+ + -b DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.01 O, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of the Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption from expiration, extension or reinstatement is granted or a revocation is issued by the City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. 302 E. Hopkins LLC, Box 966. Basalt, CO 81621 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number 302 E. Hopkins, Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property HPC Amendment Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan HPC Resolutions 44-99 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) December 3, 1999 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) December 4,2002 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 3rd day of December, 1999, by the City of Aspen Community DeveleRment Directon 4_LU-- ,Â«4Â·~3\ Julie A,4 Woods, Community Development Director V G.Planning.Aspen.forms.DevOrder PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 302 East Hopkins Avenue of the City and Townsite of Aspen, by Resolution No. 44, Series of 1999 of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. For further information contact Julie Ann Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. s/Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk, City of Aspen Publish in The Aspen Times on December 3, 1999. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Direct Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Directo~*~D ' FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation -Public Hearing (Continued from August 25, 1999) DATE: September 22, 1999 SUMMARY: This property is a designated historic landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The applicant requests conceptual, partial demolition, and on-site relocation approval to build a new commercial structure at the rear of the lot. HPC has held a site visit and conducted six meetings regarding the project. At the last meeting, a hearing on August 25th, the Commission passed the following motion by a 4-3 vote: 1. Eliminate the third floor. 2. Minimize the landing in the interior courtyard, and begin the stair rise at the earliest point allowable by the UBC so that the visibility of the stairway and courtyard will be reduced significantly. 3. Add an overhead door at the trash storage area. 4. HPC shall waive the "Residential Design Standards." 5. Restudy the north and south elevations ofthe new building. A revised proposal addressing these conditions has been provided. APPLICANT: John Davis, represented by Vectors/Jake Vickery Architects. LOCATION: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. Commercial Core zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed - development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: This house was built in 1883, which makes it one of the oldest remaining structures in the Aspen Townsite. Throughout it' s history the structure has been used for both commercial and residential purposes. It is the only example of a "Carpenter Gothic" building in Aspen, defined by the steeply pitched roof and decorative trim on the front of the building. (Carpenter Gothic is the Gothic Revival style carried out in wood rather than stone.) In a worksession held on April 28,1999, the architect was encouraged to look at the idea of demolishing a non-historic addition to the house and moving the outbuilding closer to it, thereby freeing up the back part of the lot for a separate new commercial building. This would keep the outbuilding intact and directly related to the old house. The new building would appear to be on its own small lot, a similar concept to the historic landmark lot split. Staff finds that the suggestion at the worksession was an excellent way to remove the impacts of a new addition from the historic structures. Over the course of several meetings, HPC was presented with revisions of the design, which the Commission indicated did not meet their review standards. At the August 25th meeting, specific direction was given to eliminate the third story on the new building and make other modifications to bring the project into compliance. The project as proposed is well under the maximum allowed floor area of 4,500 square feet. The applicant has identified on the drawings where modifications have been made. The third floor has been eliminated from the new structure, the stair to the basement has been moved back somewhat, a garage door has been added to cover the trash storage area, and the north and south elevations of the new building have been simplified. In addition to those changes required by HPC, the applicant proposes to use the second floor of the new building for commercial rather than residential space, to enlarge the existing lightwell on the west side ofthe house, and to reduce the size ofthe mechanical room in the basement. 2 . Staff finds that the proposal as revised has improved significantly. There are not direct impacts to the historic structure, the new building is architecturally compatible and in scale with the old house, and the site plan in general is acceptable. Further explanation is needed from the architect as to why the existing lightwell is proposed to be enlarged and why the stairs to the basement cannot be recessed further from the street than the 2' that is presented in these plans. The revision to the staircase does help to establish a ground plane around the shed, but staff still has concerns with how this lightcourt will affect the character of the building. For final review, the architect should identify the location for any future rooftop mechanical equipment and verify that the equipment can be adequately screened from the pedestrian view. In regard to the landscape plan, two existing crabapple trees will be removed as part of this proposal. The City Forester has required that the Douglas-Fir and Rocky Mountain Juniper trees in the public right of way be preserved and protected during construction, which shall be a condition of final approval. The front and side of the house will remain grass, but a basement will be placed under the rear one third of the site, so that any grass in that area will be eliminated. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The site is located in the Commercial Core, where residential buildings are all exception to the surrounding building patterns. These structures have proved particularly difficult to preserve given the development potential for the sites. Staff finds that the project will fit into the character of the surrounding area, where the Commercial Core transitions into a less intense commercial and lodging neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The house will be preserved unchanged from its historic appearance, and will still have a strong relationship to the historic outbuilding, therefore staff finds that the proposal will not detract from the historic significance ofthe property. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The new building is only approximately 2'6" taller than the existing house. The architecture of the new structure does reflect the era in which the house was built, allowing the buildings to have a successful relationship to each other. W PARTIAL DEMOLITION Applications for partial demolition must meet all o f the following review standards: 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a rear addition on the existing house. Building permit records indicate that a basement was put under part of the house in 1958 and the addition was made in 1960. Staff finds the addition does not contribute to the historic significance ofthe parcel. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The area of demolition is not original or significant. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is addressed under the conceptual review standards. ON-SITE RELOCATION Applications for on-site relocation must meet all of the following standards: 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The outbuilding is to be moved so that an appropriate location for new construction can be created on the site. The outbuilding will maintain prominence on the site and in fact will be set closer to the street. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. 4 Response: Said report, from a structural engineer or housemover, shall be a condition of final approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: Financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be required as a condition of final approval, along with a plan for how the building will be moved and stored during construction. The outbuilding willlikely have to be temporarily stored off-site. STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to final approval or issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered). â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to grant approval for the conceptual development, partial demolition, and on-site relocation for the project located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue for the project as presented on September 22, 1999 with the following conditions: 1. At the September 22nd meeting, further explanation is required from the architect as to why the existing lightwell is proposed to be enlarged and why the stairs to the basement cannot be recessed further from the street than the 2' that is presented in these plans. 2. For final review, the architect is required to identify the location for any future rooftop mechanical equipment and verify that the equipment can be adequately screened from the pedestrian view. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated September 22,1999. B. Revised application. 5 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, AND ON-SITE RELOCATION FOR NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOT K, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, John Davis, represented by Jake Vickery Architects, has requested conceptual approval, partial demolition, and on-site relocation approval for the property located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated landmark. The project involves demolishing a non- historic addition to the existing house, relocating the shed on site, and building a new commercial structure at the rear of the lot; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design. massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the " parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and 1 WHEREAS, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory o f Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(C) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, nannely: 1.Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance o f the parcel; and 2.Standard: The applicant has mitigated. to the greatest extent possible: a.Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. b.Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure; and WHEREAS, all applications for on-site relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an tI" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the following Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(D)(2),(3), and (4) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. namely: 1.Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 2.Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and 3.Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated September 22, 1999, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 22, 1999, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of _ to THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That conceptual, partial demolition, and on-site relocation for 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the September 22, 1999 meeting, be approved with the following conditions: 1. At the September 22nd meeting, further explanation is required from the architect as to why the existing lightwell is proposed to be enlarged and why the stairs to the basement cannot be recessed further from the street than the 2' that is presented in these plans. 2. For final review, the architect is required to identify the location for any future rooftop mechanical equipment and verify that the equipment can be adequately screened from the pedestrian view. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of September, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Sheetl 302 EAST HOPKINS PROJECT DATA 8/25/99 REVISED 9/8/99 VECTORS/JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS r~ 4.â€¢ ~~ F':-Â·Ar- 7..4 ttÂ·R :jil,j~,2<~tr;.f:,f'. 4 --r- ... r, t. AREA GROSS SQ. FT. F.A.R. SQ. FT. ~ NET LEASIBLE SQ. FT. EXIST. DEMO. NEW TOTAL EXIST. DEMO. NEW TOTAL ~ EXIST. DEMO. NEW TOTAL BASEMENT 1120 -221 1074 1973 0000~ 627 627 GROUND 1277 -221 755 1811 1277 -221 755 1811 ~ 1061 -190 491 1362 SECOND 792 792 792 792 ~ TOTAL 2397 -442 2621 4576 1277 -221 1547 2603~ 1061 -190 1118 1989 DECKS 189 189 OPEN SPACE 1865 -913 952 liC ' 1*Vt>â‚¬*AS- 5Â£22 ,* :1*NAP_ Paqe 1 700 '11. -h i .- 1 . 1 1 ALLEY 30,00' 1 . -71 1 1 -% 30 1 P n CD - m 0 1 01 1 8 / .1. l 1 1 1 1 3 Ly 1 01 0 i .jÂ· 1.43 74 1 1 lf) i O + KFIE 11 -1 C , M In 19 I R 1 il ~~ 3---- ! I 1 1 11 13Â»- .--1 !-ON ---21 31 11 12 , Z===El 11 I 1 O 4 Z r 1> , 30 1 -- -- 1 6 090000: 1 I - d 1 x i 3,Â» ----i U) dÂ©Jil)&27 &0 1 f te - : 7-1 /, M-'B V -1 1 .1 8 1 Â»91' i * 5 1 I j *41 > rn 1 11 O 2' '. p an - 8 11 - 1 b. - 1 A / R ill r C 20 ! 31 1 f-, r,i N g 1 1 1 , hl 3 \i i ./ Cm) N .0 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 /~r-13\--11 1 r ' 1 1 i i 1-1 F I 1 30 00 ----/ 11 &45 41? â‚¬ ii' 4 .. 1 .- 0 . 4 11, C C = 6.01 - ;..ift,fi,>*F'76.-"~~ .Â· ,-.,.: ' 1 , Â·Â·0 I 'Â·7 )'Â·~' ' ...-.: 9 EAST HOPKINS AVE, , 1> PROPOSED NS NEW ADDITION ' VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS M SITE 9 ROOF PLAN 302 BAST HOPKI ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (97r .3660 1 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET .00'001 9 ~ 1 0~1 1%79- ~ 'j J 2.-9. 1 . L 10-0. i -4' f9 -- 14 3 MOLE.Â£8 -.. , !1 11 14. 1'-- A 1 i 1 11 ': A 'M S,1 9 1 2: 9 1 - lit ! I mal m s. R m JO rÂ·rl m -0 1 1 -1 5 1 i 4 6 > 0 1 In L 1 9 U 0 1 -1 1, f t f UU_ - m .4 1 I Mi n 3-4 c - -1 1 IiI 8 - M 11 11 :1 1 11 :::91 1 1 liu 1 1 ' 1 0 1 1111 1 1 1 1 g ' lp - -,1 12,5::CJ L,10 E t. - - :11 0 8 3 31 1 -0 9 1 = liliIN a - ~ Elle =. 1 , 50. 4- 1--41 I t'.-3 . 4.-11. T-11- 1 1 ' 4 w m *ti. EM 1-11 \ 0 B 1. 1-- m 9 1 Â¥7 7 i O :. m l 0 3 - 1 te L --3- 1 ' 1-0 . O 1 15 , .'4 4~.- 0 ra - 0 . 7Â· ~f | , | | I - I'l - 1 1 1. I tv,4\, 9Â·.4Â· ~ 9*-O. T \ 1 . 1 1 1 2.=37- 19 0 1 i I A- = -5 . D 11 9 0 1 1- .1 1 4 1 . 1 1 1 1 IM tl 1 ..1 1 I,K : 11 1, FER 1 f. . 1 1 E %19 1 - 1 1 1 10 Cm , 1 11 L q Al I '1 1 .: It C L 1 1 1 lili U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 .1. 'J I 1 1 1 1 It 1 1 1 1 fl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 228 .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 /733 f 4 4 1 1> FLOOR PLANS 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (97r 4660 NEW ADDITION VECTORSpo/JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET G) z.; NV-Id bl0013 1NBAEEVa . l.; . W . I t.-- or -LK.442.,--_Â¥_f__. 30 00' -/.1- ./ A 11 ir-) 1/ 1 ..4. If % 1 4 1 i 4 8 - 1 1 , F al 1 \ 14.4 0 1 1. 1. --- I J I , FLOOR PLANS 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (970#r - 3660 NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc/ JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET 66Â· 91, 0041,30 Â»outf - . i . , .r... t. Â¥ 41:'' f 4 1 .i 7 ."//-'- A//A ITE * ~ Ili~ I , - m -1 L'/8 n 1 14., % -1 O -6 Z .- --- 1 1---12 1% l , 1 --1 li ... 4 - -Jilt.6=44-1111-LE ! ~ __ 2 - -- Â·' :1=12r -mii:Ill TT- Tnl-En-[t irl-Ti.-2-_------_- --_ 1 1 73-7 - -UÂ®1-1 li . ___-2 24 1-3-1- 2 i .- 10,0 + 7 ------... i [fufmTrfrE + -- - 4 -- 1 LL11_lilli.i 1 \ 1 11 -1----1.- . \ t A 3 -TTImlnnI a Imimmull- -7-7-11-T Vt -1-1-rÂ·T-1 1Â¢-f**r 1 \.4- 1 f l ~--=MitÂ· Â¥ ,A 1, , + J ./ I /'/ I 1 > 3 1 U Â·Â· 1 Â¢-- --- ..: 11. - , '1 - 1t / 9 .--- 5-- - -- - m.'. - &1 1% - -- -- --- - ~ 2 7, OR iii <I~ . _ - N -- - 6,%Â·i~'44 '. ':;~24Â¢bi,43*%(p +Â·p, Â·&Â·.'Â· 0Â© . 3> EXTERIOR NS NEW M i ION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 01 ELEV P -IONS 100 SOUTH SPRING ST--ET 302 tiAST HOPKE ASPEN, LORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (97 j-3660 e Mu 4 #i,Ace*6*426* (0' l,4 sronÂ¥ 1 & . 1.41. .0 , , ,"9 4.-"'."-14 - .A 1 - I t . 1 r:...5.1 1. r. ..t'' 7 , Trn nn- - - r m-* 4- 11 1 -0 'Tli| Il=1113IIm_1-I_IL - 13 1 ~] -- 1- -1- -rT-7171- 1- rl-n-r 14:906.- I.- . /4- i + 1.111111-11111111- -I_ ;t*./4 p .- U. '' 44~Ab'. ~~28.â‚¬H'I?.Â·b'~:Lf,~t N~7' . I 1 , *DiÂ·/6-4Â·.tiÂ· '2 3, I.'Â·... p.:1; : ' ----1----- -H-H,HHTilI~iI[EEL rt 4- 1 i ULI s.-Â·.-rÂ·-r-Â·r-TÂ·-r-r./1 1. Ill '-T.nlf}Â·f[El-{TITUT_-- I [frnm-I i 6 ~ LEWU-FAZLJIT.F- rn--- L - 2 -1- 37 - C - - . If 1/ t 1 1=1.111 -- -- - 1 - 1 11 t. , - , f ,/ 1 1 2 1 - . -_ -_._ ErrrErn-TI 14 90 - 8 , ItÂ·.O. 1 10'-0. 'iÂ· .'rÂ·.â€ž1 '- Â·:69,;Mi.:* , th,-i~., C zi'. F~:22â€¢41&1.-:Var .,Â· / J,-i.4.Â·~i Â·: .0,0,Â·?f' 42'.1; irl,+0'4.e;Ni 9.w#'tâ€¢ cfI~*1,~Â¥~17 '4 ?1',Â·, 4 9,.?, ..':-, 4:,42;i 't.*1,1-9':MÂ·â€¢, . 1,'44>Â·Â·4,.8,7,:%%-it,Y).,~,,~~4.~4~~~~<f,~~,~~,~ r j .Â·.9 .l.Â·,; ~-I,> 1347.3;$.>;%*5}94#1:.,d~, .?Â·5.- .,1 1 f.... 1- 1 -,1 1 1 .1 ... 4 . 1 ;.2.3.: ?15&:11(4*..fÂ·0)%10 t.:t' f/%434*12 '4~,Â§Â£~#2â€¢490 u Â·, EXTERIOR NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS ELEV ONS 302 EAST HOPTINS ASPEN, C0L0RAD0 ASPEN, CO 81812 (970) ,880 100 SOUTH SPRING STP 1 NO!1VA313 HlnOS Â» - 66â‚¬ 'it rrn. 1 1 \ 1 )226 07579~ F,mm,111 1 1'111' 1'11!1:1 â€ž1 1: 14.1.14 099Â£-97*0~[6) ZIVLB 00 'NadSV 00Â¥801')0'NBdSV SNC A313 1 1 1. S ONIHdS HlnOS 00k 91031IH0UY Al!3>10IA 3>1Â¥r / odSHO.LOBA NOI (10Â¥ MaN SNINJOH 13Â¥: ZOE k]0031)(3 <C , , , 1 .Â·'Â·~Â·' ,Â·-Â·Â·~ ~U-Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· .... ...9CC 'L, -3 ,, 4â‚¬ 9 .'h 'M ' . Or Vi P'. t + ~.Wiv~#442..:A:.4,4,12.?14,: ,. f D 4 , r 21 ''. m 1 1 1 4 1 5: :,44' C~ .~ ..,~ 1 1 : ~ 11 hi -- 1, M - =n=ED i . 27" if . - 1111-1411-1- 2 1- LE I - 1. 7~Tqr/Trrt- m. 7 11 'Â·11111Ntlli, 1 1 1 1 \ 0 0 0 . 10 1 t - [ [-1-11111 r==11 1 - ~ ~ L__ = 1, \ Fl-Timi,Tizrr _ ___ HE- 1 ~ --- 11111111_illl] L.[- - #--- ~-- --- U.111-1.11LL.LJ t 3%21-1 --7. T la5 1/- < -1 9 m /Lt< Â£012 ''i i Â· 4 D 12 1 b. ''/:1% ;2::22 ......:.: ........: . 1. 1 1 - 1 .f . 1 /0-,01 .0-*IL .0-,01 1 4 I 9 9 e Â· p! 1 Altil N,-400Â£#0 1 k. .1 ..el, : 1 11,0.:;ti,+P.%~64, 'blet'.-6< 41Â· 4.6-p,i' Al f C~.2 4.11.4 1.: 1 ...'..1.ilit': r/-,t '~ ' Â·4Â·Â·-, i,4 , 'Â· â€¢~ Â· Â·. ~, 1 JÂ·!C!' i'Â·'~~~;ddeÂ·9 Â·'m-,a: .Â·*, Â·LÂ·'Â¢:I#IN#v . .. 1. Â¢ . N0LLÂ¥A313 1S3Mlhln00 1 a , 4 -------TI.11[Ir- 1-3-:__-2---2--- ' 1- -,2 1- -~[ E -0 -r EllÂ®111 1-2- 6 : 7 0 -HO 11_1.1111111111.1111 LE_ -- '2 HESriESSE -~- -0 2--111 L. ------- - 'Ill f-IT[[4-Atill----- im_-ffil ffil_-1 - -- l.[1 lilli I.[1 . _ V ' . I 0 __ .imil :. : -1 1 Z .U --=- 29 ElitillIN :--: j - I m --- ME - I- - -- -0 1 --- - 3> d Z 1 IN O ------ Â° TTINE------ I. :' I - . 3 F-]1 ~ i t\Â©uÂ»Â«t 1% -a --- ----- - +I. -------- --- - - 1 - I EmET-2211322 ---- ----2-.~ m 11 [PDA It '09\62-1----6 -6 0 171Â»0 -7. Z |44 LA 9.0 . z jint _LE / tnTII tlilli 4- 1 HU /~ //Ild wan' 1 11 v -12119* ' 1 @* <2 -= 62.3 -S h > ~ EXTERIOR NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc/ JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 1 00 Ela 'ONS 302 EAST HOPKI ~.~ ASPEN, COLORADO ~ ASPEN, CO 81612 (97u,--6-3660 1 100 SOUTH SPRINGS- -T Sx~iED SOUTH ELEVATION NOI1Â¥A313 H.INON 1.hln O Â·Â· ,11Â· ,-Â·tD,Â£%'Â» 14Â·- I. ....4 0 0 . .-% . . - I 'le. 4.92 y . 13 A.LVAIG 4 7.BUâ€¢66 ~A 64'1'4 /.#*h Fllu lt, 26.e. 4.-P Mt eapes.e. -- 1, MTL- .S-Â£-2. NE.|-1 U FF"U- FLA:E- Uth 44kt B 442 -i/~~1 - L.~64 **,49 6% - 1â€¢Â· 4- <s..caâ€¢. t. Fâ€¢4,Â¢AA < 6.6.E- 4rt,W,4 b MÂ·fl- PLUE- f W '61 CPOW-5 , 1 -- 1 i / 1~ 1 AD â€¢616l- I df (46Â£- #14 3 _ z- z. 642 wew T,OM Y Â» I il 1: 1 .-- - i *T-' t .t- .. 442 Hf. *v' Â· 1 - i#.z,*ff-C>~1 4 P'EÂ£- MMS. /40 :.1 - 1 A z 1.0 4,12-141â‚¬- 1-1 Hâ‚¬61 1,4 + >4:9 =Aâ€¢* EA- -- 1 1 ~h 'l C U&4*INEQ 1 . ./tÂ¢:f~ ! t., -7lfu I.Fi~.i-.10-3- .*4 - - -- 1 "Lix; Dth;<'. & , a.<-r. C.Lhot:21,44 F. +105 1 1 4 1 - It 0.1 1 111-]1 1 !11 33/ HE-1-1 W P Tk.IM 1 , 28 IIi AA- F.C.4 0 -- ~#L-f >41 /122=32%.S 16 -3, NEW zsr,Â·e,l--2. 7-usH i.i i .1 . --4-U 22: r '.. I %,I â‚¬1 -' PBZ* t olt.4.rle,4,>rf- -1-rt--p~ * U.-1- $2:EF'L/Â·<Sâ‚¬Â· -*4 . ///1.,12.1, -' .14'RZ>~~ 1 Â£*MA' H .1 -- , , , 1 PRN Hu i li 11 , 5 1 :' 1 ; i , .._224 len v744\/. , 4. 4 1-/. rlYWP 1 f. i - f =76 1 1 - , M71- 12.-e \ 11. , Ze.uvi exter'ar g , 1 , 1- *TO 12-2.t-t.â€¢IKA(_ ----- :11] u h '-7 - V.- ,Â·1EU 'SHU=> +117 M Me:W l'Ae-1.â€¢ . ~*"t~~7 71 ---. - 1-42.6.6- 31-2 .,1 5 --I- 11 - --- 1 *UJ t -- --L 0 a~E ",6,- c-L f -- --.- - - 4 1- ~ . .,Â· -r. gze.., H -- - i I -* -.- -- - Fâ€¢,6.:=4... 0 :0 5 ~- 4Â£U 2..12. - -- ... 2 -i 1 Wâ€¢,reâ€¢c. 1Â»8-CÂ· e,p -3- --ILL e J : . A 6+ WO 112/M _ .-b--*. 6 -f--1~--12.- _ 0,â€¢lwri t=,2 i% j '-1 1- 1 - - E .--,1 3 b# Ll] Dj 3- . 7 . 1 T.=.PUfWP 17 - -1- nts-=t=,4.1: mlip- 1 - 41 1, 1 -4*-Â·mi jiuMitÂ®IF , *0925:fws, V. / i) _ | |~ 7- r.- - 1 -- L 11 -r. 0. /. 4 ./6-â€¢ Â· 11 -, 9 -: 6,1,i Â· ./lrIT; 11111-1 iu..0 7.1 42. 1 i- f 11 < 1 -- il--i--- CLI-.------- -I--#Il-* t: 1 1- 7--711=E--7 r 27-- -U 1 | Â· NEW 6.10 2171---/1 0Â·Â·Â·' ' U 486.1 Wrwl' â€ž Iff-J 1 l ' 1 ' erÂ» 41= .2> Iv 1 L04Upâ€¢1241 L-L/. r 5 1 02 ---- 2- 2- h=.--,rÂ·e.,L4 6 1 1 |N-| ~4.~~4--| || 1 Â¢, r i 1 -4 21.U i y -6 li ' -1 1 1 275" wipt 4 z.9 DE:*r 1 | 8! 1 ' It -4 / 1 | f r-, - 1 1 -r.#. %0 La ~ ~ + 1 lir/98 1 1 . - - 1 u----- -- - 1 -1 1 -4 -- - -2 L 2-1-*-- - - -7. 1- L-- t-L__ . ---- --Â»r - - --1-- /61271>A â‚¬>oul-H~ E.l--E>,/AT~ IONI Â»Gr tuaw *PA f , e 74 =t-d .40,11-0. M Av 0 0 1 r f ie .â€¢ lÂ·,W L â€¢ @ p. P M @ W @-- T' Cil'LI.. ' 1 i fl'i .1 ~14&01- E lp- 4. N Ji- 2 @96 1 , I. --- - - -AL:rEE*rl,9,46 Â¥ ACÂ© 1-nap# Ad>u Geraraus H. Van Moorse] Architect GIC> 14. 1-WN esl-. Aâ‚¬Â·re-W, 052. P.O.Box 3474,A.p.. Co. 81612 1 A3 0 . 0 . . . . ~----N - 44 UNAAE- f UUâ‚¬â‚¬. e..M,TÂ»'c, C,u. P,n- 2='f=4, - rewsâ‚¬- e.<15164 MO- 1 CD(b Mil- C.-e 1=.c- Vicasâ€¢â‚¬- )'A.'- 0046 VE.H.rt u.noâ€¢-1 C 414-2. 0*-1 * ep ) P-t A /34'/Alk- 23- 3 1-12 -,1,1 M . 1*+ wp FÂ»ac.,A t.law U?-Vte. M.-IL 1 + WIHP~6.,14 -- , . 11 1 il'~11 1-2 ViI EmÂ·: A iA.Z. up C-12-r~~:- 30Â·6 r./ - g.rEE:.1-2- ,=LADfp' NO FOBC k.'rk=- 1 - - UCK Wr - -1 Il' GI 1,1 11' 1 C.-,.-tw.. C.L.GKP,Air *a.H*K, 11:1.:.1 / Mt wp 52Â»geÂ£~5 :/i :Â·!1 i.:, .. ~ 191 1...4- UP TAS=-IA-----\ ,Â« i N.>tyÂ« "15 4-- - -J -I-...C- i'' 1:5;:tiÂ· ItÂ· / 9 -/f-f fhif- 4 11 , IN::il q i:k' P /Alin i 1 .: i: -L:. r-i C C.L.2- -2,1*1'1.0, /53=31.- \Â»r 1 Â·11 m ::!:f. 1 41 IIi i':Hii''liliiÂ·i / ]Ag coe-Moe. 1 1 .1 1 1 A \\ 1 RM. P - U ; Â· :. M "ill:1!/ 0: .0 - -*--_1- Â« - 1 -1-> ftÂ»*p r. J ' r -1 fO/NO *lk - : I - 49 - - - '1 -1. '~,~1 'Â· _ / /. .. T.657'L . 4 1 .. e -rt.. ft- . 4 â€¢* 4 14 11 / 14 1:,1 - 11 NEW 44- -\ A-16â€¢61 He W,/C:-e. - ----: 9724lin-T~1 112 3 . 11: u. uc .2.â€¢lwgm=M 4, i It '2Â·'MA- 12/#4'0/221-2 --TJ 7 ~ -- - - - = f >. iâ‚¬ 2 -.1 wi i 4 > 1- 4+ WIP T.WM .t' t~ _- * - -- 9 0 6 - - 6 3. 3 1,- -- r'<*r'A W:21-1 ---- 3 -1 1 +E= =tifw r- s e 9 12-444,1,4 rEC --- --- ------ 14 Hes . . . i ,i -1 -- R Hdrit,6 r f :1 Ill 11 11 : .29 . 4 '1ZLEPP . 1 I i ' i p 2--73 <4 4- sw~6, Pt- W.,0.#,4 | - : i 1 7,6., 7 .. . - 1 7/ C/*..LEIT â€¢eÂ»*C.'/45 4 12BLMA; 1 1 1 elrk, 691 Hdr . RE'.U,dâ€¢ 341 - ' E T -I-L~~ 6121,14 1 | AS 1845 | | r: | | 1 - rtew 2-12- 1.WlitoeLSÂ· I r I E 2----11 I. 2- It 1.-10 J.4.â€¢ae-,e.LE. M:> i I -i 50 1 - i ' 1 12 -22- In 1 1 1 1 1 1 J T,26LAb 1 ! 1 k.-- 2 4 Ei,29' Tl 1 , - ----- J 171 % I w.6-r- 11*/Â»cr,=-4 Now-TH ]El-2.>/*T'1421-4 14' 1 Â¢ -0. 3 * 1 1 02 4 :1 .V r/Go ril , ~ 1,r 9 @ 5 ~ 3 ,.d.- mir:11' 0*:.~ T 70Nnin ALIT12-FATI=,144 1 AIPPrrld,%4 ,&.0 - Gerardus H. VAn Moorsel Architect - - - 6 16Â· 1.1. MAIN er. FesrEw 07. A4 ' 1'Â·0801 3474.*IM,â€ž C~ 81812 4 4 I - %92- .1,Mmi:12.EN- AAZON'629 1 06-T-E- 6 - It 9 CI 1 OF e - i . 1 1 14 - W co MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods. Community Development Direc Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director CJAN> I FROM: Amy Guthrie. Historic Preservation Officer RE: 616 W. Main Street- minor DATE: September 22, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to make modifications to a historic house and carriage house at 616 W. Main Street. On the old house, the proposed changes are to alter a flat roofed area, to install a skylight in the same area, to reroof the rear portion of the building, and to replace some clapboards. Additionally, the applicant would like to replace two existing windows. On the carriage house, which is an old structure that has been remodeled, the applicant requests HPC approval to add a new window on the north side, upper floor. for ernergency egress. APPLICANT: W. R. Manclark, contract purchaser. LOCATION: 616 W. Main Street. Lot N, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: The property is zoned "O, Office," and is a designated historic landmark. MINOR DEVELOPMENT No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards (Section 26.415.010.B.4) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume 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, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) 1 . square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2),for detached accessory dwelling units. Response: At some time in the past, this house was moved from the site where the 7th and Main Street Affordable Housing project is now proposed. It maintains its original footprint. except for a small addition at the rear of the house, as indicated on a site plan, modified by staff. The applicant proposes minor modifications to the house to improve its livability. In regard to the alteration of the roo f over the kitchen, this appears to be an original element of the house or an early addition to it, therefore modifications must be carefully considered. The applicant proposes to increase the rake of the roof over the kitchen to improve drainage. The area is also to be reroofed with metal. The existing roof does have a slight pitch to it. In reviewing the photographs with the Building Department, they feel that additional information is needed to determine the best way to effectively address the problem. The exact dimensions of the area need to be provided. as well as the slope of the existing roof. More specific information is needed about the proposed new roof slope and the overall surface drainage strategy. Staff does not have a major concern with installing a skylight in the kitchen since it will not be visible from the ground, however it may be a source of leaking given the shallow roof pitch. In regard to the windows that are to be replaced, both windows are original and have been turned on their sides. In the dining room, the window could be returned to its original vertical position, but the owner is worried about having adequate wall space for furnishings, etc. The kitchen window is more problematic because of kitchen counters. Staff recommends that the dining room window be restored to its original position. In the kitchen, the window could be replaced, but it should be the same size as the existing opening to maintain the proportions of the building elements. The window could be an awning window with some division of the glass, but with fewer panes than the one proposed, which is out of character with the house. In the carriage house, which is an "Accessory Dwelling Unit," the applicant wishes to create a better way to exit the upper floor loft in case of emergency. This loft is to be used as office space and not as a sleeping area, therefore no egress windows were required by the UBC when the building was remodeled. The applicant provided a photograph that has a proposed location for a larger window indicated on the north side. There is not adequate room for this window without cutting 2 through the eave of the historic carriage house, which is not appropriate. Staff has provided all four elevations of the carriage house for HPC to review. (Note that windows are not allowed on the west side of the building because it is only 1 foot from the property line.) This area of the proposal needs further discussion. The last issue discussed in the application is replacement of a length of clapboard. The building has all original siding and detailing. There are penetrations across one clapboard where blown in insulation was installed in the past. Staff recommends that this board be approved for replacement with one that matches it because the metal patches where insulation was added do not enhance the architecture of the building. No other clapboards may be replaced without further review. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of th e neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There are several historic structures in the area and the property is part of the Main Street Historic District. The proposed renovations are relatively minor and will not impact the character of the area. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The project will not affect the significance of the house as a representation of Aspen's residential architecture of the late 1800's, or the carriage house as a historic outbuilding. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Response: Staff has concerns with architectural compatibility as noted under Standard number one. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) 3 â€¢ Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the review with the following direction to the applicant: 1. Provide further information about the existing roof above the kitchen, and the proposed new roof. Specifically, identify what the dimensions of the area are, the existing roof pitch, the proposed roof pitch, and the overall surface drainage strategy (where will run-off be deposited?) Â»62/ 2. Determine whether a skylight can be added to the existing kitchen roof without creating additional leaking problems. The exact location of the skylight and a cut sheet of the proposed skylight will be required. The skylight must be as low in profile as possible. -4 17 \AÂ·4>uuA/' 3. Restore the dining room window to its original position and vertical orientation. 4. The kitchen window may be replaced, in the same size as the existing opening to maintain the proportions of the building elements. The window could be an awning window with some division of the glass, but with fewer panes than proposed, which is out of character with the house. A cut sheet o f the new window shall be submitted. 5. The HPC should discuss and provided direction on other means of creating an exit from the loft in the carriage house. .141Â£/ 6. The applicant may replace the clapboard where holes were made for blown in insulation. The replacement board shall match the profile and exposure of the historic boards. The contractor shall not damage or remove other clapboards while installing the new one. 01/.. 'Rke Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated September 22. 1999. B. Application. C. 1904 Sanborne map showing house in previous location. D. Current survey showing newer construction at the back of the house. E. Elevations of the remodeled carriage house. Cl O+ l.47% . Ll A O Wl \00 \0+01 L Vl 4 Y " 1/ 4 L il 7 4 r~ 5 11 - - 1,11--- 1 11 /0 CO -1 47 11 . -8 / 1 / 1-4 r r 141 11 5 ff b -12-1 -- 0 4 L FENCE. 1 ./. 11 I25 115 42' 11 \ 4bR-,7-721- - _ J ST. (* 14 11 ---- -fc.â‚¬CE VÂ» IN .1 75 q 11 i UlA 1 D \\ k Pt It <C 1- 1 L, .1 . 11 ~7 1 111 $ 1 C? lt:341 # 4 - 1 54 - >111 4 ji u 11 H /2 :~ iz t:,FI *1 44 /Â· 4, - B 1 U y k m. fr 0/ 0 7 11 ~ 2 79 LL__Ji _-z:~, 2 1 = _it .1 - 3 1 - F to -1 r.- r 11% Â¥.0 1,922/1 & -AM - I 1. 9 k I, 1 .. r li- f'i k - f' b -- rl 1 1- - S - -* 1 - Itcfk 11 N 0 11 4. _ 4 1 . f- a i ID- 1.-- iL=13 - Â· J n - ., ttll.1- It ----I 53 ch tle-=1 1 L !1 ..1011 4 --- 0 11 3*L l i 0 0 1 .19 4.- U W - 2 4% 0 /At*~ -~ 1~ 4 \Al . ~Ki_ 7 , ,- 0 , 11 4% - > 2 - 21 5 _3 4 9 11 â€¢ L. a /4 1 Â¢5 20' 100' 1 3* m 0 1 11 i- == 144 It J @ 4 ===== 47 ~97-~................... - 06 99 , N MC 3009 1/ (1* N SNIMWOH 1, ib 1 l.3 Id/a Iry - W. MAI N -Â·moZ;ujewl 1 ? 11 0 1 < N 41- . 1 â€¢ B SoÂ·Y ' , LU,F O% 01ERHANG 3.((v | ~-; ARE A ! 011 r U 1 L d L.Ui 40 6% >> 01 1 2 CC : I l./ -1 01,1 4 - &11 ' - U :0 + 0 , 1 ic rN EwEE i 1 1 E. I 1 ' '11 3 n r 1 + 2 4 0// / 4- P.AAI Â·h OU 6,J :3 k 5 5 .RA U 1 01,11 0 / 715/,16:/ ~ " LOT 0 LU LAT P 6 - , I 2 1%:, '6 LL Li, 11 6 C G AS < r +1 AT ER RE AD 1 REMOtc 1 1 STORY WI . Lk . WOOD FRAME ~ - 'A \9, 40 v i 60/ 61 lo - - HOOSE 1. to -9 v ICTONIAN I OVERHANG 6- , 14 4 i h L 0 ..4 1 16,0 2 1 / 1 1 12 0 /c .r - 1 HOUSE f t O 7// 0 2 12.! -UL ENCROACHMENT .,1- PG --~~ AGREEMENT - 39. %141911%1. O s '0 27 l \.1 6 c '616 -FRES , 7 ALUM DISK ~ 6 Au v SE 'Â·29 1 9 SET \6\19 :6 CONC WALK 1/ D \ 5% - U 30.00 N 75'09-if W CONC. WALK ~Aâ€¢ FRUIT <REE . .j' A'J BACK OF CUR8 I @01*,4 D 3 . 100.00 N 14'50 49-E 11 92 0% I - 616 4. MAIN- iNCl_IN STREET OFFICE / RESIDENCE HISTORY, IN-TOWN BRAND NEW - 100 YEAR OLD CARRIAGE HOUSE .And 1833 VICTORIAN HONE ONU T 3-7 - 2 HOUSES - --- ~--1- - W il' y -----I-- , -1- Â»+N R. - -- Â· 7 t . 91 3/ 9 ----- 7 11 , b -j 111 i - .- f 1 4.1 1. 1- \ ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. project name G /6 (,0. P~A ID 2. Project location 6 U. 03. MA c M , As PerÂ·u C.Â© -6â€¢â€¢.*=2.,4 4 ' -, e.Â© Sceck 2-4 LeT M (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds descAption) 3. PreSent Zoning Rtb,Dee,AL-ReM,v\Â«c.w_ 4. Lot size 30Â£30 -5@. f-4- . l 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number \,0, R. 1,4 4 k) u.42\< - 124; U).EANk.ik #52â‚¬N.) - ct-2-0-32.-39 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number S/Va Al> 4 5- ASCCE 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD X Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. A Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) Ra 5 (8 eÂ», r , AL. , 2 5-rR.Her-wir:3 1/2 75<re Res..5 IN Res,04:Nt.â‚¬ ' 1 05<notuch A 'OAA. 1 - Apnow 99& ~ AOL; 900 -0-*. a CD Ar,- lu,Â«r-4.nb< 9. Description of development applicatiorÂ»g c4.-ce A ..04*'4*.AL,44,0.,Likt ,.Gal A:.41..04 4 *W,-4 -4,04,1 3.(1Â¥ 1,KA -Lwimâ€¢- t~G \Ac#Uâ€¢-i .1. e,60.21" - e ck--7 161 -w/ 11 64.6. Ct.~'ueâ€¢-~ w /k#.Li17 %07-~0+1' 4 -j:6 a..Ld, $~11 fur~ dwA#~R- 4481 -ty;AL Â®t,Lga~ -;P:Cly "*Â»,0;14 4.421/171/h.~~4 - 1 4 1 J --- 1 1.LA,L *u#v *w Aouk &Liat-' '1Â»*v f~Rave you completed and attached the following?'~~-2 ow '46:024 Attachment 1 - Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachment 4 t A lili - ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: MAN cul/K Address: 6, 1 6 UJ. MA 1 4 As&,3 Zone district: CD Lot size: 700(3 SC)41.-t-. Existing FAR: \001 50 +t Allowable FAR: 2400 .<5(LD. -â‚¬-F , Proposed FAR: Wo 044.ncr> Existing net leasable (commercial): LID,0 W Proposed net leasable (commercial): N c NE Existing % of site coverage: N je Proposed % of site coverage: f\; ~-A Existing % of open space: Al~-A Proposed % of open space: 5/fl Existing maximum height: Princioal bldg:Vn cHAA,ec Accesory blda:kic, 0,+AAQF Proposed max. height: Princioal bldg: 1 v Accessorv blda: Proposed % of demolition: 2 1 76 Existing number of bedrooms: 3 Proposed number of bedrooms: 3 Existing on-site parking spaces: (Pno On-site parking spaces required: 0 Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: No CHA WGâ‚¬ Front: N o CH U G I Front: A) 0 041 0 5, & Rear: Rear: Rear: 1 Combined Combined Combined Front/rear: FronUrear: Side: Side: Side: Side: Side. Side: Combined Combined Combined< S /des ~~~ l Front/rea Sides. Sides: 606*47 Existing nonconformities or encroachmentÂ«ENVE OVY'NAA,11% De GÂ¥,5-i- SIDâ‚¬- (~ANOMAIU<' 'SCATub< t-XENAP-noÂ¢.,y80â„¢ fbl.I)61, BBCAric.H 230 &,rr 8,9:t R Eq u ickwÂ·vÂ»JE. Variations requested: 0 ove (RiPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) ATTACHMENT 3 General Submission Requirements 1. William R. Manclark, applicant 2. Street address of the parcel 616 W. Main Street Aspen, Colorado Legal Description Pitkin County, Colorado Block 24 - Lot N 3. Attached (Amy, I owe you these papers and will give them to you when I can get them from Escrow). 4. Vicinity Map attached. ./W W 00 4054%'.... -1 &9 44/ 1. '43 ' 6 A lan wi D V.IX- / i ~ '1 CL ~. O *ey V a S Chattiold Rc, 36~91 -~ather Â£0 Â¢11 04* C .ar a ed . fi l-f R J /1 1 5 Cki \2 W /9 Â£Â¢/ '2 !!219'tood D~r_-- 44#. 946 - 10 2*BIN uptud 96 Twin R/46 Dr 00% 4 1, ,-3 .----9-794.; GS' ' '.0/11.-*f 42: .9 'T~% C ~ el O le# 9â‚¬3-- 0 1,/4/ C . / 14 Uo,9,Â¥ m 2.'' + 1 '51.25:y/fl.... r T *i '7 /, 9 1 diuc 0,<-Â»'~.4.12 1 4 03 I ./ ! lol Ja waa64,1Jk0o .. '2.08 2 *"ook[; 1 5 64' \ 42 44Â·4< <-7 k Â·'~'~~~ '~~~~~ 0â‚¬% LAW . *4'42Â»aky in w i C.306 / a In :.4 -I Gthls, ./.4 1 - 8 .1 i , r A ID ._. 614~~?~.~~~ ~~* 72 -4, -4 4th'St r , qi- RQ C) ~.~ .P'rE ,~'6~94 0. ** C r liÂ°?- 9 0 . 7 10 -4 f 1-t '**t Â¥ 1~ 5 . ' ' 4/14 1~ j /0 ./, j 9 4 I 1 994Â£4 0 9 4 42 2 it l J%;,t *~pents, i ~ 1 '4' #Â§ 1 - .'â€ž, , :*HS SI . ' 7#4 -' fd J 1 11 67%7,bsir; 27&011/ ~-7 v> 0 Â·-\, -A"z1 6-1Â·j' 1.* 1 1 :1 1 1; 9 - *,#41= 4 r , f th, t. ...1 ./ 4, , i l. a 1 141#41 eppu09 0/ 4 1~0'71St AFT* i / 1,\ 1 1 1 4- r.Â£ . * uee<no 'DAI!9;1 4:Hqnte/st / , .61#j. 7 1<:i.(ji , ~-dedi'46,n>U'Â·Â·~~~;~ -4 'fr 36 / ~ *~ ~ ~~ ~~ At * AnnO# ~ T~ " y- 30, 47- 1 2 1 fly f ' /1 J#*7*~1 11- \ 1 5 11 40, 1 4 4% r J /2. 4/ 4 6~ wsfi 5 ' 1Â°41 1(h'* 44 Elbf',. \\ 16 9 ~t Wa,OWS< \ . <0 14 0 , P Â¢\ 1 + 2\ 4 r , f 444St' 1 1.,2.0 ' 91 Race St I < 14\ 70 -2 74 8662 ouI 'xe0 1SBM SnÂ© dew P. 11-JO UOOJEwl 40 uowell' 45'0 01 f 4 /ndsâ€¢"SM'Â¥~0Â® Aspe-n Street ~ap 'Peus Â©US WEST 1998 ATTACHMENT 4 1. Survey with Enlargements (See Attachment). 2. Photographs and copies of pictures from catalog. In an effo rt to make these pictures more meaningful-1 have included these pictures in our proposal where they relate to the discussion. 3. No Change 4. Discussion of our proposal (See Attachment). 383339 B-787 P-55 07/13/95 03:29P PG 5 OF 5 Attfl 1,OCK 1 4 . .. 1 K 1 u O 14" i INt -3/ /11 11466 .0...... e.e....6,0.- . D,~01â€¢Ts Ce,mr,Cm!â€¢ , r.Â·I. eN....4. I e -' M.â€¢I....-r-, I rwu=. S.T 74 .-:4:24Â· m 4111U l i' , KERREF-z--792'. 53:SEEENUEENE. il --- \Mv MAIN ITIET -- ~::t: 6- -#.,-p- &Â».e, == lot M. 140â‚¬I >4 ALLEY Â· Block 24 1 ./--Il- -'-I-/* ./i-I'l - r â€¢4Â¥â€¢/re ./ - 3-- I.-..=- -I-*- 1 1 \ 4 1//1 1 1 i fe K L M 0 1 43 1 1 1 /. 111 1 77-7~ , rl'' 1 ., \ 1 - 1 O 1 i . 1 1 1 1./ =%07.â‚¬ 9%6 1 B it tpf,j:>/ 1 4 ll1 1 1 1 i 1 .... 1 8 . 1 :ru --- ---Il--I -Â¥A O -Ar MAIN STREET SIXTH STREET \! 1. Description of our proposal. It is our desire and intention to maintain the Historic Nature and Characteristics of these 1888 Miners cabin. Any strengthening, insulation etc. shall be accomplished from the inside of the building. A. Residence. a. We are respectfully asking to be able to correct th ree (3) areas of the residence. 1. Correct a malfunctioning flat roof area over the kitchen. 2. To install a skylight over the kitchen Area that will NOT be visible from the street. 3. To replace 2 windows in the rear portion of the house: (a) One in the kitchen. (b) One in the dining room. B. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) a. In the ADU we would like to provide a safety a escape/rescue exit from the third floor. (Presently, there is NO safety egress). . - 01 T 0 : . c- 42 2469; 1= :,#awirgd~ ~.~445:#Â·<Â·Wl? ..2... 9%..2.-3? i "'1,4 i,r'4'' :*Â·s.:.St~.1; 22Â·fy\~i~-~i:]i~frilÂ·.1.f*ti~f*34...6.- ...1 - 4 I 9.,. /4 - 90'..1 .45 I. ': ./ 9.. ~ Â·-p 1, Ilt -1 10. 4-41Â·;644 . 7 .% Ir:*#/* I. 0 4,1 41... 62 2 73.3. -ifM. \\J<2\N â‚¬ 4 \ - . eu-* .2 9 - - --- 4 -227---2--\ - : -~Tilpflfit< r. 1. , --- \\474 3,%84â€¢ --9- 1944#01-\ \ 4:27:13 7 - <4- - - - 4 - - I. , 11. Discussion (Residence). A. Malfunctioning Flat Roof. a. Background: 1. The existing flat roof over the kitchen area is located at the base of two steeply sloped gables. (See photo) f .latilegt, ..r.44.~ I. 9' I. I 44 f Â«b. i. L \ -L,LRxk 1 -FTLÂ¢- .4-0- 11 * - ~ Â¢~411 . - - . - - ... - 4 - ., k P.:.2 39=7".1 -Zie. -- ~- - -' LIA.*40--. t.~-33NalÂ· 21 <1.-3.-6 .-- C I I I -*- - - -4 .~ V . , 21 Â» y. . r=3 lita*hA~~4~~.JI.L..E..~ 2. Fundamental characteristics of weather tight roofs are EFFICIENT DRAINAGE. Water, snow and ice lingering on the roof can be destructive to the roof materials, and will eventually find its way into the building causing further damage. 3. Radical changes in roof pitches like this one are susceptible to leaks because drainage is slowed or even trapped by the flat roof. 4. Water damaged walls, especially on the North wall of the parlor--which happens to be located below the transition in the roofs from the steep gable to the flat roof. Below are photographs showing the effects of such poor drainage (North Wall. . 2. 1.52,4 ' 11 -1 1 A '... , 1 11, K.+744.1*4,1/4,.~t':.*~'44Â· - :.. - -.:- * '1,-1.1.3, JO:.7.-- 4. . 45"'~1Â·1*2Â·,u.2*'r . - /1.4'942<feliBpifililililili i 4 - Â· Â· ; ... % cv.. ,Â·-1,~,1.Â·~-- 2 k.cy*.~:~~:~,--/.- .. .5)Â·,F T4â‚¬5Â¥fj.Ya: - ./ -5 2. 6 29*Â·â‚¬ -~ 9%*#. Â·:59'2 : 7.5 i 1 ....,. -/ .1. .1...4*&4.-6, f I e -4 ..f'. %~Â«4431 Â¥0- E guit 92% i <F. 71493.3.- .,m Q..40Â·426. 1 4* V##W ,1,~iÂ· ' '. 9-:i#)=Â· p g , . 1 . *Â·12 . : 1 1.7~ ~~~ , Â·. L -trrija 2 f vet i. : ~ '*i>Â¢1 - 4 'i e 'r Â¥ ...:-L,fUU,Â·t' '~Â·'MIL . '' b. Our proposal: EAS-~. WEST E>FEEPLY GAELED 2 r\ooP. :14 0 4-r U' 3 ou-n-1 S TreeeLY GAE:AED Roof ~ 'A il \ 1 1 4Â« bâ‚¬ - ff-//01 N f . % 3/ S Nous 4 43 0 ACC.U. MU.L.-ATEJ W egE. 4 2,1\ - 14 At Al r\00 F O S--r REEr FLAT Raer A) + SUGHTLV S Lo FED UVA-rE,1.1 AAE:creD 5*10,00 L cE. AcCUMUL ASE 14â‚¬02 - Nogru tieÂ· SEE Pworo GA,98 000 E-ROAT- C[Z -7 M \ S PA:E sal\YEArtc>N <\Al i A)76>2~ EcrnA AE - S Woval S luou) ACCL,\AAULAG-1647 OVOR Foac~ AASA -51Mil.44 DES+Ge'~ 1. Presently, the existing roofs have reached their full lives and need replacing. (a). We would ask that when these roofs are replaced that we would be able to carry the slight slope of Roof A (above) could be carried southward to the base of the East/West Gable (area of the kitchen). - See Roof B in the above drawing. ...4 i (b). After the Repair f P j 7 . ORA th) AGE .~ /0 4- 'U li J 1 9 I l 1 \ '(40 20 5 EO - RE PR I RED NEw Rpog , U LAT ROOF= 0 6 Roof A (Â©. This impfbved drainage would prolong the life of the roofs as well as the interior walls. Decrease maintenance and monitoring and decrease water leakage into the structure. (d). This slight increase in slope would NOT be noticeable from Main Street for two reasons: (1). The slope is minimal. (2). The new sloping roof is hidden behind the East/West steeply sloped gables. 2. Because this roof cannot be seen from Main Street we have thus maintained the historic nature of the structure. 3. When this roof is replaced-Roof A and Flat Roof B-we would also ask that we could make it a Metal roof. As stated it would not be visible from Main Street. i E - ... , - j. 6 1, - -_ - - - U.U-U-Â»2364 - -1 . . -1,1 . f, GE 4. When we change this roof(metal) we would like to install a skylight over the kitchen. (a). This skylight will be placed behind the steeply gabled East/West roofs-thus will absolutely not be visible from Main Street. (b). The slight slope of the new roof will also hide the skylight. (c). Landscaping will also help hide the sloping roof and the skylight. B. Replace 2 windows in the; Residence. a. Background. 1. These windows are approximately 2 feet by 6 feet. 2. One window is in the kitchen and the other is in the dining room. 3. These windows were originally installed vertically-that is 2 ft. wide and 6 ft. high. Sometime in the past they were rotated 90 degrees to their present location of 6 ft. wide and 2 ft. high. I I. -Â»....-.14 \1 1-- 11</1:Qi/ I *. *'.e$~~'llâ€¢ /165/.32: I 3.4/.Â»., -al" 40 34444 .: 9340/" 4 :32 , 4-/fy:, / - a 'r i I. f It i. 't:p.;?1~p , i f<-~3 964 92*,L *1 VA. 271----#. * 'g'*R 44 ' . Â»*%Â»f 13 c~ ..:P#-'gy Â».:4'i #A#M<04-~ ~Aa 9-1 0 ' *t~. ~~iJ:~rpfat-fifi~-;.~4-'- . .1. 1. 4 41.-9-t ..,Â»4, t. 1 '/ I: . 'VA'##%>.>.443'% "s, I y 'I '- t. i. 4. They are presently non-functional. 5. Presently, they take up so much wall space there is only minimal space for kitchen cabinets on the West wall and minimal space on the East wall in the dining room. 1 -14 .. Mei:52 2 - &98' I.. 1 .. A ..t 'I : --le.L.-,4.- . 72Â·.Ft-le . 1 -1- . : 1.- , $ 1 36:91 . 'f *2 . N ~i #, v v*w&gi 11: 1'7-13*% 9433.434 4& i. I ~3.-f m . I ..Â·'Â· 4- t; pit 0 -44.U . . -11. *.-4 - --Â» Sirr 1 - ./ Al-//* .L.fl&.fl It:/Â£...tÂ·/4 -- ._.... 5: 4 S e.Â·/ - tl=* . i 8. These windows are located far enough back from Main Street that they could be changed and not affect the characteristics of the building. 1 \ 1 - 1 f b. Our Proposal 1. We would like to replace these 2 windows with two slider windows. (a) Each window section would have 9 lites (b) Total in both windows in each room = 18 lites (c) Measurements of the windows=3 feet high and 4 feet wide. 18* 1 Hardware Selection basn Lock . 4 121* Lr'Jj ' '.--J Frc*In ...11 , 1 WIDE XO OPERATOR UNITS .I 4 . A /1 Mai Op* 34 (914) 4-0 (1219) 5-0 (1524) 6-0 (1829) Rough Op* - 10 1/2 (927) 42 LIZ (1232) 54 1/Z (1537) 6-Jl/Z (1842) / Frame Size 2-[ 1 1/2 (903 3-11 1/2 (1207) 4-11 liZ (15/1} 5-11 1,2 (1816) 7/, -p, I./. Un213 Si:I 14 3/4'0 (375) -U .9 t J.Â·J 26 3/4" (679) 32 3/4" (832) REZE Ffirfi E-I7FI--i Ct- 'GL..0.2.4 '-1-1 f/ 5--r S 11 1 5:32 7-1 "Lin-,1,1 'FNE~ ' h-N 1 /1 331 1 '. ;1 -(/4 F 11 0 0 - -1 1 1 IJL]630 T IG:0Â¢36 ' [GL-:36 - - ~11 Hi- FREI 'LOI-1 ILICJL_LI 11.11 1 00 t . O LA 11 1GL.)642 [GL+84' IGL604. Â· [G:7242 - . -4 0 11 1 11.11 I 77-1 0-3073 2 - i 11 -JU 1 -9 1 ill VO Multi 77-7.------- 41 2 + - 1 9-- 1 11 11 In' 1 11 1: i~ 1 0 ,~ Iii, /1 [GL)648 T IGL4848 ' IGI-6048 Â· :GLE+8. *622 MAMM li I il-71 111'-417# /11 1 11_13, ICIIJ: r : u ILILI 1 11 1 1 1 11 ~ 11 , 1 11 11 --* 11 1 li 1 mi 11 1 1 11 32;3 1 11 1177173 1 107---1 1-3 1- 121- lilli . 101.3600 [GL+86] ' IGI-006,0 ' [GLNED Â· T=Tempered (optional) * These WIndows meer national egress codes for fire evacuation. Local codes mav diffen Noce: XC operation star.dard. OX operation optional. . Srandard Glider :ritle mrs are available in pacerns shown above. . '17/- -J . 1 j [/ N P \j 4 * FRAME SIZE- RCLJHCP'Â·"~6 'Ill - O 1 ~IFUL L==91 1 *-- -- Z BA )3- A = I ..1 - I 22 4 X P- QE sfprr ci AA#$ - 1 ru Â¥..4 -MAS=NRYOPENING- '- - -6-li*6&)-1 ,, i I C.1 02111 43 2 I WIDE XO OPERATORJAMB DETA-IL 0: L) Dera,ls and Elevanons nec co HEAD JAMB & SILL DETAIL .. - 36 3/41" (9 3 3 4 0 (1219) 1/4 (12 41, 7 IÂ·411*~/3 I :1 2. Because these windows are 2/3 of the way back on the building from Main Street, chang i ng the windows will not distract from the historic character of this miner's cabin. 3. Landscaping along the West side will also make these windows invisible from Main Street 111. Our last request has to do with the ADU A. Background: a. When the ADU was built the third floor was designed as a non- sleeping area, which allowed approval of the plan WITHOUT AN EMERGENCY/RESCUE ESCAPE ROUTE FROM THAT FLOOR. b. Even though it is not used as a bedroom, my fear is that if someone was upstairs (spiral staircase) watching T.V., or working at a desk etc. and a fire started in the kitchen below-a person on this top floor could be trapped (especially if they watch TV like I do and sleep 50% of the time). c. Egress windows by code should be a minimum width of 20 inches clear and a minimurn height of 24 inches clear and a NET clear of at least 5.7 feet. d. NONE of the windows in the upper floor study/bedroom of the ADU are suitable for egress and or rescue. . B. Our proposal a. I would like to open a door (narrow) on the North side of the ADU-3rd floor, above the alley. (See Photo) .-I 1,90 pros-2-0 -floc i< -- ix Â§ â€¢r * * 4# 04 .1 . 14 ' 1\ 1 4 09Â« 3/ 24/ 1 .4' _ F -% - Irizill//9,-b -.tfy - 19 - PiL z ~ Â»>f ./ ' Eit: Â· Â»41 1 ' .2'Y ' -'2*92.1 124 4 .. r 5 ~.A f. 7 tâ‚¬ff.lf- 3 '2*De /1.. 6.. 5 . :.i .Â· - - Â·..ifjfljft<Ff##liti ..W:.fai .11.4.câ‚¬ 75,7.i I.=.4 I 7~. ~~ . .; I. ...,4<143*49 . 'I :-1,4~t,-li*"46.<.Ftj-, .1, 4/khÂ·f; :Â·i; f~;3*3 UÂ©34Â·:4- . 44ngÂ·: - - -Â· -a. . 94!k<LIi'ge'. f.Â¥Â¢94 4 14:,i:'.7~ 7,2*431: 17%79 r.. 'Â·1Â¥~Â£<+itj,79,*1644*b "4&61 -- 4 .Â¥Â·41- t':*~f'*~~i.:~-g,07'~.*Â¥4;42 Â·'iâ€¢:Mi .tar: C filivabl-tle,Lifti$ri, ./~I~: -0 1.0,-721.-r /4,17:ty"fÂ»/r ~ T -Gl../*.4* Â£ .41./ i.-i .7.-Ae.s'f, -i. # I I . YU-'. E , Ak. u /9 *P 1 . 1 1, *Lit~**44.24~14-,~-mtifi. .....'*Al .O.ict ' -- T. 4%,4.4 4 7. 00.\7 .- 4Â£' 444144 f-i- ;~35158~*7%12.*44> 61>7~,A~1,&~*erfiti, r : 1. i %'49Â¥9" Aj Zi#Aft:gft Â· 1 -4,2.~ 1 m. 5 la 4 r'Â· A 13Â«73$6 . .)~.,911:J 64.4 :' i .< Â·i. .4. , -#.%-IN#â€¢IMâ‚¬ .Â«~ 7 I 5 ~t. .1~'~~. i<~4:Fii:~:49+*4,vt-*,: .2,5'r'~Â·Â·'<~2~~Â·'~'3 09-'n'%*Etr, ir~Â·t:4~i~'3*~r .. . -'0- t,e. c. This door would act as the emergency egress route. d. A narrow balcony with a removable safety rail would be provided to prevent someone from accidently exiting the room via this route. ' 2 \\ 2Â«2,4, 4 $0%0 . 1 k _ic,~~0Eft .... 1 :2794*Wiffwitr<:.3< 5. # ' . .A .c JF'. 4 -, c Â· . . 2.,1,-17 , L :13â€¢19 % Â»'*+ 2 r - . ....-. . 1 . 4,- , â€¢- 1, .9.' I. I . / .2* '|' .. 41~- *3 - 'SÂ·< 7 "f 1:.,3.. ' '* ..39 - ./03- -â‚¬1:-VI.~...~Irip 4 -, . ...4 4 4 . 2.4 1 4 I ' 2 2. - .r. I 'r I . 1,* - i , 4 . ... t.. I I 0 *.-PUM- -i' rw , ; .2 1,4 .4- 4/1 ' .- Â· 1Ft /-'t 1- -' 2#,mj , t. . ,-19.511/#/,4 â‚¬ . . 2. I .4 1 .1.' "k, -, 7 -391 4-6637>Â· 4 (this Photo is a picture of such a balcony-this balcony is narrow and it is built right on the property line (alley)-Aspen St. and Bleeker. The balcony we propose would be at least 4 feet in from the rear property line. . 1â‚¬ Ch, - 4. A fold up escape ladder would also be provided. 5. This door would also make it possible to move furniture in and out of that floor. Presently_, vYit h 01 6 P 'RoÂ·- 4-71 1 the only access to that floorn it Is phA-(36 Hy impossible to get furniture on that floor. AS LONG AS I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION MAY I PLEASE ASK THAT BOARDS SUCH AS WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE PICTURE BELOW BE REPLACED (THESE BOARDS HAVE TIN COVERING HOLES WHERE INSULATION WAS BLO\NN INTO THE WALLS). AS ALSO CAN BE SEEN, SOME BOARDS ARE SHORT (1-2 FEET), I REALIZE THAT IT MAY TAKE A FIELD INSPECTION TO MAKE SUCH A DECISION. IMY FEELING IS THAT IT WILL MAKE THE HOUSE MORE WEATHERPROOF. - 6- ' u-- - -, 1-:.2 2 ...2:231 t-*~t~ - 0--- ; Â·<i'**#CÂ·Â¥Â· :Fo.-4&9%;P' -I K imift'23,- ~~&#f'I~ZI.'~I+~I~k~ . -- n..05-0.7; .3,iwiffM5/6/F"Dilt/Mi/ A-rrI=-.- . Â£., 7,-4. Lt.11~.~<:C,4.Â®6~~.82/4/61 , ,Â©, .., An.,4159/Atif ~ 1}Wigi~~ 4 --Off -; 2 V- 1 1~1+Jtioni#/0/<3&%4% 1 't iT 0. '9*4AAE* + 1 #7412@0112-; 1~:yart -Â·33:t - >t-ji~ipt' -sfo~*29441*W#m*w*14*4 !4.... 4. ... L . 0*34,/ , ./ A i - THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION! . *1 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name 30% E, MFO PR NS 2. Project location 302_ 6 -~JOFILIN 6 As'FEN L.-0-r K i 6 1=0 W- 80 -7300 NÂ·*f -rE (indicate street address, lot and block num6er or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning C,C/ 4. Lot Size 6,0656 ~ 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number 3,9 Z. EA &1-1- ROPI<:,1 A/'5 Ug> -20Â·N â‚¬14/1 9, â‚¬6 Aab, 12> BOX 644 ; 01\9 74(Â«f}E S 4- 1 96Â¢VT-- O-0 2 (6-6 C 99 0 934 -96/0 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number 72*g- 6 02â‚¬ (241 4 ECUE)(D, /1\/A 100 gb. SPA/N 4 913 .*' b A.979/\ <Ft G (/ ' 9302 9-'A-%(.6. 7. Type of application (check all that apply): '>< Conditional Use Conceptual SPA â‚¬ Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment 34 GMQS exemption < Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) EX')47- PfC*GE , 4-#0782Â·M-0.- j tâ‚¬Â£O 1912- eep:=-Icâ‚¬- a )-ret I /â‚¬723 2012- â‚¬RITD, 0 9. Description of development application PAR=n AU 'DE,M Â¢)01-TUrn OP -20â‚¬ Aâ‚¬. *oN , 47â‚¬73Â©-r , kn 1-967\ . 1Â£ Lot,44,9 4 PEHÂ« 61 19Â¢i ewÂ·T-128 L upiNG New *Ap-zAH" 920 (511/,22 3- Eâ‚¬212 07 24#62=111 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 614 Lul V '6 -2- PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE- CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 9,1999 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by John Davis, requesting conceptual and partial demolition approval to remodel the existing historic building, and on-site relocation ofthe existing shed. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920- 5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 22, 1999 City of Aspen Account Flk/( 914 L.&74 l l304629> RCHITECT l Cline\ 1- t K E VICKERY 10{) SOUTH SPRING ST. #3 POST OFFICE BOX 12360 14 0 n 6 I i *-o \-U b 1 4 Ho F w./ 45 ASPEN,COLORAC)081612 TE.I.FFHONE / FACSIMI[.1 (970) 925-3660 0-4 At..0- i ATY' ' CAnal 1 foR,\0 13 *vi s I. '128.m O L.-1 7-UPÂ¢\ 6 p 12â‚¬ MO- L.j o W - N~ i ~ro (11 'c A 177, n m #. '~ 68 6*,ra of &29(&7 f oukbul)(lÂ«~ 5 6 1~1116-1 Af // NZA AtiC, 6 / f= ' l.,. 1- eh' 61 t- ) E-W /91: en h C, v r v. r f ~~(2*i N i \~04 8-fÂ·]Cx peg_ ~ 1 1p Re .9 n# 4 A e,A WAWÂ«kl â‚¬ -'*04;;12.,c-* (fOFfs/Â£9 4, AfFL kn Le-prp /k.- 06\J \â‚¬141 09 4 243 L_ Â· 79 -00.4 2 e-*12_ of 1 1 r,7 s 7-3 rk DA'l- 34*v c,Aty,r *f 1 9- 1 V EX jeTEr - - 1 1 / iN PAFÂ·*114 4 Â· 46$74/6 - -1- 111 1-----r --I.I- -1---- i...*--I -.Il- - ----- H .94/: | 4-TR-LIZ#412-9 - - - >1- (3 rl@7@-1 Ele)-4 j 1 1 1 1 F-E>12Â«3 . - ... A r- -tJEW '1 ATIO \2,1 1. BmIDLI Il~!Â»'4 1.-\ -L -MI Cllo Y\ . 2-1--tiON -+1141&1210 1 11 1 --- F AtI) FFION' 15) EDS 1,- 'i 1 40 L# 4 HEED, 9 E. -_----- --NELO 02(410 04) U I 3;CIPfll#44 04 1 /- x n #913)FLI G gf *DPI -rIOI>1 C A 'p*W F Fely' Al N , 1/ V 72 1 2 1 1 1 -1 y /1 l f /1 ~ k 1 60714*14>4, --1 Â·141 eTÂ»1240 - â‚¬ fT@*Ic:714 20â‚¬ - 1557 ft/124 H C:70Â»1 1 44 r ODD'20.- 15,1 Al o F lz- 1 C P.4 6 A V E M AY 1 7 1999 11 JAKE VICKERY 5 -1,0 P.O. BOX 12360 ft,NA re ~ 91 X111*Â¥'A St 9211*7 ASPEN. CO 81612 13 6 3040 9 O drH COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: 03/23/99 at 08:30 A.M. Case No. PCT14081 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 1,200,000.00 Premium$ 1,472.00 Proposed Insured: Rate:RE-ISSUE MSJ PROPERTIES, LLC (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ Premium$ Proposed Insured: Rate: Tax Certificate: $10.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: 302 E. HOPKINS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ~4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A-PG.1 601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring 970-925-1766 Provisions and Schedules 970-925-6527 FAX A and B are attached. AUTHORIZED AGENT 06 ~1- -1- 83 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 9 THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Residential Design Review-Public Hearing (Continued from - August 11, 1999) DATE: August 25, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests conceptual. partial demolition, on-site relocation, and "Residential Design Review" approval. HPC has held a site visit and five meetings on the project. At the last meeting, a worksession on August 11 th. the commission expressed their unanimous opposition to certain elements of the proposal, including the height of the new commercial building, and to the structures being linked together. The project review has been in the form of worksessions for several of the meetings, when minutes are not usually kept. Minutes are available for two regular hearings on June 9 and July 14, 1999. Minutes from the August 11th worksession will be prepared since public comment was made, but are not available yet. This property is a designated historic landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: John Davis. represented by Vectors/Jake Vickery Architects. LOCATION: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80. City and Townsite of Aspen. Commercial Core zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay 1 i-- -- District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: This house was built in 1883, which makes it one of the oldest remaining structures in the Aspen Townsite. Throughout it's history it has been used for both. \ commercial and residential purposes. It is the only example of a "Carpenter Gothic" building in Aspen, defined by the steeply pitched roof and decorative trim on the front of the building. (Carpenter Gothic is the Gothic Revival style carried out in wood rather than stone.) The applicant wishes to add more commercial space above and below grade, and to add a new free market apartment. In a worksession held on April 28. 1999, the architect was encouraged to look at the idea of demolishing a non-historic addition to the house and moving the outbuilding closer to it, thereby freeing up the back part of the lot for a separate new commercial building. This would keep the outbuilding intact and directly related to the old house. The new building would appear to be on its own small lot. a similar concept to the historic landmark lot split. Staff finds that the suggestion at the worksession was an excellent way to remove the impacts o f a new addition from the historic structures. On June_2= HPC reviewed a proposal which followed the basic concept from the worklession. but attached the new construction to the historic structure. The HPC members SEressedsignificant concern with the connector, with the majority of the_board saying that they-wouldnotsuEortit- that the new construction needs to be completely detached from - the historic structure. Some members of the board felt that the new commercial space ..11.-- ' should not be taller than two stories, while others were willing to entertain a third story if the connector was eliminated. 156-idea of setting back the third story was emphasized. Since the June 9th meeting, the HPC has been presented with several revisions of the design. When the design did not successfully resolve the issues on August 11th, the HPC (in a worksession format) indicated that the project as proposed did not meet the development review standards. Five board members stated that they would not support any more than a two story commercial building, completely detached from the historic structures. One board member was still open to the concept of a third story. As summarized in the attached letter from the architect, dated August 121 the concerns of ~.._ the board on August 11th were: (1) the connectors between the structures, second floor deck ~ and railing, (2) the third floor and/or its architectural treatment, (3) the light/egress court and stair, (4) the roof top deck and stair enclosure, and (5) cumulative impacts of all these 2 elements taken as a whole on the property. The applicant has provided another revision for this meeting, which addresses item one but is otherwise unchanged in any substantial way. Staff finds the proposal does not meet this review standard and finds that the standard will not be met without modification of the drawings as follows: 1. Eliminate the third floor. Warm_v,o~a-~Â£14Â£7 1 41Â£27 &91 V/, . 1 vt 4 2. Minimize the landing in the interior courtyard, and begin the stair rise at the earliest point allowable by the UBC so that the visibility of the stairway and courtyard will be reduced significantly. Note that there is no requirement in the UBC to provide natural light to the basement commercial area, only to the new bedroom in the below grade apartment. The applicant will have to provide two exits from the commercial space. Site Plan Two existing crabapple trees will be removed as part of this proposal. The City Forester has required that the Douglas-Fir and Rocky Mountain Juniper trees in the public right of way be preserved and protected during construction, which shall be a condition of approval. The front and side of the house will remain grass, but a basement will be placed under the rear one third of the site, so the outbuilding has some pavement around it. This pavement is to be reduced as described above. Variances The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District, which does not have any setback requirements. The applicant will have to apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Special Review to eliminate the on-site parking spaces and to reduce the required trash storage area. Parking waivers have typically been approved on other downtown sites, where on-street parking is more appropriate and public transportation and parking garages are available. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The site is located in the Commercial Core, where residential buildings are an exception to the surrounding building patterns. These structures have proved particularly difficult to preserve given the development potential for the sites. If the proposal is modified as described above, staff finds that it will fit into the character of the surrounding area, where the Commercial Core transitions into a less intense commercial and lodging neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 3 I I Response: The historic building will be preserved unchanged from its historic appearance, and will still have a strong relationship to the historic outbuilding, therefo re staff finds that the proposal, as modified, will not detract from the historic significance of the property. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: With the elimination of the third story, the building will be only approximately two feet taller than the existing house. The architecture of the new structure does reflect the - era in which the house was built, allowing the buildings to have a successful relationship to each other. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Applications for partial demolition must meet all of the following review standards: 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance o f the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a rear addition on the existing house. Building permit records indicate that a basement was put under part of the house in 1958 and the addition was made in 1960. Staff finds the addition does not contributeto the historic significance of the parcel. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The area of demolition is not original or significant. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is addressed under the conceptual review standards. ON-SITE RELOCATION Applications for on-site relocation must meet all of the following standards: 4 -1 - 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The outbuilding is to be moved so that an appropriate location for new construction can be created on the site. The outbuilding will maintain prominence on the site and in fact will be set closer to the street. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Said report, from a structural engineer or housemover, shall be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: Financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be required as a condition of approval, along with a plan for how the building will be moved and stored during construction. The outbuilding will likely have to be temporarily stored off-site. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The proposed new structure contains a residential unit. but is a commercial, mixed-use structure. The building does not appear to conflict with the "Residential Design Standards" other than that the apartment does not have a street-facing entry door or a porch, elements which would not be appropriate to the building. Staff recommends that the HPC waive the requirement to comply with the standards, since the ordinance is only intended to apply to purely residential development. STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. Based on HPC's previous comments, which have included the same consistent concerns with the proposal, approval as submitted is not appropriate. 5 I. .- â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. With the significant scale issues of the proposed project, it is not close enough to the review standards for approval with conditions. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered). The staff recommendation is to identify the minimum changes that must be made to the project in order to continue holding hearings on this proposal. If HPC finds that there is enough merit in the general concept of the project to warrant continued discussions, then staff recommends the following: Continue the application to September 22, 1999 with the following direction: 1. Eliminate the third floor. 2. Minimize the landing in the interior courtyard, and begin the stair rise at the earliest point allowable by the UBC so that the visibility of the stairway and couityard will be reduced significantly. 3. Add an overhead door at the trash storage area. 4. HPC shall waive the "Residential Design Standards." â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Although HPC has expressed the same concerns at each of the meetings held on this project, some of the most significant items, such as the height of the tower, have not been adequately addressed. Without modifications as described above, or if the HPC does not feel that the current project has any merit. the board should deny the application. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated August 25, 1999. B. Revised application. C. Minutes from June 9, 1999. D. Minutes from July 14,1999. E. Memo from City Forester. 6 Sunday, August 22, 1999 Historic Preservation Committee City of Aspen Dear HPC Member, At your last meeting you discussed the proposed development of the A. G. Shepperd house on East Hopkins on the corner near La Cocina. This small victorian , on a small lot, is over 100 years old and has historic ,landmark designation. To allow this to have an outsized addition, to move the structure in back, to possibly lose adjacent trees, will destroy the visual integrity and the historic charm of one of the last homes that reminds us of Aspen as it was during the mining era. If the current owners feel this must be done to realize their investment, they should not assume that Aspen as a community is responsible for their making a profit here. It is not appropriate for them to expect the HPC, Council, or the community to allow this. The existing buildings are in scale with the lot. The proposed development will overwhelm and change forever the character of the Shepperd House. Your position is a difficult one, but you are the people who will decide what parts of Aspen's past will be saved for Aspen's present and future. What will people say as they walk past that corner in one year, twenty years, a hundred years? I hope you will strongly consider saying NO to this further development of this historic structure. there's very little left. Sincerely, Helen Palmer Box 1855 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Sunday August 22, 1999 City Council City of Aspen Dear Council Member, I attended the last meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee which concerned the proposed development of the Shepperd House on East Hopkins. If this development goes through, this small victorian, over 100 years old and designated a historic landmark, will,be lost forever. Overshadowed by an outsized addition it will lose its simplicity and charm. There was also talk of trees being cut down. . . which are on city property. It is not the responsibility of Council, the HPC, or the community to see that a developer makes money on his investment. Why should we give up one Of the last homes left over from Aspen' s mining days? The current owners knew what they were buying and assume the city will let them make changes to suit their needs. You, the Council, don't have to do this. Please support the HPC. . . they are doing a good job. Please say NO to any more proposed development of this little house on its little lot. Aspen needs to keep this one. We depend on you to hold our town together. Please don't let us down. Sincerely, Helen Palmer Box 1855 Aspen, Colorado 81612 ALLEY 5000' 1 B O 1 I \ O 1 I 1?T i /3 M H i . 1 1 45&21, 1 lirl m 81 + 4, Â§ 0 1 1 \/L_--t. 1 1 1 1 1 O 6 -- 2 1 1.1 /1 - li 1 1 1 r Od,J 8000 11 = k, 0 i txj h ..J -5 EAST MOIPILI[MS AVE. > ' EXISTING NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc I JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS prrr nt A Al I 309 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COI ORADO Aang,j 2,0 R1819 /970)49,4 1880 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET NV-Id EUIS 9NllS ALLIEY O 8000' 31 1 1 ~ j--Vafiil--7- /7\1-1 1 ~ L< 1.---I-----1" 1 4 j O i ..2 il -14&-- *f E 1 O r 0 1 ly 1 l 8 R f. 3 1 9 10 2 1 - 1 \1 1 .I 1 0 hit - 1 08 1. 1 9.1 1-1 1 1 O DODD' 11 i i1 L EAST ImÂ¢DPISHNS AVE. 1 > PROPOSED NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 1 1 q'TF Pl AN 1302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO i ASPEN, CO 8 181? (01019?5.3860 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET d 31IS 0390dOhld M. m. . 7-4. .. r - - -0---- ~756---Fl-~ 1 l i I I.I. .Iâ€¢ Ill. I 'J 1 1 0. -72 i- biltâ€ž:7yy, â€¢te O IIi . . 4 0 C , 4 26 4 1 , 1 11 1 I r 1= 0 O m 'F 0 * 1 ., 1 -0 0 9 1 .1 1 1 I '. 2 4 R : 1 2 1 m 4 li j 11 % ~. : 3-4.. 1 1 1 1 i T it 't 1 1 <A: / 1 2111 4 C . 1 : lillil'\ m 3 1 1 90 = 1 1 4 4 , 1 ' MA:14Â·.2,944.]fy?,4?44 1,10Â·0>.Â·Wg&(' Â¥ i 11,14- 211 1 4 m 1 . : 1 7 2 1 'F, 1 FIt 4 K 1 - I .% I < 44. 4'Â·r T ),1 DÂ·,â€¢ L 1 F_r_ . rii . .i ..Â·7. 71 -, 1./'.1 / k i.'1. 'r; /-4' . .'. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22@11 1 . - JO 1 . .1 1 III . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 /1~ 1 1 It r . d i l 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 14/ 1 1'' ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | FLOOR PLANS 502 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO | ASPEN: CO 81612 (970)925-3660 NEW ADDITION 1 VECTORSpo/JAKE VICKERY ARCI]ITECTS ~ 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET 121 .LI 1-1â€¢ WW I â€¢- W. r... 4.4 . .... , 4 5000 1 W . Itl Al C) n - 1 1 . I.....1/1/,1 : 'I...91 ...1....,1 1. 1..,1,/ I '. . 1 11'b-//I"*11 I 3 1 45 1, %12 ie e L -- ] 1 t: 4 11 h )1121-1 J-9 1P 7 1 %8 11-f=Â·-4-&&~FLL- * MN (DO ' 4 0 4 11 4 TW IIi 1 -r 4 /2 - 0 la D . 1 = O e g)*5 ~- E :r- lo 1 1--[27Â»1~ 1.1.- e 9 -_,1 , 1....g.f. - 5, - ~ELâ€¢ 1 FOLE Z W , i: .r r.* ri* /6 FÂ·*. 1.... 4 1 I h , IFF Eli ] 4 1 1Â»29\ 11. 11 n 11 1 BltÂ· ...4 ! 11 11 . 11 â€¢AL-1 L â€¢Â« Ae,M 1 hi 1 0912 - AU_ 1 111 11 1 1 a9 1 1 1 1 1 R 81 * 1 11 1 / J 1 1 1 1 i 1 i ff 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- \ R. 1 9.1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5000' 0- lili ~ 30 NEW ADDITION 1 VECTORSÂ® S JAKEVICKERY ARCHITECTS ' i FLOOR PLANS 1 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET ..2 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO | ARPFN CO 8181? 870~925-3660 hl001:I CIN003 . m/=1 47 4 1 -----M-~- - - -1 11 1 - ------r- I -i !1 1 11---1 --4 1 1-11 1 :. Â£4 1 i i I il it ! 1 -- F-- ~ 11 i' 111 1 1' 1:1 11 il 1 1 1 1 1 i - --- 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 V-- h \ 1 -=---22222.-- 1 INA 1 ===I=====ZE===F==EF==--4 7-7 1 1 - 1 1 li H- U 11 1 lili'1!11.1! 1 1 4 + I 4- 2=4 PROPOSED*IONARCH STREET_E_LIVATION {PROJECT WEST) --4 --- -- --- -- ALT. 2 =!!Iii - . 1====1 . 11 1 1 11 16 1 , 1 1, 1 1 1 - â€¢t .1 1 , f 1 lill 1 1 i 2 1 $ lilli : E=z===Z==================:======~ 1 r 1 5 0 t I lit ' Illilli! 1 ~ EL [1 14 1 *==*i Â«11Â®1'LE. 7 -- 1 1 jillialt. 11 11 1 i e .9 i . -p/.1 1 c .*. M Fi --- _ I.-Ill-I -I.*-I - - -- ---1; 11 , I- - . I 1 4 -2 3, f- . *7 6<2 71> c c _ _ f-Ft - 4---i -- Jr- li- -- - - - - '- 'k ./ 1%. -- - 7., , - 11 ] 0 , 1 : 1 1 11 il 1 1 1 .2 /1 1 ,..LI t:' f /1 1.: 11 1 , 11 i i -- 4 1 1: '1 & 1 --r ! 1 - ---- - 4 I I il =1 |li Ip:Inl .1 -- ...a j 3 1 H 2 6 :1'S /~ + 111 ~1 Fl 141 - r - :----1N ike ,k'; i It i 1. 1, , 1 ----- --7- , i i - F=== 1 1 - L=. / 1 / /Â£- - --- ------ - ---1-- -- -- ~--- -- 4--9--1 n ; - 4 4 P 1 1 - 1: 1 1 - - 11 1:1 1 1.1 ! 1 1 ' =ti,~,it:j dll 1 1 1113 1 --- i - . r 1 ' 't f .i,1/1-4 i :!1 1Â·/11 j 1 1 &-7Er/1 1 1} 1 : 476- ...â€ž.LL .- , ];14 ;!~Ijb~9 !;42 El 1% . 1 1 1 li Â· 41 j COURT WEST COURT NORTH COURT EAST 00URT SOUTH SECTION THROUGH WALK LOOKING SOUTH ~ 4; 08/17/2000 18:48 970927' -65 TIMROTH PAGE 02 MSJ PROPERTIES, LLC PO Box 966 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 927-9700 Fax (970) 927-9610 August 16, 2000 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 130 5. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Amy Guthrie RE: 302 E. Hopkins Amy, We would like to request a one year extension of our preliminary approvals for the AG Shepard Bldg located at 302 E. Hopkins. We have been tied up with the restoration of another downtown Aspen building, and have not had the time to finish up our planning process. Please let us know how to proceed. Sincerely, 3-ok~ 13. oRJJ CU-i) John D. Davis Pattner, MSJ Properties, LLC Vectorspc Research / Planning & Architecture / Project Management serving the best in communities since 1976 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS August 12,1999 Amy Guthrie Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 302 EAST HOPKINS Dear Amy, Please find attached revisions to our Land Use Application for the above referenced 1 project. Included are a complete set of plans and elevations for the proposed work. These revised plans eliminate the ;'connectors" between the new building and the existing structures. We developed this revised scheme to address HPC concerns in hopes of moving this project forward. Major HPC concerns regarding the previous design were as follows: (1) the 'connectors" between structures, second floor deck and railing (2) the third floor and /or its architectural treatment (3) the light/egress court and stair (4) the roof top deck and stair enclosure (5) cumulative impacts of all these elements taken as a whole on the property The revised scheme is submitted as a compromise between the functional needs established by applicants and historical preservation. We support the elements retained 1 from the previous scheme as outlined below: (2) Third floor: We feel the third floor of the new building is essential to the project economics and "constructive use" of the property as a whole. It's utilization allows the project to take advantage of exemptions created by the City Land Use Code to off-set the expenses and loss of use of other parts of the property due to historical controls. We feel that the third floor is less of an issue once all the above grade 'connectors" between the buildings are eliminated and the new building is free standing. The roof of the third floor is approximately 4.5 feet lower than the ridge of the "tower" on the 303 East Main (Kuhn) property accross the alley to the north. (con't) 100 South Spnng Street, Aspen, Colorado USA 81612 tel & fax 001 (970) 925-3660; email: vectorspc@aol.com 302hprevp.doi h page 2 of 2 (3) light/egress court and stair The interior court provides necessary and desirable access to the basement spaces, as well as code required natural light and ventilation and emergency egress for the occupants of the affordable housing unit. It is minimally visible from the public right of way and replaces light/egress wells that would otherwise be required in the sideyard setback along South Monarch. Light wells in the setback location would be much more visible to the pedestrian and more impactive to the historical structures. The previously preposed overhang of the rear shed wall over the corresponding basement wall has been eliminated. (4) roof top deck and stair enclosure The roof deck on top of the new building gives the occupants of the 2-bedroom unit a private place to be outdoors. We fell this roof deck is a reasonable request and provides a superior level of compatibility for the historical structures than the cantilevered and lower floor roof decks previously proposed for the south elevation of the new building. This roof deck is virtually invisible to the pedestrian at street level and has virtually no impact on the historical structures. (5) Cummulative impacts The elimination of the "connectors" separates the new building from the historical structures and significantly reduces cummulative impacts of the new development on them. The reality of a separate building on its own corner of the property vastly improves the sense of separation from the historical structures. Sincerely, / Jae Vickery, Architect Jake Vickery Architects VectorsPC !2< le MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Directoqlb FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Residential Design Review-Public Hearing (Continued from June 9, 1999) DATE: July 14,1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests conceptual, partial demolition, on-site relocation, and "Residential Design Review" approval. HPC has held a worksession and site visit on the project, and continued the review hearing with recommendations for revision on June 9, 1999. This property is a designated historic landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: John Davis, represented by Vectors/Jake Vickery Architects. LOCATION: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. Commercial Core zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in 1 64116,4-6 accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: This house was built in 1883, which makes it one of the oldest remaining structures in the Aspen Townsite. Throughout it's history it has been used for both commercial and residential purposes. It is the only example of a "Carpenter Gothic" building in Aspen, defined by the steeply pitched roof and decorative trim on the front of the building. (Carpenter Gothic is the Gothic Revival style darried out in wood rather than stone.) The applicant wishes to add more commercial space above and below grade, and to add a new free market apartment. In a worksession held on April 28, 1999, the architect was encouraged to look at the idea of demolishing a non-historic addition to the house and moving the outbuilding closer to it, thereby freeing up the back part of the lot for a separate new commercial building. This would keep the outbuilding intact and directly related to the old house. The new building would appear to be on its own small lot, a similar concept to the historic landmark lot split. Staff finds that the suggestion at the worksession was an excellent way to remove the impacts of a new addition from the historic structures. On June 9, HPC reviewed a proposal which followed the basic concept from the worksession, but attached the new construction to the historic structure. The HPC members expressed significant concern with the connector, with the majority of the board saying that they would not support it- that the new construction needs to be completely detached from the historic structure. Some members of the board felt that the new commercial space should not be taller than two stories, while others were willing to entertain a third story if the connector was eliminated. The idea of setting back the third story was emphasized. While there were some comments about making the architecture of the new commercial space quite different from the Carpenter Gothic architecture of the old house, staff specifically asked the board for clarification on this point. The board agreed that there does need to be a direct relationship and a clear compatibility between the structures. The revised design that has been submitted does not include an above grade attachment between the new commercial space and the historic buildings. The three structures are freestanding. The building has been made into a full three stories, with a roof deck element on top of it. The architecture has changed significantly from the conceptual proposal. Staff finds that the project has made progress in the sense that the connections between the three structures have been eliminated, however, the new commercial space still sits in the background of the historic shed, now in a three story form. It is staff s feeling that the idea presented at the worksession to move the historic shed was to create a new building footprint on the rear section of the lot. The new construction was to be contained in that footprint, not to connect to the historic structures or bleed over into the space that had been reserved for them. Staff therefore does not support having any new above grade 2 construction on the lot except for in the roughly 24'x30' footprint on the rear of the property. The addition of a fourth story element on the new commercial building is not compatible with the historic structure on the lot. While there has been an effort to encourage taller buildings in the downtown, staff feels that it is not appropriate on a lot which contains a single story historic house. A roof deck can be used on top of the building, but a covering over that deck is not appropriate. Staff also finds that the architecture has become incompatible with the historic resource. As was emphasized on June 9th, the property has the potential to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is very important to the early development history of Aspen. This is not the location for contemporary design. In staffs opinion the architecture proposed on June 9, or another design which uses similar historical references should be pursued. Because the property is a designated landmark, certain exemptions from Growth Management are available to the applicant to offset historic preservation restrictions. For instance, new below grade commercial space can be created without competing for allocations or providing affordable housing mitigation. The existing free market unit in the basement of the house was awarded through a Growth Management exemption, and is being transferred to a new location on the second and third stories of the proposed new construction. (The basement unit is expected to be deed restricted as affordable housing to mitigate for the new above grade commercial space.) Staff finds that these are important incentives and are an adequate compromise by the City to provide opportunities to develop on the site. Site Plan No trees will be removed or relocated as part of this proposal. The front and side of the house will remain grass, but a basement will be placed under the rear one third of the site, so the outbuilding has some pavement around it. The applicant must consult the Parks Department to confirm that excavation impacts to street trees will be properly addressed. Variances The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. which does not have any setback requirements. The applicant will have to apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Special Review to eliminate the on-site parking spaces. This has typically been approved on other downtown sites, where on-street parking is more appropriate. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Applications for partial demolition must meet all of the following review standards: 3 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance ofthe parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a rear addition on the existing house. Building permit records indicate that a basement was put under part of the house in 1958 and the addition was made in 1960. Staff finds the addition does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The area of demolition is not original or significant. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is addressed under the conceptual review standards. ON-SITE RELOCATION Applications for on-site relocation must meet all o f the following standards: 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The outbuilding is to be moved so that an appropriate location for new construction call be created on the site. The outbuilding will maintain prominence on the site and in fact will be set closer to the street. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Said report, from a structural engineer or housemover, shall be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to 4 insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: Financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be required as a condition of approval, along with a plan for how the building will be moved and stored during construction. The outbuilding willlikely have to be temporarily stored off-site. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The residential space is on the second floor of the new construction, but must still meet the "Residential Design Standards." From the information provided, staff finds that it will comply. STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the project be continued to August 12,1999 with the following direction: 1. All new construction must be contained within a footprint of approximately 24'x 30' on the rear of the lot. 2. Confirm all zoning and building code implications of having three detached structures on the site. 3. Consult the Parks Department before the next HPC review to confirm that excavation impacts to street trees will be properly addressed. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated July 14, 1999. B. Application. C. Inventory form. D. 1893 Bird's Eye View of the site. E. 1904 Sanborne Map. F. West elevation presented on June 9, 1999. G. Minutes from June 9, 1999. 5 - ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name 60 2 E, Ropl,IN S 2. Project location 302 2, 440Fk-(A 6 .Asm/M 4-â‚¬)-r K- 1 6 1-0 0 M- 80 , 7360 N *[ fÂ¢ (indicate street addrbss, lot and block num6er or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 04/ 4. Lot size '22,06Â¤ 46 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number 3,0 Z. EA.05'r- H.oploi 5/6 UD Â·012>FER 0>4\ 6 90 -k-6 i 90 EaX %10 ; 0111 YA(2-* Ale Â·4-1 9OME- 04 2 16-2, 990 -- 924 - 9610 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number 72*2- \%62-0201 \1 EUED(26 /-N A 1.00 So, SPIUN 4 92- 4 b Aspe/\ 9-4 6 4 I 9902 919.--'EGGâ€¢ 7. Type of application (check all that apply): >< .Conditional Use Conceptual SPA 9 Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment 34 GMQS exemption < Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 33 r)Â«7" HREE, -1407-2) et.-, tag,0 0%712- <OFf;Â»600Â· a 37-A t),131-) IN C '15â‚¬TD %912- 917/0/ 0 9. Description of development application PART AÂ·(- TUA 40#TUrn Op 22 R AADAI--4+19[r)Â©/ 3 +95 1-5 dyl , 1.ELD LARâ‚¬ 4 wriv#* 6% 19Â¢ 4 e\*rE~'6~vor 14 C Ng/Aj '*37)7//1 " 972*1 CEll / 4. (3 tâ‚¬*f20 OF FERÂ¢)#52-*11 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 -DA Luit- 3 /2- ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: 301 6. *)618)4 L.u:L ~faltn '34)20 46,486 Address: 450 3 E. th'F~Â£04'46 / Zone district: OC Lot size: 5,000 9 Existing FAR: -1, f 4-o Allowable FAR: 4,00 Proposed FAR: .z~ 4-7601 ( 3434) Existing net leasable (corrfmercial): L /, /449 (*095 + Proposed net leasable (commercial): RET. CAu. d,$'e /5 76;*~40 /2<349-0- /2-1~ 0 Existing % of site coverage: .h/Ar 39'-1 Â·EMefrWAT Proposed % of site coverage: Nk Existing % of open space: 1 1 59 + 0 %5Â°A Proposed % of open space: '35% tEAD =72>,\ 116 \ + = Ze-U Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: '24 / /â‚¬ Accesory bldg: /2' Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 3,2- Accessory bldg: /2/ Proposed % of demolition: Existing number of bedrooms: / RET]2â‚¬z)N\ Proposed number of bedrooms: 3 BED/ECOKS Existing on-site parking spaces: 1 +FNE ( On-site parking spaces required: 3 67*5â‚¬4 Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: 1 Front: 9, 9 ~f Front: 0 Front: 9.5- 3 Rear: 0 Rear: 0 Rear: 0 ' Combined , Combined Combined ~ , Otc+ Front/rear: /Â·3 - Front/rear: o Front/rear: i '5 Side: 68 0, Side: 0 Side: O ' Side: W 7 0.5- Side: 0 Side: 0/ Combined Combined Combined Sides: 3.6 - Sides: 0 Sides: 0 ' Existing nonconformities or encroachments: 2(/1/UZ- /126'J*/Al 4/3-4,/*~ Variations requested: 33 ?~~20. /6/71/4 .95::Aged - 7 Pall .223 (00/tv L -~ I *'dra #014. I Â¥08.- wel,J O?)PAME.Z.C.,(16â€¢L. (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R- - 6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) 82 302 East Hopkins, Davis Following are our written description of this project and explanation of the ways it conforms to applicable review standards. SECTION 26.415.010(C)(5), Development involving a historic site or structures or development in an "H", Historic Overlay District, Review Standards. a. This project proposes to retain the historical portions of the existing house and outbuilding in tact. To accomplish this preservation, the rear non-historic addition to the house is removed and the existing outbuilding is relocated on-site to this area of the site. A new structure is then proposed to accommodate additional FAR on the rear of the site. The new structure is extended along the wall of the adjacent brick building on the east and onto a recessed area on the roof of the historic addition. The architecture of the new "addition" is derivative of and simplified from the existing house so as to not compete architecturally. A clear distinction between old and new is created. All motorized mechanical equipment and ductwork will be housed inside the new structure. b. The character of the "addition" is interpretive of Victorian character using more contemporary materials and details. The addition is designed in a commercial vemacular to reflect its location in the Commercial Core district and its use for multi-use purposes. c. & d. The proposed development strategy retains the historic structures and places new development in a visually separated massing at the rear of the property. The third floor of the rear structure is "minimized' by a strong cornice at the top of the second floor and recessing the walls of the third floor back from the wall plane of the lower section of the building. Light wells for the basement level are avoided by incorporating low windows in the west wall, located under a window display shelf, which has the effect of skylighting the basement spaces. 4 050 2- â‚¬ ALT- Mapl,-t NS Aspen Street Afap U f U *U U U A,i. Cl. h 1,67 M.11,- Aw ... ...; Al,*Av 66 6144,4 Nik M . .1 - '%O C Aspen An' Vil' Di.Â· F 2] &02. -Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·.Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·G â€ž $ 4 ' 1. Ill lt,Il St ., .._ . Gls 8 1 . - AINâ€žIi.CLDI Â·Â· ...... 117 Muu,d.inVi.W ... ....â€ž . ill 444,11 East ." . Â· A.p"Alp'M... ... HI 7 64,0 0.h. M...._. - ..... H 2 -- Aipin St...... ...GIl i MIn rn,Il CL Di ._ ..... ...... I JI 140 .\. 3,/49 . ' 14 -.. 44~2-3$-C.. 4.1,4 : b.,i.,1 Pâ€¢,t Ci ... . ... G 3 N..t. A.... ..... )4 1 G 6 N.,1.1,1 LA ........ . 0 61 %\ <%2-7- -41 7 i Â«49 v- 0, -r--IN ':,r Â·02Â·*2$1Â£4,/1-6S-~1Â£44-wwl&Â·..0 1 .el:9 Hd - DI.â€¢ke, St.... .G. O.kln .. . .......... . 06 - ' B....1/ Binch Cl Pl Rd , .Eis Nâ€¢W'Â·'1'..6 0,...... E 5 - C,Â¢~ a Blick Buth D. ... EF23 Nonh St.. ..._......F 3 4 i /4Â£-%- i '14Â«994 - ->1\4+13... 'tand ''. 1 '~ EN.... ... ...Gil 6 6 0â€žgic..1 St.. ............% ... 4. ... Hl, .11 2 O.0.0 D,......_........_.... E 3 / Biown Ln. .. ...1.Â· ....GO ~,AC.... ...-.1-.--.- 114 404 l Â· Bunn, la.......... E 2] P..,1 St...... ..+1............ .. 1 4 . Plk 1 Â£14 Nal 411 â€¢0,1.4 ina, bi dio wn 0, 44:ind 0,1 m.1, C..,1. Ci.ek Di....... ..... F j P.a AJ........ 1--6.,4.- \ 79 1 c *a- o'~ ~ f *432 t.t"tr't.:Inut.r:i '< C..11. 0..i Rd ..... ... GJ,3 11135& 10 L Cant-Wlial CU. .161 Pinkin M,,8 Di ....., ........... D[2 ..1 'P 1= 1 -- Cl...1.nd S, ........ ...... 1,16 P,invi, Pab ....... ...._.-.... H 2 - Z:4Â·~ k Châ€¢th.ht Rd .... ... .El M.wiln........ ........ .F $ 4 ro A,rporl ,â€¢/11 <4.4 11 ~72, - C.cuil Av ... ........... ............ Il PowÂ« M.,I U... ........._......FG; 1!Mice//. 4 j-& p ~I; cagirb) 1 1-</ ./4 Coop,(A,- --.Â·Â· -1.â€ž46 Puppy Saâ€¢,b St........ .... _...... 6 6 Coitonwood O, ... . . â€ž/4 Plarnid Di... ..â€ž.â€ž-. 11 Collonwoodin.... ....... .Gl Ou..â€ž Si . 5 4 11 11 '12< j<Aed&<30, (1 C,vilitiaâ€¢83..... ..Il R.c. S._ ... 1 i\ 5 13 1. 1~ i D.1. St. %4 1~ 6 RM B"& ...............__ DE23 ILAO.1 --1 ) DIN, St.~.......~.........-Â·Â·. ....11 5 11.J M.*.0.4.,n Rd..........-.-..D 666 U , . Â·Â· i ~ J l' # ~_~ i-~'-704,7~v 1_al' \31 ft--- , VII, St Eâ€¢S ici â€¢ b ,/- Dool,ttle Ck Di .... ...H 2 J Rd .AJ ...~........-....1.-..DE#â€¢ Goll Course ~ 74 1.< ./ j._l -%84*mk-1 1,%6-1 1, \ ---<\1 I ''' r- r- lik , D.,i,M Ai......... ...}44Â§ 11,44 A Rd. ...... ........... E 6 Nr'ta ' I hi Fionct, St. .G,1 A..,Di.. ., ...... . _... .. E 1 4, 'Lv ' 2 ir.j<AT-IZ5 1 l17& -53#,f L Â·. 1 0.5.1 - Ade':J: 9 1 1 8,0 Giana. M...... ..GH56 Â¥111â€¢ S, E R f Huâ€¢,1/ t hod Ln ...... .-. ..167 8'mi,le Ai... ...116 / h' 4 & 1 1 $,01' A /1.. S,1., Ct â€žG 61 R,"sid. Di.. 1 61 â‚¬ Gilin, St. ..... 11 5 t...10,6 Di- _.11 i, ~Â·. C <94-; EL74-t---~ Â·~.35/it>itil i?:%2<rk<y â‚¬Â·~ r:,. c Gic, Mch St . 61145 RA#fo,6 RJ.- _... .... .F 4S 7.- 11 50/,h A. '4/ S J Q~Â»Â·5~'*- 7n '~i | b , 2 ~ _ /' , ~ G,Liun Av, .. Gil 5 6 RO,â€¢C, G. 0-m=Â«r-~'f-- A *'.f 2,1..:.. f~ ~~.~ ,1 -4~,~:"5'.1,-4,~-*-,/f)- 0/.3%4.=t 2, r,44,4,,~ ~: 7 Â·' 41 ' 1'., . G-â€¢.St . Ill S.1.al,vncl, i El Gâ€¢Ibm St .. IS S.twi [}i. ....... DN i G,11â€¢,pi. Si . f 4 Sigâ€¢ Cl Â£2 /Â·un SCIkU 2 CE-- =, 2 f.-,Â· ,Â· 1 F. SÂ·. 6/ NLA 4 4-â€¢rA- . ..1 H.wn liwiluw .t, 51,.3.1-9.d Di . -Â· Â· IJ78 '991â€¢t Mtn Rd )13> '% t, 7 f '. , 11.11â€¢m St .- G35 s.. k,/ c, .....Gl 11,â€¢:lic, lA . GIl 2 S,iâ€¢,Ii, St . G 14 1 21 l. S. 3 1 -40,4/9. 1.-4 b %* 1 ~ ..XI â€ž*mÂ°".f'.~ILÂ°~1~ i# a1 I*Oil~.LI.~. D, ... E 2 St,-Ci ... * 1- -4~361- 1 -if~D~ -3-6 14 -rl -i 75iint 4 M......7 10 Al'roof] L "c Holden Di. .Gl St.,1,ln ... /65 11*u' A.. . G 11 1 6 . .El l : E...1 b [.4.-8 ll.- 11 1 ?+42 2%,6 1 lici .t~,t'FW "until SI. ,Â· . 11 5 Sbmr,wi@ Ln + ... 11 7 / 11.hic, Cic.k RJ. .. .EFO Sâ€¢,1.,1,1. 51 .... r. FG]5 ID ~,p,#'Â°' Â·Â¢ 522 , Aspen Â«*1 Jfts,/ 71*-1- f 4445 4 (4#2*4 1 , L 8,1 .4 Â· 4 l.'. Aw.... ./., Sne. 0,1nY Cl.. ..-.. E J Â¢' & Maa Ca- --Â· d| ,Â·-' t ~ 1411.â€žAw. . Gil . 6 Si, ug,Ii, G,0.0 13 . }16 7 1 ) Gitt;, stÂ¢}.,?-.9~I J 5:..#r. -Â· Â·a, fÂ· E Ne: ~Â·b 91& Juan St. It 4 5 Smuggio, Mus,1.Â·n Rd .... E It 6 8 Kinw St. .1 6 Snilks,/.. lib c I West S...,s, 1 1 1, , \Aspen G,ov' . L i,., Ct.Ln.. ..111,1 S,â€¢â€¢4/n ...... * M,|of, A l. 1.,A.pu,In. "2 Soult. Av ...4..66 1 E i J ' - i 171 0 1, : feelf' O: 2 - 14 W,,flh:;: 1, l. 4%, liu.Illn.. .... It 3 S,Â·iu,W St . ~. Gil $ 1 L Ut, 0 1.4'*,4/ Â«> e[ f 1 -ti ~ Â« ' Jp'no D' ......IJ. Sund st. .... _HI 10,1. Fun. Ad . .G 5 6 SP,Ua SI. ..... . 66 vtâ€¢ P' 1 Ne .goil,w Rd. . E Wn. . ..._. G -1 CO'St'j ~10 Ad .in S'. GH)6 Tub, In. _ ._..113 Euic-M - - _.,__EF12 .tal. 1 T.,41 A.JAN-- - . _ . 11 2 01<' 4.82 t.ril,5 :=:Cd.LEâ€ž_2_._13.1.IIi: VIn. St...-p.-.............-.... G i G* O 1'12<adr 1 - W..1 End St. _ ...-.......-. Hlb (Shl/Twning Rd ... ............, H I 1 Wom..Dr.__-_.._-_. Ul LJOL/CY!031 4 '.+ To Fwln laki, vii indipendeni, Pi,70'~k( *'dow 0'.â€ž-4 ~-.-*...............G Il 2 W,Ilaughby Wy -.-Â·hÂ·Â·- EF35 10 Aihicon /4 ..4." Ad.. ......... ..JÂ·G 3 wilght IW-Â·-Â·-Â·- .... Â£ 5 0 0 2 A'Aa a A a - t. 11*OUS WEST D..Inc 1998 Alip OUS MET Di*. A 1998 -4 ALLEY BLOCK 80 575~09'trE 30Â·16 1 ' 1 110 1111- ~/ /ONE STORY/ / I 11 E[LI 1 6 -0----Il-----0- , 0 0, 0 0 W .2 z //9NE STORY /// ilillill 8 CONG. SLAB . *0- ~-4 -1 : . 'OUN 01 RESAR W /(Al CAP N 750 09'll' W 30Â·16 FOUNO: REBAM */ 'LAS. CAP HOPKINS AVE. , IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 8 SOUTH MONARCH "64,09. 15 Phom I (t)01 Hel k.0 i 1 1-1 1 1.1 il. 99.94 00 /1 - .--- 4 . U 1 A kto 14 =1/011Â» 4 EL -f- I} , h\\C -10-7-' 301 HOPKINJS 1 11. 4 ' MAzer j.19 Flurl e N 81'2,T4 t.<WrI'A -*jp f-). Â·5* FÂ»u) 2->ls200, 160 -603 V,kÂ«[ Ag'WHeÂ· AS,9811 4j r-Â·' 5 2. 1%.t{0. r L 2 â€¢- , 1Â¢1 7:46.2- 1 . .p, r t . : 1 , , . C . . 4, ;'. 4 17 - /1 4 111 1 L . -...lingl. , 1 -- 1 1 -,73- 1,1, 1,1,1 1, ./4 .--i--------------1-----...----- I - 17,-5-~ ) - M i 0 0 ------ 2/ .Ii d.11 TH - 2-11 _ 1 -1Â»f - , - . I 3 - - .... ... VectorsPC/ Jake Vickery Architecture Aspen 302 East I lopkins- Existing South Elevation 4/28/99 Pholo: Ch.irles Abbott/ Digital Arts ,\slic.~ Â© 19' . I . f . f. ( j . 1 - 3 /0 ..3 /\ rr\ k - /7 1 ' 177 .t. ''ta, 1 1, 0- t.r Xililli' hf I. C.. I, I .,. RX \>i, 1 %,4, 2 3/ r \X \. V 1 - ... 2 H.4;. ./I \\ 1 0 -,Lvt,,1. 1 1.1 1 ~ .6 Â«:.. 2 4423;V *tit~ ..10.' 1 F , 2i \4\ I .... ~----W--~--.-W -,uÂ»-4*03*~C l.~: 9--al *F#*P#Nue*tmnm"~48'Wmmvid. . -b . +'71 , -7 1 1 ' lilli.. .,4,S, v 1. .- 4 .Ek :' ./.':9, 4 $,7,Ater:9&11**7:. Saw. 4 *1 -4...4 ....W... 4412440 3ihe I Â£ ' 9 - h â‚¬ern~3**el =e> 4. 7. 4 -9 n#'lili . ... 2 -â‚¬21=--Li ....2*24=,94#3*f**21- . - --- _ 0.2--' ~ LIZEE= t, /14 1 3-i .EÂ« 11 f.1.1 4 . Uf- 4 'Â·1 Â·Â· t .. , 1 *I-** Â· . 223___- ___ -4 %.:64- Â· Sâ€¢ 2 2 ' :,lb.11 t.. . Â· z' .0 E;4.- -r .i r '.14.1*14<14-t. 4~/4.'(Â·Et~-'4Â·i 'h Veetorsl'C.'/ jake Vickery Architeâ‚¬ture Aspen 302 East 1-!opkins- Existing North View 4/28/99 Photo: Charles Abbolt / [)igital Arts Aspen Â© 1 999 f -- 3 - 4~42 1~,~)'t /411#11,111111 '1 ~ Â· . , Fib,1*,41 - # ! -frk . . /4. \\ 1 1 'd#Â«f, , ,Â£. , 44-TY , liN. Â· Â· r 1 - 4 I. ; 4.2 bw'ff â‚¬*32*LJF_-r < ttiv T< * \ : ..-Ddy:mi:1 -Â·'*MAK'* FL---L11 ._~ :_: ~_77 --_ - 441<47 i V . I..%./&3&52%M- 552:N:3~ 4. -L_ - Â· -. - _. .--''- - 924 ... . ,-9*S:928241-2Â©SÂ«:7~ i VI'" 1 /' i~--~E~yeay I -- .Â· Idil :'_i,x, ' W. I. j, - /57 -2-El E-- 5.-' - 1, r..1/.f 4 1>Â»92- - 4 ' .:.,41.:21Â·\ ,(,riii,~4, . -- . - M==2%27 - L M - â€¢ EIL--- 1. =----- .-- - r- r.-- ,-ZEZZE -1 - E-!69 -:2 ==~== .-/ 1 ---- 1// I - - I ---3/. A-I.- '' IiI - - --1.----~~ %#..%-. 4-Kj Y - - Â· 43541 .. i. - 3 4 h . -- 0 . F,-1,â€žrqfri I u.,i \/1,Â·~Â·,iri, 1 rrlii 1,%,Â·turi. Astien 1117 F,â„¢t f innkins- South West Persnprtive Â·1/08/44 Phot(, C|1.1 AgAbbm!/ Dieil,11 ,\ 1 14 ,\â‚¬111,11 (O 1494 r - /,/id///IR...~/7- 353.<------- - 1, lifir qÂ«Â«> M , 7~ bu'~Ilall--1. , ---gIE-LIil-------51-111,_ -- 11 01],J .11 3 - - -2-7.--i. - J ----- 1-. / r . - ... ----1.--- f-â‚¬61 ./ 3 -- Â»Ahh-Â¥al- .. - ,~ ... 1--2 - 4. - -. $ i 1 -1 ----- AF-b ,â€ž --- - - ---- ---1 --* \ 1 -1-- 4 .- 1 --i. .... 1- 1. % , -- , . 4 r-- i.Â·, -A,1\ KA..Â·IÂ·Tj~ '- E-- - .all 11 *-Fr---1-v Y.. Â·Â·Â· -- -...411-*11.--~'Awkil ,-p* I .Â· -~. i. :r: if A., , 4 re 4 ,, ' -PO 2,~,24,2.,0#*0(&,#fwilly:0+424~Â·.11/1 . -1 4~- 4~Ct#.-' zÂ·y'- flt-~Lâ‚¬:-- -'' 4.-\ ritif . % 1 1/ 1 F ...11 ' Â· r p ' 1 1161*46 , 1 'f. â€¢ . i VectorsliC/J,Ike VickiÂ·ry Architecture Aspen 302 East I lopkins- Partial West View 4/28/99 Photo: Charles Abbolt / 1 ) ig il,1 1 Arts A V ),Â·11 :!9 144â€¢ r 29.4 , I , \3 ,. 1. $ 1 ur-trr9. .. '.1 .7/WK ..1~.t ., I N . r j . 1 4 . d , 11 V. . P ./ ..6 - , 1-1- -h J. + ~ ' 1 7 f Â· i I -6/ 0 , . / 13 11# \. ' 4. 1 , b. 1 ..1 7.1/ . /. . 1. 4 ~ I .Â« *H' ~ i tic. , 'I Â·r..1 J 1 . .,4 1 1, 1... f 1,1 /O 5 -/A i , .411 i.i / 9% 1 2 , . , , i 1 -1 - ' . . U '.4 â€¢"11 n . .1.: Ti.= f --- - .-- .--- I ?7 i ACÂ¥ f., '1. -1 1 :/.' 32' .U .. 2-1--36*1 ; . 13 l .dE lit- .: Â»S. .- 1-7 - e . Â·r--- - --- :- p .0 1 .' f 1 .. . -, 4- 1 T. /.1 - ----1---- ----5.---M--- ---------71-1, 11 4~ -1----40 1 1 *7- ; 6/ r ~ 11 -J7 W . ... 10 1 U .+ 3 -- - - .4 i . 6 ' ~ ie==z==tu-dÂ·'.1 , V . / 21 (ZE-GU'Â»-Â·11 Â·111Â·~-- -,r-- t ,, , 4 . A -Mt b i &6 L -3â€ž h : 'C 4 %12 - t k. 1 ..3*2\Â£7-1. 4 - 2022 ***n/9//11"i#h - 13 //////M"51 i 1 -- 7.Â»L_. 1 - - -0---*AM#*44*00#76Â£ip- *#Le-(b/J:46.11 -4. t.. . . r m. . ' VectorsI'l / lake Vickery Architecture Aspen 3()2 East Hopkins- Existing West Elevation 4/28/99 Pholo: Ch.irles Abbott/ 1.)igil.il Arts Aspen Â© 1944 . 3--St:--33â‚¬~ t=74==----- 7--212- : , -2 1 -;- - ~.At.-' 1.7 -A' -L .- -- -- -: 11 . .Bel - 9.Q~ . /////A , g 1 - Ub - INM:1 1.WEREA ' 7 --- --- m...6 - -r-L .. _-.Mf:..: - â‚¬7: C- i 1.-- , 7-Â· :29>.Â«r - -- ---6 ==%2==. 4,2...lit 1 - 3 1 hE 1.-67 -/all- .. .1 1 p -r 4/5Â»' - Ek , . 4=- 2 - -- 8 Â« 12 12,11 Â»An) -IÂ·- 7-7----7~-j- Â·Â·--Â· h Vector:.FC oke Vicker,Â· Architecture Aspen 302 East Hook:ns b treetscape 4/23 /CO 030[0: Char'es Arcer re 97 1 lilli ' ~ Â» ASPEN HISTO Â° 1 PRESERVATION COMMI- --ON MINUTES OF. --. JULY 14, 1999 Suzannah felt if a wide dormer is proposed a shed dormer is more appropriate. If it is a narrow dormer then the gable shape can work. Amy stated that the applicant could have one gable on the south and two on the north. Or they could have a shed dormer on both sides. Steve said he drove around the city looking for a shed dormer on an historic home and he did not see one. Everything is gabled. Lisa said according to the drawings four gables will not work due to the roof structure. Steve said they would work but would be closer together on the north elevation. Basic agreement: Whatever looks the least massive is appropriate and they dormers should be all the same. MOTION: Je#rey moved to table the minor development application to 400 W. Smuggler until July 28, 1999; second by Susan. All infavor, motion carried 6-0. Lisa clarified that the dormers need to be the same and the applicant's options are a shed dormer on both sides or two gables on the north and one on the south. The dormers need to be symmetrical and below the ridge line. 302 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON- SITE RELOCATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Amy relayed that the entire project has been building on the idea that you remove the development impacts from the historic building by creating a new pad at the back of the lot. That would require the out-building to be removed back toward the historic house but would allow the preservation o f the historic building intact. At the last meeting HPC talked about whether the new construction could be attached to the old building and issues about height and architecture. 4 Â· IE>*tiloilr- ~ -- ASPEN HISTO] PRESERVATION COMMIS -73 MINUTES OF_, JULY 14, 1999 A new submittal is being presented. All the buildings are free-standing from each other. A fourth story element has been added and the architecture has changed significantly. Staff feels these changes are problematic. The idea from the worksession was to do something like an historic lot split where all the new construction is contained in a confined footprint, 20 x 3O at the back of the lot and should not intrude anymore into the space established by the historic buildings. The fourth story element is too much and is too much out of context with the historic buildings. Additional height downtown should be on newly developed lots and not right behind a very important historic building. Staff also feels that the architecture has become unrelated to the historic structure. Sworn in were: Jake Vickery, architect for the project. Mark Haldeman, partner in the project. John Davis, Roget Kuhn, Nicklaus Kuhn and adjacent property owner Bill Seguin were also sworn in. Jake presented that the 1950 addition will be removed from the rear of the house. In the process of removing the addition the historic wall will be uncovered. The addition being taken off already corrupted the wall and what they are proposing is less than the addition taken off in terms of surface area connected to the historical resource. The applicant feels they should be allowed to attach to the historic wall that will exposed after the addition is taken off. Jake said the adj acent building owned by Bill Seguin is a two story building and can go to a height of 40 feet by code. The commercial core is where the council would like the density put. The height of the Kuhn tower is 32 feet high and the height o f the proposed tower is 40 feet. The HPC requested the separation of the historic buildings and in order to get the square footage the mass had to go upward. Zero setbacks and 40 feet, four stories is allowed in the commercial core. Coming up with a reasonable standard for these properties should be a goal. The second and third floor have setbacks. The setback is 18 feet from the sidewalk. The reason there is density in the commercial core is to relief the density in other zones and the fourth floor is the use of the roof top. Functionality of the roof space is important to the overall design. The applicant would like a one story connector to the historic house. If the space is taken out it has to go somewhere else. There 5 ASPEN HISTI C PRESERVATION COMM- -' ~'ION MINUTES OF, JULY 14, 1999 is a subgrade connection for the basement underneath the shed for a bedroom. A courtyard is created on the site. Mary endorsed HPC' s role which is to preserve and protect the historic landmark. Board members felt that a model is necessary on this project in order to visually see the height and dimensions o f the new building in relationship to the historic buiding. Jake said he agreed that preservation o f the historic structure is the key element. Roger asked the applicant to explain the stepback as opposed to the fagade creating more of a presence on the street. Jake felt that 14 or 16 feet wide is an historical proportion and he did the stepback as study to see how the HPC would respond to it. Suzannah opened the public hearing. Roget Kuhn stated that he is opposed to the height of the tower which is 40 feet and their tower is 32 feet high. The shed is totally lost. He is also opposed to the loss ofthe existing parking space. This is aggressive development for a small lot. Bill Seguin stated it cost him $30,000 when he put his building up to support his foundation due to the historic house being adjacent to him. He is disturbed about the lack of upkeep by the new owners. It is a classy corner and demands respect. His suggestion was to move the shed to another location and keep some open space between the historical structure. Board members relayed that the shed has to remain due to its historical signifi cance. Nicklaus Kuhn relayed that one concern of his is the garbage left in the alleys from restaurants due to the lack of space. He also relayed that the shed should be away from the sidewalk. 6 . . ASPEN HISTâ‚¬ 1 PRESERVATION COMMI""ON MINUTES OF. JULY 14. 1999 John Davis said they lost the attachment as HPC requested which was huge to them. The HPC didn't want the shed to be a stair corridor and it will be hard to rent as it is too tiny. Bill Seguin's building can go to 40 feet. Suzannah closed the public hearing. Jake relayed that they have a ten by ten by 9 enclosure for trash. The code requires for buildings under 6,000 square feet to have a 10 by 20 by 10 trash enclosure and it is their intention to ask for relief from that requirement. They will then propose an area where two dumpsters can be placed. Jake said density is encouraged in the downtown area due to the transit route with a stop !4 block away. They would have to pay cash in lieu of $15,000 which helps support the parking garage. There are two trees involved in the proj ect with regard to the digging o f the foundation and some pruning will need to be done. Careful excavation will need to be done. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Lisa relayed that the existing vegetation should be preserved. She has concern about applicants coming in with more stories and square footage in an effort to end up with less. The four story massing dwarfs the historic property. She would only support a two story addition. It is commendable that there is a separation between the historic house. The commercial building is too modern. Jeffrey relayed that a code amendment should be done for historic lots to limit their FAR. The four story element is not appropriate and he is not sure a three story would be appropriate on this lot. This building is a very cherished Gothic Victorian in the commercial core. The landscape plan is a critical issue with the development o f this parcel, pertaining to the sidewalk and drip line of the trees. Susan felt that the tower was way too high and she felt only a two story building would be acceptable on this important historic lot. The building is not compatible with the historic house. The shed should be moved back from the sidewalk. The indentation of the new building is acceptable. 7 + . 4 ASPEN HIST< : PRESERVATION COMMI - - -ON MINUTES OF. JULY 14, 1999 Mary felt that the original design was more acceptable. She feels the project should be treated as an infill project. Roger felt that the trash situation should be completely dealt with before final. He also felt that the interior use of the building should be addressed regarding the mechanical systems. A massing model would be helpful and the resolution of three stories vs. four cannot be resolved tonight. Suzannah supports density in the core but in regards to this site being on the edge of the core, it is a different condition. She could not support a fourth story. She feels the rectangular footprint should be respected. The original drawing had nice elements of the higher first floor plate height and should be continued in future designs. She has a major concern with the stairwell and lightwell bordering two sides of the shed. She feels a connection behind the shed would be better than four feet of dead space with a brick wall behind it. She could support a one story connection but the stair should be accommodated within that design as it is a full story down. There are other options that do not create an island for the building to sit on. Jake stated his representation is that there will be no visible mechanical equipment from the new building. Roger stated that he would also support Suzannah regarding the stairway and could support a connector providing that it would be less than or equal to the height of the door on the shed and the connector would be totally transparent. Jake requested consensus from the board regarding the connector on the ground levdl from the new building to the existing h ouse. Three members stated no connection and three supported a connector. Amy stated at the last meeting a two story connector was rejected and this topic is a one story connector. Lisa stated that consensus was that the HPC did not want anything looming over the historic house. 8 1 ASPEN HIST [C PRESERVATION COMP SION MINUTES OF, JULY 14, 1999 The board unanimously stated that they would not commit to a recommendation without looking at the entire design. They supported Amy's recommendation in the memo. Jake stated that they want to do a one story connector in order to give HPC what they want. Roger informed the applicant that a connector would be acceptable if the design is appropriate. His advice was for the applicant to provide two models using the 24 x 30 footprint and another one that deals with an L shaped staggered configuration in order for people to see what the proposal is. David Hoefer, city attorney stated that the board gave direction which is the HPC's role. MOTION: Roger made the motion to continue 302 E. Hopkins, Public Hearing, Conceptual and Partial Development and On-site relocation to July 28, 1999 with the following conditions: 1. All new construction must be contained within a footprint of approximately 24'x30' on the rear of the lot. 2. Confirm all zoning and building code implications of having three detached structures on the site. 3. Consult the Parks Department before the next HPC review to confirm that excavation impacts to street trees will be properly addressed. 4. Resolve the trash issues. 5. Look at possible mechanical equipment both to the new structure and to the existing resource. Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Yes Vote: Roger, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Jeffrey, Lisa. Amy stated that the July 28th meeting would only be a worksession. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland. Chief Deputy Clerk 9 August 2, 1999 Jake Vickery 100 S. Spring Street ASPEN Â· PITKIN Aspen, CO CoMMUNITY DEVE[.OPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Jake; Since I did not receive your revised packet for 302 E. Hopkins by last Thursday' s th deadline, we will hold another worksession at HPC on August 11 . I would prefer that you provide drawings that can at least be put in the packet for the Commission to study in advance. These are due by Wednesday, August 5th. I am uncomfortable with the way the process has switched to worksessions, so that I am not providing a review or recommendations for the HPC, and they are asked for input "on the spot." I would like to be clear about my concerns with your proposal. Although I certainly understand the reasons for the continued discussions about joining the buildings on the site together (the owner' s feelings about the feasibility of certain commercial spaces), I cannot support the project as it is currently designed. I have stated several times that I felt the approach of creating a new infill lot on the back of the property is appropriate. While a large new structure would be constructed on the site, the two historic structures would remain intact and would maintain their integrity. Instead, the project keeps returning to the idea of linking everything together into one complex. If that is to be the case- that the new construction is actually an addition to the historic buildings- then I think it is significantly unrelated and inappropriate to them. I am also concerned about the overall changes to the character of the site with the way the outbuilding is placed on a pedestal (or an "island" as Suzannah Reid described it in one of the meetings.) It is a change to the entire context o f the site and I do not believe this is the kind of stewardship that HPC is charged with. As I mentioned to you on the telephone, I hope to develop a "Transfer of Development Rights" program so that a property owner can receive some additional value if their proposed development is beyond what can be supported by the HPC review standards. Although this is not terribly helpful to the applicant at the moment since the program does not yet exist, I will not recommend that the HPC compromise the historic value of the site in the meantime. If you would like to meet to discuss this further or in more detail, please feel free to call me. 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 FAx 970.920.5439 Printed on Recycled Paper , Sincerely, Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer Ce: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director 1, - JUL 2 7 1999 MEMORANDUM U.-6. :- .1--' .--t.-:WIC,V TO: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer */ FROM: Stephen Ellsperman, Natural Resource Specialii DATE: July 26, 1999 RE: 302 East Hopkins The following represents comments in regards to the redevelopment of 302 E Hopkins. This list represents a synopsis of my comments to the applicant after a site visit on July 26, 1999. Plans at this stage were preliminary and these comments may not be all inclusive: - Two (2) trees located in the parkway adjacent to proposed construction activities must be preserved. These trees are identified as follows: A) One (1) 34 foot Douglas-Fir B) One (1) 18 foot Rocky Mountain Juniper - The trees must be provided protection in the form of 6 foot chain link construction fencing, adequate irrigation during construction. No storage of excavation materials, fill, or supplies may occur within the driplines of tree. - Excavation on the east side of the two trees may infringe a small amount (2 feet) into the dripline of the existing trees providing the applicant utilize "drop down" excavation techniques. Any Exposed roots appearing during excavation will be saw cut back to the soil line. - A small amount of elevational pruning may be permitted in order to gain sidewalk clearance under the existing canopy line. Any pruning accomplished on these trees shall take place by a staff member of the Parks Department or his contractor. - A small amount of directional pruning may be permitted in order to clear the new structure from branches. The orientation of the building should not require large amounts of directional pruning. If you have any questions on any of these comments please feel free to contact me. Lhl~) C ~ 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission MD THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director c~-#. Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director 0,49 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Residential Design Review-Public Hearing DATE: June 9,1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests conceptual, partial demolition, on-site relocation, and "Residential Design Review" approval. HPC has held one worksession on the project. This property is a designated historic landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Histoac District. APPLICANT: John Davis, represented by Vectors/Jake Vickery Architects. LOCATION: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. Commercial Core zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and Volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC niay grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section 1 exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: This house was built in 1883, which makes it one of the oldest remaining structures in the Aspen Townsite. Throughout it's history it has been used for both commercial and residential purposes. It is the only example of a "Carpenter Gothic" building in Aspen, defined by the steeply pitched roof and decorative trim on the front of the building. (Carpenter Gothic is the Gothic Revival style carried out in wood rather than stone.) The applicant wishes to add more commercial space above and below grade, and to add a new free market apartment. In a worksession held on April 28, 1999, the architect was encouraged to look at the idea of moving the existing outbuilding closer to the back of the historic house, thereby freeing up the back part of the lot for a separate new commercial building. This would keep the outbuilding intact and directly related to the old house. The new building would appear to be on its own small lot, a similar concept to the historic landmark lot split. Staff finds that the suggestion at the worksession was an excellent way to remove the impacts of a new addition from the historic structures. The architect has pursued this basic idea from the worksession, although the new construction is attached to the old house. The rear non-historic portion of the existing house is to be demolished and the outbuilding put in its place. A new three story element, with commercial on the ground floor and a two bedroom apartment on the second and third floors is to be added. No other changes to the historic house or outbuilding have been represented. Staff is in favor of the general proposal, but is not in support of having a two story addition linking the buildings together because it detracts from and changes the architectural character of this very important historic house. Like the historic lot split, the new square footage should be placed in a totally separate structure. A simple one story link might be acceptable, but staff would strongly prefer the three buildings be completely detached from each other. A small lean-to addition could be made to the rear of the outbuilding if some additional space were needed in that structure. Staff does not support the argument that the new construction is needed to hide the wall of the Renaissance building to the east. While that building is not compatible with this historic structure, the wall will be a simple backdrop to the site as viewed from the west and is 30 feet from the sidewalk. It is not sufficient justification to make a two story addition to the house. Though Staff finds that the architecture of the new three story element is compatible with the historic buildings in the Commercial Core, HPC should discuss whether a more residential architecture should be used for the new building considering the residential scale of the original Kuhn house and outbuilding and the buildings on the affected site. Although staff would prefer the third story on the new building be eliminated, it may be acceptable with the removal of the two story link. 2 Because the property is a designated landmark, certain exemptions from Growth Management are available to the applicant to offset historic preservation restrictions. For instance, new below grade commercial space can be created without competing for allocations or providing affordable housing mitigation. The existing free market unit in the basement of the house was awarded through a Growth Management exemption, and is being transferred to a new location on the second and third stories of the proposed new construction. (The basement unit is expected to be deed restricted as affordable housing to mitigate for the new above grade commercial space.) Staff finds that these are important incentives and are an adequate compromise by the City to provide opportunities to develop on the site. Site Plan No trees will be removed or relocated as part of this proposal. The front and side of the house will remain grass, but a basement will be placed under the rear one third of the site, so the outbuilding has some pavement around it. The applicant must consult the Parks Department before the next HPC review to confirm that excavation impacts to street trees will be properly addressed. Variances The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District, which does not have any setback requirements. The applicant will have to apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Special Review to eliminate the on-site parking spaces. This has typically been approved on other downtown sites, where on-street parking is more appropriate. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Applications for partial demolition must meet all of the following review standards: 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a rear addition on the existing house. Building permit records indicate that a basement was put under part of the house in 1958 and the addition was made in 1960. Staff finds the addition does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The area of demolition is not original or significant. 3 . b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is addressed under the conceptual review standards. ON-SITE RELOCATION Applications for on-site relocation must meet all of the following standards: 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The outbuilding is to be moved so that an appropriate location for new construction can be created on the site. The outbuilding will maintain prominence on the site and in fact will be set closer to the street. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Said report, from a structural engineer or housemover, shall be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: Financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be required as a condition of approval, along with a plan for how the building will be moved and stored during construction. The outbuilding willlikely have to be temporarily stored off-site. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The residential space is on the second floor of the new construction, but must still meet the "Residential Design Standards." From the information provided, staff finds that it will comply. 4 STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the project be continued to July 14,1999 with the following direction: 1. Remove the link between the new and old buildings. 2. Confirm all zoning and building code implications of having three detached structures on the site. 3. Consult the Parks Department before the next HPC review to confirm that excavation impacts to street trees will be properly addressed. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated June 9,1999. B. Application. C. Inventory form. D. 1893 Bird's Eye View of the site. E. 1904 Sanborne Map. 5 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name 30% E, H-0 PRINS 2. Project location 3002 E. 4Joek{ N 6 461'EM 1-01*- M- l 6 La D,4.80 i 73(w)AJ*{ 4 (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning OC/ 4. Lot size 27, OOP ~ 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number '5 27 Z. EART- 1-1-09161 A/6,u-G lam Obasic/6 -ACE:>i rÂ©Sox qfpre; ollâ‚¬-fAÂ«AJE 4-1 8AOMr-(302/6-4 970*- 92 - 9610 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number 72-02- l/; 62Â·e/2,1 \1ECZED(26 /-59 A 1.00 56. SPIL, u 9 910 * b AS'FeA <4 6 4 , 9-101 916-%66â€¢ 7. Type of application (check all that apply): 4..Conditional Use Conceptual SPA â‚¬ Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment % GMQS exemption < Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliULot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 13)(14-7- 851&81 -1407192Â·M-0.-4 4â‚¬60 01%713- oF-F-106- /3(,Tt~ I )1,1,1-)1 N i UfbED full â‚¬RITJ>to 9. Description of development application 'PAR=n At, 'EE,M 00!T-LCA Op BEAâ‚¬. *Al, 1-pgr)â‚¬-C j +'Cul-NAM , 12-60 C.fer 4 AFFTMÂ·0 8,1 19(4 dkT'&0 1 6171 1\} 4 A/Aj '*2172/fyl b 91*~1 0:11./ AL 3 gog. OP Fpe#52-,rzl, 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 064 tut V E> S ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: 50% 6, -*F)UN* u.<:s ~/tfolkl '41Â£60, 66Mt, Address: 9>0 2, E. *f\URS / Zone district: OC Lot size: 23, DOC, f Existing FAR: -4 f 4-0 Allowable FAR: Proposed FAR: 9 47*f (3604) Existing net leasable (corr(mercial): /, fqÂ© 62-049 4 Proposed net leasable (commercial): WEl-, CM.2 ,/4 a /s .3-4Â·4 -4,/2.049+ /2,%O 0 Existing % of site coverage: .NA *A =Ege*,rGJ:N- Proposed % of site coverage: Nk Existing % of open space: 1 1 55 + = %570 Proposed % of open space: 15% -224)'D =3â‚¬>*5 16 -\* = 264â‚¬ Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: ''2/ / /â‚¬ Accesory bldg: /2' Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 3Â·20- Accessory bldg: /31 Proposed % of demolition: /2)0 *- /140= IS. S yo Existing number of bedrooms: 1 1% 83*ZON Proposed number of bedrooms: 8 RED /zody! S Existing on-site parking spaces: 1 47/4 ( On-site parking spaces required: 3 6*â‚¬4 Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: i Front: 9 5 9- Front: 0 Front: 9. 5 3 Rear: 0 Rear: 0 Rear: 0 ' Combined , Combined Combined Otc+ Front/rear: / Â·Â·-, - FronUrear: 0 Front/rear: 9,5 Side: 66 o' Side: 0 Side: o c Side: w s 8.5 ' Side: 0 Side: 01 Combined Combined Combined . Sides: 3.6' - Sides: 0 Sides: 0 . Existing nonconformities or encroachments: 24 4Â£2Â· /2/\/2-h./ A) 6<9-4499 Variations requested: 3 ~/2./041' 59*664 - 7 Fog. BES (//vt -~- | forz_ M:>M. 1 10(1- Ret,J OAMMiltC#/114_. (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R- - 6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) 37 302 East Hopkins, Davis Following are our written description of this project and explanation of the ways it conforms to applicable review standards. SECTION 26.415.010(C)(5), Development involving a historic site or structures or development in an "H", Historic Overlay District Review Standards. a. This project proposes to retain the historical portions of the existing house and outbuilding in tact. To accomplish this preservation, the rear non-historic addition to the house is removed and the existing outbuilding is relocated on-site to this area of the site. A new structure is then proposed to accommodate additional FAR on the rear of the site. The new structure is extended along the wall of the adjacent brick building on the east and onto a recessed area on the roof of the historic addition. The architecture of the new "addition" is derivative of and simplified from the existing house so as to not compete architecturally. A clear distinction between old and new is created. All motorized mechanical equipment and ductwork will be housed inside the new structure. b. The character of the "addition" is interpretive of Victorian character using more contemporary materials and details. The addition is designed in a commercial vemacular to reflect its location in the Commercial Core district and its use for multi-use purposes. c. & d. The proposed development strategy retains the historic structures and places new development in a visually separated massing at the rear of the property. The third floor of the rear structure is "minimized' by a strong cornice at the top of the second floor and recessing the walls of the third floor back from the wall plane of the lower section of the building. Light wells for the basement level are avoided by incorporating low windows in the west wall, located under a window display shelf, which has the effect of skylighting the basement spaces. 4 May 26, 1999 Amy Guthrie Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 302 EAST HOPKINS The purpose of this letter is to designate the following representative to act on our behalf concerning Land Use Approvals for our property at 820 East Cooper, Aspen: Vectors / Jake Vickery Architects 100 S. Spring Street #3 Aspen, CO 81611 925-3660 The street address for this project is 302 East Hopkins. The legal description for this project is Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. Sincerely, John Davis Aspen Custom Builders PO Box 966 0115 Park Avenue #4 Basalt, CO 81621 970 927-9610 G Aspen Street A/Tap 10 2- â‚¬MT- +108,4 145 Thrk Aia* Av. .. G 6 Midlind Pilk M..... ......H 7 U 1 U u U eu U U (i Aspin SumGad, Aene Cl PA.... ....H 6-7 Midlind Avi.......... ...H 67 .H 7 Mill St. ...-......G 15 0 1 t \\ Aspen Altavista Dr..... F 2-3 Moruch St....,....... ...GH5 -1 Ardmor, Ct. DL ........ .......H 7 Mountain View Dr. ..........E 2-3 1 \\ 1 44 444.4) East ~ Aspir St........ ......â€ž....GÂ·H-6 Min LAN,| Cl Di... .. ..... ...1.J.8 15 . , . Aspon Alps PI ..... Â·Â·Â· ...H.1-7 Min 0,4 M.. ............._H 2 N.il. Av..... .HO Nicholas Ln. ... G 67 ' j.4.- . E.-47. ' - / . - ' Bennett Bench Ct. Pl Rd... ... Nigh,hawk Dr.. ...E 5 .e~* Ad - Black Birch Dr, .EF23 Noah St.... ..........F 3 4 C reck G Bleaker St . G35 O% ln. .....G 6 Sfty 50Â¢ ot i 9.. [2;i., :.2 1,0,/d.7>7Â« *401__931*\ 1 Ff . 9 1 N x ~4~ 44.-\ c>,+44 4 -94 ~4~p .~fÂ·~0~~. ; ~.~ ~) ~l, 1. Bluebon,~tli............-.... H.2 09.,lool A...............--.......E 3 E. Bleeke, St... G.H.6 6 Original SE .. ..._.....................H-16 2 1)~444#wig miS'~Â°'ff/- ----hi 4 -%21-44%9?.* /-.Rd (-*71-4 : Brown Ln.. ....... .......G 6 P~11 Aw B ................................H-6 * 04>6/,3 ,Â«-- 1 \.7,44,4.1 4~ ~, 6 Notall yoad, may be dieum or named on map Castle Creek Dr........ Fick Rd....... Bunny Ln.......... ....E 2Â·3 Poarts/ .F 4 Snow Bunny Ct , sie/th. ' %~41=2~. . & 444 60â€ž..ecyy~%% 1~ ~4-ia.7 0%~ Â·.f Â°;=ly:M:tk~.â€ž.6â€ž,a.ybÂ¢ Centennial Cir. ..167 Pitkin M.0 Dr... Castle Creak Rd.... ....G-J-1-3 P,U.m-........................-....... E F.4 L Ch/field Rd. E 2 Placer Ln............ .........._.........F 5 f To Awport. Baialt , ~WI;it , P Aspen \ \R . K Circui,Av. ................1.7 powei Pt.nt Fld.......â€ž............... .F-G-3 Cleveland St. ..........H 6 Pâ€žNos/Pith...._.................HÂ·2 , Inst,tute ---I IS Int/.9,6,, 13 6 0 Mula:xt, i 2,# -4/ ' Coope,Av,..~...... ..+......H-4 5 Puppy Sm~h St._..........._-...._..GIS Cottonwood Cir.... . .E 4 Pyrimid Di........................._.........5-1 ~ Cottonwood Ln......_.... ..G.0 Queen St.... ...... ..--... ...H-6 \ 57 Â· .. ,"- Doolitil, Cli, Dr..... ......H-2.3 FledÂ·,Rd..................1........DEÂ·4 6 -' Golf Course ~" -t I ~ ~h ~ Tent Emr:*r \4 /)-1 -6,) 8 L =rd-2 -1 Red Buti m ..............-_ .DÂ·E 2Â·3 Dean St..........Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· .... H 5 Rid Mount- Rd................D G 6-6 5 Drawer... ... E.4.5 Regent St.........Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·.........H W Wnâ€¢ S. ICi 1 /ll---.F-7--4-ma-1,2*2&- (1(T 0... \%'\1 ..41 2--,1804 '--7-1,~31 - ,- - VIMS/ix ' DurantA.......... .H.4 6 Ridge Pl Rd...~......... ............... E 5 / Eastwood Di.... |/ Rio Grindi PI........ ......GH56 - 9 94,026,4/ ,-ilffo--8 01 li,-- ~---1 4/-2/7-r 44-~.i A~QU~~ < m Fredln --..-......~. ...--.. ..~~I-0-7 Riversid, Av.... .HO Fimci; St. G36 River Dr.............. .....Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· E 3 Fiee Silver Ct. .G 6 7 Riversid,DI....... ...... ....I 67 f 1 . E.)"--~~ ;: 7~~~7* Â»t-t--n t~t~~:I#Â» ~38, *~. Â¢_f -2 #-2Â·!'*m,s21 2 - 4/ 1 Â»zi:,4 #1 Garmisch St. ..GH45 Roaring Foik Rd. ...-... ...F 4 5 Â£ .'% 44 <%-I.Â« i Â°; 41&;-19.JE:35Â· 3 F /* Galena St..... ....... HÂ·5 Roaling Folk Df ... -I........1,7 Gibson Av. ...G H56 Ross Ct................ ..G 6 ~~ Maroon Creek Rd ,----' -9- ,--1 t' r 1 1 1 Gilbe,t St.... Sibin Di_. .......DE 8 l g \/ t.y .AL. i Gillespie St... ....F.4 Sao. C, E 2 High Grove St.. .. .... H 2 Salvalion Cir... ...E.2 8.8 '611 2 Â· 0 cr- ' 2-:10 1.*Loil'.5.F'04Â»Â« 4 y.h 443>41 ' 444 Hallam St.... G 3.5 Saw Mill Ct. G 3 . Heather ln......... ....G.H.2 Satifri St ...... ....GH7 ~ 1 } 3 r g '... 0.-'St Shad,ln Â»121722/ ? -f-Â·~t-----S,O-,p#a Herron Hollow... ...E-4 Shadowood Di, ...1 17 8 R.ent' 2.501'Op' wÂ¥ Holden Dr.. ... ..G] ...FG5 10 Al/roon Lake F,~mros,~,!833562*,4/ ' Erit b uir, i' 6 2...,6-I g-:12Â·, 1:ci --44 42 91 # 1/22%- 2 1-: 2.. ' 'i ~4 7 44 4 â‚¬1 Homestake Di ... ....... E 2 Shoil Ct ....... ..G 6 Hopkins Av. ...G H36 S.I.i King Dr.... ...E 2 Hunter St . H 5 Skimming Ln. Â·H 7 / Hunte< Cieek Rd.. . ..E F 6 Smuggl.,St. ....FÂ·G 3 5 #tpt< . / ~1' Juans{1:1.i~4*f ..77,3'LÂ« i ...-. . 1 Egimf~fiki : + Hyman Av.. . G-/4 6 Smuggle, Grove Rd , ... .... 1H 67 -/ 4 4*$-4% 44*4, 2731 1 Aspen 44 '.ty. &<79./.-4 i Juan,St. .HÂ· 4 5 Smuggler Mountain Rd......~.E H 60 k Witers A. King St. .HÂ·6 Snark St ...................... Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· H 5 Gitboft S/St -14 .11 c .1 2%21 \Nest '+Â·,1 ~'peno,0.. , Lacel Ct. Ln. ..HÂ¢67 Sno@k,ln......... ..._...f G 3 SAiki-' 4 12't 41/:Ii,0~p~ i %*rATikir#*91 C i lak.Av..... ..FÂ·G 4 Snow Bunny Ct... ..â€ž .. ... E 3 Lotkspur in. ...H 2 South Av_. ........ 66 Louiet Ln.......~~ ......H.2 Siwing St. ..GH56 .- It l . Lone Fine Ad. G.5 6 Spruce St.. ..Â·â€žÂ·-Â·Â· ...G 6 a Lupine Dr ... . ....__IJS Summit St.... ........H S 4 -4/44--f 'Â· 6 PJ -9 Magnilico Ad . . ...........E-4 T..1 Ct....~...........-..... ......._......GÂ·Â§ Main St. G.H-3 5 TobY LA......... ...... ..._......H 3 - ).c i h M,pli Ln . ..... . --...G-6 Truicott M......:.._.........__E-FlÂ·2 D .1 $~11-- 1 29 L-Q~/ M.roon Ck Rd.....................~G H.1-2 Vme St Â·Â·Â·-Â·Â·Â·Â·-Â·Â·Â·.Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·-Â·Â·--Â·Â·Â·Â·G.6 Marolt M. .H-2 3 Twin Ridge R..........â€ž.... ....H 2 I Maroon Ct Di ......â€ž........ ............F-1 U:*A~ M...#.............-...._....15 0 I . 1 ~ ~ Miscoill Ln............_._â€ž...._...H-7 Wilnut St...........-..........--Â·G4 O TRâ‚¬XECST Mâ€¢tchles,Di....._.... ........G H-6 Miyflowi, Ct......â€ž..~..............â€ž..H.1.7 Wist End St.._.............__...H 1 6 McSkimming Rd............ ...-- H.1-7 Wistvi- R..................Â·21 7. LOGRTION Misdow Dr...........,...,...,,.......GÂ·HÂ·2 Willoughh Wy ......-...,-â€ž--EJ-3-5 To Twin Likes vi Indepenclenci P,2'~ MiDd~ Rd ,..,..............SÂ·G S W,ight Rd................. -.......E 5 a O - 9 35/ 8 A 0 8 n-- Map Â©US WEST Dix. Inc 1998 Map Â©US WEST D.X. Inc 3998 ALLEY B LOC K 80 975-09'11"E 30Â·16 Illr11111- 0/ /ONE STORY/ / p Nin-LI/n ~9%@0 l lili- .R k /2 Z 3/fgN~USST:~Y/Â»i 1 -,1 //1 1jll l~/i1I--- - ~CONG. ~// lill. - ill Illir- SLAI .1-0 k \940//Il t 1 3 - FOUNO: '3 - FOUND: REBAR W PLAS. CAP N 750 09' 1 I W 30 16 REBAR â€¢U â€¢LAS. CAP HOPKINS AVE. 9 , IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 8 tooÂ·00 SOUTH MONARCH 2/MavE:>. -- -- --- - i ExIe'TE, -- - .1 348.1,114 4 171 Fla:12~acp 6FAS& ~~~--4 r---r 1-HM,W ' 77 -- 659-LID[LITTd < - _F-03-4Â¥127%1&4.-- - 14>1,Â£,6,~p 1 '. 1 u Elu 1 410124 0rlÂ»U 11-'014 -- .*317 M-10- 1\ . r-t l- 1 - - ..: ADP trION 19 58 -MOH -+1141&1210 , P@+1041 HES>, It 9:1 u ir U - ----- /--NE'O 911'470 24( U t ef , - balpfrim . 1 1 -1*12:~Fl c. AED[z) 1 -rION 7 FEMIN N i t~ - l- *Xert N ~, 1 0 1 1- - -/ l T | J ~'411>lhu-_92 \ - HI f372592-(i â€ž-+-- *TF-4-2rw eâ‚¬ i Â· - 9 FebÂ®4 H to Z- la SOUTH 0 0 N A Mgraz# ,. -- EEMB/f> - - J 3/ler[4 --- . 340.k.'14 4 8*'FofED *TRÂ·LIDELI12.9 Fil..oarEP El) 9 41044 0-ed 'UÂ»14 - *32 t .1-1 Gy 1 0 i -tiON -HI/ylt*Â·16 ArD fTION lt] IDe ..7Â¥ , 1~; PEMOLId HEED, 1 -elu T ---KIELO â‚¬NO-10 P./q 3corOdy\. 1 < 4-i 1 1.kALÂ¥~1~ ' / AIC) f flag F FEMN14, 1 1 / 12) 1 1 / 1 128/nA] U \ i 1 1 41411-1,6<Li EL 1 -HI efT8'@4(:L -____ 9.TA-21-W 0â‚¬ 127 FEÂ·'>*4 H -. , 450 Z- 4 0 T Â» ~ 14 9 6 v E 4 up Fae B.1 50 0 7 H hd OMAR c f--1- . 1 BMIOÂ·/ep. 11 44*TM -="- - PAN-*144 1 ' LIE~ 0089. 1 1 +FALE. i f . 7-7--- UN ll< ,--HER\M ' | *TRWD[40176 1 FalogrEp - CR-11Â»1-1161Â»14 - i -- ,-- Arg EOH 15 De - -tioN -+11Â«malo PEMOLIS HED, r" ' & V 1 9,-Er -----NE.10 9%70 0-11 1 <\3 / 9 14--- -â€ž t r -\ % , 2,13YPfrwy~ I T -rt , AED[31 <1014 ' 7 FEMAN, 1 1 1 1 exleT'f 1 1 -M# 1 / 1 - - .-/ 1 r t ~ f*'4Â¥174,6,1--- i r H lf,TE'g-16 - - 91-A-21-4 2â‚¬ -Ny FEh*'H - 450 2- So Llyn 0 0 MAR C <4 . -I.-1 - - -U 9*WeeD k/Med:? 9 le<4 -- - 12/fzw N 4 Li 1 - 1 ' 411#WD[412:E _ _ 1 4-(3 4*FRJEiES-- - ~ Uâ‚¬!A) 'Pal=- (91% 1 -----9.------~ 1 . - /1 P/4~ / - t. *au S @10124 FÂ·El-Â·04Â«p . 43Â·rlÂ»U 'b':3[bl4 -- / 3/- 1*umB/, ---r - 2 -]â‚¬ 7% lioN -21Â«12210 _ _1:1 i -9-~3 APP tr\CAA To ts /1 1 52+40,-le HES>, &-r~. _ --/ IE / U |-1--- -/ -- ~17 ...._--NE.1,0 '2'19rp B-1~~ 93 , 4- 3;13521-Fldy\. 1 1 / Â»1*r'=PFIC, 9 ,/- hEJOI flot-1 , / 10 FEMN 14 0 - 1- 1 - 1 , 1 1 1 1 -- 3 /1 ' A \ - I 91-Al-E-Fl-f 2-â‚¬ -- -rty yÂ·EÂ·h'US,f H 45025 & 11-or lz- (Ns AVE 90 drH ba o H A R 6 1-t 3-, 04 ASPEN HISTO -TE PRESERVATION COMMI; )N MINUTES OFa JUNE 9, 1999 Victorian character but will be a public amenity and is not attached to any building. It fits within the character o f the Historic District. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the clock at the Hotel Jerome; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. 135 W. HOPKINS AVE. - LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL, VARIANCES and PUBLIC HEARING Amy stated that the affidavit o f notice has been provided. Suzannah opened the public hearing. MOTION: Mary moved to continue the Landmark Designation and the public hearing on the conceptual developmentfor 135 W. Hopkins until July 14, 1999; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried. 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE Jeffrey was seated at 5:20. Lisa and Christie were seated. Sworn in: Mark Haldeman John Davis Heidi recused herself. Amy informed the board that a site visit was done and a worksession was held a month ago. The property is on the corner of East Hopkins and Monarch and it is a 3,000 square foot lot and it is a locally designated landmark. The house is in the original core ofthe city 1883. It is a very important house. The proposal is to remove the addition on the back of the house which was built in 1960. Staffhas no concern with that proposal. They are asking to relocate the outbuilding behind the historic house close to the street so that it has high visibility and create a new lot for the commercial construction. A basement will be placed under the rear portion of the lot. Staff recommends that the Parks Dept. be contacted concerning the trees and excavation. 2 Ecinclo & 6 ASPEN HISTOPTC PRESERVATION COMMIÂ°â‚¬ION MINUTES OIU JUNE 9, 1999 In terms o f the architecture, the idea at the worksession was to make the historic structure separate and distinct. The proposal is to link everything together and Staff recommends removal of the link or at least the second story. Staff requests that the HPC study the height of the three story tower and whether it is appropriate or not. John Davis stated that the historic shed would be moved forward and if the attachments are hooked on from a commercial feasibility to be able to have that one space would be better for rent. If it is detached it can't. The recess is ten feet back. Commercial would be on the first floor and residential on the second. The historic house will not be moved or have a basement. He said the development is probably three feet from the sidewalk but there is a drip line. The shed would move east and a three story addition is proposed on the alley corner. The architect Jake Vickery could not present due to a conflict of interest. John Davis, contractor tried to explain what was going on with the site but he stated he is not prepared to do a presentation. Suzannah opened the public hearing. John said what they are trying to get out of the meeting is direction on the mass and scale so they can proceed further for the next meeting. The fagade of the glass is not at the street level; it is behind the shed and isolates the little shed. The connector is 12 feet wide and will be office use. The new commercial building sits on the property line ofthe alley and on the sidewalk side it will be on the drip line of the trees which is probably three feet in from the sidewalk because the spruce trees hang over the sidewalk. The zoning allows retail or office use. There is one existing parking space and the proposal is to pay cash in lieu. The shed will have a basement under it. The shed is 150 square feet and will be used as an entrance to the basement and category unit down below on each side. 3 1 . 4 ASPEN HISTOPTC PRESERVATION COMMI ON MINUTES OF. ' JUNE 9,1999 Jake said one option is to attach the relocated shed through the rear of the shed to the connector and in doing that the spaces would be able to be linked together and make that commercial space more larger and usable space. Sworn in: Roget Kuhn Nicklaus Kuhn Roget said his parent's project at 303 E. Main was similar. This house could easily be on the national register in its present form. If the improvements are done he felt it could never be on the register. He feels the parking space should be maintained, as they had to maintain a parking space on their property. On his property staff was very concerned about attaching anything to the building and they could not attach anything and this proposal has an attachment. He also feels the sidewalk should be widened like they widened their sidewalk. Nicklaus Kuhn, neighbor passed around a picture of 1950 which shows the importance of the alley and how many houses were really lost. It is very important that what is historic is left on the site. The space between the sidewalk and trees is much smaller and if the sidewalk is widened the building needs to move back further away from the sidewalk. Roget stated that his carriage house is separated and not connected and it is a clear distinction between new and old. There is too much going on with that space. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan stated that the house could be eligible for the National Register. Maureen stated that there should not be an attachment to the house. She also does not like the massing behind the shed and prefers that the shed stay in its original location ifpossible. The third floor on the commercial is not appropriate. If the attachment goes away she would be willing to consider a third floor on the commercial. 4 A ./ ASPEN HISTODIC PRESERVATION COMMI 19 -ON MINUTES OF. JUNE 9, 1999 Christie agreed with everything Maurden said. Lisa has concerns about the relocation of the shed out of its historic location. At the same time to put another structure between the historic house and the shed and detaching the shed further from the house is not appropriate either. She prefers a two story addition on the commercial building in the alley. The massing of a third story is too significant. The landscaping should be retained. Concrete should not encompass the carriage house as it will loose its setting. The connection to the historic structure is a concern. Susan said the third story on the commercial building is much too dominating over a one story historic structure. She would never approve the three story. The connector should be as minimal as possible, and not office space. Since the buildings are going to be connected through the basement she does not see the need for a connector on the surface. In this way it saves the historic house from being attached to the new structure. She would never approve attaching the shed to the connector as Jake suggested. The shed should stay whole. She would also not want that space to be used just as an entrance. There is also concern about the height of the new structure, connector eliminated and the shed stay whole. She commends the applicant for not touching the historic house. NIary relayed that she is willing to go along with moving the carriage house closer to the main historic structure in order to get commercial space. She also feels that the commercial space does not need to relate to the Victorian house as it is a new structure. She has no problem with the three stories on the commercial. She would like to see developers maintain the historic structure as is and work with the basements, the commercial space etc. and adapt the historic structures as they are. She does not like the connectors or the glass. Jeffrey is not comfortable with the shed being attached to the new addition. If a basement is proposed detailing needs to be submitted so that it doesn't stick out above grade. The three story development is acceptable. A detailed landscape plan needs submitted. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMI CCT ON MINUTES OF. JUNE 9, 1999 Roger said at the worksession it was mentioned that the second addition could be demolished and allowing the cottage to be moved and in doing so that would give you the freedom to design a truly unique building. In light of that he would move to table to a date certain with the following comments: 1. No problem with the height ofthe commercial building. 2. A model is needed. 3. The new addition should not attempt relate to the carpenter gothic of the historic building. That means in the type of siding and trim etc. He wants the addition to be totally different. 4. He is not sure about the linkage. It should not be higher than the cottage door and totally transparent. 5. The cottage should remain an active building. 6. How the cottage sits on a basement is of the utmost importance. It should sit on the ground as it is now. 7. The landscape design is very important. The new building with the concept of the historic false front on the top should be removed. Stay away from the Victorian as it does not relate. Suzannah concurred with Roger and the rest o f the board. The only possibility for the carriage house is to be moved. The linkage needs studied. She might be able to accept a little two story piece on the back of the building that would set off the little cottage and not plug it into the u- shaped thing. She supports the three story commercial building. The third floor does need some kind of setback. The little cottage needs to be a functioning space. Maureen stated that often attachments are allowed to historic structures when they cannot be seen from the street. In this case, not only is it a corner, it is a primary comer in the downtown core. It is impossible for the connector to be transparent. She feels there should not be a connector as it might prohibit the building from being on the National Register. Christie stated that she completely disagrees with the concept of taller buildings in the core area. It does not go with the historic blue print of Aspen. It has always been said that buildings will not be taller than the opera house. That has been the history o f Aspen. 6 ASPEN HISTO-- T PRESERVATION COMMI ON MINUTES OF. t JUNE 9. 1999 Susan said she objects to buildings being tall that overwhelm the historic house. She would agree to the third story ifthe connector disappeared altogether. Mary stated that she is not for the connector but to preserve what little we have left we have to go to three stories. Amy stated that the site is very important and the buildings need to relate to each other. The Board clearly did not support the connector. MOTION: Roger moved to continue Conceptual Development for 302 E. Hopkins until July 14, 1999; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Yes Vote: Roger, Jeffrey, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa, Christie 121 N. FIFTH STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - PUBLIC HEARING Disclosure Jeffrey disclosed that Ernie Fynvald contacted him initially when looking at the lot but he was not retained and in no way will his decision be influenced. Amy relayed that the application is only for the landmark lot split. The property is 9,000 square feet and it is in the R-6 zone district and across the street from the Historical Society. The technical requirements for approving a lot split are very objective, they just re4uire that the lot be the appropriate size and zone district. All o f those concerns have been met. The only issue to discuss is the 500 square foot bonus. The applicant decides how they want the lot divided and how they want to allocate floor area. Bonuses and variances can only be give to the historic building part of the lot and not to the new part of the lot. They are asking for a 500 square foot bonus for lot A, which has the historic house and a couple of side yard setback variance to accommodate the existing building. Regarding the FAR bonus, one of the justifications for granting a bonus is to promote the concept o f the historic lot split. This is a good program for 7 1!C 1 1 ) I I . X - 1 I . ;. ~ 49' .1414+FF LlhE 6 \ -- 1, Urilifi 1Â·~1 i:Zilic 1,1 'll li r j~ :~~i~~~I:~ :' i U - 9 2 6- --'d,=y_ . --- 17: , 11. - r _ i, U.... .....-I . - - -174 . ~r___ 4*â€ž-T.k - .1:1.,r-1-.. . / -- .-- - --A/1---- i - - .-I - .---- -- ----t-- --9-1 ---- 1 ...-/2Â·C- -. ..... - ... - - - 479.**32#Â· - ... - U In=. , 1 1 1 -- i 1 -- 1/1 : Â· , -- - 1 1 1 ..6 1' 111 -1 1 1 ---1 -- it, - - lit; 1- li 4-1 4%55<555:ir<Atififflitfffs - - 1 11 11 4 , - 4 - .1 16==r- 11- 9 1 L-==774 11!Â·'i. -. I L:! l 1 1 I l PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 302 EAST HOPKINS I $ -- WAKE-VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 1 1 f , 4 - 1 /M klygilk~ il- 1 -- 1 1 1 // 61*10- 0' 1 T -- /: 1 /.: Â£ 1 1 1 1 1 1 741 w, w 1 *Aliwi 1 1-- i ~ Empl 1 i f t 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 -- 1-.- 0-il -- 1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 P.14 - e Ott D ./ 1 1 -T N Â· 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 'I Eve !Â«r-'9. -1 1 1 01446- 1 ---- -- NO. 0Â¢1*,1*6 12) E. %,er#.weiz-. Hont/"4 -- 4 ;ElÂ»Â£- E z -Â«*EM O. i 91; F,(14,-4 1 I 1 1 ---2.5,0.0 1 1/ - \ i -- --- . kr~,10Â·' 4 U114- MNA#260 47. I - PROPOSED-GROUND FCOOR-PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 4% 1: Ok 4,"/0,6 "700 -- 1 "40,0 /e/78"g71 1 1:re,t__ - - Ar77 -u- F.F op 1 1 FXIC'~,4 *rj 1 +16'iSO -ill I...I- V y ge, 1 U#Mi. '7- e Gr/1,7: 1 9% a. 1 pn m 1 91 Il --- -- PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS- JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 11:'. l!, 01, . 1 11 CLOWT 5,78Â£ 842 11 ,/ 1 1 -- 1 4,21\ mz 1 ./0 e 06*041. 1 61 1- ' Â«' bew 600 %14-0 PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 4;'0 1 Cou PED* #BE. lo~/ -- Â¥*19 0 j PECK Eitâ‚¬M te fÂ«/ K A \ \ 1.1 - t I i -- 4 2- - $66#> 8064 W . - PROPOSED FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 6.30.99 46 1 Loil HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 302.EH Photo Information: ASP-CC-2-11 and ASP-CC-2-12 Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7 USGS Quad. Name Asten Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: A.G. Shenerd / Chatfield Residence Full Street Address: 302 East Hankins - Legal Description: Lot K, Block 80 Citv and Townsite of Asven City Asnen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Commercial Core Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residence Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottace Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1 Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): L-shaned Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Mature cottonwcod west side; wroucht iron fence around vard Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): 100 scuare foot sincle-gabled, wood shake roof; clapboard with fixed class and 1/2 liGht over wood panel door For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Rcof: Cross gabled; wood shinales Walls: Clanboard with horizontal wccd boards at vorch enclosure Foundation / Basement: Concrete masonrv unit with windows to the west side of the basement Chimney(s): Red brick at center ridce Windows: 6 over 6 double hung wood with arched crown at front windows and west side; wood shutters Doors: Stained-glass transom / 1/2 liGht / wood panel Porches: Shed at entry cn square built-un posts with simole arched brackets General Architectural Description: Unique verceboard detail and finials. An excellent examole of a tvoical Asven Victorian Miner's Cottage. Features such as the front cable (steen Ditch) with ornate verceboard and trimmed out with horizontal clapboard sidina; cross gable with centrally located chimney and front entrv with porch; and long/narrow double hung windows. Wood finials at each qable end. \ 1 tÂ» 149 L 4 . Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local S ite Number 30-2...EH_ FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1883 X Actual Estimate Based On: Assessor MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate X Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Exterior detailing modifications; dates unknown Additions and Date: Cellar added and kitchen enlarged to rear; dates unkncwn NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E - Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation 1-1 Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or Ll - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: One of the very early Victorian Miner's Cottages built (1883). Built bv A.G. Sheppard, later sold to D.R.C. Brown who retained it in the family until 1898. D.R.C. Brown was involved in the develonment of Asven through his investments in minima. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: "Asnen Early Davs, Hopton & Schuldner; Pitkin County Courthouse Records Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Asnen Historic Preservation Committee - Citv of Asven Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner ~<18 .1 1 Â£ n . . 16. 7 r.....5 1,11[.4 1 L '41 1 4.40 iwr . N Â·ii'./., 1. . V .09 44,4 . -46 f.1 1.' il: ' 141 2 *Wr ) , 1â€¢' (21 2, -f. I DI I '-~ 1 0 '996>*'9 -d-~ -t * iti*f- 4 7 -1 21 4.41 4,it-4.4.:., R f 4> . Ai j ."pj-i:ri<249 .,1 r j i. Al W up 4 :,1, 4.,1~44 / - 1 .14 uu * 41 â€ž r# J l.i~ V t.., ' '' ..4 1 hor.. '*F ' '. 3 -$ 7/Â·~Â· - ~. 41 -Bl I - ,r , 111 , C F .. . Â·~ I r' 11 1 . L B ' E , 1 , 1 1 , 9 t 14 +12 ./1 M .IiI 1 41: ,T 914 (i- +11 W '1 k I f Vt.,4, â€ž1 few, 7,1 W 4 AR 1, . . ~'' , / . i ,~" ,> 1, .i , IL , .1 , . f W I. .' , 4 %/ I 612 1 . .3 . 44: 74 4 1 1 1 1.:.t , t~~iA, t 9 1/ 7 1, f 7 2,4.14.11 . 411Â¥i~~lt ' 2-749- A- .- Â¥ 1;4- .144 A A f rÂ¥, 4 46 I . 4 .A 9 4 . r 1 . 31 4 - 4 . 4 ' ' 10â€ž Â·Â·lf , r , 1 4, '' 4,1 4 1 . iÂ· , ii'~~lf ~ 0,41 ~tf'~ 1, .1 . A1 1 3 6~ '-4 Â·4 Â·Â·Â·~ 1 0 , 7 1 J' 1 ' IN . 6 1 'Â»'4~j'. 3.-7;fli r 1,11 < -*tixÂ¢-44411?494 +4 tj*-<-644,31* 8 r 'f 41.' .4 ' r 44 -'*.1; '1 un ' , + * ..2 4 3 f n L~% 1 +j . , N 1 t 1., -4 r 1.44 4 1. 1 - . Ard , / 1, 4 3 9 , 1 "Yi 1 3 4 . 4 .4 4/ f.~ r,1/ 01 7 4 - "1 â€žâ€ž ~i -Â·87*'j f-~64 $ t)'2 r \.44 114: 2*4 ''Air. '411 â€ž ' ,?%,A. 1'10 e ,Â· 4%' 1/ 9 0 4,1 ' 11 rt " . > I. 1 ..ty. '91 â‚¬ . , 'c./... ..11,1 9, 'A . 41 , . 0 4 11'2. J 96 - 4.4 0 - i t. 14- 94 " '' 1 .- 1*i (, 6 1 gl"I 3 11} 2 011 4: r ~/.1 1- ';' 11; , 11 120 b 4 .1 6/ i. -3 911 -3 1 4#4#*,21-er,~.43.I'~ "22';, 3 i'1(1 1- Â· 1+NÂ«Â«ful 4 --? 16'... 1 71.20 U' 1& i 4 1 0. 4 / 11 ~ 41 -9 1 4 :j \11 I 3 Â·Â· 'r , pi.*f, I 'MA , 1 11 : \1. . , ;l 3 ' 'f â€¢ 'C /~, 11],6,1-4-~Â® -4 Â·FÂ£9 j '~ ' 1. H 4 4 f f uq . 4 1,,4 4 - , L 1Â£ I ", 'i, I â€¢h .. 1% M ,- a 1,1, \ 1 1 + . I, 1 6 4,01. f,-1.44" ),44,1 T, L .ir 7% , t 1.9 ,Â·A - â€¢ v .... f 11 t.4 1[9 02*91 \ \\\ b, '.1, ' 1 \ U 19 1 'r , 1 ,~ fligv ; '. f }~1 1 h *2... % Ppl 'er- T ... < 2'40Â©,i i J, f X ~I - ,'I ~:*if $.a -,Â·iÂ· t.,1* . :7m, , de';r: N . 11< \ 7*# 2 -:** 178*\; r. '141 11'in Â·v- fellu#-4-1 Fl~f-A - 2'~ r '134,01"0.*AN -1 '/, \ \>5192, 145. .. C jb * 0, 1, ....e I j rew b Al Lwolj b 3Â·,% r i it .1,2, 67 . c? 5 (?11 *49 . hili .Fl ' eth: Â· 4, 14&84, I :14.Â« i.-1- 'Â·MY #4.1. 1 11: d . A k. 1 i '.~PX+Af 6 44 40#$7 CqUA/8 {1 11 Â·Â·42 r I ; , 'bil 5 6 j .1.,Irâ€žr,Al 7,5,3 A:r)3ii' ,~ tz Â·-Â·'-< :d~%511:Â·fty,N.ft , . i L,I~ ~., . Â· t'~~'~4" :f,1~5% ., . : .1,91'\ A: 94'<4.livt.~fjt:~~fj,i,4 9~. 9,40% 44141Â·3]49 21,- *~~ ;fit:J --TI#i,ff<.5 . L. 41 4/7.16.:; i ),9 +2%, -6-:.~1. Â¥ 677,Â·Â·-FY' 4,~3.Â·y ..lf,2%<a464 4-3494>+ Â·- A ./1, '1\* rh# i VLfY :4,3*M , 'Â· .- 'r:'- ' 49I, .WL<b'' 9 4,2, l. L 1â€¢ r 4 . ... . I r ' '.. . I -4 4 4 . 4445 e X '. + 4 ae Â· 1*#. ... 7 . eei. 7 01*11â€¢ b - u Â·â€¢.â€¢r - 1 6:1. CD - r ls#.1 -CRl R .7 1.2,4:71--b ' 3-fi ' ef.- A~-HEA. .-- R - /1 3 EE- , -I - I -. ~704,9-8141Â«7~kiNIC ~, 0/J/jards-; - Pantshop . It I *..i 1.0.~ I. .'. 4 / f ~4 M N 47 -- -I .4 - 41-4- -rk \Cquâ€¢73&31 2 - :-Â· - Â· - L te-â‚¬9-47 . Ilvit)Â·, 5%. 0 : ' <Â·4 -t.2- H ..2 30. ?f f Efip--Â»93 p'ff*<%3,11 Cat RA. 8 1! 2,-1Â¥.0. Ef-t ji -5- 1 D'ff,-34/+15 - Â·ar-Â·r -2 .- ... 3 1,1.4 2 n i' 199; 1 -- 1=Z'. -:. 1- f -EÂ·â‚¬1327=-:.~ Â·3,-Â·s--:~ .h--i \HE)/ 3-, 1. .3. - ./'--.- I-. : - I I 1:.:219.- 53.V . 19,9,ke-07~og~:i- FLE O.kl -:--1 L 1 --{-1 :C; 2) 1 4 9 Ip,-t-'1--iI-3=ul.- Riadmb , ~ 12* e:- 1.-/924 82/ s,-0. I LE-Â·-2. 0 3 ts,Â·.0[3? 3;78ll?fih,Jcli:)Â· c~3 ik* 2- .37, 40 8/11 46 0/1 U/0 v/<I -7- ,.1 J L G 324 025 329 330 332 324 cED gLO 330 232 235 H JOU JUZ J.4 3.0 11* 1!r 6,9 -11 2 - 'In - N I U=--1 God HOTEL JEROME. .0.6- r547-: c."E,16: 2 /9/Â· .CLU Â· \1 1/.PLEC:.21-6=99 ft 11 ~ --17===--0-========================== 9% h. 0 H 11 37 229 - 231 233 235 ~1 7.1 1 2.r ir, .3~5 61' 3/3 20 4, 3/ C ".7 3.9 32/ 323 325 327 329 33/. 333 .1 r t - 11 ':ctacc U i 53.5 1/ â‚¬1 / '' 0.' 2 iL- r 10 1 2 2. 2 <1 2 r _-- i =h 17 L . . -lill I -0-4 7-9 - O f~ LA 4 -7 1 2/ 0 1 .1 0 1 u4 -3. D 0 2.5 / 6 0 - 0 * A /1/ 7] 0*. 77 1 11- _ _- - FE77 - Ccnf 3 ~7=77 1 1 W.Ha / 1 1014\ SP Z 0 80 1 2 >4 ~ 2 3 4 1 ConfetiÂ· 4 X / 1 2/9 R ~ 56 E U) 9 K Z M /1/ 0 0 0 1 2 7---Ekl -7-9 F--3 F--7 " i k - h r 'Cked â‚¬ 4 1 In / OfÂ£ 3 - ~.3-* A - 4 k ; 3-~ 1 e $ Lf - 7 1 u D / lili 13 . 1 Hay 1 / * 1/ F ----- ----- I r-.1. 2,7/2721 ~ _ 147& 9 Â£ i , C\. 2, 2 22 -1- .4 1 :r 3.0 302 309 306 308 310 .iiâ‚¬ 3/4 3,;6 318 2..Â·9 322 324326 328 330 332 3-,59 r., -~vk:: 2~--& 34 /0 1 71 p, L , ,L L.',.JU, ' , .., U Ly AV. c. ___-t)_--__==oiff---------========= 1 . X2 7-1- i \ . - -03%Â£4 1 , I / Ul L wi -17 ~ 327 219 233 233 235 301 303 305 187 --309 311 311 2,7 39 221 323 325 317 329 331 -311 332-, --- (3)3 5/01 1 OIL I 1 411 24.6 27 -- -6,---f 0 1 1 -0 27 1 / 0/ k R 1 725.- -- --- 3 CO- 'pe .-29 Â· -- 7 22 Y 4 > 1 Â©31 Aol l.01 1 toi I lot to( Â§6( 1.'el mz. 100 /00 10;t )00 106 let < \ .laA~j g 9[i>I 0'fiL ('13/ Moltifol t 1 f. 1 7 f !1 - 11 3 2:7)/f'WEEZ..3/M#/Perlr ' " 1 '1 1; ' ii. 4,5 .1 1 -- 1 4 1 ' - i - il 30:*f -1 -1-- gr 'A , 1.Â¢ 3 . 11 1 , 11,1 1 61 ' I i Â· Â· -4-- I 'l j Â£ 11 Â·Irr. uâ€¢Â·*voll Â· LS: . - .yt 1. 1, Nkll 1 k T#z-YA ) - - Â·,i j -Â«.f~ 1.. 1 . W' 1 \1 ram,Al=,b' 4?. 1 1 ' /h 1 5. 1--Ettl#Allv ?-i~. . 1 1 L.92 . -1-Li y.f .- -31:[flul. 1 i N 11 1 1 1. - I 4, | 1 ' ' fi- III_L ! -==i= i 147711 , It, 111 111.1 :% 1 . '1 Â£' 1 1/2--11-+ 11 1- --1 -- {11 Ill 1.; . I - -1 -1- 1~1,[fll.11tjIT[.91Â»11 ~1 -1 1. I-1 --- 1 .Ill: 1 ! ,2 "L' l, 1 80. i Ii I .1 1; 1 11 I 1 1 -I.-- -12,59/141422#@44-3\ 1 14/ 17 .1 f Il ; # :A 1 1 . 1 4 I ~ 3*1111[i E--g n. IR Â» 1 . 11.. . 1,1 1 , 4. 6 1-4 1 f 'll , .1 /4 11 V i __Ii _ l_il:il-illilijt __ ~j U 11 41, 'U 4-ill*'IVRE, .--I-- th J 1 1 lif-/ 1 1 1 --:--.--'-+-- ' t rri111171. - -- 4 REBAR WI PL AS, CAP N/5-UtÂ£11"W"-- 30Â·16 *'f. AM W/ PLAS. CAP . 4 E[OPK]INS AVE. 12-4 8 11 20 -4 2 3 - -so (x i 6 2 i) 7,1 1 1 1 1 -1 4 r E-kT IMPROVEMENT SIJRVEY 1, . ASPEN HISTO1 .li. PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 9, 1999 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE Jeffrey was seated at 5:20. Lisa and Christie were seated. Sworn in: Mark Haldeman John Davis Heidi recused herself. Amy informed the board that a site visit was done and a worksession was held a month ago. The property is on the corner ofEast Hopkins and Monarch and it is a 3,000 square foot lot and it is a locally designated landmark. The house is in the original core of the city 1883. It is a very important house. The proposal is to remove the addition on the back of the house which was built in 1960. Staff has no concern with that proposal. They are asking to relocate the outbuilding behind the historic house close to the street so that it has high visibility and create a new lot for the commercial construction. A basement will be placed under the rear part of the lot. Staff recommends that the Parks Dept. be contacted concerning the trees and excavation. In terms o f the architecture of the proposal the idea at the worksession was to make the historic structure separate and distinct. The proposal is to link everything together and Staff recommends removal of the link or at least the second story. Staff requests that the HPC study the height of the three story tower and whether it is appropriate or not. John Davis stated that the historic shed would be moved forward and if the attachments are hooked on from a commercial feasibility to be able to have that one space would be better for rent. If it is detached it can't. The recess is ten feet back. Commercial would be on the first floor and residential on the second. The historic house will not be moved or have a basement. He said the development is probably three feet from the sidewalk but there is a drip line. 1 -AtibitÂ«~-- . ASPEN HISTO] PRESERVATION COMMIS,iON MINUTES OF, JUNE 9,1999 The shed would move east and a three story addition is proposed on the alley corner. The architect Jake Vickery could not present due to a conflict of interest. John Davis, contractor tried to explain what was going on with the site but he stated he is not prepared to do a presentation. Suzannah opened the public hearing. John said what they are trying to get out o f the meeting is direction on the mass and scale so they can proceed further for the next meeting. The fagade o f the glass is not at the street level; it is behind the shed and isolates the little shed. The connector is 12 feet wide and will be office use. The new commercial building sits on the property line of the alley and on the sidewalk side it will be on the drip line of the trees which is probably three feet in from the sidewalk because the spruce trees hang over the sidewalk. The zoning allows retail or office use. There is one existing parking space and the proposal is to pay cash in lieu. The shed will have a basement under it. The shed is 150 square feet and will be used as an entrance to the basement and category unit down below on each side. Jake said one option is to attach the relocated shed through the rear of the shed to the connector and in doing that the spaces would be able to be linked together and make that commercial space more larger and usable space. Sworn in: Roget Kuhn Nicklaus Kuhn Roget said his parent's project at 303 E. Main was similar. This house could easily be on the national register in its present form. If the improvements are done he felt it could never be on the register. He feels the parking space should be maintained, as they had to maintain a parking space on their property. On his property staff was very concerned about attaching 2 '' I ASPEN HISTO1 PRESERVATION COMMISEiON MINUTES OF. JUNE 9, 1999 anything to the building and they could not attach anything and this proposal has an attachment. He also feels the sidewalk should be widened like they widened their sidewalk. Nicklaus Kuhn, neighbor passed around a picture of 1950 which shows the importance of the alley and how many houses were really lost. It is very important that what is historic is left on the site. The space between the sidewalk and trees is much smaller and if the sidewalk is widened the building needs to move back further away from the sidewalk. Roget stated that his carriage house is separated and not connected and it is a clear distinction between new and old. There is too much going on with that space. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan stated that the house could be eligible for the National Register. Maureen stated that there should not be an attachment to the house. She also does not like the massing behind the shed and prefers that the shed stay in its original location if possible. The third floor on the commercial is not appropriate. If the attachment goes away she would be willing to consider a third floor on the commercial. Christie agreed with everything Maureen said. Lisa has concerns about the relocation o f the shed out of its historic location. At the same time to put another structure between the historic house and the shed and detaching the shed further from the house is not appropriate either. She prefers a two story addition on the commercial building in the alley. The massing of a third story is too significant. The landscaping should be retained. Concrete should not encompass the carriage house as it will loose its setting. The connection to the historic structure is a concern. 3 . ASPEN HISTO1 - PRESERVATION COMMIS,iON MINUTES OFa JUNE 9, 1999 Susan said the third story on the commercial building is much too dominating over a one story historic structure. She would never approve the three story. The connector should be as minimal as possible, and not office space. Since the buildings are going to be connected through the basement she does not see the need for a connector on the surface. In this way it saves the historic house from being attached to the new structure. She would never approve attaching the shed to the connector as Jake suggested. The shed should stay whole. She would also not want that space to be used just as an entrance. There is also concern about the height of the new structure, connector eliminated and the shed stay whole. She commends the applicant for not touching the historic house. Mary relayed that she is willing to go along with moving the carriage house closer to the main historic structure in order to get commercial space. She also feels that the commercial space does not need to relate to the Victorian house as it is a new structure. She has no problem with the three stories on the commercial. She would like to see developers maintain the historic structure as is and work with the basements, the commercial space etc. and adapt the historic structures as they are. She does not like the connectors or the glass. Jeffrey is not comfortable with the shed being attached to the new addition. If a basement is proposed detailing needs to be submitted so that it doesn't stick out above grade. The three story development is acceptable. A detailed landscape plan needs submitted. Roger said at the worksession it was mentioned that the second addition could be demolished and allowing the cottage to be moved and in doing so that would give you the freedom to design a truly unique building. In light o f that he would move to table to a date certain with the following comments: 1. No problem with the height ofthe commercial building. 2. A model is needed. 3. The new addition should not attempt relate to the carpenter gothic of the historic building. That means in the type of siding and trim etc. He wants the addition to be totally different. 4. He is not sure about the linkage. It should not be higher than the cottage door and totally transparent. 4 ASPEN HISTOE PRESERVATION COMMISoiON MINUTES 011 JUNE 9, 1999 5. The cottage should remain an active building. 6. How the cottage sits on a basement is ofthe utmost importance. It should sit on the ground as it is now. 7. The landscape design is very important. The new building with the concept of the historic false front on the top should be removed. Stay away from the Victorian as it does not relate. Suzannah concurred with Roger and the rest of the board. The only possibility for the carriage house is to be moved. The linkage needs studied. She might be able to accept a little two story piece on the back of the building that would set off the little cottage and not plug it into the u- shaped thing. She supports the three story commercial building. The third floor does need some kind of setback. The little cottage needs to be a functioning space. Maureen stated that often attachments are allowed to historic structures when they cannot be seen from the street. In this case, not only is it a corner, it is a primary corner in the downtown core. It is impossible for the connector to be transparent. She feels there should not be a connector as it might prohibit the building from being on the National Register. Christie stated that she completely disagrees with the concept o f taller buildings in the core area. It does not go with the historic blue print of Aspen. It has always been said that buildings will not be taller than the opera house. That has been the history of Aspen. Susan said she objects to buildings being tall that overwhelm the historic house. She would agree to the third story if the connector disappeared altogether. Mary stated that she is not for the connector but to preserve what little we have left we have to go to three stories. Amy stated that the site is very important and the buildings need to relate to each other. The Board clearly did not support the connector. 5 ASPEN HISTO] PRESERVATION COMMIS....JN MINUTES OF. JUNE 9. 1999 MOTION: Roger moved to continue Conceptual Development for 302 E. Hopkins until July 14, 1999; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Yes Vote: Roger, Jeffrey, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa, Christie 121 N. FIFTH STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT Disclosure Jeffrey disclosed that Ernie Fyrwald contacted him initially when looking at the lot but he was not retained and in no way will his decision be influenced. 6 to LU CD Cf 2, OO 100.00' -----------=---=-=--------------------7-----71 : / 4.2,Â·nE= -1 1 1 12/1* Il Z ABLE 1 PARAPU -2 0 c= XicTItJG - 15Â· 1-. v Lj e / S:i'ED + 4 ~ TO BE RELOCATED L CRAB APPLE - ON 9 TE TREES 70 REMAIN *12/12 i w--- FLIOWEPS - 4 1 *12/12 12/12* * SLOPE * SLOPE 1~12 - GRASS le C (TO BE DEMOLISHED) 1 4 :*7$6 ,HISTORICAL OFFICE BUILDING 11 (110 REMAIN) 18 12/12~ WALKWAY 4 6 1 1 PORCH ROOF Id PARAPET rn 1 ~ SLOPE , BACA - ' CONCRETE / PAPERS - - NDENALK , 1 LIGHT WILL 1 1 DRIVE WAY _j'' L-- CRASS -7 L- FLOWERS ---~ CONCRETE PAD \ CROS --- / 0%--1 11\ lou O/ -41 /r/\1 Â»-1 f 4-J EXIS'!ING IRON FENCE - EDGE OF SOEWALK 1 --, \ J -14 50w7/2 h Lal 1-9 0 9/11\Â§20' \-9 \ 6/ AINIPEI? mEE - MONARCH ST. Â»---/0 EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE: 10 fEET ~ NOR'nl 2% F GL CO LU R t= LUCO - 1 AUGUST 4. 1999 - HPC 1 2 AUGUST 11.199 - HPC -8 -1-------I- -9 . 70 3 4 -10 --79 Al - --fr- 5 - 6 12 - 61031IH0MV Allil>10IA El>IV ALLEY 344 SN/NoOH 1943 099Â£9*026) EL919 00 'NadS C ]Â¥Ho NINdOH JLSVM 30Â£ -m00--------------------------# ---- ----- / 11 ~~~~ffl-- j ~ i \9 /151#* 2,2 h DE.K .1 1 12/12 Ll= 1 1, - FLOVERS - Lid i . * SLOPE Â« 12/12 i INTERIOR COURT 1 + Â« 1 OPEN To BELOW i 1 '+ 1 1. HISTORICAL OFFICE , i EXISTING i~ QUILDING 64 7 11 la ROOF ~ F F 12/1* i L le 1 PORCH /00/ -1_ WALK WAN - 1 01 | r 1--1 PARAPET - ~ EXISTING r ' -\ \ 5 SLOPE RELOCATED ~ __ ________~ 1 ED IDEWALK m , 11 1 CEICITTE - BPO - 7 PAVERS 1 1 , SHED ~ 9-/ 1 1 i *12/12 12/12&* Ex[ENDED LIGHT WELL 1 1 00 F FLOWERS 1/j, 4 0 LLI CONCRETE PAD 1- Opass m ~ - FLOWERS -' u=nzf - ETONE ' ..' FAVERS , TRASS - 1/ 1 L__,2 , 1 1 04/ i ri' , NE. /)410 / . SIDEWA.. ~ 51:E*ALK \1 EXISTING IRON FENCE - 1 0-9 110 4 9 EDGE or 9:1*AN< / 090 21 -TCE TREE 01'la#65- 0 0 0 JUMPER IREE --' ~00~ MONA ROH S T. -4/- PROPOSED SITE & ROOF PLAN SCALE: ~ ) NORâ„¢ . 10 '/El AILISI , 1.L - ... 2 AUGUS! 11. 199 - HPC 8 3 At/GUS123 1999- HPC 9 4 REV SEPT 8.1999 10 5 '3 6 -7 ~23%31* ~ g SNIMdOH 1$93 ZOE NV-Id =IOON 19 31IS ~ 0390d0hld 43-,0 e . 10-0 -81 - 12-10.Â· 6-57 U.-10 ~--~~BATHRÂ¥ ~ \ 4H JLRI - EXISTING TRASH 18.-1) [Â·FC< -~ IÂ£=- - giSTORICAL OFFICE / - 1 11 AREA- F -CQRRIgt- /==~1 1/03 1 1 BUILDIL ILL-1 - 0=% RAUNC - C 1 1 am- 1 BiloING - Ga TH ASOVE 1 242 O -19 1 NEW RETAIL/OFFICE SPACE ~ 1~ 1 1/1- , EXISTING 1 / 111 7 RELOCATED / 1 1 11 F /- 4- u-2- SHED EXTENDED LIGHT WELL 1 $ I 1 1 1 1! 11 1 DN.11 LJ WINDOW BOk NNDOâ€¢ BOX 1 - L----1--------------1. - --i - -7--------------------------7 -----d 3'-113- 6 20.-4. . 5-1 J 9'-6 j. 5'-1 46'-y 9.-9 GROUND FLOOR PLAN = == m <~ ) NORTH SCALE: 43-10* . f â€¢ 1C-2 13'-OF 5- 7- 14 -65- I I f f f ----7 1 1 1 NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE . Â·4 O r r i f.~4*#AROR -22 3 - EXISTING STUDIO APL UNEXCAVATED 1. COURT 1+ 1 1 1. - 111 1 1 NEE-CQMMERQALEMI ' 1 , ~ D--1-- , 1 1- NEW ' 4 EXTENDED INDOW Will Â·Â· 1.. -------~ BEDROOM ; ' . 1 - 1 1, 0 .1.1 1 1 1 , 1 '' I WINDOW 'Ell 1 , ABOVE ~ 4 ~ WIDOW WELL ~ . 24'-0- . 5'-2- . 15-62 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN rn *NORA 1 AUGUST 4.1999 - IPC 7 ~ 3 AUGUST 23.1999- HPC 9 10 FE[1 2 AUGUST 11. 1999-liE- 8 4 REV SEPT, 8.1999 10 5 11 6 12 /ffÂ©--17- I . 30-0 19.-or ,9... 4.-8111 , 5-9 9 .-.1,~me.,est 010 * /J 1> G. 8 I} 9 > A 0 ----- . 81--4 iii? NEW ADDITION ' VECTORS#c/JAKE VICERYARCHITECTS 1, FLOOR PLANS 302 CAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (970)925-3660 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET . 1-1 10'-0 11'-0- 1 al i 1 1 PRIA Â£ nTlT&1EUITERTIft<-1{1 Im Im 1 10 IL: IZ F Ouni WILLY 00 1 -31 \1 0 1 y i - 5 - 1% 1% 1% je li r U -- 1 i .LD-Wu 8/&9 i??? z ;6 i A n e 4 I 6 0 <Â° ' > EXTERIOR NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 01 ELEVATIONS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, C0 81612 (970)925-3660 099Â£-916(026) 21919 00'N3dGV 00Â¥H0100 'N3dSÂ¥ SNIMdOH 16Â¥3 ZOE ~ 133kl19 9NINdS H.LAOR 001 SNOI.LVA313 0 ~ 91031IH0EV AMEDISIA 3)IVT / odSMOINA I N0I1ICQV AABN M0I~3.DG < 1 11 1 ! .ID..\ E* g 1IIIII!!!I 1 lili / 2 /lily 1 111 1 0/ 1 'fs 1 1 f F 1 , \ ///,1 11 4 1 , 11/114 1 -21 1 -" EE I -nt-- i - : 11 ---1-1-1--4 1-1 H H H H H i *10 621 -1 11111111111 Illill 111!Ill'll <C Ill jw I > 1 w -- Â»-ff-f \ - ----- -- CE 1 1 1 231 - - -1 M M H H H M M M f El 1 & hÂ» - iss _1 1 L.11 1 E 4) 9 - 11 3 1 1 0- ~-"179 11 9- 1 I_1-11 [11111 [LL_ 1 I i ...1*1 1 11 11 ff - -7-79- -4;LLU-4 Z~ 2 1 1-----f--fl~jff MTt1 4 1 ~W~J F 44- 1*El, 1 ' - 9 -- Illi &_339 -aiml~ 4 -- 0 2 o 1 -0-0, 1 4 Â»4 - 6661 't :SA00Â¥ d - 1 -11 1 Sn04/ 7% - ~ r: isron, 666 J '6 i ci35 A 38 13'\31 ONAOID â€¢ ~ I - i Â¥ f 1 3 j 1,0 RIg Â·Â·IC . 10) 00 0 1 IO IC 'I m a jr -//--j 00 10 / 1 z ~-------~ CIO 00 1 il IM % 1 1 f f f f 1 3 + j 11 1 1 roM O 1 En 00 <F L ky LIU 1 1 0 111 -- 1 1 9 1 i 1 j 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1. , 58 1% i L 1- 15 I3 4 444 . 1.h - W . - E&iI m - 3TLL-' Â§T,, Agji > EXTERIOR ~ NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS -4 ELEVATIONS 302 EAST HOPKIN ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (970)925-3660 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET 1~Uir,/SVS 11\31 ON[049 SECOND LEEL SHED SOUTH ELEVATION SHED NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 0 --------------7 . 0 9 10 4 - 143% 1==d ~(EQUNQ | REALI Z 00 0 Q i= COURT NORTH ELEVATION COURT EAST ELEVATION M Â« - LU > SCALE: 1- LU 0 1 5 10 LU LU 1 AUGU 4.199 - 4 7 2 AUGUST 11.1999 - HPC B 3 AUGUST 23.1999 - HPC A8 4 REV SEPT 9.1999 1 5 11 6 I 61031!HONV Ahll>DIA 3){Vr /odml0103A NOWÂ®V M 133HLS SNINdS HlfIOS 001 099Â£â‚¬6(Ol@ 659;8 00 'N3dGV 00Â¥80100 'ARd*SNIMdOH 1SVE COE ELJEl ALLEY 30.00 1 1 96 1 * sM M 19 i 3 30 N N oel \1 1 22 ' 3 4 51 n-1 -Â¢%1 1 1 1 ]1 m' al 13 1 -9 1 5 : 81 9 4 f -L-, 18]1 ; f -0 L i' 1 maR . 1 E 10 01:3- 1 1 13 *M .2 C> 1 m 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 41 I. 9 1 1 m 8 94 \i I. N Â«0-/Vil 1 . 1 %*1 1 3 Â§ i 1 1 9 rÂ«t i i o k 3 9 L_________________-~ ...)â€ž+ 30.00' H m -EL mg 3-W) 3 2.6..v -.5 r .. 1- lEAsT HORK'~NS AVE, NEW ADDITION a ~ SITE PLAN 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO l ASPEN, 00 81612 ~0*3060 VECTOR* 1 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS ~ 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET LS HOEVI\10161 30 30 3003 100.00' 54-~ 4- gklj-7 FlOWERS 4 .. ALLEY 30.00' I 0. 11 1 -21=-91 0 41.1 0 / * \1 RE 5 16 1 2 0 '-0 - 60 1 1,1 L E 0Â»fo 4 19 ' 1 1 1 Z V f /li 1 1 3> 3 30 & b M I 4 'bo l l* 1 0 9 --1 2 09000 / 1 1 -- rn . 1 g 5% 18 1 9 1 M 0 ' ' ' EmE . 1 1% % 1% I. 1 ho le 1 b f * A fÂ»1-li - - \il 1 1 1 A..3 Â¥1 .91* I 9 1 10 2 3 mi 1 1 1 -F- r i i 0 1 30.00 9g S8 Â§ 9 eM /g f &M EAST HOPKINS AVE. ~ E ' FLOOR PLANS '302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (970)925-3660 NEW ADDITION 1 VECTORSpc/JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS I 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET NV~Id 31IS 0390dOEId ,00 00 L PARAPET * SLOPE >IlÂ¥./. 30 3003 308-30 1Â¥ 43-10 10 -Of.. 12'-10; , 6-Al I 13'-10 BATHRM 0 NEWT STORAGE TRASH . AREA 1 ~ EX[SIING HISTORICAL OFFICE CORRIDOR ~ BUILDING - .*=..= 11 1 --9.'-. L BUILDING - 40'Â£ DEEN.1.- r 2-9- %*~ M. 1- [13 7 9/LQ# RN'*1 ---~ POR04 NEW RETAIL /OFFICE SPACE EXISTING T RELOCATED SHED - *DOW T WIDOW 801 MNDOW BOX ON. 3./Ir 1 20'-OV , 5'-2- . 9.-6. : 5-2. 0 46'-3' 9-9. GROUND FLOOR PLAN < NORTH 43 -to- loÂ·-8- - 13'-Or 5'-7- 14'-6/ Â¥ 3 -1 ~Fl~ATHRM 1 Â·Â· Â·Â· L./ MECHANICAL . 1. 1 / 11 NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE ROOM r. Â¢ EXISIING BUILDING i i STUDIO APL - UNEXCAVATED. 1 M nl 1 , .--CJ 1 ~ INTERIOR ~ T \\~ COURT ~ 13? 0 . â€¢O NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE 3202_-- - ble BEDROOM Â·~ -MOOW -11 ; WINDOW WELL --------------~ ' i ABOVE 1 , AB[M 1.... 244'-0- , 5'-2- / 9.6 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN reÂ£ < NORTH 1 AUGUST 4.1999 5 10 FEET ~ 2 AUGUST 11.199 1 5 28-6 ~ 5.-9. 5~-3 , 1-7 2 14-102 1 1 --1 >1-9 Of LU LA LU LU CN ~Op~ STARS ~;34 * t .4 - be ~ 01-0 tr - i BEDROOM 2 - UU CD 0 f/- Id-4 - I < Of el 4% - CO MECH CHAV 7 42 . M _ 05 3 1Â·- CO DN. N id g MALL Â¥ u -MASTER BEDROOM Ill lD , Tue/SHOWER ~ '0 C)[1 U. MiTE_ BATH ",-1,"I FFLUE FOR .7 . .... / FIREPLCE 0 L 1 1\ k BELOW 11 |N JL H '~,IL.1~~ t Â·-94- 1 -fl. 13'-4' 1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 10 30'-0 . 5-9. 8'-2' 1-01 15-1 100 00' ---- , ~l TUB/SHOWER r----t-NARGr-r------1 1 12/110 1 C, 10 BAR TOP 42. HI DE.CE * 14-6 y. REÂ¢ 4 _ F~ f- DiNiNG ~ ENTRY 12/12 tr- 1 12..._1 KITCHEN B===1 =~ Z In=ll 9 1 HISTORICAL HOME * 12/12 WECh CHASE * SLOPE 12/12 . FLA, 4 EXISTING 1 1 4- K h'-4- l 5-3~ 1 - ig 1. A ENTRY 12/1* , PORCH ROOF 1 9 ig PARAPET * 1 - EXISTING ' 9.01 1 RELOCATED t LIVING SHED 0 -e ..MYLL< 1 *12/12 12/12* 1 11 - HEARTH V - 1 1 - FEREPLACE & 31 / / 111 /00' //. 1 UP U /26' ' i . 1*~ - - 100 00' 4'-9 . 19~-3 24-0~ . 6'-0 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 AUGUST 4.1999 - MPC 7 SCALE: (~3 NORTH 2 AUGUST 11.199 - HPC 8 3 9 A4 0 4 10 5 11 12 S1031IH0HV N0IllaaV USNIMdOH 19Â¥3 10Â£ SNV-Id %30013 6( 26) ZEL ' N3dSV 00Â¥hl0100 'N3dS 30'-0- 30 00' . 4 - . Â¥ f | 32'm I Ecl h JI--- -1 m -1 0 14- 00 001 1 00 --- EEC] E----0,~ 1 ---- 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 j 1 LJ 1 1 1 L i 1% 1% * 1 04 4 f MO > EXTERIOR t~ NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS Ul ELEVATIONS 302 EAST HOPKINo ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (970)925-3660 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET OdH - 661'lt 1SnOrN JdH - 6661'I 1Â§000Â¥ r .. . 0 -- 0 0 0 'r-1 -1 2 m 41Â«1=32=23 --ILLL---- ~ -1 --- ----- HHI-IHHMHHH 11 1 2 T-- 0 4 H/ n kill il ''''''''''' - 11'-0 10'-0 10'-0 0 0 .WAWN 4 k Â» EXTERIOR NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS w ELEVATIONS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, C0L0RAD0 ASPEN, CO 81612 (970)925-3660 1391 ONAO.0 ~ -1331 ONOJ]S - THIRD LEVEL '4 iSHIÂ¥ 1 . - I .. .f" ------------- 0 ---- ---- --. - - 1 1 MtÂ©34=34 - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii --_ty-tiÂ»o=c~Â«Â« F - gle=ru-c I '1 E --P-- -- - 0 _ i:~i-1 _ *aciFETTED 1. V 8 - i ~ 11 > INEOR NEW ADDITION 1 VECTORSMIJAKEVICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET 00 ~ ELEVATIONS ~302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO , ASPEN, 00?1012 *0*254000 N0I1VA313 1SV3 1hln00 N0I.LÂ¥A313 HlkION lkInOO 1 : 1Sn0nv 24'-0' 3'-11' 2 '-51Â· 15'-1 J" 6.-0,1 .4 CO 1- 0 LU 1- F. ~ TUE/SNOU,IER ~ - 0 . .11 -mâ‚¬- ~ - 119 2 < 11- BEDROOM 2 05 111 9 IEEE] BATH LU LU 5 CO y< , LU CD t. M= Â« T 2-11 -1 0- .. tâ‚¬ 4 -3 0 DECK m A a I O /Â« LIN ~ | -7 _~ _ -1 N CE D 1 [!11 1 11~5- \1 1- co LU 2 1 .1 6. HALL Ooz 0 0 0- LU O CO ? -Â· MASTER BEDROOMI I LAUND.RY ~ A 1 93 i P. 11 614 -111 1 -- Z 3 11 - ~ TUS/SNOUER ~ ,~ 6 - to 1[ = 00 FIREPLACE 4 -1 / /~ . j MST'R. ~ J HEARTH V / IL <z BATH 1 - /3/ r-FLUE FOR - FIREPLCE / Ch-'17 8 1 BELOW 6 C 4~0~~ LU CO r . 1Â»2EMIE-4#E5 -1-'i|7----,-,lhr------~H~=~19==11===1'. 141 - 14Â· Z< .. 9.-14,1 .. 24 0" . 2 THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 012 3 ~0 96 f 1-01 151 , 5-110 - 8'-0" .- ' -- -- -- -- -- --7 0 -- -- 11 1 7 - \ rl=2-__11 r- 42" MI. , / BAR TOP I 1 /7(7 -4 Â§ 4 - g! DECK Â© r=:T I y ENTRY ~* PININe 12/12 1 4- 3 KIT0HEN [=ZE -4 BATH L -a---1 ~|SIN< || ' 3 1 i~Â» -<%--r -.J 11 1 1 0 12/12 12/12 , 4- EXISTINS SINeLE ill'I [13-72*222IFEEÂ« r <~I] SLOPE FAMILY 001ELLINS O '9 1 U I 2'-e" . 5'-4" 9 12/IS [0> 1 4 h 1 SLOPE PARAPET ~ - EXISTINS RELOCATED - SHED LIVINS ! 2 io | 1 0] 12/12 12/12 Et> - FIREPLACE 4 --7 ~ ~ WEARTH 24/1 -W I li 1 / oup + lili /// E-- -- -_ _- -- -- -_ -- -- _- -- -- -_-1 . 41-5. . 19'-1. 24'-00 . 61-01 . 1 JILÂ¥ 21, 7999 1 2 8 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A3 3 9 4 10 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0123 5 6 0 099Â£-92 L6) 71,91.8 OGVM 1Sva ZoE SNÂ¥ld bl0013 30'-09 4 30'.0" -- I . 1- ~--/ ~~Â· /Â·1' -,w'*Â£, 2~2 ~ b ., 1 1~- , .f#z. 4t, J 7 C. 0 00 1 0 r- 1 2 Â» ..1 r I ro 0 1 k 1 -- 1 - 2m 9 Z 1 1 - 1 1 1 Iii 1 TI r- 0 CD 1-0 2 0 ' 70 0 1 0 v I .r~ 1 1 'z r /001 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 . 111 11 1 11! 11 lili[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.-1 1 1 1 1 1 F --. ry*ZI ;'1111/1 + - lili 9 - J 1{11111 < O Il lillil 9 21 IIII!111 21 1 \ 41 1/11111 \ 4 .. 1 r 14- . /14 : I 1 47 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -11 1 --1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ill I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lili 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ill I 3 $ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L__ __ __ -_ __ ___1 L__ -- -_ -- -- __-_._1 0 01 A W ..3 - E ij = 6 LD)_, 3, FLOOR PLANS 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (970)925-3660 NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET ,,.1 4.- ...,rli At,4.-1 2 .~~2gâ€¢~~U.4.Â· -' 9- 0,2, . iK'*46 t..:.2,+ 1 ' , AB:%#ik I '' O '/12*/Rrel'42421*i,1 -. I. =.W L 3-IVOS H0013 GNAOBS ''Pr=-11 MÂ°'0 .'' Itt.'ll , 3..4 4'k; f: 1 '4 ..1* tA , -- j 41Â· -- -e=ze=.-- I I , +,-..#F f..r=r----1-1 â€¢I -- 1 th.Lil l , - .I; 11/1 44.- il W. - 4'JAPÂ·47Â· Â¢0 2.4-111 2,1. - ' A- --7, ilt .=--I . . 3 ,/3/9 -- I .4 44241 4 4 Â· t. r:N 09.-fit... ---- O. ,- -fu/ 4-16-ii;i*-2-7--- .... ~ ' ' - 11 lt'11-4!nuf--7:- . --- . -- . . ..1 '' . 16 ; MAN - e. ~ - 3 -re.*'. , ... --t 4: - . * ' D'Â· ~ . Â¥Â·0 q .9- -el t. * - - 1' Â· K - . . 1 - ,- 1- s. 4Â¥Â· 44.- ) -.Â«. 1,-: 4 ' ,Â·-'E.., f':.-*'Â·' --2 . .le.. I ./Z' , , -/ 4. 1 , 4 \./.-- I.-.. - 1*LL-.... \ i... ... 1 4 \ I . - .r. .4=. 4 \ -==r- It ly./ \ ~ h .- Nk - \ Â· 1 ..44 \ '. - 1 t..I- ..... - .. 1 -- 2 . ~ Â·'4!; b.... =-.7,-' .< 8 , N 11 -11, i 315 '1 Â· -i -Tul i ./. 1 04â‚¬57 9% -4, - -- I - . --+-'>- 4, 1 . -* - .*- - M - -/ 1 . - -- -1 1==r , , 1 U ---, 1 14....4 h t..tly . . . 1 1 ./. -in - I .t - 1 - - : .131 -- 11-1 -UL ,-/- -441 4 Â·Â·A *in, 1 Al-I-~*E ..-i~Â· .4- . .<. . c. .._.. - .,:u - -Â·- li Â·Â·,Â·._ \ , I.J Â·X 'f f. Â·4 --- -1 1 :l 2 -- . f - .b : -- 2 . irT- 111 - , C 12:23 . /L i. + :'+ 2 1 -:. .1 , 1.1 1, h - WL 1 -, - 4 .1 11 M 1 -' #I I '1- . 9:2 1, . ~11 1 Ad: . . ,>0% 4 2.-'X 0 --.-- I :ar: ' t~'Â·: 4.-3 /6 .*43- 4.& 1 : ... AN 430.-f -9 -> - â‚¬>t. A.2.,DE.1 1,â‚¬ 3, 1 . -- Â£-r /5 M{DRAâ‚¬(4 9- i , iN/303 EAST MAI2 /l JAKE VICKERY 100 SOUTH SPRING ST â€¢3 POST OFFICE BOX IZJ60 JAKE ASPEN. CCLORA[)0316!Z TELEPHONE , FACSIMILE <303) 925.30 64) '7* 1 . 1 ti iff J 99" 4% AC â‚¬12.leE K* fv LA 1 1 it; go 31 / 1 1 2 ey j r \45 V 'Lk <r, li 1 i iti,! 11 1 1 '1;'111 -i, lilif M# 1, *'lf fl 1 I ' -Â»re Â¥*4Â«\0 A 1 111 T 1 ;1 4 il - r . 4- 11 - ry-- 1 '1 1 91 ji f - .--L..2.12~U---LIZZLIEZII: .......,-,_...._.._ -~ ' 22=12-===z~~---- ------L7;-- 11 1 1-2- , 1 lili 11 -,-I r 13 11 ----7---------1. ---- - 11 i -1 ---1 1 I 1- - /1 -1-1 , - 4 - .1 f 1 1 0 a - 11 1 I, r 1 -- -U--2. 1 1 - | 11 M 1< 11 1 i 1-- Neul TJI *EM 111 11 11 It 1 i /1 1 1 -1 1 1 COURT SOUTH Â· COURT WEST COURT NORTh COURT EAST SECTION THROUGH WALK LOOKING SOUTH ~ Ir.: i 17 1- 11-11-0 11 11 1 4.- --------4+-1Â£-.-W-*g*#---t-/*.t.pi-*--.i-4-.~i -- 2 . r Ill ? 1 1 1 La 0 j _I_ , li I 11 ------7 ------2 ----0- -- 5- NORTH ELEVATION _f_ 0-41-91211--2_1 -___-_ __----___1 MAIN_STA[R SECTION LOOKiNG SOUTH- -22 ----- 3... 4 4 -eÂ· - -0. - ... , -------*---------7 .. -------------------- F /i 1 102- ir--p 1 D 1 10 r :1 mca I 4.-1 4# 0 z , = m k 1 1 IE '1 1 A I M mil :' m (1--- 11 1 4 i' 1 1 1 1 1 , -2 5.-41 & 1 1 1 4 1- 1 1I!111 1 N lilli* 11111111\ lilli '\ 4 6 111:1~,1,2, Il J 1 ./ C i Ilizieilli\\ 111 111111 I 13 - 1.9-j:J 11 t 4 ; 3:1 'Â»â€¢'h-41--1-1* \ X .18 1 C TE 2 31* 7 8 0 E > 4 : f - i ---.-. 4 *~r 2 4. ] 4 I. 1 1 . 9.4. c ./. 1 S. 1 1 1 i 1 + 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 -1 il I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 5 ..1 > FLOOR PLANS 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (970)925-3660 NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET V NV Id aUU 1=1 UNI IUa ENT FLOOR PLAN NE W COMbeRCIAL SPACE t............."Ill'll'll./.IN . be. . r.1 4.-4. . 3.-Ir -1 , . 0.-r - 50Â£)OF 1 R -1 -e e , er *i . Mi GEFT 1 tt~ = 0 io 1- 4 Y -.Il 10 40 11 .5 "m - 99 - . 1/ 11 T k 4g = 1 Â®i> 0 81Â®1â€¢ POLE O 0-7-m St .70 ' 4 -2 - Z:i~ . 7-,â€¢ y-tÂ¥ 24*Â· 4.-Â®Â¥ . 1.-,t I @ I 4 IULL LRE $1 4 .8 1 1 1 .:44 1 - Y 4. L 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 E 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 IR I& 51 1 41 . 1 1 /2 5 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 . 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 lei U 1 1 \ il 0% M. 1 1 51 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.$ 1 1 50.00' .....- 1 . 3.5... t 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO ~ ASPEN, CO 81812 (970)925-3660 NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS ~ ' 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET C :411 4 ~13 N 0 40 09 5&*' Il.â€ž2. wH9K1444##fe 2 -, 43 ; U ./ ~394 V-e:Â»t 442 <cu) *Â»9-f-Â»u~ct~ju~ \ -1 1 71 /1 . -7 l/4 0 11 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 - -%.JI.:, ... 7....,1 #,1?;flL.1-*n-11,10[T-rIt:~~~11i~~;*~*v'. 2 11 1 f . BIL-21./-1 11 1 - G . fr-9 1912- 11 : F *L . I , . , )91 . â€¢ , 11 ' 1- r till 1*,==t~1 1 1 ' i 4 3 #4;~~ 44 1. 1 9 ~4171,-Â· 44 .2 1 - li. .41 1.2 4 - -4 . I 1.7 5 y ~ 17,3 ; ~-~ 1 ' 1 1 -- =7Â· Â·r~. Leal 1. I --a~------- 3 ' f _-1~ Â·Â·Â· Â·f ., '1 1 11 11 1 1011 V. - Â· i. l. fl , , 11 - , 1 53% P 1 1 i fr ....1 501 1 - i -*I q. 41! , ipi 1 .-1 C 2 - 1 bill '' 1, :'41 1 n 1 L - . it_i 1 .94 U. 1 1 -- 1 1. tÂ¥-4 . 1 1.4 J, , ' . - 1 11 1 -- 'tel i ; ' L!11 ""' INi-- ~ ~ r i r 0 1 .t 1 Ad 1, 1 -11111111440 4 ar K 11~E1-- /7 -IL= il 111111111' - ..1.. 11 1 11111,111 9 . . Pl i --- --- 7. 11. t Â«=11' =d,r:.. 4 j -lili - 7 I. - . u 1 EN P"16-* 1 1-11?MMI'Mt' . 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 , Ilh , ! 11 ii ., '1.1 3, ' 54 ., r iÂ· 1 1, i (AÂ·' 1 1,1 1. 1 , Lk ' i~/ iii lÂ·# --1- + -4=Â»1910\ E= =1=1 1275' ' . ': f '\ , , i 1 , 111 % 1 13 12 .,1 - --- 1 'tor -f:'=Iy 1 Ill 1: 1 . 1 111 , 1 /1 , 1 1-2 1 1-4 11 lili I !11 1 1 -1-9 ' 1 1 III 67, 1 11 Ilillill'llil 1 1 1 - 1 IT-: , 4 4 1 - J 1 11 / ..4# 14 . 4- - -- Iii 1 I . ... 1 --r.-- - -1 , 1,Â·40: REBAR Wl Pl A 31 CAP N /5- UV' 11" w 30Â·16 *' BAR W/ PLAS. CAP 1 HOPKI[NS AVE. .;2 4 8 11 30 (* 16 02 0) /4 " tll FEET IMPROVEMENT SURVEY AA SOUTH MONARCH +l 111,11; 1 11 1 1 1 1 ' ':iii.' 1 1 ! Iii il 1'1il' .,,,1 *4'' 1 51,1,1'.'I ,! C i il ,Ilill-- , 1 11 11 1 111 , 1 11 6 . 1 15-LA - , 4=-t 1-1 / i < 4 1. IM . A m 'E@ZE n . \ r . '< 4 -- 1 LlÂ«% 4:Â·gÂ«O. --- ---- Ho?*\- @4149) -_D,av**Â»-40_ ---_-2-1-1~1--0_--1-- fICE _-FL_ _11391=-a_&282* . 1 - I. ~9 'f tal 1. --Ill.'I -..-I. t ~f~leÂ» - - 1 - tx larrk:1 - ---- - FÂ»IDI 34 4 6FA:Â» - ---- -7- - I I.-*# h 1 6-TKLI Â£7[4~17-9 H ev>/ - 1- - 1=12_ _ 03 -f;187%1-gel , '.'. h / 24/ ' -uâ‚¬03 1 friD 9(1 Fel,Â£VJEp -' - */ 11 CLITID!-11&1Â»14 - -- - Â»prtl 071. W- r--Mt -r- -1- 21014 -Â·141Â«10~210 i ---1 ,--f--t-AD FFION lt) IDS 1 -19 1 4 u-41 L ' i ~ i PE+10 LI 1 HEED, 1 r Li ' -2 -3,--=-NE-!i) 211Â£2 1 -5 b r\-t -12,1 \ / / Â»>t1164, 1/ 470 041 1 1 / %749%FO vt 7 *30) 1'101 1 / Â¢ FEM AltÂ·4, - 1 1 1 - 11 1 -11 y 1 /1 1 / 1 1 --/ 1 1 , C i i --*TA=Â·rwee--- - 3027 FE.t>/1,64 H . --- ' b 40 Plt- CNS 6 WE 20 9 0 4 7 H hAOHA RCH- 3 -81 G Jal(-er gc~.of: eÂ« fRA. 406{ H..?43 1 1 'Â» A r: - \1 t ; 6. N 0 4.1.1- t 11 \ \ -J 1 0 L.*29'. 31:Â°, tq.. D ill /7 =III %11-/ 21 302 HOPK/ANS 1223.-~29*_._1213~}-_..1 92=-r_ n" /9. q , 4/ CA+-1- /41 Flur.) e E) Â£(ten' 4 +Lel> 9(0,41 . / \1,- 702 $3*rÂ«r #irfpfp,1 MA-:, ~ ~~rz EtÂ£,C) 80~ylci:4L 1 6 ...4.. 'd . ''h. 4,7 1 - cy> -- I 949,~.V . r <1 4 , 1. - -â€ž '. , 1 /14 m -2- k e,rm a B ..4 1.1 --,-, i. 4/0 ' ... =2 - . . 11 - N 1. =1 0. m j .UP [ ..19 ' j' uu . ev:*:re..1*1,04*92'.2. ;;Cy.... ;UL., 7 46Â»:. . ~Â· =. p.0~trai *AHVP *" Â·, 4 , I. *â€¢D:Â·rp~0~. ' .. - 4. ...,1- 7 *113 16*gen:#9113/1,2.01/gatibl , - k: ' 2.,2. ., 1. .1 -2 . - Â·Â·Â·Â·..... r-tÂ·:t.... *,---Â·..47%-,74+NlÂ·.-1 Â·Â·Â·. -i--7-:*-tÂ·-I-*WÂ·. .*~ 1 .. - .. -4 .1 ... ...324 VectorsPC/ Jake Vickery Architecture Aspen 302 East Hopkins- Existing South Elevation 4/28/99 Photo: Charles Abbott/ Digital Arts Aspen Â© 199 .... t \4\ L \/ f , .\3\ I.\ 42 .Â· 4Â·tâ€¢ - 0 \ ; 46 \ 4 r /4 1. I 1 # *42' Â· - , 1 . . I j, l . ...f +471 - , , 1 Â».. ., 40'.~.A . 77.4-3*.1, 6â‚¬*4.i:1 7 m â€ž ' 41 ,,..D, i tHâ€ž4'A,!~. ' , .h. I. , *,4*.?2'... . , P ./.,ff. 11*941 ./ ti.l A *.11:9#El#~..Ygwh/,AE. 44 1. 1 4*. 3711. C . aL &71/--2,2. .. U.. -4:t 9 4 E '~J. 4~~ ' /0 6 3 -4-Â» Â· , 49.11Â£1imaw**&%90=9- -1- - #1 .4646.#. . .4477â‚¬~ 444 + + - . I ..-.// t rn 1=i -. 1 2,92; ;11 Ill Ill 1,6. 0 4 111 1 111 . I. t. I ,;4/ . 41,2 F 4 - Â·G Â·â€¢4 'rs-f. A. - - -20:43* A . if <** 4 *; â‚¬4 Â· *~,i4*9ty,,41:/4:'9'.?.::~-9'.:f 2 - -4: , . ...0. + . i. C. . .1 ...~% ~.7,346JÂ¢*~.t:.9.~,Aft?:1>,Al,,Â»4'. . I r:-0.# Q*$- Vectors['C'/ Jake Vickery Architecture Aspen 3()2 East Hopkins- Existing North View 4/28/99 Photo: Charles Abbott/ Digital Arts Aspen Â© 1999. r. 9 h - I . 1... 4 - t. ./ 9 ,&.- t -1,2 .. ...1 :1 . .- 3 . J \ 1<\31 ht 1 ' Â· U 9%. 1 ' . 1 k-x:' i. U ' 1 4 1 i V ' .66, 1 -~' Â·. Â· A ,Â· \ 11. \ 1 T Ap ... , /1 f \ /49 /4 I ''' 1 \ /, i . =4Â». ,?1*Â·jp >. ./4 \ j , ' 4 / ,/A ) -. , .kok, L /444 \ \4-4 / li -- /' I -- 0â‚¬2=,94.==1--- / 4.1 Â· .t \ 1 - --i-- .. 'flwi~Ti-lilillilillillilillilillillillbI~~e.~d.~i.~/.~.7~.~.~.~-~~~~~~~~~~~~7*1' 4 . .Ah ' - /44. -k-- - . *1-IHI . Â«4'49 .-- -- . 'b= - - 11 1,1.- ......imm"~/4 - A 1 , ra . . 4 .:; 16 - 12 :33|EEÂ·:7Â· EL _ - mjEEÂ·=LE .-I - ~rl---- r 1. n.6- + , - - .... %h 9 I.A.*W~'ll' VectorsPC/ Jake Vickery Architecture Aspen 302 East Hopkins- South West Perspective 4/28/99 Photo: Charles Abbott/ Digital Arts Asp?nÂ© 1994. -4 A *" ~321//--433~- -~55* 1/PIP E-U~--/ EL.--- bil L ~=1_---_ --~un= 15/------ ... --- -1--- --illir li 'Ill'lll'll- ==Z:Z==ra .. M 2 - I. St..t , 1 . ----I- PA~ .. 1 :Li' 1, >{,. ~ i ~'~ ~ 4 .; 4 1.-f . Â· Â·Â· , ~ Ni ~ ' . -. .L .. Â·I , :41 , . ....-, '' i '' 9/ . . *c 'r - 9 . tht * 4/ff'2''i L T,r j L~*1~Â·t.3.kÂ·L Air 12 %4.-48 4 4 0 h VectorsPC/ Jake Vickery Architecture Aspen 302 East Hopkins- Partial West View 4/28/99 Photo: Charles Abbott/ Digital Â·Arts Aspen Â© 1999. . 111111'Â· LPÂ· PR.- 3 '- r 1 2-7 , I 1 - - 1. 4 7 # 0 - , r'- o. 44 .11 .4, ' 4 , , ./. r, I ' '' , U z 1 1~23 1 f , 1 '' h. I ' 7 \ B. . 1 1 1 ' 4-0&54 - 'Â· 4, 1 t .1.1 -41-.1 , 1 r 1.1 14-8 < 1.- 'r. I 1 L , r.r Â· i A ./ 8 , r.1"Â·11.- 3 Â·6 : 1, 1 1. I '11 -IC ' . h t. 741 1 9 4 - . f LM' 4 . -''~ -I - .., , 4 1. .. ~ 2. 1, 11 1 .,1 % - I. A'< / .L ... .f : , /1 7 4.4 A i ' I ....-A . 4 ....4.114Â·.Plk 1 1, 1,/ .4 0.3,74- -1 - r /7.4 . . . 2Â¥ L.7*43. 4,0. . == ...09+ I . Â·,J: tu:Â·12. â€¢ Â· - Uff... . xitr -Â·;- r # 1 .. ./mIZI~ aaEÂ«I.i ci ~ 3Â¥,Stv -- ---- B. 2 - -- 9- -644 n U - 4- . - :V .' 1 .. j 'r- \\ Il. 0 , \1 . 1/42 0 1_1_1-Ll*=: 44-:_1 4--\--- -- Mm; 4 - --.-M'll r-m . Â«Â·Â·Â·' ,-1=77?- _ ~ 4 - Â£ Â£--P 9-11, -- A-- . -- 1 . I t %*Â·â€¢1Â¢21*.031521.7f.<r .c.Â·*aÂ·*~.*et .' Â·Â· 4 - irs .1. -:142:..ai.74':i"14~ 4 -~.0.*8/..416Â£f#ar . Â·'.-f~j~ff*04 :~2.2~~Ed.',44*p.kiffi~$~ 1- :~b:2 -IÂ¢ 1.1 t..~1. .... 91*47Â·223f*%~4,6:Me:14'544;:Â·~-Â·, r. ; W Vectorsit/ Jake Vickery Architecture Aspen 302 East 1-lopkins- Existing West Elevation 4/28/99 Photo: Charles Abbott/ Digital Arts Aspen Â© 1999 ' 1 1 - L .126*52 'ece 30*Eg# - --11-Â£... .\ _31~ 0 12 . 1- \T j \J \\. 3 1 . I \\\\. 9~53 4.i -â€¢iuc ..C-- .-i Ll- .. ; iÂ« 1 li ..r 9 >. ---- -_ 1-<trik - 1. ir,-/. Â· ..1 1 .4=4. V. .-399/4.-6113;?il -* .% h /-424; .#Ifjj / 19./.604 .1 - fll-- 2- 9 2- 4 -6 Â·Â· 1 :. 2.- .1 1 .r - . E --- -Â·45?â€¢10:, I ./ ...I. .-6-. - - -- I - * VectorsPC/ Jake Vickery Architecture Aspen 302 East Hopkins Streetscape 4/28/00 Photo: Charles Abbott/ C r 31- fr HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 302.EH Photo Information: ASP-CC-2-11 and ASP-CC-2-12 Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7 USGS Quad, Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: A.G. Sheperd / Chatfield Residence Full Street Address: 302 East Hopkins Legal Description: Lot K, Block 80 City and Townsite of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Commercial Core Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residence Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottage Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1 Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): L-shaped Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Mature cottonwood west side ; wrought iron fence around yard Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): 100 square foot single-qabled, wood shake roof; clanboard with fixed glass and 1/2 light over wood panel door For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross qabled; wood shingles Walls: Clanboard with horizontal wood boards at porch enclosure Foundation / Basement: Concrete masonry unit with windows to the west side of the basement Chimney(s): Red brick at center ridge Windows: 6 over 6 double hung wood with arched crown at front windows and west side; wood shutters Doors: Stained-glass transom / 1/2 light / wood panel Porches: Shed at entry on square built-up posts with simple arched brackets General Architectural Description: Unique vergeboard detail and finials. An excellent example of a typical Aspen Victorian Miner' s Cottage. Features such as the front gable (steep pitch) with ornate vergeboard and trimmed out with horizontal clapboard siding; cross qable with centrally located chimney and front entry with porch; and lonq/narrow double hung windows. Wood finials at each qable end. ful AO L\E 0 * 0 Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 302.EH FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1883 X Actual Estimate Based On: Assessor MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate X Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Exterior detailing modifications; dates unknown Additions and Date: Cellar added and kitchen enlarged to rear; dates unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E Map Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation 1-3 Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: One of the very early Victorian Miner's Cottages built (1883). Built bv A.G. Sheppard, later sold to D.R.C. Brown who retained it in the family until 1898. D.R.C. Brown was involved in the development of Aspen through his investments in mining. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: "Aspen Early Days, Hopton & Schuldner; Pitkin County Courthouse Records Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Â» Â® .,-1..Â·.=.~fiy --}*-46~/'irk--~4'alm~~/f- -7.. .. 4*0314 Â·'42.â‚¬.9-?~ / 7,-7,1 Â· ~-~~ . ' -Er- < /- .- . .112 ic- 1rmif35~,MVE - ....4.- r .---v , 'b-14.1 - 5799-4/.-I k- .... 4 â€¢.~' Â·*.,... -4. . . - / 42 - ,.-4. .:Â· ------7===4---- - - -5,_ -4 -fa "<b..- 444Â»-112>Â·91-431â‚¬44~ 4 4 -1 -r - eh $ 9 .MN.-# 1 Â·82Â·â€¢ . I#Vulf//TI ----â€¢ .,4 v mJL<M722~AR7 muzz~.Â·UÂ·.- 3 . . t IT-' 0.77..Â»â€¢â€¢Â·-.: -~. '4-. '33 i / 1 * - - x ' -Â·Â«~' 2~~~~7-*' L- .11-Â·~<~ I I. /14. . Â·Â· - V I .. . 1 2- :-.. 95:0 43. - 144 ... 3' .-~C, . 1 1- 4, r ' 4. ' -./3 4 y. h 1- ./I ' L * t- -ds.=m.-.-/>t .,- + .., :74 3 .. - 1 4 - , , 0 442â‚¬ t. ig Â»-1~ '* --2 *//)*64/~//f- f ///1-4-/,/ 4 -2...4 â€¢1~54 4 1 I 1 -34 b, .. )A,ty,=.,2 . - /5-51%35/E gily- 1 . -=x=._Lbtl~uILLY- ' -- 'A...:+ 402 . 7 -~ - 2 f--1~~6**,-t 4- .-1...9 -, iIi Â· ,,.Â·.- --#'.). ...,-7 1, % -2 ... 2- /CAJ.7<61/ %Â¥16 '.... 26*,6,3 - Â· .01 A#*.. 4. '4>0.t 1 V.. .. -- - -1...-Ir Lp.,4. I -324MF'pn. A.-0 0 -<* z Â· ., . , ilmzq5-.Mabfug""T - aw--24 4ry .1 7-3*42 1. r ~ . :.' 0-4--*70--' i ,Â·i" e . 111 ., KI, 1.~, - 1 - -:. I - - . , I - 1 4- --'. 1 1 ~0 . . . , . Sr*,,I 11 L.,27 '1 , Ill .- , ..,1 ' 1, 1 .,1 4 1 .~ - .:Al 5 - 1 Â»>j .f/- -1/%*rif -'. 1 11 - , 1 2-7 ,*Â·FLÂ· 7. M,:.>'â€ž,1.-'-- ~. .1 1/ v 7 1/â€¢ I - 1 4, '''l a. *224 , 1 1 H EE,yE~~2 - â‚¬12/ r - 4 111/111 h . 11 , LI' 11Â£ 1 1 111. 0/ â€¢Ar' Â¥ 4,/....///'- U I. ..:. 1 1 1, .,, I . + .... , U - ,/ ,1. = 4 it 1 -- = â‚¬-2- 0 41/ .rt. .'/7.4.3 f'~ ;,, 1 '1'1111'll,Il J ' 4 ' - ~~ '~r.*---,~ / Arn."" 1 - 1 #W ; I . lk> - 1...1 4,1 11 ) ' Â«414 .---'. 1% 1,11,1.1 111 /," 1,/I"Al-% 382 ~*9 i - /hip,1,1,11111,1,111 : s..11 . 5 -I - , i i.Â· r:!Tt i- i .1, / 1 . 1 - lili ./ "f./. % -5 // .6=6.--122.1111 i 1 -Ir *S//gr- -- I 4.: 1 - .. 1, 2%7ID r. 1 PI ''10/ , 1 7/1// rrt-j ., iiÂ£-7 11 , , 4. - r , . r i -' r- , 15â€¢ i ' 4-2.'di:<9 / 4 * *:FliT 22a2Z~-:.E - ./ , i. 11. 1 01 . 1 ' ... .h - / 1 â€¢"EN r Â» 1 *,4. /4 1 -- P - - ... - r 1- 7 - '7 -2-,â‚¬.t=rÂ· / 111 ../. , 4'. 11 ... '911 - Il .7 ' . ' r - C' 1 -1 4'. H I | &4-3 . -1|uie*41'42 -0- -myvs- i.~ -1,7, 1 2/ 1 r â€¢Fr . f-zzÂ» _ , h 1),-2.' - i kn . ~/~3 * ; e 14 ' 4 , ............ r.i.- 4.4 tt 43'- 'I" L ~47 I .4 >01 .1 + PO- 6 ./11,.. ''51/18/a /,//,/ I A - 7/.* 2 3127 -1. i - .... + %/.,7/....-.-v. 1 - - - r -- 2 - t in t... lili '1 1 1 . 1.1 .. 1 1, -- 11 . . 1~ -2- - I .- r Â· 1-4-r/,11 - 1, 4 2 |4| ' '|' |IJ I â€¢ | 1 ~t' 1" - I .2,- . 1 r /'Ill.mIR'<*.. ./ ' . f,~;.gr - . -iti.'63 '. .X 'C-'-t ..,~f-13 -I-I~ . - 7-1 = 11Â· eâ€¢2 9 4.-1 - --* 71 -4, ' v . V . - Â· - ./v.... I. 4 v 1 --7-44 tak- .. g. 4 - a'94*.0..01. Â·t:ffel.Â·-~-=25* 24.1/796",f.96-4./28*<34*~9fr.E7.:I . ....2, b. 1 A-~27.1 - -3 Â·' .-'-/cou- a Â· - i Pet .. 0â‚¬52,*Pâ‚¬fWiN+Bwi<--4,3,/77'*,r--. 9.44=2 f eal#~4.-~tiN . 1 , 12 4 . I. AA.. fi - /2 - 2; â€¢. .e...Tar'.e=q,A --te* p- ~44rc . . 5%21 71.Â«ft {Â·~ 7/ - , 9 4 - 1 6 I .444 - 42- 1 -12 2. A -~.At y ;*39* W. 4 -~S,et&57J~ - 44Â£2- 4 -Â»4. -3 Â·2 -Â» 1 438&~Fpff*Â£*I~Fra,+44,126:3117#1.-Witi#-EMFf*EAA#&~.~~~9~~d,~~4~O#lif64: -*+ .f-r= I , 4 z 13*rt 0 79 22..U,. '~--6 0. ' - 1 I i Ch 15 ant 540 Dmii?q Rmtiv...onomAW.2 \.Oj#ier*,i. 4 k WN....'. It . -Il ~~2'TEAM 4 -ER - 3-4 D 0 01Â© r :- 9 D ..r 1 If 5:iÂ· . .57,fANNEf'ER | . 4'.0/2 >- R J Z E K L ried NO -0 - U .- 4. -11:2 |~~C<UR,T/&31 - 'Â· - -~ji :9- 0 583-' 5.2 . hwtÂ»sp,- 10! Â·Â·' ' ' hÂ·.fo p t:,4. 5 /Â« tw' i 60>v; :i- c 0*-4 fic Â·AY*42393? 03/ Rm.-3 1 11 -9 .:it:1 - Er*:-i ~.-~:tÂ· i?5*~~.?r'L 1 V,-.4 m fl ~ T 33 7-, Mi-j~:to: ;2:~-: ,,. 9//-4 1.9 2.: 9<Mons, 9 *1 11 04:-2-2.-1 *'eli - E>g#me-Â·1 6 j ... i - '>-zile , - L. 1 2,'.f. 3, 25 - 1- 4 .: .1 36 Rh ' Â· r.~t= ru*il, Read(nA r-J 4,2, â‚¬5 11 2 0-1 \ r,43. ,- -s 31 0 ....,- -1173.:'013 -akho 20'r. 'tj tÂ©*gÂ¢5*,tc-1-An) , apr %,+A 226 228 230 232 235 1 300 302 304 306 308 3/0 3/2 3/4 3/6 3/8 2-10 322 324 \32Â§ 328~330 332 32451 11 1 1.---- 'r eD/% HOTEL JEROME. MEAT: STEAA' ~D.H. Li GN-S: .ELLEÂ· V.p%,300.22-HOSE 5t It il --- s w Pse 93 - 327 229 231 233 235 .41 303 305 397 309 31 1 3/3 k 3/7 3/9 321 323 325 327 329 33/. 333 335 11 w Tobaccc /\ 8 - , .el e 1 -11 N 7--D- 7 7-111 :T>-2 C/#25 11\ 0 5 /2 .D * .1,1 'D T ------ / Ir: / r-7 4--3 7 P 9 6 3 21 22 Xr/ -1 L.-- - - - #P 7 1, 1 -_ . ..It 2 0 8 Â«Al) 7 I B O D. E F G H 21 vac. -i 4 It_-_ FR7 7 ' 7. i ., 7 8 17-7_ W.Ha f Confer.4 % 4 - 11 2 41 - 1 1 1,1/2\ /11 4. * SP Z 0 80 \ CO/7/&4 z> 8 j 1 132Â« 9 - LE_1 1 FT-7- 2 ). . R ~5 4 U> 4 K L M NO Q R~' 0 4' L t' L -1 0 0 6 ~ 7--51 73 17-5 F=F- Feed â‚¬ 4 H P 4 2% 4 r -ll= 3-3- 21 .-. ---Aqi E- 71.0 -. -Irlf-14 -1) i / -fi~13:1 / 0 1 - 32 Storage - - 62 4.Fac; % 2/1 ZZ X 34 230 234 340 302 309 306 308 310 3/2 3/4 3/6 318 319 322 324 326 328 330 332 3* ~ (2 25) (224(230. (232 -71 61. u Elle- - -- ---------- -73(==r== ===8-- --1= ========0=1 ==E===== 1 i lot All i L L -9 227 219 23I 233 235 ty BOI 303 303 307.-309 3//(3/1~31/~~~1 3/7 3/9 32/ 323 325 327 329 331 .3113.31-%. & 0-29,1 22. 2,-fr U o 3 0/ C K' 0 8 241Â°1 34' 2 t 1 1 - 022.- fi r; -A*--0- -p- D YEM--1 , D ' |j-y 3 ro. * A en - ' '-- lir".11~ 0- ~D 7 ' 8 11 3 T bE-,1*,im 1- r: .:. â‚¬ t_--T- 4 - 1/0,â€¢005 -iÂ£.a /0 (01 fol ZOI F O \,0,0~ /0 4 Printing . a