The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.334 W Hallam St.HPC035-01HPC035-01 1 -- - 334 W. Hallam St Conceptual HPC 1/ rh I -1Â£59I~i#66illiEili;Zillit:% 6% r Aff < 3- H C \\l V e 641>04 1 / 7 91 , CD .., 1 , / ., ..1 7 56 .. , ..4 - /:... 1 ;-# ).h. -/ b 40 6 / er J 32 A . CASE NUMBER HPC035-01 PARCEL ID # 2735-124-23005 CASE NAME 334 W. Hallam St. Conceptual HPC PROJECT ADDRESS 334 W. Hallam St. PLANNER Amy Guthrie CASE TYPE Conceptual HPC OWNER/APPLICANT Hayden Connor REPRESENTATIVE Patrick Cashen DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION HPC 7-2004 BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 09/07/04 BY D Driscoll .. 1 . PANBEL ID:|2735-124-23005 DATE RCVD: |4/17/01 # COPIES:j ~ CASE NO~HPC035-01 CASE NAME:|334 W. Hallam St. Conceptual HPC PLNR: PROJ ADDR:|334 W. Hallam St CASETYP~onceptual HPC ; STEPS: .---li OWN/APP: Hayden Connor L ADR1444 Grape St. C/S/Z: ~ Denver/CO/80220 PHN:1 REP:|Patrick Cashen ADR:~4155 East Jewell, 110 C/SA:IDenver/CO/80222 ' PHN1(303)759-~52- FEES DUE:~ 1205 D ~ FEES RCVD: 1205 STAT: r-3 REFERRALS REF; -] BY~ I DUE: ~ [ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED J 1 7 -- DATE OF FINAL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL: 1 REMARKS~ PZ: BOA: CLOSED:| BY: 1 DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: | j PLAT (SK,PG): ~_23 ADMIN:~ 1 .. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 334 W. HALLAM STREET, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 42, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID#: 2735-124-23-005 RESOLUTION NO. 7, SERIES OF 2004 WHEREAS, the applicants, Hayden and Louise Connor, represented by Poss Architecture and Planning, have requested Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" 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 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code and be in accordance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines in order for HPC to grant approval. The review standards are below and the guidelines are on file in the Planning Office: 1.Standard: 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) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC 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)(21 for detached accessory dwelling units. A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the.opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. .. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of 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 26.415.010 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 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; 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 "H" 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, in order for HPC to grant a variance from the "Residential Design Standards," according to Section 26.410 of the Muncipal Code, the HPC must find that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3.* Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enj oyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to , the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and .. WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated February 25,2004, performed an analysis of the application based on the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," and recommended that it be approved on the finding that the review standards for Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, and Variances are met; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 25,2004, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and found that the review standards for Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, and Variances were met by a vote of 4 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite o f Aspen, Colorado are approved with the following conditions: l. HPC grants the following variances: an FAR bonus bringing the total allowable floor area for the site to 4,580 square feet, a waiver of the Residential Design Standard related to the west lightwell, and a variance to the method of calculating height related to the west lightwell. 2. A structural report demonstrating that the Victorian call be moved and information about how it will be stabilized must be submitted from the housemover prior to building permit application. 3. The applicant must provide HPC staff and monitor with a plan for how the housemover proposes to lift the building, for review prior to submittal of a building permit. The approach chosen, whether it be to move the house with its original floor system, or without, must be demonstrated to result in the removal of the least amount of historic exterior materials, and the least damage to the building possible. - 4. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of - - - the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 5. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one- time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. .. 7. A landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all be addressed at Final Review. 8. For Final Review, indicate that the porch columns and brackets that have been added to the west facing porch will be removed. 9. Create a storyboard describing the history of the building and the rehabilitation project that will be undertaken, to be displayed in a location viewable to the public during the construction process. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25th day of February, 2004. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 334 W. Hallam Street- Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Variances - Continued Public Hearing DATE: February 25,2004 SUMMARY: This property is a designated landmark and is listed on the National th Register of Historic Places. The site contains a 19 century house, and an outbuilding that was reconstructed in 1990. The proposal before LIPC involves moving the building on the site, adding a basement, and demolishing and replacing a non-historic addition. The applicant requests an FAR bonus for an exemplary historic preservation project and variances related to a lightwell. This project has been in the HPC review process for some time. HPC reviewed the application on December 12, 2001 and continued it for restudy of areas that they found were not in compliance with the design guidelines. In particular this included the relocation of the house, the proposed placement and design characteristics of the new construction, and the request to build a street-facing garage. Additional HPC review took place on March 13, 2002 with a similar result. The proposal was continued to August 28, 2002, at which time staff recommended denial, finding that the HPC concerns had not been meaningfully addressed. The hearing was not held that evening because there were very few board members present, and the applicant subsequently stopped pursuing approval until now. On January 28,2004, the board reviewed a proposal that represented revised architecture for the addition and no garage. The application was generally favorably received, but was continued with the following direction for restudy: 1. Restudy the roof configuration; lowering the roof of the addition with the goal of removing the encroachments on the north facing roof of the historic house to the extent possible. 2. Continue to work on making the addition a distinct element and avoid compromising the independence of the single, east-facing gable. 3. Restudy the separation of the addition from the structure to differentiate old from new. 1 .. The architects have submitted new drawings that address these concerns. Given the fact that HPC has indicated their acceptance of the relocation plan, Staff finds that the review standards have been met and recommends approval. APPLICANT: Hayden and Louise Connor, owners, represented by Poss Architecture and Planning. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-23-005. ADDRESS: 334 W. Hallam Street, Lot K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) 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.C.5) are met, and finds that the development is in accordance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines": a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scate, 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 jloor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a jinding 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, and Staff Finding: In relation to the Conceptual review criteria, the proposal is to demolish and replace an existing addition to the house and to add a basement. Historic structure The applicant proposes no alterations to the remaining areas of the historic residence. Staff agrees that all of the review standards in Chapters 2-6 which deal with rehabilitation issues, are being met at this time, or the applicant has suggested no activites that would be contrary to these guidelines. It is important that the historic structure itself is to be properly preserved, which is commendable. 2 .. There is a one story gable roofed addition at the northwest corner of the house that appears on the 1904 Sanborne map and the 1893 Bird' s Eye view of the City. (There are no historic photographs of this property available.) Â£_11__12 yi -U. ;1 0 _11 0 12 772..-.- h M 1 ./.--= k.h.'ll k '24 0 t- 1 7 :t J .:. 0.-7- i.f i 4 NtÂ» 273 4.1, te \y. 22. & - 4 4/#... {74, V.â€ž_L ~ Using these maps and physical inspection of the property, it has become apparent that this one story room has been extended slightly towards the north in the more recent past, and that an exterior storage closet was built on the west in a manner that makes the historic porch look longer than it originally was. The proposed plan is to retain the current appearance of this area of the building. As a condition of approval, staff recommends discussion of whether the extension on the north should be demolished, or or at least whether the porch columns and brackets that have been added to the west facing porch can be removed. Proposed new construction The proposed new addition at the back of the house maintains the same basic footprint of what exists now, except for a two story extension towards the east. Previously, the Commission stated that if one were removing and replacing the existing addition, which has no architectural value of its own, it would be important to reveal the northeast corner of the original house. It was stated that there should at least be a jog in the wall plane to expose the corner before the construction extended eastward. Several members stated a preference that a more significant effort be made to direct the addition towards the north, behind the historic house. The important guideline to note is: 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. u An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building. a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. The applicant continues to prefer extending the addition towards the east, undoubtedly to access some southern exposure. A jog in the wall plane has been created. It is very minimal in terms of creating a distinct separation from the historic building, however, it may be a desirable thing to maintain a fairly compact floor plan in this instance. 3 .. Because the historic house is two stories, there is no need to try to create distance between it and an overwhelming addition. The original rear wall of the house has already been lost, therefore trying to significantly detach the new construction from the existing house would require some reconstruction that would not be guided by any factukil information about the original design. As a result, staff finds that some amount of integration of the two elements is acceptable, but opportunities to undo some of the less desirable results of the 1960's construction should be taken. The relevant guidelines are: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. 3 A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. u An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. u An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. u For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. Since the last meeting the design has been revised to show a much lower "cricket" spanning between the new and old east facing gable ends. The plate height on the addition has been pulled down slightly so that it tucks under the historic eaveline. A cross-gable has been removed from the north elevation, simplifying that fagade and making the limits of the original building more clear. Staff finds that the guidelines which were in question have been addressed and that review standard "a" is met. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel propfsed for development, and Staff Finding: The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of old and new homes, and a wide variety of architectural styles. 19th century structures throughout the West End have been restored and expanded and an acceptable solution has been found for this project. Standard "b" is met. 4 0 0 .. 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 on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: This house, the Eugene Wilder House, was built circa 1885. From the National Register nomination, "The Wilder house was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber and may have been built by the Aspen Lumber Company. Wilder was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, along with R. F. Roberts from the mid- 1880s to the early 1890s. This business was one of the pioneer Aspen lumber companies established ca. 1880-1882." While staff was concerned that the project, particularly the relocation plan could negatively affect the historic significance of the site, the board appears to be willing to accept this action in order to preserve the large cottonwood tree in the center of the site. Standard "c" is met. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The historic house is to be preserved with no alterations made directly to it. Limiting the alterations to the historic house itself goes far to preserve its architectural character and integrity, and the addition has been successfully designed. Standard "d" is met. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe following standards are met: 1. 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. Staff Finding: Staff agrees that the partial demolition of the existing 1960's addition is necessary for the proposed remodel. This standard is met. 2. 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, and b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. 5 .. Staff Finding: The applicant is reversing some negative impacts caused by the 1 960's addition. This standard is met. ON-SITE RELOCATION No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. 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. Staff Finding: A large cottonwood tree exists in the middle of the property. The Parks Department is not supportive of its removal, which has driven the request to move the house. Although this tree is not part of the original landscape of the site (Parks estimates it to be about 60 years old), it is a common tree from the period of significance of the house. Parks Department believes that the large historic street trees may only have approximately ten years of life span remaining, so it is important to protect the on-site specimen. The applicant is responding to this site constraint by asking to move the house to accommodate the addition in their preferred orientation. The guidelines state that "A part of a historic building' s integrity is derived from its placement on its site and therefore, its original position is important." Guideline 9.1 is: 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. u The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. 1 In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. The degree to which the house is being relocated is a factor to weigh. In this case, the house's distance from Third Street is cut in half (reduced by 10'), which is substantial. The guideline is: 6 000 0 .. 4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission' s policies and philosophies are based on the standards established by National Park Service, including the moving of historic properties. Location is one of the seven measures used to evaluate the historic integrity of a property and therefore should be taken as a serious component of a property' s characteristics. According to National Register criteria, "significance is embodied in locations and settings as well as in the properties themselves. Moving a property destroys the relationships between the property and its surroundings and destroys associations with historic events and persons. A move may also cause the loss of historic features such as landscaping, foundations, and chimneys, as well as loss of the potential for associated archeological deposits." As a result, HPC has determined that proposals to relocate a building will be considered each on their own merits, and heavily weighing the reasons why, in each case, the move may provide a tool to better preserve a building. There is adequate room on this property to site new construction more towards the rear of the house, which was much of the discussion in the earlier HPC meetings. However, the th HPC comments at the January 28 meeting included observations about the fact that the open space between the house and carriage house are a "precious" aspect of the character of the site, and that the cottonwood tree is valued. Â· Therefore, the board appears to be prepared to make a finding that, in this instance, relocation of the house is an acceptable preservation alternative. B. 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. Staff Finding: Said report will be a condition of approval. C. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, 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. Staff Finding: The relocation plan and letter of credit will be conditions of approval. 7 0 0 9 .. HPC FAR Bonus The applicant is requesting a 364 square foot floor area bonus, bringing the maximum square footage for the property to 4,580 square feet. The applicable standard is: "A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus." This is an acceptable site for the extra square footage, given the size of the lot and the large, detached "carriage house" structure on the alley, which serves to take some of the bulk away from the historic building. The building is in need of restoration, and the addition has been well designed, therefore staff finds that the bonus is warranted. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS All residential development must comply with the Residential Design Standards or receive a variance based on a finding that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. LIGHTWELLS. The intent of the guidelines for building elements, such as lightwells, is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the fafade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing fa~ade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the frontmost wall of the building. Staff response: The design includes a lightwell that projects out from the west side of the building, along Third Street. Reasonable use of the basement space likely requires having a lightwell along this wall, and the design of the historic house offers no appropriate alternatives to what is proposed. The lightwell is not oversized and will have a grate over it, so it' s visibility will be minimized. Staff supports a variance from this Residential Design Standard. 8 .. VARIANCE FROM THE CALCULATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RELATED TO LIGHTWELLS Building height is measured from finished or natural grade, whichever is more restrictive. Lightwells are exempt from this calculation, unless they project out from the building on a stree-facing faQa(le. In this case, adding a lightwell along Third Street would cause the building to be over the height limit. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Finding: The AACP does not specifically address this issue, however staff finds that this review standard is met. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Finding: HPC has generally been favorable to the development of basement space under historic buildings since the visual impacts are minimal. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical di#iculty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: The applicant is working with an existing building, which cannot be modified in any significant way. Staff finds that this standard is met. b. Granting the variance wiH not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and Staff Finding: Development of basement living area is standard practice, so there would be no special privileges granted by this variance. Staff finds that this review standard is met. 9 .. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards for Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, and Variances are met and recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. LIPC grants the following variances: an FAR bonus bringing the total allowable floor area for the site to 4,580 square feet, a waiver of the Residential Design Standard related to the west lightwell, and a variance to the method of calculating height related to the west lightwell. 2. A structural report demonstrating that the Victorian can be moved. and information about how it will be stabilized must be submitted from the housemover prior to building permit application. 3. The applicant must provide HPC staff and monitor with a plan for how the housemover proposes to lift the building, for review prior to submittal of a building permit. The approach chosen, whether it be to move the house with its original floor system, or without, must be demonstrated to result in the removal of the least amount of historic exterior materials, and the least damage to the building possible. 4. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 5. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one- time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 7. A landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all be addressed at Final Review. 8. For Final Review, discuss v.hetheelliz.-exiensiga~-11=north side of the historic - p--one story addition should be demolishedÂ·re~-e-Upaqt whether=the.porch columns and brackets that have been added to the west facing porch can be removed. 1 0 qkD 0.4 6 o evA Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated January 28,2004 D-4 0 7 B. Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines C. Plans and elevations presented on January 28,2004 d<<0 D. Current application 10 .. Exhibit B 334 W. Hallam, Historic Design Guidelines Checklist, Conceptual Review Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. u Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. u Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. u The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. u An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. See also: Chapter 10, Guidelines for Building Additions. Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. u The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o Iii general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. ci If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. o It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. 11 000 0 .. u It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. o On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest minerts cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. o Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. u Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. 1 Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). The size of a lightwell should be minimized. A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Existing Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. 1 Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. u A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. u An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. u An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. u An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 12 EC C .. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. u Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. u Setback an addition from primary faeades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. u The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 13 C L ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION rOMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman. Neill Hirst was excused. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to continue the Conceptual Development and Public hearing on 470 N. Spring until March 10, 2004; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 334 W. Hallam - Major Development - Conceptual - On-Site Relocation and Variances - Public Hearing Affidavit ofposting was entered into the landuse records as Exhibit I. Sworn in: Bill Poss, Hayden Connor, Stephen Holly Amy relayed that the property is a 9,000 square foot corner lot in the West End. On it is a large Victorian house and a detached carriage house that was built in 1990. It is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is an excellent example of Queen Ann architecture. The applicant is requesting to remove an addition that was done in the 60's and the proposal would be a welcome change. The house does not have a proper foundation. The applicant would like to put a basement under the house and do an addition towards the rear. In the process they would like to move the house ten feet closer to Third Street. Most of that is being driven by the fact that there is a large cottonwood tree up against the east side of the house. The tree is preventing them from expanding on that side. The Parks Dept. does not want to see the tree removed. Keeping the project compact is probably a good idea but HPC needs to determine if it is too compact and where relief is needed. Staff expressed concerns regarding the roof on the new addition as it continues to tie into the back o f the old house and whether that wipes out the sense that it is from two parts of time. HPC needs to decide whether the house should be relocated or not. The board before had been discussing whether the addition should be completely oriented towards the North as in moving closer to the carriage house rather than coming out toward the east. If it could be placed more northward there is no reason to remove the house 1 ASPEN HIST~C PRESERVATION COMMI~SION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 and it is an important building. The applicant is also requesting a FAR bonus. Variance are being request for a light well that is to be on the Third Street side of the house. Staff supports that variance because adequate light is needed in the basement. Staff recommends continuation to discuss characteristics of the addition and the relocation issue. Bill Poss said the historic part of the house stops on Third Street. It is the intent of the client to restore the house. The old part of the house is 2,866 square feet. We are proposing to add on 438 feet to the west of the structure. Adding on gives us light to the two most important rooms in the house, the master bedroom and the kitchen. The rooms are rather small and broken up and the bathroom is across the hall. The bedroom would be expanded and the bathroom brought up to date. Guideline 10.4 - Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Bill stated they intend to remove a portion of the house and bring up the height and add an addition that is a little more quieter by representing a gabled roof that will be secondary in nature to the historic part of the house. They have attempted to use smaller portions of the design of the historic house and keep the proportions similar. The alternative would be to take a more radical approach for the addition but the client chose to take a conservative approach so that everything is more compatible. The addition is 60 feet back from the road, which is more than half the lot. Guideline 10.3 - Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Bill stated the roof forms are similar to the historic building and the addition of the historic structure doesn't destroy the historical importance of the existing historic features. Bill said the 438 feet that is being put on two levels is about a 215 square foot footprint that is getting added onto the building. We feel that the design fits into the neighbor and the design enhances and does not distract from the historic structure. The addition will be moved back and the historic corner will be restored and exposed. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 On-site relocation. Because of trying to get better sunlight and better views from the addition while restoring the existing house we are requesting to relocate on the site. Moving the house ten feet closer to the property line does not deter and is still in relationship to the street. Bill relayed that another part of the design is to attempt more of a garden atmosphere. The trees are going to be retained. The house is 2,866 square feet and they are requesting an FAR bonus of 364 square feet. There are two light wells being proposed because a basement will be under the house. Michael asked Bill to address guideline 10.4 because we typically like to see a distinct physical separation between the addition and historic structure and that is not the case in this presentation. Bill said because of the site being on the corner a tighter architectural solution and a more compatible roof of similar proportion is another way of looking at it. Hayden Conner said the previous minutes reflect that the desire was to have a separation on the north corner of the original building and now there is none. Right now there is no separation between the 60's addition and the original. The 60's addition has no separation right now. We did what we were asked to do and create a separation. Amy said two things weight into the separation issue. With the Christie Farrah project that was a similar house, that house was totally intact all the way around and we didn't want to connect to it anymore than we had to. The back wall of this house is basically gone so there is less of a concern about affecting materials and also the connector piece is usually a big concern to the HPC when we have a little miner's cottage and someone wants to add a huge addition behind it we require some distance. Bill explained the floor plan. jeffrey asked if a different roof form was looked at for the addition. Bill said they did look at metal which would help differentiate old from new. When we added metal it looked quite stark so we went back to wood shingles but we are willing to look at an alternate roofing material. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. 3 ASPEN HIST~C PRESERVATION COMMI~ION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 Comments: Derek said after going to the site he finds no negative effect of the proposed relocation of ten feet. Addressing guideline 10.4 he tends to agree with the architect because of the compact nature of the way the house is laid out right now. The open space of the site is a critical element. A radical design would take away from the historic resource. Derek comments that he is not sure going to an all metal roof is the best solution. Michael said relocation to the west is appropriate and it is a good compromise for this structure and does not diminish the historic nature of the structure. His concern is that the addition willlook like it is part of the historic structure. In terms of the roof configuration he would approve it subject to the applicant working with staff on some different solutions. Valerie said the integrity of the original builders intent will not be diminished with the relocation. It is a generous lot and the benefits of the new foundation etc. benefit the project. Valerie supports keeping the open space between the main house and the carriage house as it is a precious space as you experience it from Third Street. The intensity of the massing from Hallam Street is somewhat disappointing and that can be improved with reconsidering the ridge height of the roof and bringing that down a little bit which will also improve the ability to interpret old from new with a little visual vertical separation. On the same note, that would help me in granting the FAR bonus of maintaining the historic roof forms. This proposal is a wonderful improvement over what exists today. The hyphen separation is definitely minimal and it would be nice to see a little more separation. In terms of the FAR bonus if you could provide a little more improvement to the later historic structure in terms o f its roo f pattern and form that would suffice. Jeffrey said this a very important structure and is on the National Register. This is the third revision he has seen and abandoning the garage is a good solution. The restoration of the historic resource is commendable. This house is a great example of our West End. The massing of the original structure has not been altered too much since 1904 Sanborn map. He is in support of the proposal but agrees with Staff that additional study is needed on the new construction. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION~OMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 Referencing guideline 10.4 Jeffrey is in agreement that the addition should be on the north side. He also concurs with staff regarding some of the roof massing. Revealing the northeast corner is a nice effort to retrieve and restore that corner board detail of the historic gable. Jeffrey recommended more separation so that it is viewable from the street as did Valerie. The addition needs a little more distinction to make it clear that it is not historic. Jeffrey can support the relocation and retaining the tree will help soften the addition. The on-site relocation can be handled with a bond. Recommendations: 1. Restudy of the roof configuration - eastern gable 2. The addition should be a distinct element 3. The addition moved a little bit to take some of the area off the east side and perhaps pushed toward the north. Amy explained that the addition is so close to the house that it is getting somewhat squished together with the gables over framing the roof etc. Hayden Conner stated that the house will be spectacular. In order to make the investment in the restoration of the house it has to be livable. The more you chop up the interior you increase the cost of building but you destroy the floor plans. He is willing to look at a better option for the roofline. Bill said he can work out some changes and bring them to Amy then back to the HPC. Jeffrey mentioned a concern as to how the roofs engage. Possibly the addition shouldn't go so far east but the kitchen needs to be close to the heart of the house. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the Conceptual Development and the public hearing on 334 W. Hallam to Feb. 25,2005 with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the roof configuration oflowering the roofofthe addition with the goal of removing the encroachments on to the north facing roof Of the historic house to the extend possible. 2. Continue to work on making the addition a distinct element and avoid compromising the independence of the single, east-facing gable. 5 . ASPEN HIST(~c PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 3. Restudy of the separation of the additionfrom the structure to differentiate old from new. Motion second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 5-0 Yes vote: Michael, Derek, Sarah, Valerie, jeffrey 1295 Riverside Dr. - Designation - Lot Split - Minor Development Review and Variances - Public Hearing Sworn in: Tony Welgos, Gilbert Sanchez, Kathy Welgos, Dick Osur, Tony Hershey, Tom McCabe, Janet Garwood, Cheri Grinnell, Craig Morris, Bill Murray, Dottie Kelleher, Dale Hower. Amy said the public hearing in November was continued with some concerns about the impacts of the alterations to the historic house and some members of the board had issues with the idea of the lot split. The applicant would like a favorable decision on designation, lot split, minor development and variances. There was no disagreement among the board members regarding designation and how it meets the criteria for important Post War Chalet style buildings. The Welgos's staked out the corners for the possible new envelope of the house. Regarding the lot split staff feels there is adequate distance between the two buildings and the entire east fagade will be unaffected. The west fagade will be impacted somewhat by the placement of the new addition. When we review the new building we can talk about heights, positioning, etc. that will help maintain a view of the front corner. Staff feels strongly that there is no good that comes from more than doubling the size of an historic building. We have seen that over and over again with miner's cottages and it ruins your ability to see the small scale of the original structure. Some kind of a detached building on the lot that takes most of the square footage off the Chalet is the best way to preserve it. Regarding the minor review there had been some discussion about having to move the entrance. Given the size of the lot there is not a lot of other possibilities. After looking at it a number of times, Staff feels that this is a trade off that can be appropriate in this particular circumstance. We know that the entrance as it exists right now is not in its original condition. To move it to the opposite side of the building is something that could be 6 1 .. Stephen Ellsperman, 09:21 AM 10/21/2004 , Tree at 334 Hallam X-Sender: stephene@commons X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:21:15 -0600 To: helenk@ci.aspen.co.us, rachelr@ci.aspen.co.us, terryp@ci.aspen.co.us, torre@ci.aspen.co.us, tims@ci.aspen.co.us From: Stephen EliapermmiÂ»tqphene@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Tree *534 Hallam ) Cc: steveb@ci.'aspen.co.Hf,jeffw@ci.aspen.co.us, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us, aaronr@ci.aspen.co.us, brianf@ci.aspen.co.us X-MaiIScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MaiIScanner: Found to be clean The property at 334 West Hallam Street is currently undergoing construction activities which include lifting a historic structure above the ground and creating a basement along with other additions. The property contains a moderate sized cottonwood on the lot which the Parks and Recreation Department and the HPC required to be saved and worked around during the construction process, preserving it in the final site. During excavation activities, it was discovered that the root systems on one whole side of the tree had been destroyed in the 70's to construct some sort of frost protection wall. Through extensive diagnostic work, it was discovered that there was basically no root system of this somewhat precarious tree on the complete windward side of the tree. The little root system that was present shows extensive decay from the earlier damage. The tree is in an extremely hazardous condition and an emergency tree removal perm it had to be issued. The builder or owner have no interest in the tree being removed, since they have already completely designed the structure to preserve the tree -- and will still need to build the structure as was approved. Since there have been some recent discussions on tree issues, we thought it would be good to give you a heads up on this situation. If anyone would like to visit the -- site, I am happy to accommodate. Thanks. Stephen Ellspern'lan Deputy Parks and Open Space Director email: stephene@ci.aspen.co.us phone: 970Â·-920-Â·6010 City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department * 130 South Galeria Street Aspen, CO 81611 * (970)-920-5120 Printed for Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 . -i 1 i Â»41 1 1 1 1 1 . . .. 1,- fl ' ! 1 - 0 - / 1. / N THIRD ST 2*3% - .4 .1 - -Â«4 3 1 s 5 A â‚¬ 2 f li 2 1 J .1*=1 ~ 1 1 I .29 0 9211,/A G 9 d + ""Me- ----- 1' ' 14/0# my 9 /1\ . - 82 :&04, TW- 1 5 1 - I lillillillillillillillillillillillillillilill I i : 2 1 1 1 Â¥' = * I' 1 1 0 -0 0 ~ - 71 u CD - N En 1 0. 22 â‚¬ hi -- 0 Crl f g N SECOND ST = $J/J"'11 71 - A 7 3 .2/Ill A--WI l - -7....ic . 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado ~OSS ARCWTECTURE+PLANNING 0 , i i CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Street Scape -Existing 453-0 605 EAST -ET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 37.5 75' 150' 1 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH . 2001 =g=R:-..L February 12,2004 f v W FRANCIS ST MUGGLER ST representation. e accuracy may chang of the features picted and is nol a legal depending on the enlargement or reduction. This map/drawin /image is a graphical representation ... , CARRIAGE HdmE PRIMARY STRUCTURE 74492~-- a41 â‚¬7*~Alt////// /'4 9\1 %3 Â«\1 1*/ i j 24Â©~ 123*3:2[40542Â»24(4% #5191*Â«TU / / 1 1 j / A//. '..11 /J / / EM*:44*/~.U~UB/A-.- .- - ~ .-.-- . - . rijastil /// i rj / i/ 9 1 11 pliitti--Â« 1/1/ /3 .''......'..... ...'........ * 24-\ rtlIi-liff-i-lUft-pllfltllilillfli-~Â·Â·i UPPER LEVEL PLAN L l li j i j.j- i/ 14 4- j '........'ll''I....''..'...'ll'. I. ~ 11 I ft/#HAJ f / F'K~ lilli 99649 ti- i mi.,tfillitju-_l1 11_ J_LN_-_-L_l_t_i /7- -7- ff 1 14 1 1 j j /j / l -41//Ill///ir,( kff3Â« j i*rfIr////t /6--40--- /ul i1-, lil, IlFlt 11111111/lijfaltillilill '' ,///ff-f-uff=-ff//AEÂ£ktrk///Â»Â»////P. -'.44LI ' ~ 1 1 1 -0 ~3*S lilizilitizil lar' l A.-l1 1 i 1 i j l i c / l-l ri llÂ»t 1444*44640*40 r. [ 1 , ' ' , , ' ' ' ' 7 ' ? 7 -1 7-1 -7 + 1 1-r'-"/ul -r"-r r-7-T--Or---t--7,-9 MAIN LEVEL PLAN PORCH -LIlli 11 11 31'-3 1/2" 6 8' LOWER LEVEL EXPOSURE 1//IN//5 4 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 ! ! 1 1_L 1. 1 -1- 1 1 1.1 L.Â£ 1 11.11-1 1.1 1 111111 C -illittil MAIN LEVEL PLAN Â»99 1 PORCH 1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN .44///11- EXEMPTIONS Â»ill/ / illil i i i ~+- ' t. ,l ' 1 CARRIAGE HOUSE & EXCLUSIONS GROSS S.F. TOTAL S.F. 1/090Â«Â»90 LOWER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS UPPER LEVEL PLAN 635 S.F. 47 S.F. 588 S.F. WALL SURFACE f u-i-_f--Â»1---1----11~1/~ 1 j 1 / 1 4 PARIMETER WALL: 103'-2" MAIN LEVEL PLAN 635 S.F. 635 S.F. CEILING HEIGHT: 9'-6Â· TOTAL WALL SURFACE: 980 S.F. LOWER LEVEL PLAN 635 S.F. 581 S.F. 54 S.F. TOTAL 1277 S.F. EXPOSED WALL SURFACE LOWER LEVEL PLAN LIGHT WELL 1 AREA- 4-0,3-0" = 12 S.F. LIGHT WELL 2 AREA- 4:-0Â· x 9-10 23 S.F NORTH ELEVATION- 8'-0" x 0'-10" = 7 S.F. GROSS S.F. TOTAL S.F, EXEMPTIONS EAST ELEVATION- 20'-3 1/2- x l'-0â€¢ = 20 S.F, PRIMARY STRUCTURE & EXCLUSIONS , 8'-00 / SOUTH ELEVATION- 31'-3 1/2Â·10'-8Â» = 21 S.F. 10" 6WER LEVEL EXP(5SURE TOTAL EXPOSED WALL SURFACE: 83 S.F. UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1396 S.F. 20 S.F. 1376 S.F. PERCENTAGE OF EXPOSED WALL SURFACE: 8.5 % MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1524 S.F. 34 S.F. 1490 S.F. LOWER LEVELGROSS S.F.: 635 S.F. TOTAL LOWER LEVELS.F. 54 S.F. LOWER LEVEL PLAN N.A. 24*%. EXEMPT FLOOR AREA - ': .:%...:': 4% TOTAL 2866 S.F. 1,11 INCLUDED FLOOR AREA TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 4143 S.F. 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 5'-5 10'-8" 21'4' CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Floor Area Analysis - Existing 544 (T) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH q>zoo; NM~:â€ž February 12,2004 44*3 20'-3 1/2" 12" I.OWER LEVEL EXPOSURE A..1.....1...................................11.1 al.'/40'8+//iril//MI/"Il INg'Ima.* Ir.1 m'-1- - ... =|r-7~:1~Imi'.-- --~NA- :1-Wlill,21~1 51~. - 1!11.11.11=1!1= 1.1 = ==ii-IIi-1- ... 0. . I . 0 ... -Al:irGir,invir~invinwinwi~nwinvinvir,ii A.1 -Illilli:Illilillililll11*IlillilE-Elillilllillilll,Illilll,1 El.11.11'..1...IN..11.111.111.111.1-1.11...11.111.111.lilli 51'1'll:'lilillill'lillillill-llillasEEE-11'Illillilll11lll:ll 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1-=W.1.1.1.1.1.1.11 ,=~11â€¢1â€¢â€¢â€¢Iâ€¢â€¢â€¢Iâ€¢â€¢â€¢Iâ€¢,â€¢INâ€¢'llâ€¢'ll"'ll--mll,â€¢Ill,Ill,ililill,I," -~1.10..10..11.111.111.111.111.111.1EEEE..11.111.111.111.111.1 00,-,/'.-I'll......../..11........Ill:mi... I././.;'-I--1 --Ii I.ix.'Milil.=11~ 1...1...1...1...1 111.lilli.11.111.1 1...1...1...1...1 -".----=1 - =1.11 --1.- - 1 1~1:1.1-1 - ... 0 .... .. . A . .. ..... 11 0 . A l :... 111111111111111111111111111111111'llill'~* 11111111'll'll'll'1111111111111111111 .// Rit fl 111'nuill,1 111111111111111 lilli ~Illc f 1111111111111 A Ill"ll'll'Ill'Illilll'lillaillâ€¢'llâ€¢illâ€¢'llâ€¢'lil'llillill"imilill,Ill. 1.11.111.111..,1.111.....11."1."1.111.....11.110..11".1...10..11.=-- 1..II..Il=.lg..ll..II..II..II..II..1I..II....II..11..11..II..ll..II.-. 21'--"1Â£-I-,I--lpi'EF-,-i-EL-:1Â£~1Â£~-Eamai-12~222022800~~M-ii . 1.11.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.11'..11.ill.,E = ...I...I...l...I...I...l...I...I...I...1'..l...I...l...I...I.E = illiâ€¢Ililllâ€¢lalâ€¢lilâ€¢llillillilill,llâ€¢ll~di~vill,Ill,1,11:INIE 1.11.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.....1.--al.111.111.E = . .1.......1.1 ~ R.,-,ia 9.1...........1... 1...1...1.1 - - ...1...1...1...1 .....11...11 - - Vill...1.111.1 g---:':r:Q::9::::Q:"2:~:f~~11~ma,Ill~~- .---.0--- 11...1...1.1 ./Al...............A ...1...1...1 bil.....i......../ '.11.111.. 11...1.0.- '..I...I ,.I...I.l 9.11.1 11.... 1-1-=-=-==6- 1=======2,4 11.1.' - ...I.l 1.....1.1.1.1.liu . ~ I...I...I...I...I 1...1..1.1l.nI.. 1...II..II..ll.. - -El,11114:i.~ 1...1. .1...1...1 I..I...I...I...I.I - ill'..1...11..,1.4 - -~1-1-=Ir---,-I =191111 1.-=..1.. m~ 3/5/C A . D ..1 . . I ..0 . A . 0 . I. ..... 11 1 . : 0 . A D ... 5.mae\\\\\\\ -fm # ill'Ill 11 milm mmi ... i 1 ! 1 1 . il '~i 9 4.-10 -9 2 -4- ~W FRANCIS ST ~W FRANCIS ST .. 41 Ai M - 1; I.) . ry 4,1.2 \ Ijw ~\Fl/44 I 114 .* 97 -- ~11, 9'1'./..I 1 4,4 It\\ \ ~ 4 I - Of 98 I 1 24 1 <,1.2 t'.I. i UV,#D ~ ~1 H f# 1 1, , , 11". 11//t 90.1 \11,4- U 9 2 \25â€¢= 4\ 4 b 91\\>Ft# 214 3 \-e=:521= 1 -441\\02 /4 1,\2 341\\\4 1 3% 1\6@ 3â‚¬nâ€ž7 ~ 1 20' 10 -7~- W HALLAM ST W HALLAM ST 1 1 Existing Proposed 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado p OSS ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING A , i j CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Street Scape - Analysis @04 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 Â£3 0 30' 60' 120' (T) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH 0 2001 ==.Ill:-./ February 12,2004 5 440 N THIRD ST ... i PRIMARY STRJETU RE 23&265 -Â· . Â·b 1//F F Ze>y.S.-:~ 0 22-1 - --- - -- .-.7 _V *33~ 11 , -7 4 2: r: 7: / ' *gNâ‚¬ 1 //257/ 1 1 1 4 M 2 A/7 F , ~09 i 0 , 41, 1 :714 02. ' : 9 0 1 0 WINDOW i 4 L 1/1.14 || BELOW ' > /if I / Â«di // i 1 1/29 11* 2 St~V~ _EE ! /5 11 11 11 a WINDOW , 11 WELL /~~/ 3 --Â©7 N / / t/ il /ll FF JJ 1 f / i t~,---II .722/CA#* BELOW f./ 4 FEEPÂ« .// ' .{ â‚¬7:â‚¬.k 11 lill -1=j 1 J i /// :I- PORCH ~ j : 4 1 1 7/ 1 /12 1\ /-~ H 4 --1 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN MAIN LEVEL PLAN ' PORCH ~ UPPER LEVEL PLAN EXEMPTIONS GROSS S.F. TOTAL S.F. CARRIAGE HOUSE &EXCLUS1ONS UPPER LEVEL PLAN 635 S.F. 47 S.F. 588 S.F. LOWER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS MAIN LEVEL PLAN 635 S.F. 635 S.F. WALL SURFACE LOWER LEVEL PLAN 635 S.F. 581 S.F. 54 S.F. -l PARIMETER WALL: 201'-9 TOTAL 1277 S. F. CEILING HEIGHT: 10 0- TOTAL WALL SURFACE: 2014 S.F. EXPOSED WALL SURFACE GROSS S.F. TOTAL S.F. 1 EXEMPTIONS 1 LIGHT WELL 1 AREA- 7'-6" x 7'-0" . 52.50 S.F. PRIMARY STRUCTURE & EXCLUSIONS - 1 LIGHT WELL 2A AREA- 7'-6" x 9'-6' = 71.25 S.F. LIGHT WELL 2B AREA- 7'-6"xl'-6Â· = 11.25 S.F. UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1539 S.F. 20 S.F. 1519 S.F. ! LIGHT WELL 20 AREA- 71-6Â· x 7'-0" = 52.50 S.F TOTAL EXPOSED WALL SURFACE: 186 S.F. MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1665 S.F. 34 S.F. 1631 S.F. PERCENTAGE OF EXPOSED WALL SURFACE: 9.2% *36%62% EXEMPT FLOOR AREA ~- 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1631 S.F 1481 S.F. 150 S.F. I %**** TOTAL 3300 S.F. LOWER LEVELGROSS S.F. 1631lf. TOTAL LOWER LEVELS.F.: 150 S,F, LUDED FLOOR AREA TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 4577 S.F. 334 West Hallam 21'-4" CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Floor Area Analysts - Proposed ~ d EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (T) 970/925 4755 R 970/920 2950 NORTH 0.0, M:kNK.,. February 12,2004 1 41> .... 1 , 4-70 3 -- t ~ ' i it ttran:==4 + 1-1 0 1 1 it> ' i % -t)- r L 4 ~ KITCHEN - 13 x 17 & E - /4-rt BATH TOMI ~ M Â®Â® i> I MUDROOM Â®Â® EQUIPMENT QUEEN BED Â© 1 LAYOUT TO BE DETERMINED Â®Â® < 0 U 941% 1 0, \ BEDROOM 6 5 L ,-/ 16 x 14 : 0- 1 SUNROOM i 1 - WINDOW 11 x 14 . WELL Â·Â· - 07 k -* --râ‚¬ 1 [ [--3 ~--:111 0====4 - - BELOW - ... '* 0.-UT,IT,ir -2,7,Â·0~ ' ..Tlu'461*EL*Num 1 . r' a 82.4;%1*423 11-)76/ill ILL"' nitlil'I -71,Â·11- 41" U@11 Lili 1+14- <~ ,-- -37~7~~911k-ilji-i iTITT- E- - 0 -j 1- 13 x 15 1~ _~ BEDROOM WINDOW . !1~11!a,u!!,W'11.u 1. 11~111111111 WELL 2 - rirt--~JTPLITr-- 1**EMbel'44*F T LL-1 rÂ· -1UL ~ Tr, lig 111 3, 3, 1%1-3,Â·:'+'f-~priuu LIL.Â·Â·Â·1Â·:'Â·Â·'1114/ --> E,e. 14!,1-?*44--414;,3;; r :'11!101_11LUI'llir - Fl! 1121 Lilli- - , ~BATA~OOM C======0 - :1111'14:1111111'llÂ¢t LBEL'27: DINING ~711 QUEEN BED p . LIVING ROOM WINDOW 1 1 d ROOM 15 x 15 1 17 x 27 REC - BELOW i 7Â¤ 1 - WELL ROOM L . A==1*77 _Ii 1 1 -6 15 x 26 . ' . 11 -\ - 1 lie \ . 1-il-ki=e i ' - 1 . - IL i r Li â€¢ PORCH i F 1 0 :' 1 :i -- 10 - LOWER LEVEL PLAN N.~ PORCH MAIN LEVEL PLAN 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado poss ARCHITECTURE + PIANNING R â€¢ i i ' CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Floor Plans o 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - 0 4 8' 16' (T) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH ezooi :Mmx:1.. February 12,2004 -'w â‚¬ .Â», , 7.ft'.1'Ul.V(4,$1 11 .... 1 1 4- 11 11 11 1 11 11 1 11 11 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 li 11 11 11 11 | " - 1 j ,--- F I Li,31Â£51 1 ,= 1 i F- - - - - - - -- - 4 -_al Â· - L.17-19 6/ Â· L----2 49 - ZE / i 1 3 1 1 - L 0- C - f / En 'i BAYHROOM III ~ ; : BEDROOM 1 STUDY 18 x 14 1 2 -----S 10 x 12 --' QUEEN BED I --Cl 0- 1 1 -4 491 i.1 /-11 tr- 4 13 +0 E Ful If ll 1 1 . !1\ 6Â»-~MI â€¢ :1 1 1 11 L -,F-1 12 4 1 1-- 0 1 1 - BATHROOkt -- 1 04-: 11 n ~ = -=~ ---- > 1 /1- _____= 1 1-- ----- . 1 1 \ 1 -_ 1 11 1 E m.--/BEDROOM ~~ .---- -------- 2 ---4 / F-r 13 x 15 ! \ i il L 1 ---- 11 1 11 1 11 11 \ 1 i 11 11 r - 0 E /1 - Â·Â·Â· 1 B -Â·4...'./ L â€ž 1: :I r-- 1 ~===11 - 1 KING BED j i C- 0- : 1 1 16641 BEDROOM \-IL Lunt 1 It I 1 9,1 16 x 17 i F ' 1 0 1---2 UPPER LEVEL PLAN X4 60 \44 ---- 9/4 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado poss -Â·.. $ L.,i 'L Â· 1 LM. a, IiÂ· â€¢. Â· 1 1 , :Â·T; ir>C + 01 ANNIP-Zfl , CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Floor Plans 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO .16,1 0 4' 8' 16' (T) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH e zoo, Nams#. February 12, 2004 -)*lar/.7 %it*8~ 1-1~L====Â«fel=--1.-..i.6.6-1--~ ..11.111.111..... 1-- --'-*--:~. -. 45,":~f"imi,"'~~~,-""E&1: ~ 1,1..il~ ------1 I---7 . Iâ€¢-@Ilililtilll lil@ 1 il.~..=IMI~Elmlmll ..... ..... 1 ..1 1 = ==11..,1.111.111.11'..11.111.111.12-3.111.111.....11.111.1 Eallimillillillillillillililililllil--Ellill*lilllillilll,lillil 21111llilllilililillilllilllIllilllI-ililill,lill,Ill,lillilill - ..1..........1..1 ..m ..11.110..11.11'v - ..11.111.111.111. ....~N............2..00,0.'.,1..'.0.,1 1..1.1.1.1.1.1/ /....lili, 4.1.-1.1.1.-11 ....Ni''plf'.le'l:"11:.1".IJAF.'"1111'.1:App.11:.2,"plml.lihpl.laill.1:jff'll".1,"1:.FF"11".1,"P,h~ ..ll..ll, . ..11, p.11. ..11'11,1 'prl........ /11 lit iiiiiil -.........=- lili.F:7 -%-9=,9,&'ME< l.I... ..1.11 - ..11 - .1 --"-11 P I...I".I...I...II- 111.11...11.111.11=" -1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1-1 - 1...1...1...1...1 - 111-,1 Mt=--1.-1....lili... Ii:DEFEEP,51~~â€¢~ -~1=-=1.~11.111 - ...1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.111.1.1.111.1.1.111 -I-----------Il--1-*.I",- 6,18"::Vr:Afr::~1::Pr::Pr::~raipi:Lpr:/9:/9:Let:~I:/9::Fi:--'.-I-"-----=I==I=- I.-t. - 7~==Al-/--~I -I- =â€¢ili~i=LI.~....~~ ~~~l~ 112/1//I'll'll'llill/%11/1//1/"1â€¢011"Inlilill'â€¢11...... --- 1.1.1 - ..11.11~1.111==1~ ... 0 ....0 , 4,1 0 .:. .. . . I .. . 0 .... . A . ... A . .. ..... 11 0.11 I . e 1111111111111111.lillil lillil mimmiummwim ill'lll . 0 . . 1 1 ...ceÂ»%4332##.Â·. , ,..Â·20./..; Â·er,:.74Â·~i :i,''I Arn.-%''S:bl . ~ 2 2 0 4 - L PROPOSED ADDITION .|. ORIGINALSTRUCTURE _North E.levation--_Proiloscd F-1Â»-----------3 LL B L REE 8 8 O L.1-11_13 0 ORIGINAL STRUCTURE PROPOSED ADDITION | ORIGINJLSTRUCTURE |, CARRIAGE HOUSE M-1 _East_Ele.vation-z_Em-Rosed 334 West Hallam -Aspen Colorado CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Proposed Elevations 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORAD, 86,1 0 4' 8' 16' (T) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 em MN:tifek., February 12,2004 4 ~2'f .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 334 W. Hallam Street- Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Variances - Public Hearing DATE: January 28,2004 SUMMARY: This property is a designated landmark and is listed on the National th Register of Historic Places. The site contains a 19 century house, and an outbuilding that was reconstructed in 1990. The proposal before LIPC involves moving the building on the site, adding a basement, and demolishing and replacing a non-historic addition. The applicant requests an FAR bonus for an exemplary historic preservation project and variances related to a lightwell. This project has been in the HPC review process for some time. HPC reviewed the application on December 12, 2001 and continued it for restudy of areas that they found were not in compliance with the design guidelines. In particular this included the relocation of the house, the proposed placement and design characteristics of the new construction, and the request to build a street-facing garage. Additional HPC review took place on March 13, 2002 with a similar result. Minutes from both of these meetings are provided as exhibits to this memo. The proposal was continued to August 28,2002, at which time staff recommended denial, finding that the HPC concerns had not been meaningfully addressed. The hearing was not held that evening because there were very few board members present, and the applicant subsequently stopped pursuing approval until now. The proposal that has been submitted for this hearing has been revised with regard to the architecture of the addition. The garage has been removed from the plans. Staff finds that there have been some improvements to the project, but that it still does not meet the review standards that would allow an approval. Continuation for further study is recommended. Please note that in this memo, staff is applying the review criteria that were in place when the project was originally submitted, which is typical practice. For HPC's information, the board approved an addition to this house in 1988. All development approvals granted by the City have a "vested rights" period of 3 years, 1 .. which means that the approval is protected for a three year period from any new regulations that the City may adopt. After that time, the approval itself does not expire, but any new criteria apply. In this case, the 1988 approval is only valid to the extent that it meets our current regulations, which include the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the new historic preservation ordinance adopted in March 2002. The applicant may resubmit those plans for review if desired, but, unless the plans are approved accordingly, does not have the right to pull a building permit to construct them. APPLICANT: Hayden and Louise Connor, owners, represented by Poss Architecture and Planning (who have replaced the previous architect on this project.) PARCEL ID: 2735-124-23-005. ADDRESS: 334 W. Hallam Street, Lot K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) 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.C.5) are met, and finds that the development is in accordance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines": 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 jloor area by up to Jive hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC 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, and Staff Finding: In relation to the Conceptual review criteria, the proposal is to demolish and replace an existing addition to the house and to add a basement. Historic structure The applicant proposes no alterations to the remaining areas of the historic residence. Staff agrees that all of the review standards in Chapters 2-6 which deal with rehabilitation issues, are being met at this time, or the applicant has suggested no 2 .. activites that would be contrary to these guidelines. It is important that the historic structure itself is to be properly preserved without alteration, which is commendable. There is a one story gable roofed piece with a porch at the northwest corner that appears on the 1904 Sanborne map and the 1893 Bird' s Eye view of the City. (There are no historic photographs of this property available.) 1_cul__U.1 F..,n'.. a. ..... r; R ' 1 . 7 =2*: If N to - 3 0 /1 L=XI 3 Â¥4~4 .?. .4 /\: 1 1 01 / Z \4 0/E - 000 The dimensions of the one story addition shown on the Sanborne map are very close to that area of the existing house that currently functions as a mudroom and west entry porch. This piece has been modified to include an exterior storage closet, and a second story addition was made on top of it, presumably some time in the 1960's. It would be ideal for this project to pull the second story construction off of the historic addition and reconstruct it's original roof form. That is not something that HPC could require, but is the sort of restoration activity that has justified an HPC floor area bonus on other sites in town. Proposed new construction The proposed new addition at the back of the house maintains the same basic footprint of what exists now, except for a two story extension towards the east. Previously, the Commission stated that if one were removing and replacing the existing addition, which has no architectural value of its own, it would be important to reveal the northeast corner of the original house. It was stated that there should at least be a jog in the wall plane to expose the corner before the construction extended eastward. Several members stated a preference that a more significant effort be made to direct the addition towards the north, behind the historic house. The important guideline to note is: 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. u An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. u A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. The applicant continues to prefer extending the addition towards the east, undoubtedly to access some southern exposure. A jog in the wall plane has been created. It is very 3 Fl r .. minimal in terms of creating a distinct separation from the historic building, however, it may be a desirable thing to maintain a fairly compact floor plan in this instance. Because the historic house is two stories, there is no need to try to create distance between it and an overwhelming addition. The original rear wall of the house has already been lost, therefore trying to significantly detach the new construction from the existing house would require some reconstruction that would not be guided by any factual information about the original design. As a result, staff finds that some amount of integration of the two elements is acceptable, but opportunities to undo some o f the less desirable results o f the 1960' s construction should be taken. The relevant guidelines are: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. 1 A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. u An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. u An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. 1 An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. Currently, the addition overframes the cross gable, eliminating the north facing roof slope. Staff finds that this roof slope should be reconstructed in order to improve the integrity of the building, and that having the roof form of the addition tie into the historic building in the manner proposed diminishes the effectiveness of the break in wall plane that is being offered. A comment made at one of the previous hearings, having to do with avoiding "compromising the independence of the single (east) gable," is still very important. A redesign of the roof, along with consideration of using a different roofing material on the new addition, is recommended. Staff finds that review standard "a" is not met. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel propfsed for development, and Staff Finding: The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of old and new homes, and a wide variety of architectural styles. 19th century structures throughout the West End 4 C C .. have been restored and expanded and an acceptable solution could be found for this project so that this standard would be met. In the proposed form, however, staff finds that review standard "b " is not met. 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 on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project as proposed may detract from the historic significance of this home if the building is relocated on the site. This house, the Eugene Wilder House, was built circa 1885. From the National Register nomination, "The Wilder house was j undoubtedly constructed from local lumber and may have been built by the Aspen Lumber Company. Wilder was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, along with R. F. Roberts from the mid-1880s to the early 1890s. This business was one of the pioneer Aspen lumber companies established ca. 1880-1882." As discussed below, one of the components of significance is related to original location, and in this case, an inappropriate change to that quality is being proposed. Relocation has been allowed on other properties, including National Register sites, if the relocation guidelines are met. Staff has concerns as to whether or not review standard "c" is met. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The historic house is to be preserved with no alterations made directly to it. Limiting the alterations to the historic house itself goes far to preserve its architectural character and integrity, however, the proposed addition does have negative impacts to the original house, and a finding on this standard must be tempered with the impact of the proposal to relocate the house, which, as noted below is one of the aspects of integrity. Staff has concerns that review standard "d" is not met. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic signilicance of the parcel. Staff Finding: Staff agrees that the partial demolition of the existing 1960's addition is necessary for the proposed remodel. This standard is met. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: 5 .. a. Impacts on the historic significance Of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on tile parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Staff Finding: The applicant could mitigate the negative impacts on the existing historical structure caused by the addition if the concerns described above were resolved. ON-SITE RELOCATION No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe following standards are met: A. 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. Staff Finding: A large cottonwood tree exists in the middle of the property. The Parks Department is not supportive of its removal, which has driven the request to move the house. Although this tree is not part of the original landscape of the site (Parks estimates it to be about 60 years old), it is a common tree from the period of significance of the house. Parks Department believes that the large historic street trees may only have approximately ten years of life span remaining, so it is important to protect the on-site specimen. The applicant is responding to this site constraint by asking to move the house to accommodate the addition in their preferred orientation. The guidelines state that "A part of a historic building's integrity is derived from its placement on its site and therefore, its 5, original position is important. Guideline 9.1 is: 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. u Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. 6 CUC C .. u The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. The degree to which the house is being relocated is a factor to weigh. In this case, the house's distance from Third Street is cut in half (reduced by 10'), which is substantial. The guideline is: 4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission's policies and philosophies are based on the standards established by National Park Service, including the moving of historic properties. Location is one of the seven measures used to evaluate the historic integrity of a property and therefore should be taken as a serious component of a property' s characteristics. According to National Register criteria, "significance is embodied in locations and settings as well as in the properties themselves. Moving a property destroys the relationships between the property and its surroundings and destroys associations with historic events and persons. A move may also cause the loss of historic features such as landscaping, foundations, and chimneys, as well as loss of the potential for associated archeological deposits." As a result, HPC has determined that proposals to relocate a building will be considered each on their own merits, and heavily weighing the reasons why, in each case, the move may provide a tool to better preserve a building. There is adequate room on this property to site new construction more towards the rear of the house, which was much of the discussion in the earlier HPC meetings. Staff continues to struggle with this aspect of the application because no case has been made that there is a need to move the house in order to better preserve it and protect it from an overwhelming addition or other threat. The desire to maximize private yard space or solar access for new construction does not meet the criteria above. The relocation of the house needs to be shown to be the "best preservation alternative." B. 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. Staff Finding: Said report would be a condition of approval. C. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the 7 CO p .. structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Staff Finding: The relocation plan and letter of credit would be conditions of approval. HPC FAR Bonus The applicant is requesting a 364 square foot floor area bonus. The 1988 approval for the redevelopment of this site included a 500 square foot bonus. Only a portion of that bonus (136 square feet) was used in the reconstruction of the carriage house. The balance, 364 square feet, is not available without the authorization of this body because new standards in regard to the bonus were adopted. The applicable standard is: " A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus." This may be an acceptable site for the extra square footage, given the size of the lot and the large, detached "carriage house" structure on the alley, which serves to take some of the bulk away from the historic building, however the project as proposed does not currently meet a number of the design guidelines, and therefore, at this time would not , rise to a level that staff or HPC considers "exemplary" work. The condition of the e historic portion of the building needs to be improved through restoration work, which is a very important component of the proposal, but the relocation issue and elements of the new addition need to be resolved. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS All residential development must comply with the Residential Design Standards or receive a variance based on a finding that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. LIGHTH/ELLI The intent of the guidelines for building elements, such as lightwells, is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural 8 .. details and elements which provide human scale to the fa~ade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing faGade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the frontmost wall of the building. Staff response: The design includes a lightwell that projects out from the west side of the building, along Third Street. Reasonable use of the basement space likely requires having a lightwell along this wall, and the design of the historic house offers no appropriate alternatives to what is proposed. The lightwell is not oversized and will have a grate over it, so it's visibility will be minimized. Staff supports a variance from this Residential Design Standard. VARIANCE FROM THE CALCULATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RELATED TO LIGHTWELLS Building height is measured from finished or natural grade, whichever is more restrictive. Lightwells are exempt from this calculation, unless they project out from the building on a stree-facing faGa(le. In this case, adding a lightwell along Third Street would cause the building to be over the height limit. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Finding: The AACP does not specifically address this issue, however staff finds that this review standard is met. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Finding: HPC has generally been favorable to the development of basement space under historic buildings since the visual impacts are minimal. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, 9 .. structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: The applicant is working with an existing building, which cannot be modified in any significant way. Staff finds that this standard is met. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and Staff Finding: Development of basement living area is standard practice, so there would be no special privileges granted by this variance. Staff finds that this review standard is niet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards for Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, and Variances are not met and recommends that the application for 334 W. Hallam Street be continued with the following direction: 1. Restudy the roo f configuration of the addition with the goal of removing the encroachments onto the north facing roof of the historic house to the extent possible. 2. Continue to work on making the addition a distinct element and avoid compromising the independence of the single, east facing gable. 3. Address HPC's direction in terms of whether the addition should extend towards the west or the north in order to meet the guidelines. 4. Address HPC's direction in terms of the relocation of the house. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to continue the application for 334 W. Hallam Street to a date certain." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated January 28,2004 B. Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines C. Minutes of December 12, 2001 D. Minutes of March, 13,2002 E. "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" site form F. "National Register of Historic Places" nomination form G. Last drawings reviewed by HPC H. Current application 10 .. Exhibit B 334 W. Hallam, Historic Design Guidelines Checklist, Conceptual Review Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. o Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. 3 Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. u The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. u An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. See also. Chapter 10, Guidelines for Building Additions. Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relodation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. 1 Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. u The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. u If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. u It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. 11 000 0 .. o It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. u On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. 1 Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. 1 Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. u Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). The size of a lightwell should be minimized. A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Existing Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. u A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. u An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. a An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. u An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. I2 00 0 .. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. u An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. u An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. u Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. u Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. u Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. u The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 13 00 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMM~ION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue the application for 110 E. Bleeker Street to January 19, second by Rally. Motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Melanie, Neill, Michael, Suzannah 334 W. Hallam - Conceptual, Partial Demolition, Variances, Public Hearing Sworn in were: Patrick Cashen, Hayden Connor, Louise Connor, Bill Poss, Smiddy The affidavit ofposting was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Amy said the proposal is to demolish a 1960 era addition on the back of the house to replace it and expand it to the east. There is a conflict between that idea and a large cottonwood tree that is very close on the east side of the house. The Parks Dept. has taken the position that they do not want to see that tree removed. The owner would like to move the house away from the tree to accommodate their addition but staff feels that is not supported by the guidelines which say that relocating a house should only be done because it is the only solution and it does something to preserve the building. This house is on the National Register and there are other places on the lot where an addition could be located more appropriately. At the back of the house there is a porch on the west side and that addition is historic and needs to be retained. Another part of the proposal is to add an garage that fills in the space between the existing house and the separate building that sits on the alley. That is also not supported by the guidelines as it destroys the relationship of having two detached buildings and the garage should not be facing the street. The applicant is also requesting the 500 FAR bonus and because we don't find that this project meets the guidelines, and we haven't seen anything to represent what is exemplary in the project. The bonus is usually reserved for someone making an outstanding restoration effort which they might be doing but it need to go beyond that in order to give a 500 square foot bonus which is a large benefit. The other variance is related to the garage, they are actually asking for around 750 square feet ofbonuses. The last 250 square feet is because if 15 1- Â«61 & L \- 0 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMBSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 you have access to an alley you could place your garage in an alley and if you don't do it you don't get any exemption from the city so their garage will count, and they are asking for that to be waived based on the argument o f hardship. Staff does not find that the hardship standards have been met. There are other alternatives and a garage is not an absolute necessary feature for the property. Staff is very pleased that the house is being addressed but the standards have not been met and we need to come to some agreement. Mr. Conner relayed that they are appreciative of the work that HPC has done and they have tried hard to cooperate and understand exactly what is asked for and comply with it. They want the house to be authentic. They would like this to be collaborative effort to make the house spectacular. Patrick Cashen said his comments fall into three areas; the character of the addition; the tree; the garage. He is trying to expose all three of the gables and disconnect the previous addition from the north chimney and straighten out the floor levels and make sure the windows are done correctly. Regarding the demolition on the north, the porch is an historic feature and could be kept but the north part of the house is also the area where the floor levels are uneven and we almost have to take down everything around the porch to straighten out the floor levels and get the windows right. We have to replace the foundation of the entire house but we can certainly replace the porch. Regarding alternate locations for the addition, we are trying to keep the addition tight to the main body of the house on the back side. This is sensible because it makes the rest of the property useful and we are hemmed in on the one side by the tree. The tree is right in the middle of the lot and typically that is not a normal placement for a tree like that. The foundation is nonexistent on the house and the tree is only two feet from the house. Even saving the tree and replacing the foundation we see as a tough dilemma. Showing the board a few site plans and getting input may help in the decision. Regarding the garage the 1977 survey shows that there was a two-story structure on the northwest corner of the lot that was a garage. On that survey was a carport that was attached to the west side of the two-story 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMESION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 structure that existed at the time of the survey. In 1988 the two-story structure was remodeled into one of the units that exists as this time and the carport was removed at that time. The normal placement of the garage on the alley side compromises the private space of the lot and puts the garage next to the two-story carriage house and disrupts the pattern. Bill Poss said there are at least 100 historic houses that have access off the street rather than the alley. There is a history of coming in off the street. Commissioner questions: Michael asked the applicants what they are trying to accomplish with the house? Mr. Connor said the kitchen is a meeting spot and they want to extend the room to the east. Better insulation wiring, heating needs done. Over the kitchen they plan on making a larger room as the existing bedroom is too small. Right now people park their cars in the driveway and the garage would make visually more pleasing but that is not the end of the world. Regarding the tree, they are happy to do either suggestion. Louise Conner said keeping the tree and the basement are challenging as the root structure go under the house. Amy said Stephen Elsperman from the Parks Dept. is allowing the basement but he also realizes that the tree might die after excavating. Rally said part of the FAR bonus is granted with a strong preservation effort and staff's position is this is not quite there yet and this is more of a rehabilitation plan. Are the owners willing to consider part of the FAR request to restore that rear part of the house to its original condition. Patrick said the map only shows a footprint and what could have been there? They do not know if it was a one-story or two-story. Rally asked once the garage is built what will be the separation between the existing two-story dwelling and the new garage? Patrick relayed 7.1 feet. Neill asked Amy if we had any original photographs or data to relate to on this particular house. The National Register does not have photographs as 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMâ„¢SION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 attachments but our Historical Society might have something since this is a prominent house. Amy said regarding the back there is more of the original piece than just the porch. The form is there and the 60's addition landed on top of it. It was a one-story gabled roof piece but the entire issue needs more study. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Gilbert said the notion of the garage accessing off of Third Street as a concept on a corner lot in the West End he would be fine with it in most situations. The problem here is locating the garage where you are suggesting, will causes a series of other problems that Amy pointed out in her memo. It pushes all the new elements out toward the east and the guidelines do not support that point of view. It is more beneficial to the property owner to do the kind of addition that minimizes or have as little impact on as many phases of the historic property as possible. Adding on to the back of the building has a negative impact. Gilbert said he feels it is important to see that gable as a freestanding corner. He would look at something that pulled away from the corner, that is stepped back and then possibly extended toward the east. If the garage was on the alley it would free you up to get the space that you want to get. jeffrey said he supports staffs recommendation on the garage placement. It would help simplify the Third Street elevation. The addition extended to the east at that junction complicates and confuses the historic resource. On the north side is the logical area for the addition. If you had the garage off the alley it would help privatize your lot. Michael said he would support the relocation of the building to save the tree and to preserve the house to the greatest extent possible. This is a very important building and a good example of 1880's architecture. Neill said he would have difficulty approving the relocation of the building. A building of considerable importance to the City of Aspen needs to be held to the highest standards o f restoration, rehabilitation, preservation, 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 conservation etc. and especially when we are asked to approve a FAR bonus. Neill agreed with all of Staff's observations and recommendations. The north side of the house is the most logical space to do something. The garage on the alley is a good suggestion. Neill also said he would need research data in order to approve the project. He is not in favor of relocating the house. The site is as important as the house itself. Melanie said she does not support picking up the house and moving it as it is in its historical location. She is not opposed to putting in the basement. Research needs to be done in order to determine what that original part of the back of that house was. Look at the addition in regard to the form of the house. She is in favor of the garage offthe alley in some form. She also stated that she couldn't support the bonus. Rally said his comments come down to the garage and the FAR being requested. He also dittoed Neill and Gilbert's comments. The garage drives the application. If we added a garage on the Third Street suddenly we have a west elevation that looks heavy and detracts from the historic resource. Rally also said he could support relocation of the house. Suzannah said we have a very difficult standard to meet to give the variance from the garage FAR and the site the way it is now does not meet those standards. She agreed with the other commissioners that the garage is driving other issues that are not so great for the historic resource. The separation between the house and carriage house even if it is not a carriage house anymore is good. There are a lot of opportunities to do additions on the north side that might connect to the garage or be separate from the garage and give you some of that openness that you are looking for on the ground floor. Suzannah also stated that she doesn't want the applicant to feel that she is being negative. She could support the bonus looking at whatever variances they might need in order to make the garage work in the back alley. The porch needs to be looked at and determined what part of that is historic. Regarding relocating the structure, further architectural opportunities should be looked at on the site before the relocation can be approved. The plan may transform into something that allows both that tree to remain and the house to remain in its location. The site is part of the elegance of the lot. 19 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMINSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 Bill Poss said he heard that i f the garage could be relocated off the alley it seemed like more support than less support that a bonus FAR could be justified because it was helping the redesign o f the house. Melanie said if the garage is offthe alley you don't have that 250 square foot bonus. Now we are back to the 500 square foot FAR and that is determined by what goes on with the restoration and the addition to that part of the house. Bill said if development could move to the north then it sounded like there could be support for the 500 square foot bonus that would go to the house. The board agreed. Bill said when you put a garage back there, having a corner house when most of the land is given to the street you get less private space. By putting the garage in the back to increase the use of their yard they may relocate the house a few feet away from the tree to retain the tree but also it might increase the use of the yard. Suzannah said that would be based on the proposal that would be presented. Patrick said the garage is not driving the plan and it is not critical. We can eliminate the garage and look at the design without the garage. Doing more research on the 60's addition is a valiant idea but to date we have not come up for anything. We checked with the Historic Museum and they do not have anything. Ideas of direction are welcome. Melanie said some sort of a jog to the back can give you a more private area, and it would be more useful to the owner. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue 334 W. Hallam to March 13th; second by Melanie, all in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Melanie, Neill, Michael, Suzannah 20 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION M[NUTES OF, MARCH 13. 2002 Chairperson, Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners present: Jeffrey Halferty, Melanie Roschko, Michael Hoffman, Teresa Melville, Neill Hirst and Paul D'Amato. Gilbert Sanchez and Rally Dupps were excused. Staff present: Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland MOTION: Melanie moved to approve the minutes of January 234 and February 131 2002, second by Michael All infavor, motion carried 7-0. Disclosures: Michael relayed that he was approached by a neighbor of 118 E. Cooper to represent them but declined. 334 W. Hallam - Conceptual, Public Hearing (cont'd from Dec. 12th) The Chief Deputy Clerk swore in Hayden Connor, Shane Harvey and Mitch Haas. Amy relayed that the proposal is to put an addition on the Victorian era house and to construct a garage behind it. Since the last meeting, the Parks Dept. has signed off on a tree removal permit. All of the significant development review standards in chapter 2-7 of the design guidelines have been met. Amy focused on the addition to the historic house. At the last meeting there were concerns about an existing addition on the back of the house and how much more ofthat is to be demolished and what HPC really felt needed to be preserved. Amy said the only thing that she can determine is historic is the porch itself and the wall underneath it. Staff feels that no new construction should take away more of that porch and wall. That addition is not original to the house but it is historic to that time period. In the guidelines the addition should be clearly distinct from the historic building by providing some kind ofjog or change in wall planes or materials. It also discusses that roof forms should be similar to those on the historic house. Staff finds that there is conflict with both of those guidelines. There is no jog in the wall that really distinguishes that back 1 546 Ck 4- ED .. ASPEN II[STORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION M[NUTES OF. MARCH 13, 2002 corner of the historic house. The flat-pitched roof lowers the profile of the addition and it is not compatible with gable roof pitches that are on the historic building. Amy said the new proposed garage is in conflict with a number of the design guidelines. There was an approval granted by HPC in 1988 on this property and some aspects of that approval were built, the out building. They did receive a bonus at the time and a portion was applied to the outbuilding and the rest of it needs to meet today's review standards. They will be asking for a 360 square foot FAR bonus. Staff feels the project is not meeting an exemplary preservation effort. Regarding the partial demolition standard there is concern about an historic west addition on the building and we can work out what is appropriate to preserve on that addition. The applicant still wishes to have a determination on the on-site relocation even though there is no tree to be forcing the house to move to the west. The guidelines say that proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case by case basis and it is only meant to be when that is the best preservation method. Moving the house deteriorates its integrity. Another variance is being requested with regard to placing a garage on the street based on the finding of hardship. Staff finds that there is no hardship ' that would warrant a FAR bonus. Also, there is a residential design standard that discourages placing the garage where it is proposed to be located. Mitch said the historic part of the building is being left intact and not touched by any work being proposed and the Connor's have committed to rehabilitation and restoring the structure which is an outstanding preservation effort. Regarding the addition to the east side, Mitch said it is clear that the roof form should be more closely or consistent with the gable and pitched roofs on the rest ofthe structure. The addition would extend another ten feet out from behind the historic part of the structure and ten feet is more than sufficient for a jog showing differentiation. 2 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13. 2002 Amy relayed that the next issue is the on-site relocation proposal. The guidelines state there may be cases when the location will not substantially affect the integrity of the property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. The carriage house was relocated in 1963 by five feet and the property was not compromised. It is the owner's belief that there is lack of a true relation between where the house sits and the site features. The site is flat and there are no features that are of historic significance. Moving the house over ten feet to the west will not effect this sites historic integrity and the historic house will still be intact. The relationship to the streets will be unchanged. Mitch said he would like to know "why" moving the house effects the historic integrity. Mitch also said the request to relocate the house on-site is consistent with the guidelines. They feel that the ability to relocate the building ten feet is an integral part and major incentive for Hayden's going to the time and expense and effort in doing the restoration and rehabilitation efforts on the historic portion of the structure, which desperately needs work. The house is already going to be picked up from where it sits in order to put a basement underneath it. Regarding the project not being exemplary work in Amy's memo, that is not the standard for a FAR bonus. The standard is an outstanding preservation effort. Not touching the historic building but committing to restoration and rehabilitation is exemplary. Consistency with every guideline is not a requirement for a FAR bonus. The one car garage will replace a driveway open to the street. Mitch said the owner would retain the west wall and west porch. Some balancing of the guidelines must occur. Mitch pointed out that there are 63 guidelines in which they are consistent and 8 that are perhaps pointed out as being inconsistent. Questions and clarifications. Melanie indicated that she was unclear why the owner wants the house relocated. Mitch said it was the desire to have yard space. Shane added that 3 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. MARCH 13. 2002 the house is in the middle ofihe lot and the Connors would like the ability to utilize more of the lot. Amy said the main issues are the overall massing and design of the addition. The character and placement of the addition and the question of relocating the house are also important issues. The offset and roof design are other issues that need to be discussed by the board. Michael said the key issues are: 1. relocation 2. design of the offset 3. roof design 4. garage and FAR Neill said the house "site" is an historic integral part to this application. Mitch said moving the house ten feet is not going to negatively impact the landmark building or site. Neill asked why the flatter roof pitch was chosen for the addition? Mitch said it differentiates the addition from the historic structure but it can be restudied. Melanie said at the last meeting it was suggested that the applicant look at relocating the garage offthe alley and also looking at the addition and i perhaps jogging it off the back of the house instead of off to -the east side of the house. Mitch said the owners are not willing to take up the yard space with a garage. Doing a jog interrupts the floor plan functionally. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Hayden Conner explained the original footprint of the house for the board members. Comments: The relocation, as presented is too extreme and guideline 9.1 has not been met. The relocation is not the best preservation alternative. Neill said ifyou are going to allow lot splits you can hardly oppose the relocation of this house. Amy explained when you do a lot split you are 4 .. ASPEN H[STORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13. 2002 taking the square footage away from the historic building and putting it in a separate structure which is a good preservation alternative. There is no removal of the impact to the historic building by moving this house sideways, and the location is important to its historic integrity. Paul agreed with Neill's comments. Melanie relayed that the relocation of the house is not justified. Suzannah concurred, the key element it has not been demonstrated that the relocation is the best preservation alternative. The location, centered on the lot is part of the importance of the house. Regarding Mitch's comment that the relocation is not touching the historic house, relocating it is certainly touching it and changing its position on the site and interfering with its integrity. Teresa relayed that it is important to look at the relationship of this house to other houses in the neighborhood. Jeffrey supported staff' s comments on the relocation. Relocation is to give better prominence and some relationship or new view corridor to the historic resource and he is not finding what he sees as a good case for relocation. Melanie said architecturally guideline 10.4 states that the addition should be distinguishable from the historic building and she feels that a jog or something to set the addition offor separate it from the historic building would be appropriate. Off the east side is not the most creative way of solving the problem and meeting the guidelines. The board agreed with Melanie's comments. Roof forms: Jeffrey said the flat roof is not consistent with the historic patterns in the neighborhood. The board agreed with staff s memo regarding the roof form and architecture of the addition. 5 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 Garage: Michael felt that there was not a compelling need to grant the variance for the garage. There is no unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. Melanie said the garage should access offthe alley. There are ways of using this wonderful property and jogging the house to the back. Jeffrey said the garage, by right of the carport does not help the historic resource's elevation from Third Street. The alley access would certainly help that elevation. Suzannah sid her concern would be how much the garage extends the rear addition of the historic house and closes down that space between the house and carriage house, which is a problematic issue in maintaining the character of the two buildings. FAR Melanie indicated she could support the FAR for the preservation of the house as long as the rest of the issues discussed have been addressed. Jeffrey said because this is a landmark property if the massing issues could be modified he could support the bonus. Suzannah said the threshold issue is the relocation for support of the bonus. Rebuttal Mitch sid if they had come in and applied for a lot split without any changes to the house other than moving it over odds are that would have been approved and then they could come back in and ask for the addition. Becausewe are asking for the addition first we are not being allowed to move the house. He also pointed out that this lot even with moving the house does have two structures, one which is 1300 square feet which is a good percentage of the allowable FAR on this site and they feel it achieves the same thing that you might have on a lot split by breaking the FAR into two masses. Mitch said he hasn't heard "why" where it sits on the property is integral to its historic significance. He would like some tangible reasons. 6 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. MARCH 13, 2002 Mitch said regarding the architecture on the east side they have gotten some direction but the jog doesn't work as it makes an oddly shaped room that functionally doesn't make any sense. The addition will go out ten feet from the corner and the change in materials and window designs are agreeable. Shane asked the board about the addition to the east. Suzannah said the board concurred with staff recommendation that it needed to be studied in terms of its separation from the building, also that the roof shapes and details needed restudied. Shane said one of the prime reasons for the restoration of this project is to make useful space while preserving the integrity of the property. Suzannah said the position of the house on the lot is integral to the significance of the house in its time. The house is a prominent Victorian as opposed to a miner's cottage and the position in the center of the lot is integral. Mr. Connor said the house was not on a large lot, there was a house right next too it which is no longer there. Amy said it is still at least two lots and the house on Lot M is a smaller building on 3,000 square foot lot, so Suzannah's comments are still valid. MOTION: Jejfrey moved to continue 334 W. Hallam until April 10, 2002; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Jejfrey, Melanie, Neill, Teresa, Michael, Paul, Suzannah 118 E. Cooper - Final - Public Hearing David Fiore and Carl Darr were sworn in. Amy informed the board that the proposal addresses all of the conditions from conceptual and they were to look more at the restoration aspects of the front porch and address the bathroom addition. Staff recommends approval of the project. Planning & Zoning approved the project and it now goes to council. 7 .. 0AHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible- SR (page 1 of 4) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT.528.15 2. Temporary resource number: 334.WHA (334.WH) 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Aspen 5. Historic building name: Eugene Wilder House 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 334 West Hallam Street, Aspen Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: F. Hayden Conner 444 Grape St. Denver, CO 80220 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West SE G of SW G of NE G of SE G of Section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; __3_ 4 241 OmE 4 3 3 9 6 7 5mN 11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadrangle Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): K, L, M Block: 42 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comprised of Lots K, L, M; Block 42 of the City and Townsite of Aspen. Assessors office Record Number 2735-124-23-005 This description was chosen as the most specific and customarv description of the site. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: Two Story 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Horizontal Wood Siding 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Asphalt Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Porch, Chimnev Resource Number: 5PT.528.15 Temporary Resource Number: 334.WHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 4) 21. General architectural description: A two storv wood frame high style Victorian. A qable end facing the street with an asvmmetrical arrangement of a two story bav, small proiecting entry porch, and a single double hunq window. The bav sits on grade and has fixed arched glass panel, made up of a rectangular pane with an arched stained qlass top. Either side of the bav contains a similar configuration with a narrower dimension. A cornice line runs across at the first floor plate height, the cornice has small scroll brackets, a line of dentils, and other decorative details. The same pattern is repeated above on the continuation of the bav on the second level. The proiecting porch has a flat roof with a cornice detail similar to the bay. It has square posts and an arched frieze board. A plain double hung window sits above the porch roof, scalloped shingles infill the gable end. Another porch sits to the right set back from the face of the structure, with similar details, in front of the two story cross gable. Double hung windows appear above and below the porch roof. A corbelled brick chimnev rises out of the north west corner. A one and 1 /2 story shed addition is attached to the second floor rear with a single storv shed at the back of the structure. A shed porch extends to the west with turned posts. The east side has an extended cross qable, with a shed roof off the peak sloping to the rear. Large metal windows in the new construction. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Mature spruce on east side vard. Four mature cottonwood in typical street tree locations alonq Hallam. Historic lilac shrubs at south west corner and south elevation of house. Original hitching post on 4th St. Historic cottonwood in typical street tree location on 4th St. Open irrigation ditch becoming covered at large stone at north west corner of property. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A two story carriage house sits ant the back corner. It has a side qable with two large dormers facing the alley. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate 1885 Actual Source of information: Pitkin County Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Eugene Wilder Source of information: Pitkin County Assessor 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Alterations to the main structure are at the rear and moderate, dates unknown. Second level added to the carriage house, date unknown 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): Resource Number: 5PT.528.15 Temporary Resource Number: 334.WHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 4) V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(sh 33. Current use(s): Domestic 34. Site type(s): Residential Neighborhood 35. Historical background: This structure is representative of Aspen's mining era character. The building represents an upper class residence of the time. It is indicative of the evolution of Aspen from a mining camp into a substantial community. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps; 1990 and 1980 City of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes X No Date of designation: 1988 Designating authority: Aspen City Council 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Mining Era 41. Level of significance: National X State X Local X 42. Statement of significance: This structure is significant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era. It describes the nature of the life of an average family or individual during that period, as well as the construction techniques, materials available and the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The structure has some alterations. Additions are to rear and do not impact the general massing, pattern and detail of the structure. Carriage house is significantly altered . Resource Number: 5PT.528.15 Temporary Resource Number: 334.WHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible X Not Eligible Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R2, F25,26 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dent. 48. Report title: Citv of Aspen Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures, 2000 49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street, PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 NPS Form 10 900 OMB No. 1024-0018 J (182) 179 Expires 10-31-87 1 United States Department of the Interior 2 National Park Service For NPS use only - National Register of Historic Places received 2 inventory-Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Comp/ete Nationa/ Register Forms Type all entries-complete applicable sections - 1. Name 4 historic Eugene Wilder House (Historic Resources of Aspen - MRA) E and'or common Eugene Wilder House - 2. Location -~ street & number 334 West Hallam Street r.s_. not for publication - city, town Aspen rda_ vicinity of state CO code 08 county Pitkin code 097 - 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use Illa district nia_ public _X._ occupied -Illaagriculture r~Q... museum _2* building(s) 2- private n/aunoccupied nlacommercial .Illapark - Illastructure nZEL both n,/a work in progress n/aeducational .x_ private residence 312*site Ppblic Acquisition Accessible -n-la.entertainment n/areligious - 11/aobject n/a in process Illa yes: restricted DZ@government Illascientific Illa- being considered n,la yes: unrestricted .Illaindustrial .ntatransportation X n/amilitary X multiple resource - no .DZ@lother: 4. Owner of Property name Marvin Getz street & number P. 0. BOX 4737 city, town Aspen n/.a_ vicinity of state CO 81612 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry ofdeeds, etc. Pitkin County Court House street & number 506 East Main Street city, town Aspen state co 6. Representation in Existing Surveys bolorado inventory of title Historic Sites has this properly been determined eligible? nl- yes _*_ no date Ongoing n/3 federal X state n /2 county n /2 local depository for survey records Colorado Historical Society - OAHP 84,6 Lk F - 7. Description 180 1 Condition Check one Check one _X excellent nla deteriorated Illa- unaltered 2Â§_ original site nia good n,Za ruins _2L altered n/a moved date nia fair ala unexposed Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance The two story Wilder House, constructed ca. 1885, is wood frame with clapboard facing. It has an L plan with a broad front gable. The front elevation is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small panes of stained glass. The cornices of the bay, between the first and second stories and at the top of the second story, have such delicate ornamentation it is easily overlooked. There are small sawn brackets at the angles and the wall junctures. Below the frieze, which has a row of very small dentils, are delicate attached pendents. There is aÂ·small front porch next to the bay with a low hipped roof supported by rectangular wood posts and denticulated frieze. There is a second hipped- .boof porch in the L with similar elements and a secondary entrance. The roof is wood shingle with a tall brick chimney in the middle of the west side. The one-over-one, double hung, wood sash have molded cornices at the top. The gable is faced with fish scale shingles. Prior to 1961, an addition, two stories high faced in clapboard, was constructed on the rear which changed the angle of the original roof slope. The demarcation between the old gable with fish scale shingles and- the new construction is visablf on the east elevation. (photo #1, la-) The building department-.records beginning in 1961 indicate several. renovations,:up to 1979. TheseÂ· include the.remodeling of the original building and .partitions for, three rooms and.Â·,a. bath with no change in exterior dimensions. In 1963,- the two story carriage house,...initte..1 r..0 rear was moved about five feet to the southeast and remodeled for use as a studio and garage.* In 1970, a bath was added to the carriage _1 house. The front bay windows and porches were restored in 1965. The house is painted beige with white trim and brown highlighting the 1 ornament. There are still some of the old street trees remaining on this 3 j corner site. *The carriagehouse is non-contributing. 1 L_/ l__i L_-1 L_j L._. 8. Significan~ 181 4 7 Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below J Illa prehistoric ala archeology-prehistoric n/a community planning Ellalandscape architecturentareligion n/a 1400-1499 n,/a archeology-historic Illa conservation Illa law Illascience n,Za 1500-1599 Illa agriculture ~ *Q Â©~Y :611 ~hitecture 2% economics nialiterature Alasculpture cs_._ education nga military nia social/ i Ola engineering ala music humanitarian X._ 1800-1899 nia commerce RZEL exploration/settlement DZ@ philosophy n/atheater 1 nla 1 900_ n/a communications n/a industry Illapolitics/government .Ikktransportation 1 9 n/21 invention .Ma other (specify) . Specific dates 1885 Builder/Architect possibly Aspen Lumber Company 1 2 Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) , - I The Wilder House has architectural significance in its unique 1 vernacular design incorporating a one-of-a-kind and highly decorative - bay window. The house displays the high degree of craftsmanship which ' was available in Aspen as the town grew from a rough mining camp into ; a sophisticated mining city of the late 1880s. The house has retained I . much of its original integrity through careful restoration of the , original elements. Additional significance is seen in the association : 4 with owner Eugene Wilder, who came to Aspen in the 1880s and was I associated with the Aspen Lum ber Company, one of Aspen's oldest ; establishments. i BACKGROUND | The WI'lder House was undoubtedly consttd-bted from 10'dal lumber and may have been built by The .Aspen Lumber Company. Wildet was 1 I associate-d -with the Aspen -Luhhber Company, aldhg with R. F: Roberts from the mid-1880s to the early 189Os. Thiibusiness was Â·.one of ~ the pioneepÂ· Aspen lumber coinpanies established ca. 1880-1882. It is not knewn Â·how.-long Wilder lived in the house"or who subsequ'6nt owners were-since there are no Aspen City Directories after 1893 up to the = 1950S. I Footnotes 1. Aspen Daily Times, April 1, 1886, p. 2. Colorado Business Directory, 1880-1885. Aspen City Directory, 1889, 1892, 1893. itt .. Land Use Application THE CITY oF ASPEN PROJECT: Name: Havden Connor Property Historic Redevelopment Location: 334 West Hallam Street. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots K, L, and M Block 42 City of Aspen (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) APPLICANT: Name: Hayden Connor Address: 444 Grape Street, Denver, Colorado 80220 Phone #: (303) 619-2779 Fax#: E-mail: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: poss Architecture + Planning (Bill Poss, Stephen Holley) Address: 605 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone #: (970) 925-4755 Fax#:(970) 920-2950 E-mail: sholley@billposs.com TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Â£ Historic Designation Â® Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) ~ Certificate of No Negative Effect U Demolition (total demolition) U Certificate ofAppropriateness U Historic Landmark Lot Split -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development Â® -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Two detached residential dwellinqs: Unit #1: 4 bedroom historic structure with additions, Unit #2: 2 bedroom carriage house. PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Unit #1: Renovation and relocation of historic structure, new foundation with basement, reconstruction of non historic addition with revised footprint and massing ( No work on unit #2). FEES DUE: $ E El .. Dimensional Requirement Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Hayden Connor Property Historic Redevelopment Applicant: Hayden Connor Project Location: 334 West Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Zone District: R-6 Lot Size: 100.00' x 90.02' Lot Area: 9,002 s.f. (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing.- 0 Proposed: 0 Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed: 2 (no change) Number of bedrooms: Existing: Unit #1: 4 Proposed: Unit #1: 5 Unit #2: 2 Unit #2: 2 (no change) Proposed % of demolition: Unit #1: 0% of historic portion, 100% of non historic addition, equivalent to 41% of total Structure; Unit #2: No Change DIMENSIONS: (write nia where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Existing.- 4,143 s.f Allowable: 4,080 s.f Proposed: 4,574 s.f. Height Principal Bldg.: Existing: 22-5" s.f Allowable: 25'-0" s.f Proposed: 22-5' s.1 Accessory Bldg.: Existing: 18'-8" s.f Allowable: 12'-0" s.f Proposed: 18'-8" s.f. On-Site parking: Existing: 1 Required: 4 Proposed: 1 % Site coverage: Existing: 24% Required: 30% Proposed: 24.60% % Open Space: Existing: nla Required: nia Proposed: nia Front Setback: Existing: 10'-0" Required: 10'-0" Proposed: 10'-0" Rear Setback: Existing.- 36'-0" Required: 10'-0" Proposed: 35-0" Combined Front/Rear: Existing.- 46'-0" Required: 30'-0" Proposed: 46'-0" Indicate N, S, E, W Side Setback: (east) Existing- 32'-10" Required: 10'-0" Proposed: 34-0" Side Setback: (west) Existing: 20'-0" Required: 10'-0" Proposed: 5'-0" Combined Sides: Existing: 52'-10" Required.Â· 30'-0" Proposed: 39-0" Existing non-confonnities or encroachments and note if encroachrnent licenses have been issued: Accessory Building Height; On-Site Parking; Parking Access Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): 26.410.040 Residential Design Standards - D.4 Lightwells: 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements - B.1.3 Building Height Lightwell Exception; 26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) - D.5 Minimum Side Yard, D.10 Floor Area (HPC Floor Area Bonus 500 s.f.) .. ~OSS ARCHITECTURE+PLAN p " . /1 .. a 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (t) 970/925-4755 (f) 970/920-2950 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW Application Key 14 Aspen Municipal Code 26.410.040 Residential Design Standards - D.4 Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely Tecesse d behind the .ftontmost wall ofthe building. The applicant requests a variance for the west lightwell from 26.410.040.D.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements - B.1.3 Exceptions for ATeaways, Linhtwells and Basement Stairwells. An areaway, lightwell or basement stairwell of less than one hundTed (100) square feet, entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street, and enclosed on all fouT sides to within eighteen (18) inches of the first floor level shall not be counted towards nlaximum permissible height. The applicant requests a variance for the west lightwell to be counted within the exception under 26.574.020.B. 1.3 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) - D.5 Minimum side yard: Lot Size Minimum Size for Each Side Yard Minimum Total of Both Side Yards * 8,000- 5 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 25 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 200 square 10,000 200 s.f of lot area, to a minimum of 15 feet of lot area, to a total of 35 feet of side yard feet p er side yard The applicant requests a variance from the minimum side yard setback of 10 feet by 5 feet along the western property line for the west lightwell only under 26.7 10.040.D.5 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) - D.10 External door area ratio (applies to conforming and nonvonforminE lots of record): Total external floor area foT two detached residential dwellings on a lot of nine thousand (9,000) square feet or g~reater shall not exceed the #oor amt allowed for one duplex. Lot Size Detached Residential Allowable Square Feet* Dwellings (Square Feet) 9,000-15,000 4,080 square feet offloor a'rea, plus 6 square feet of floor a'rea for each additional 100 square feet in lot a'rea, up to a maximum of 4,440 square feet of fl om aka. The applicant requests a variance from the maximum allowable floor area by 500 square feet under 26.710.040.D. 10 of the Aspen Municipal Code. .. poss AAL. i i tu i uRE + PLANNING - - - 'UTrO Ti tl Â§41 & 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Ct) 970/925-4755 (f) 970/920-2950 VICINITY MAP Application Key 4 334 West Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 â‚¬MAFâ€¢QUEST'.3 Â«i . :-\ 30om i n \ ---*OF.~Rgooft *,, Bunny ct < -R*ER# fi~ c:4 -~ =I /; 1, 4- 1 b $41 96 - 1 NA 1 3479 2 $~7 1-- I--y . I e ..1 1 2 0' CCE 1 <D 'i ..r e 1 *t U---- R 10 3 A. Z : :941 i 3 '41' /1 K 0 / i < ~ '~'K 14 W Gillespi@,St -1 E Bugs, ;arnard / 4840_.; -~-Â¥6>4 j--4 - ,/=--334 West Hallam 442 '. rle#e.'EW-~EC*9*52-622-7~,~54.Park - rt'IÂ¢-31 ~ ~ ~-~ 8 Â£ 4 14/ 1 Â»- .. - *- 4: Pib Grande ~ Â·.7 Â·44 op ~~ ~ ~--'~f, s, 0 12 ,v ,~1 24~,af73 S~-~-~ ;~~ %60,31 ~]g,~ 12Â»9941*43* 7 Field 42449 TAspen PoÂ· Â·2 baepREPar.1<*644 - 4 0 f Â·Â·I> 2,4 -2-4 mT-f-- r-- . S 2.Â·. 8'Wagner Park f ./1 -0 1 * 1 gry a' @, 2... 9 --. 6 cout 0 2 - 60 4-7 2*1---46 4 -4,4 I /01 3 r 6.l ,#L.dfl_-1., Â» Glogrle Z In 2 -'C~~-1 Â£ & C 5% ' -/-44 01.-Il /1 ... i /Act .. 1 1 -EN v,0 -1 4 2003 Ma uest.corn Inc.Â· 02003 Nav- ation Technob ies _ r .S 944/190 .. ~OSS ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (t) 970/925-4755 (f) 970/920-2950 HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW Application Key 7 Project Overview Existing: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Review for Major Development, Partial Demolition and Onsite Relocation for the existing residence at 334 West Hallam. The property is located at the northeast corner of Third and Hallam Streets with a site area of 9,002 square feet. The "Eugene Wilder Residence" is a classic example of early Victorian/Aspen architecture. Constructed in 1890 by Eugene Wilder, who owned one of the five lumber yards in town. The house has a very simple design with a bit of decoration that may have been ordered from a catalogue; which was typical practice at the time when machine made details were made available to builders. Highlights of the design include a two story street front polygonal bay with colored glass transom windows on both levels, traditional lap siding with fish scale shingle accents in the gables, finely detailed brackets with pendants, and small scale dentils. A two story addition was constructed prior to 1961 to the north. It varies substantially from the original character with a large low slope roof and an assortment of window sizes and shapes. It is also compromised by having portions of the additions second floor lower by 24" from the original, making the window alignment and wall heights more incongruous. A separate two story carriage house with basement was built in 1990 on the northwest corner of the site. Interior remodeling of the residence and carriage house has occurred sporadically over the life of the structures. The street elevations of the historic structure are essentially intact. The historic portion of the east elevation can be discerned despite -the continuous alignment of the non-historic addition. From Hallam Street the effect is of one continuous building rather than a definitive break of old and new. The south elevation has been completely compromised by the existing addition. Settlement of the foundation coupled with decay of the wood members close to the ground has left the structure with uneven floors, wall bulges, and other signs of distress. Heating is uneven with a combination of electric and hot water baseboard and electric ceiling units._An inspection report from August of 1998 is included as addendum to this review. The siting of the residence and carriage house are consistent within the Aspen Historic District, though a bit more set back along Third Street than most. There are several mature cottonwood trees within the rear and side yards, with more along the street frontages. Proposed: The applicant wishes to renovate and relocate the main residence, at this time no work is contemplated for the carriage house. The work to the main residence will include relocation of the building onto a new foundation with a full basement and structural repair to the framing members. Due to the existence of a mature cottonwood in the rear yard that would fall directly within the footprint of the revised addition the applicant desires to shift the residence to the west in order to preserve the existing plantings. The revised street alignment would retain the primary west elevation within the required ten foot setback and would also be in keeping with the traditional setbacks of similar individually listed historic landmarks. The exterior materials and elements of the Historic residence will be preserved and repaired. The non- historic addition will be removed and replaced with minor slight modification to the footprint, alignment of the interior floor levels and revised exterior detailing and massing in accordance with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The west porch will be retained and incorporated into the new addition. All interior systems and finishes are to be replaced and updated. .. ~OSS ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 1: Streetscape and Lot Features Policy: Historic landscapes and landscape elements that remain intact should be preserved. Additions to the landscape should be compatible with the historic context of the district or landmark property. The existing fencing will be retained and repaired. No new fencing is anticipated at this time. The private yards are to be maintained. The east yard will be addressed under Chapter 9. The private landscaping and streetscape includes mature cottonwoods, aspens, blue spruce -and crabapple trees. Plantings are mostly healthy and well maintained and will be retained. The walkway will be addressed under Chapter 9. Site lighting is minimal and will be only revised to bring the structure into compliance with code. Any new or replacement lighting fixtures will have minimal visual impact, refer application key 37. Chapter 2: Historic Building Materials Policy: Historic building materials should be preserved in place whenever feasible. When the material is damaged, then limited replacement that matches the original in appearance should be considered. Primail historic building materials should never be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments The exterior of the historic portion of the residence will be rehabilitated. Original siding will be repaired in place with only those pieces deteriorated beyond repair to be replaced. The wood materials will be protected from further deterioration. The residence will be stripped per the guidelines to the first intact layer and then repainted with compatible paints. The masonry of the foundation has deteriorated such the structural integrity of the remainder of the residence has been compromised. The applicant proposes to replace the current foundation with a new concrete foundation consistent with current codes and practices. Currently only a small amount of the foundation is visible, this relationship will be retained with the new foundation. The appearance of the exposed foundation will be in keeping with the existing conditions and similar historic detailing. Chapter 3: Windows Polig: The character.defining features of historic windows and their distinctive arrangement on a wall should be preserved. This is especialb important on pTimmy facades. In addition, new windows should be in character with the historic building. It is the intent of the applicant to preserve and rehabilitate all of the existing historic windows and their associated trim. The only windows to be removed are apart of the non-historic addition. If during the course of construction a historic window is determined to have deteriorated beyond repair the window will be replaced with a unit that preserves the amount of glazing, the type of operation, window proportion and profiles of associated trim. .. ~OSS ARC HITECTURE + PLANNING Chapter 4: Doors Policy: ITte charactedefning features of a historic door and its distinct materials and placement should be preserved. 'This is especially important on prime facades. In addition a new door should be in character with the historic building. It is the intent of the applicant to preserve and rehabilitate all of the existing historic doors and their associated trim. The only doors to be removed are apart of the non-historic addition. If during the course of construction an historic door is determined to have deteriorated beyond repair the door will be replaced with a unit that preserves the operation, material, the original appearance and proportion and profiles of associated trim. Chapter 5: Porches Policy: Where a porch has been a primar, character-defining featuTe of a front fagade, it should be maintained. If the original porch is missing, a replacement should be constructed to be in character with the historic building, in terms of it's scale, materials and detailing. The two historic porches along Hallam Street will be rehabilitated. Chapter 6: Architectural Details Policy: Architectuml details help establish a historic building's distinct visual character; thus, they should be preserved whenever feasible. If architectural details area damaged beyond repair, replacement should match the original detailing. All of the significant historic architectural features will be preserved where feasible. If during the course of construction an historic element is determined to have deteriorated beyond repair the element will be replaced with one that preserves the original character. At this time there are no missing elements known to the applicant. Chapter 7: Roofs Policy: 7-ke chamater of a historic Toof should be pÂ·reserved, including its fol-m and materials. The historic roof form along the north, east and west elevations will be preserved. The roof form of the south elevation has been compromised, due to the addition, beyond rehabilitation or repair. Those areas of the historic roof form still unspoiled will be preserved with no additions of ornament. The original roof materials will be preserved as is with only rehabilitation and repair of deteriorated elements. The original masonry chimney will be preserved, the interior of the chimney will be cleaned and lined per the Report and any exterior brick work will be repaired as required. Chapter 8: Secondary Structures Not Applicable .. ~OSS ARCHHECIURE+PLANNING Chapter 9: Building Relocation & Foundations Policy: Moving a historic structure is discouraged; however, in some instances this may be the only viable option, and it may be considered in limited circumstances to preserve the structu'res integrity. Due to the extensive deterioration of the foundation of the historic structure and its subsequent detrimental affect to the integrity of the entirety of the residence the foundation will need to be replaced. The historic portion of the structure, once the addition is removed, will need to be temporarily relocated to allow for new foundations to be formed. In order to preserve the existing mature landscaping on the site the structure will be stored off site. The relationship of the current foundation to grade will be retained and the appearance of the currently exposed portion of the foundation will be in keeping with the existing conditions and similar historic detailing. The new foundation will be a full height basement wall encompassing the footprint of the historic structure and the proposed new addition. Due to the existence of a mature cottonwood in the rear yard the applicant also desires to shift the residence to the west in order to preserve it per Chapter 1. The relocated structure will retain its historic orientation and, though shifted will maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces per Chapter 1. The new location would hold the west elevation within the required ten foot setback and would also be in keeping with the setbacks of residences within the neighborhood. A lightwell required by code will be located along the western wall of the historic structure. This lightwell will encroach into the minimum side yard setback of 10 feet by 5 feet, however there will be minimal visual impact from the street as the lightwell will be covered with a grate, will be only as high off of grade as to satisfy code and may be further visually ftltered by historically appropriate planting as approved by the HPC. The contribution that the residence makes to the character of the neighborhood will be unaltered. Chapter 10: Building Additions Polig: Ifa new addition to a historic building is to be constructed, it should be designed such that the early chamcter of the oTiginal is maintained. It should also be subordinate in appearance to the main building. Older additions that have taken on signibcance also should be considered for preservations. The current addition from the 1960's is both non-historic and non-contributing. The roof massing is confused and the distinction of the addition from the historic portion is muddled and vague. The applicant desires to completely demolish the addition. The new addition to be erected in its place will have a similar footprint, however, the design will be in keeping with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The new addition will be consistent with the historic structure yet be distinguishable as a construct of its own time. The massing of the addition and the primary structure are interposed at their connections both on the east and west elevations. To the east the addition is separated first by a hyphen to allow for a definitive transition and then extends beyond the plane of the historic structure with a distinctive mass. To the west the addition is setback from the street facade. The setback is mediated by a single level porch. No portion of the addition will obscure the historic features of the residence. .. poss ARCH' 1 ECIURE + PLANNING The materials to be used will be similar to those existing while the detailing is subordinate and aids in the definition of old to new construction. The roof forms of the addition will be similar in height as the primary building and consist of gable roofs appropriate to the structure. Overall the addition is compatible in design and scale with the primary structure. Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits Not Applicable Chapter 13: Design in the Commercial Core Historic District Not Applicable Chapter 14: General Guidlines The color scheme for the residence will simple, employing one base color and two accent colors. As a variety of palettes would tend to distract from the historic construction the addition will be consistent with the color scheme for the primary structure. New exterior lighting will be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to traditional lighting. The visual impacts and light spillage will be minimized. The existing lighting at the historic entryway will be maintained. For further detail refer application key 37. Mechanical equipment will be minimized and designed for limited visual impact per the design guidelines. The existing off street parking area will be retained. The applicant intends only the parking area to be paved. The driveway will remain as loose gravel with limited visual impact. ~EC-15-03 12:22 PM 383 322 736e P. NO. 443 P, 2 DEC, 15 2003 10:19AM ~ILL POSS ASSOCIATES ~ No,=ber 18,2003 Historic Preservation Commimion City Hall- 3rd Floor 130 S. Galina Street Aspea Colorado 81611 Re: Hayden Connor Property Hisrerk Rede,elopmen. To Whom k May Concern, Poss Arhirecture â€¢ Planning Iâ€¢ authorized te acr ag che represencative for work to be complited at the subject property. Lilted below are the appliation requirements key numbem 1 wd 2. Applicant Hiyden Connor 444 Orape Street Denver, Colorado 80220 0033 322-7063 .Authorized Repragent-e, Poes Archieeecure + Planning 605 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 9254755 Camoco Bill Poss Andrew Wi,noski Stephen Holley Subject Property Street Addresâ€¢ 334 Wat Hallam Strict Aâ€¢pen, Colondo 81611 Legal Description- Lets K L and M, Block 42 Ciry and Townsize of A.ped Parcel Identift=non Numbe. 273512423005 Sincerely, 4-0 r4- ,Kayden Conner .. General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate M,ith other agencies that may be involved. YES NO ~ m Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? ~ m Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? ~ li~I Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? [*] ~~ In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register o f Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? m ~ If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner- occupied residential properties are not.) L El If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: U Rehabilitation Loan Fund u Conservation Easement Program Â®Dimensional Variances PIncreased Density EHistoric Landmark Lot Split [L]Waiver of Park Dedication Fees UConditional Uses JExemption from Growth Management Quota System Â®Tax Credits --.0 1 2 . .Flillilli . ..= 1 1. f L - C L' 12 1 N THIRD ST 1 - fAE Art 9 1/ 90,9 3,10/ [D r m t~., m 1 X m 1 ~ ..'/ 0 % 0. I '4~ -- d. ... 7/ 2 a 2 -0 i 0 1 2 -1 E. 2- N @ 0 Z En f ,-1@i - a Â® --4 -4. 0) 1 1 CO - f. N SECOND ST - R 1 | J .d,Il -11 1 I Ii:I,I, .. f E -J 5 . 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado ~OSS ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING , i i , CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Street Scape -Existing -j.1 605 EAST MAIN STREET 85.IN. C010/ADO 0 37.5' 75' 150' 0:52 *%&.. December 15. 2003 1 Ed (T)970/925 4755 (F)970/920 2950 NORTH - I. lS WÂ¥11VH M W FRANCIS ST W SMUGGLER ST i of the featu s depicted and is not a I e5uello keul hoeinooe eli .uo!leiuesadu enlargement or reduction. .... CARRIAGE HOUSE PRIMARY STRUCTURE 4 .2<.2. 1 22f -Y//// /////////// // /// // ////// // ///1 *31 -11 ////l/ l~/l/-LUU/2-44///-/ /LUA :*&8:2: 432 0 :0 to V , I 0 $+1 1 tt ~l.11.ITIPPL~lillzt . - 111/ll/l/ij, 94 ' 1 + + 1 1/t /// /) Z , 111t712}1ii111111t1t1 i i UPPER LEVEL PLAN /11 ---1 11 11111 JEEÂ® - ..... 1 r .+ .0 - MAIN LEVEL PLAN J - m-'<*. 1 31'-3 1/2" - 8'LOWER LEVEL EXPOSURE ~| 'Vd==P;'9=fff-ft-PFt-FP .*/ t } 1 4 ' t J 1 7 1 1 7 ; r 1 r r -3 MAIN LEVEL PLAN UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1; 2 1 7-17=Fi PORCH UJ Cks + d GROSS S.F. TOTAL S.F. EXEMPTIONS m g CARRIAGE HOUSE & EXCLUSIONS LOWER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS 01 4 UPPER LEVEL PLAN 635 S.F. 47 S.F. 588 S.F. WALL SURFACE PARIMETER WALL: 103'-2Â· MAIN LEVEL PLAN 635 S.F. 635 S.F. CEILING HEIGHT: 9 6- TOTAL WALL SURFACE: 980 S.F. LOWER LEVEL PLAN -_1*iL______-581_if__54-SL_ EXPOSED WALL SURFACE 1277 S.F. TOTAL - LOWER LEVEL PLAN LIGHT WELL 1 AREA- 4'-0' x 3'-0 = 12 S.F. LIGHT WELL 2 AREA- 4'-0' x 5'-10Â· = 23 S.F. NORTH ELEVATION- 8'-0' x 0'-10' = 7 S.F. GROSS S.F. TOTAL S.F. EXEMPTIONS 6 8'-0" L SOUTH ELEVATION- _312-121221_=_211[. EAST ELEVATION- 20'-3 1/2â€¢'x 1'-0 = 20 S.F. PRIMARY STRUCTURE &EXCLUSONS- 10Â· (bwER LEVEL ExpdERE TOTAL EXPOSED WALL SURFACE: 83 S.F. PERCENTAGE OF EXPOSED WALL SURFACE: 8.5 % 20 S.F. 1376 S.F. UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1396 S.F. LOWER LEVEL GROSS S.F. 635 S.F. MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1524 S.F. 34 S.F. 1490 S. F. TOTAL LOWER LEVEL S.F.:__211.L LOWER LEVEL PLAN N.A. â‚¬*R{*d EXEMPT FLOOR AREA TOTAL 2866 S. F. \////A INCLUDED FLOOR AREA TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 4143 S.F. 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado ~OSS ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING A . t--, CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Floor Area Analysis - Existing -Â·2 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (-,0 5'-5" 10'-8- 21 '-4" (T)970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH t...'*I 02003 ...,Â·u.~c.-0 December 15,2003 4Â·. -~ 12' LO . . . 0 0 232 2 1 9 Fl nOR LINE 3 00 0 2 4 Eb EH 0123 n mo FLOOR LINE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE South Elevation - Existing - 0 8 1 -2 J m= CARRIAGE HOUSE 1 EXISTING ADDITION ORIGINAL STRUCTURE le--3 West Elevation - Existing 334 West Hallam poss A .tirt. 1:'m--"DifiR:rwnÂ·:- - A.1,1 1:7Â·rr:-DIn- , 1"In .2053 ...Ir.....W, December 15, 2003 zi #LY'Â£, : L.-, Ji'L Â· 2 4-11'vt,11 Nu CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Existing Elevations 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO â€ž611 0 4' 8' 16 (T) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 ':~'0=j.=A,n .... 000 0 -23 - B EXISTING ADDITION -Nort.LE.levation--Existin // h 0 E L B ORIGINAL STRUCTURE EXISTING ADDITION |, CARRIAGE HOUSE F-1 EasLE.levation--Existin~ 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado poss nRCH- '- .702 -*l..â€¢.<â€¢. December 15,2003 0 4' 16' 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO ",1 8' CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Existing Elevations (T) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 00000 ... 1. .1 E- Vt W FRANCIS ST W FRANCIS ST --- I i. I i . *WN, 51 0 64 1 . 07 -4 1.Â¥ 3\\ 14/~1 $114 aw#,1 :+114 - s \22= ' A k. 9 1\0. I .-O :LO O 97 9,1 1 1-1 1 11/. 439.2 illi ..e 1 1 ", . 1 0 I 4\ 06 i-.4-,74 3/ 1 3\1 44 12 94 3 2 1 La= 977Â» 157\2 4/11 1 1/ 14 1\02 14 1\\\â‚¬ 41\\\2 20' 10 ++ W HALLAM ST W HALLAM ST Existing Proposed 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado pOSS ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING A . i , CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Street Scape - Analysis 44~4 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. CHORADO 81611 V 0 30' 60' 120' {T) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH e~x~ k.::ew.. December 15, 2003 Â·yx I~ ,N THIRD ST . 0 . . â€¢r,+- 4 - 7 1 /7 4 11 1 4,1,~/f I \\\ 0 R I ' 6 % 1 t ..32 2--17Â»1.~ A - - 1 - 41-_=9- 2 5-0 . . .4 - .al L I. ' .2 La - 7 0 . .lu@G==Im 94 4 /5% 1 \ \\ \- i 24 1 4 - /hi \14 37, 94 ,/''dik -9 .11/6- - - f 1/&. - t--/96=64% 4Â· / 22- , ... /4 1\\\9 44 1 \\\\ /4411 h\\ 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado ~OSS ARCHITECTURE+PLAI\Inwiu , i i o riiar,10 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 8' 16' 32' CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Site Plan (T] 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH December 15, 2003 Abit#/ *#...<.I'***"*M*W~A*,2.4*'R,iÂ·44 0 . . . PRIMARY STRUCIURE A 1/ 1111/11111 1 H#+ 11///Pt11Fly//111/ 111/1 I 0 j /~1 1 1 /1 1 1/1 1/ NUUY 1i jl 1/11/ //jilll/l 11/1//1/11/1/111/~1 /. tz//illl'Jjl 'lltllill 1 Illl//;ltil/~ll/l/~ EL /1/#PN*tÂ¥4#/1/d//lititttl}}}titttilitit/}1}11}1 '*'*/2,1* .2,11#11/1/1,1/11#11// WINDOW WELL , BELOW M3 WINDOW WELL 2 D 3, WINDOW WELL BELOW :{.. -:â‚¬-R- PORCH LOWER LEVEL PLAN MAIN LEVEL PLAN UPPER LEVEL PLAN PORCH EXEMPTIONS GROSS S.F. TOTAL S.F. CARRIAGE HOUSE &EXCLUSONS UPPER LEVEL PLAN 635 S.F. 47 S.F. 588 S.F. LOWER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS MAIN LEVEL PLAN 635 S.F. 635 S.F. WALL SURFACE LOWER LEVEL PLAN 635 S.F. 581 S.F. 54 S.F. PARIMETER WALL: 191'-6' TOTAL 1277 S.F. CEILING HEIGHT: 10 0- TOTAL WALL SURFACE: 19155.F. EXPOSED WALL SURFACE GROSS S.F. TOTAL S.F. EXEMPTIONS LIGHT WELL 1 AREA- 7'-6Â· x 7'-0Â· = 52.50 S. F. PRIMARY STRUCTURE & EXCLUSIONS LIGHT WELL 2A AREA- 7'-6Â· x 9'-6Â· = 71.25 S.F. LIGHT WELL 28 AREA- 7'-6â€¢x 1'-6â€¢ = 11.25 S.F. UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1582 S.F. 20 S.F. 1562 S. F. LIGHT WELL 2C AREA- 7'-6â€¢ x 720â€¢ = 5&.50 S.F. TOTAL EXPOSED WALL SURFACE: 186 S.F. MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1582 S.F. 1582 S.F. PERCENTAGE OF EXPOSED WALL SURFACE: 9.7 % LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1582 S.F. 1429 S.F. 153 S.F. LOWER LEVEL GROSS S.F. 1582 S.F. - TOTAL LOWER LEVEL S.F.: 153 S.F. 3297 S.F. TOTAL E*%{:11 EXEMPT FLOOR AREA TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 4574 S.F. INCLUDED FLOOR AREA 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado poss ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING r -I-* C O N C E P T U A L DESIGN : Floor Area Analysis - Proposed -2 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 5'-5" 10'-8" 21 '-4" en: mm..r December 15,2003 sÂ·fs (T) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH m N k. $ 7. 1 H H 20.-:i 1 7--7--1-~- 1 C=-----,9 1 . U 1 14 10 f ~ X 2 l ' I 1 KITCHEN 2 -ir')~BATH ROOM .. i 1- 11 f 1 QUEEN BED I T PDRA , 'I)..i# 1~- EQUIPMENT 1 -2 12- 1 1 1 --+t ,-4, it #--x SAWNA < 3 BEDROOM SUNROOM 11 1/ \ . 1,1 - ~1 MUDROOM ' ~ WINDOW 1 -r 1. - 44_ Imf 1 . WELL 8 - - Â· 6 .J,4.-/'-Ii--- 11 1- BELOW . 1 11 .4"-1-r - < 1 1 11 --\ ~ -mREME *:00%1,3833'.26 I 1 7 - 11 1 3 '1 --"-UUL_-111-u 'I 1 - 1 .t'Â·11 --- i'#Nirirj#,81Â·-4Â·+4Â·u,#114,- L.illl!111,ilil 1.1.]11-1-1-1~4+.~U-4-rt+~-22'rm- 1 Â»1-15*EE I ..lili,1111'11,1.111,1111'11 1. 149*Mii 1 -111 v \ 1 1111111. 11 1111,1,11,1,1.1 1 BEDROOM l WINDOW 1411+44~!NW:~4 4 h/,bl:11111 11 1.111111.1.11[14 Â» i 1 1':,4 4~84,; -m,m,-11'tttlrt.*br'77; Ed I -7 WELL 2 =m'Lk;U'trn-2 1 --11.-'14,'N!#jul.*1 e +1111 1/114 Â·44--I...1-~ 99 1 lili:11.111:11'lilli 1 -rr'*â€¢r"mip-,1 1 - 1 A j 1 1 - --, '''!''''!!!',!111,11, !!!111I E=/~ATfiROOM t~ DINING | r"--1-441:2!24 LIVING i ROOM -1- WINDOW QUEEN BED , ~ll}<ipidE;Q.I--44444# P Â· ROOM W ' -1 WELL ty f BELOW f i REC ROOM 4-4-1 t=t===t t-ft- ' -La th 3 1 1 ill *===- 11-1 + Â·le =-~j + 1 1 1 - 4 PORCH 11 ) 1--4 1 lt-> CT j U 11 \/ 1 4 1, ...... 11:t 4 7 I F LOWER LEVEL PLAN PORCH MAIN LEVEL PLAN 7& 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado pOSS ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING , i i CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: Floor Plans 605 EAST .AIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 0 4 8' 16' CT) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH em 969#1.~December 15, 2003 HOEIOd .... . 1 11 Iti---------8-----ti 11 11 11 It /1 11 t# 1Mt 11 1 11 11 Â· t- Il 1 1 -n7 2 Vt-3 11 -1-10 1 1 r-Â§ 1 11 11 li , :-4/ {-1 1 1 2-2 1 22 - ...:2' i /20 0 -$ (/Ah) f#301 ./ xi j -6- . 1 1, It $ 1 1-1 : \h50/ 2----4-----.. 1 511 ) R //dr /// I--P .F-7 C, 0 1 hol ~ 1 M (BATHROOM 1 . 1 STU DY -1 1t ~ fh j BEDROOM 1 1 61. L=F~~~~~||| |QUEEN_132_ 1 ---- 1 1 Ii.-- --Il , 1-----1 1 1 1 1 1 -. 1: E 1 1 h b N 4 -3 -- 1 1 1 i =t 1 - 1 - 11/ Ir-WPAW,~44-- 1 ?1 1 -- ---- il.. i.-:m A -U #4 -U 13 ~0 0 f 1 - - 1 -- '1 1 Â· ' - -- ,4-1- 1 -- 2 i i 71 1 3, 1 1 1 < BATHROOM,- Ir< :|<e, fÂ«~ U - ~ Â«Â©- - 1 AP : 11 11 Â·, 1 96 A Ellj :1 : 1- /1.:- 4 It P 11 li / 1 3 1 - / 1 lut!, 13 u ,F'-------1. , 1 0 *11 -? 1 tif=E-7 n - 4/ 1 \1 / 11 1. 1 li 1 Vf - Â· t 4 1 1 BEDROOM ~ 2---JL- - -31 f IlÂ· 1 It. li 1 , _ m. J 1 63 f~i.* C ,$ 4 j O mi 1 1 11 ! 1! 7- f - 1 i "1~)1,1 -1 L ! 11 1 4 ---1 e KING BED ; 1 ' 1 o BEDROOM i i' 11 1 0 1 *----t UPPER LEVEL PLAN ~%1 -r/ \9 r--\\\\\~I 7- 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado poss CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Floor Plans rl. -3 ./. I-:07 16' ARCHITECTURE- + M_ANNitvt:, 1 1 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 816,1 0 4' 8' (T} 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 NORTH Â®ED, -=-~.December 15,2003 > :42 1--c?tfurÂ»"- ** ~~ 1 }F 0 0 0 . 4 Et = Ct 00 0 00 0 ORIGINAL STRUCTURE .|PROPOSED ADDITION| South Elevation - Proposed r-1 1 0 11 Â¤ LE 0 Ca M m , CARRIAGE HOUSE LEROPOSEDADDITIONABOVE_OREGINALSTRUCTURE West Elevation - Proposed ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND PORCH E-1 334 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado pOSS IRCâ€ž-21- er=-PE ANAirs:3 C O N C E PT U A L D E S I G N : Proposed Elevations A 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. C*11 0 4' 8' 16 M 970/925 4755 M 970/920 2950 Â®2004 mzzm~=4.Â£ December 15, 2003 0 0 0 . <e,;â‚¬7.04â‚¬5~FN:502:lik,>' . PROPOSED ADDITION .|. ORIGINALSTRUCTURE North Elevation - Proposed ____ r-1 8 .. E ORIGINALSTRUCTUREPROPOSEDADDITIONORIGIAL STRUCTURE , CARRIAGE HOUSE East Elevation - Proposed 334 West Hallam --Aspen,Colorado ~OSS ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : Proposed Elevations gEt 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 8,611 0 4' 8' 16 sm :6:Fe,m.. December 15, 2003 3& se#+2 (T) 970/925 4755 (F) 970/920 2950 0 0 0 . BET OF 11X17 DRAWINGS ~ EXISTING SITE FLAN - 1 EXISTING FIKST FLOOR FLAN - 2 EXISTING BECOND FLOOK FLAN - 3 EXIBTING SOUTH & NORTH ELEVATIONS - 4 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION - 5 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION - 6 EXISTING ROOF FLAN - 7 FKOFOSED GTE FLAN STRUCTURE RELOCATION - 8 FKOFOSED FIRST FLOOK FLAN - 9 FKOFOSED SECOND FLOOK FLAN - 10 FKOFOSED BASEMENT FLOOK FLAN - 11 FKOFOSED SOUTH & NORTH ELEVATIONS - 12 FROFOSED WEST ELEVATION - 13 FKOFOSED EAST ELEVATION - 14 FKOFOSED KOOF FLAN - 15 HAYDEN CONNOR PROPERTY FKOFOSED LIGHT WELLS - 16 SOUTHEAST & SOUTHWEST EXTEKIOK SKETCHES - 17 HISTORICAL REDEVELOPMENT NOKTHEABT & NORTHWEST EXTEKIOK SKETCHES - 18 334 WEST HALLAM STKEET ASPEN, COLORADO BET OF 24X36 DRAWINGS AUGUST 8,2002 EXISTING FLOOK FLANS - 19 EXISTING EXTEKIOK ELEVATION9 - 20 FKOFOSED SITE FLAN - 21 FKOFOSED FLOOK FLANS - 22 FKOFOSED NORTH & BOUTH EXTERIOK ELEVATIONS - 23 FKOFOSED EAST & WEST EXTEKIOK ELEVATIONS - 24 PATRICK CASHEN Al<CHITECT 4155 EAST JEWELL AVENUE, #1106 DENVER, COLORADO 80222-4516 303.759.0650 303.759.0852 FAX pcaehen@pcaco.com 84-6/6 & 6- i . -.-.-.-I-.-.-I-. I.-I.-I-.-I . 20' ALLEY '05.71,0 31.6' 9 O -.- FEDFEEPLLINE.@C.022 ._._._._. 4-4_ _,_ _ _ _- -1~ - FENCE -Â¥Rhy Bitt N EXISTING ~10) ~ BKICK | 2 STORY wl ! WALK ~ CAKKIAGE 2 CKABAFFLE 01 al! i HOUSE -1-11 11 ----la 1 I A 0 1 - 37.0' 0 32.8 1 .. GRAVEL DRVE 1 h r 0/ oil ED- 0 . I 1 0 I Iu 7 1 M .0 10- 0 1. 1 11 - EXISTING TWO ~ ij~ i m STORY DWELLING h 811 01 I to iIi 1 . - - ZE'EE__~ ~~ 20.2' . FORCH ~ I ---J 112 4 2 CRABAFFLA\ //1,1 7 / Lre'H Â§ 291 LO o EFF#E -- 0 . r..-4 O) O ~ COTTONWOOD ~ TKEE - TYPICAL \-i EDGE OF STREET FAVING HALLAM STIEEET ~ ~ EXISTING SITE FLAN 1 1"=10' | . 20.3' ENIAV,1 133119 30 3983 '001 3NI 0 0 0. - irl QFIX .U~ 1-7/- KITCHEN MUDKOOM - -~ 2 4 billit 1 3 1 -27 DINING KOOM ~ Ott LIVING KOOM - ~~ - 11 1 6 6 FOKCH n r UF Â»21 FORCH Â¤ Wor EXISTING FIRST FLOOR FLAN 1/8"=1'-0" 0 0 0 . a BEDROOM < BEDROOM ~ /1. 1-* -1 L, Id L A- 41 [ 51-U DY ~ ~~~~~~-~3.2- O =J- l BEDROOM J : I BEDROOM t n NORTH 0 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN ~ 1/8"=1'-0" 0 0 0. PAINTED FBI-1 CA E SHIN LE I .' 37 WOOD SHINGLES . . 34 -lf .. I WOOD SHINGLES 1 . T. COLOKE GLASS Im #' * O LITES col ED N 11..QQK LiblE -Il. - . - ~ - B DENTELS, 4 BRACKETS, FAINTED 0 FENDANTS LAF O 26 800 B %1 6IDING O m CIJO Â¤Â¤ FLOOR [2' E ~ 00 ~-- EXISTING ADDITION - _--~ ~ ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ~ EXISTING NOKTH ELEVATION EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 1/5"=1'-0" 1/8"=1'-0" . .... t BRICK CHIMNEYS FAINTED LAF BIDING WOOD SHINGLES A COLORED B BB B GLASS LITES BRACKETS, 8 = EKB El~l DENTILE, & FENDANTS 0 0 ~ CARRIAGE HOUSE ~ 1Â»-EXISTING-ARETIO.hi 4 -0-FIG1NALE.EUCTURE EXISTING WEST ELEVATION I 1/8'=1'-0" 0 .... WOOD SHINGLES . hf 08 8 U B FAINTED Ema LAF BIDING ORIGINAL STKUCTUKE EXISTING ADDITION ~ ~ CARI<IAGE HOUSE ~ EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 1/8'=11-0" 0 . 0 . . -1 E-- --I.il---------- - -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 li I 1 1 E- 1 4-12 1 1 | SLOPE | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXISTING 1 | CH[MNEYS RIDGE | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9-12 1 1 SLOFE 1 1 1 1 W 1 1 9-12 9-12 1 1 SLOPE SLOFE I 1 71 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 6 391---- LOW BLOFE 29 9 ---3 FORCH KOOFS EXISTING FIRST EXISTING SECOND FLOOR KOOF FLAN FLOOR ROOF FLAN < 1/8' '=1'-0" 1/8"=1'-0" KIDGE ... i (O) EXISTING 9 U 1- ONE 2 STORY i I STORY 1 CARRIAGE i 1 GARAGE I HOUSE 2 i i ADDITION i t. 1. HEATED --- \ 44 71, f 4.31 22.0' < 15.01 '0 9.51 ; 33.5' 1* DRIVEWAY \J STKIFS ~~~ HOT TWO STORY C~ ADDITION /< o'll \ \ it///l/////14,11 4 U R. oIl /1 MODIFY * \~ Lf 1U 1.i R EXISTING ~~ TREE 9. 6~ C=12 I ADDITION O'525 ~REMAINS I -tifil . WINDOW-_1-> 00 WELL 1 KEMODELED TWO 7 2 STORY DWELLING WI N DOW 1 N WELL ~_ PORTION OF EAST 1 1 1 FENCEKEMOVED FOKCH /~h /-1 . BACK TO HERE -- - -J REMOVE 1 0 i lEo 1 10.0'~ , FENCE \ /U /! 1 -e -L.0/ Det -w .7 0 El. ' 21.0' . 16.0' 0 0 . . 0 Co) Col o ADD LOW IRON FENCE ALONG 1 - C-, STREET FRONTAGES *- EDGE OF STKEET FAVING HALLAM STREET FROFOSED DITE FLAN WITH ~ STRUCTURE RELOCATION ~ 1" =16' THIKD 5TKEET DNIAVoi 133319 30 39(13 4 . LINE OF,~KKIAGE HOUSE . 1 .. 0 221-011 0 15'-01 91-611 0 .. : 4 11 12. E GARAGE 4- 1 . 11 m--1 LAJ ADD O KITCHEN CEKTIFIED - 01 WOODSTOVE ,I UN210 - 0- - 02 0 2 MUDKOOM ~ SUNKOOM L--~ WINDOW 'Di WELL SELOW r I n .~4 3- 1 ~ - WNDOW J L__ DINING KOOM WELL BELOW LIVING KOOM a I h, I . EXISTING FIKEFLACE KEFAIK FLUE FORCH r n r Â»11-711,1 FORCH ~ Â¤ NORTH FKOFOSED FIRST FLOOR FLAN 1/5"=1'-o" .... LINE OF ONE STORY GARAGE BELOW r--------7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L_ -~ (Lf-1 0 1"".-ril DECOKATIVE < DECOKATIVE i GAS APPLIANCE r-7 i Â°ID P U tr~ GAS APPLIANCE ~ STUDY - L=1 l-7. Ena.-Ii o o ir=5 DIE- f)"0 01 1'~ 01 1 DECORATIVE GAS AFFLIANCE SKYLIGHT / 1~ BEDROOM 1 il-Ii/ ./-q 1 DECORATIVE -76= GAS APPLIANCE 101 8093,8 O PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN < 1/3"=1'-0" .... . .. I . . t UNEXCAVATED 2 . - I . I: 6. 4 ./ . r Â¥ 70 9 . .- . HATCH WITH :i EQUIPMENT ~ 1 ,â€ž-11 .. ACCESS FROM 4 ---4 BEDROOM ..1 r... SAU NA : FORCH DEZ* ~I 1 u h ..t râ‚¬Â·Â·Wl 1.Â».4 .. 4 -b<1.1-,7 .' â‚¬.1 WINDOW 0 ) WELL 0 3 *2 O C- 4 BEDROOM F ...1 . 4 .... 41 iÂ·. KEC KOOM ~ ......7.. kl- . 2Pj .:.t t'Â·: ~:3 . fJORTH 0 FROFOSED BASEMENT FLAN < 1/8"=11-0 1 .... SKYLIGHTS I -rÂ· w WOOD SHINGLES T 4 1 RQQ 1 PYY SIUCE 888.00 ELQDUNE_i- 1 p 00 0 0 23 000 B R Â¤Â¤ &052'L~_ 0 ImmIi 0 Â¤ Â¤ 00 FAINTED WOOD i i FAINTED WOOD i i DOORS & WINDOWS DOORS & WINDOWS MODIFY FKOFOSED EXIBTING FKOFOSED ~: ADDITION ~ ADDITION GARAGE ADDITION ~ ~ ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ~ ADDITION ~ FKOFOSED NOKTH ELEVATION FKOFOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8"=1'-0" 1/8"=1'-0" ' .... r EXISTING BRICK i CHIMNEYS WO.OD SHINGLES FAINTED LAF B 8 8 0 = B 6 0,] Â»Xyx ,Â£667355*55& 00 BB EN) Eirl 0 0 7-5" OKIGINAL FORCH GARAGE & EXIBTING CARRIAGE HOUSE ADDITION ADDITION ORIGINAL STRUCTURE pÂ»-L_1-4-1 2-5-OFOSED WEST ELEVATION- - --- 1/8"=1'-0" * .1..- *..~.1-Ill.M~4~0kl'~~---I.......1-- .... PAINTED FSH SCALE SHINGLES WOOD SHINGLES T r t t . f . . T' . 0%Â«'JAÂ¢%Â©:OrbÂ«reteâ‚¬t FAINTED LAF Il B 00010 CO SIDING N WOOD SHINGLES B 009900 O 63638 00 7-5. MODIFY EXISTING GARAGE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ADDITION ADDITION CARRIAGE HOUSE 1----1-4-01--1 FKOFOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/8"=1'-0' 0 .... r- ----------7 0-12 , ~ SLOPE 1 LL.1 1 5 6-12 1 DECORATIVE GAS 2 SLOPE i APPLIANCE FLUE 1 1 1 -1 - 7 E------- --- 1 1 9-12 \ 9-12 9-12 | | SLOPE SKYLIGI-IT ~ 1-12 SLOFE SLOPE I r--10 / SLOPE | ~ ~1 1 RIDGE a 1 1 02 -ln 1 1 1 1 Ll-1 1 1 el 1 I i F 1 1 1 0 I ' ' 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 EXISTING KIDGE 1 1 CHIMNEYS 9-12 1 1 1 \74/ SLOPE 1 1 r 1 1 \ 1 1 1 % 1 I 9-12 _ 9-12 1 EXISTING ROOFS -~ 1 SLOPE DL BLOFE TO REMAIN I 6 i fl 1 1 1 1 1 1 L L. EXISTING ROOFS TO REMAIN 8001 FROFOSED FIRST FROFOSED SECOND RogTH ~ FLOOR ROOF FLAN ~ FLOOR ROOF FLAN ~ 1/8"=1'-0" ... R.R P -1- -1- f~ - - 00 1 0 -- --- WINDOW WELL | â‚¬ 1 WINDOW 5-0 WIDE 10-0 5-6 WIDE X 7-0 X 6-0 HIGH BASEMENT . 1 - HIGH L __2 CEILING HEIGHT FKOFOSED EAST ELEVATION WITH LIGHT WELL 1/81,=11-oIl WINDOW WELL LOCATED AT INSIDE CORNER OF FOUNDATION WITH EXFOSUKE TO SOUTH WALL ALSO - SEE BASEMENT FLOOK FLAN J =d -- 1 1 1 - 0- - -1- ------------M WINDOW WELL | â‚¬ 1 i WINDOW 7-0 WIDE 10-0 7-6 WIDE X 7-0 ----0 X 6-0 HIGH BASEMENT 1 HIGH L __-1 HEIGHT CEILING -------------------- ----Â¥-I - FKOFOSED WEST ELEVATION WITH LIGHT WELL < 1/8' '=1'-0 11 1 11 11 1 11 li 1 11 11 1 11 jul ~ 000[[0 1 ... - --lill 1 1 1- -~i -- I - -/..r- eketch from eouthweet Â£ CE J III -- L r_ Tr--- 1 - I :: -- Â£li N = lk=@ li 1 -I.I./Ill- il -- CO==[[Er m m A r-m ,-. eketch from eoutheaet .... I1L eketch from northweet 1 I---I -- - I === 1 2=L== -1==- - -- el<etch from northeaet H L-Ji V' 0 9 . . r-EXHIS~FI~ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE 11 1 .2 21 oF I REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE I ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 334 West Hallam Street , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 28 , 200.4 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, Stephen C.R. Holley, Poss Architecture + Planning (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: X Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted in a conspicuous place on the subject property at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 8th day of January , 200 4 , to and ingluding the date an<time of the public hearing. A photograph Of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text anâ„¢|Sment. Whenever the official zoning distr= map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners o f real property in the area o f the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 23 day of zktnud Â¥1~ , 20(EL, by <64â‚¬- plie . -~ C 2 14 o Ilâ‚¬ y WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: /DOD-O T ..,0" /'IA . ERLINDA M. 1 1~ (- i.l: ivy.u. bl~ A.L__ MOREHEAD 3 ~ Notary Public ' 0 < :08 15Â£.Â· /4?8 ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 334 W. HALLAM STREET, HPC REVIEW OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 286' 2004 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Hayden Connor, represented by Poss Architecture and Planning, affecting the property located at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen. HPC is asked to grant approval to re-locate the existing residence on this property closer to Hallam and Third Streets, and to demolish and replace a non-historic rear addition. The proposal includes a request for the following variances: a variance from the height limit and a waiver of a "Residential Design Standard" related to the location of a lightwell, and a 500 square foot FAR bonus. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jeffrey Halfe]tv Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 10, 2004 City of Aspen Account .. - d.-Ai !Â¥ {09, b,3% - -.*..trg,.2*2#YARE - *f~ A 3*... , 4-47#/E~11~M 1 ~ 12. t /1 i.6 1/'/L-.4 Cli121 =;. r, imaAlIMMA IXAM~ "mfi' IL__1_ ----3 -6 461Iti~ 0 â€¢ ;Bi& M vellubbillill' I. 1,1.~Illi Â£,- 96:iy, 1.Â·#.% 2 4 1.1 2 PUBLIC NOTICE . il DATE 01/28/04 TIME. 5:00 FM. Oily Council Ohonbâ‚¬fs., PLACECily Moll 130 S.(301â‚¬no ' ? .6 'li PURPOSE_____ 5 4 419 # 1 , J, 12'FL i MFOREVION Of MAJOR 64 04 U $ .'C - P j 8 ' DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), ON-DIC RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES FOR FURTHER NFORMAnON, CONTACT THE ASPEWPT*gN PWDmIG OFFICE 130 SOUTHOALENA ASPEN. CO {9703 020.5090 1 4 *4: CITY OF ASPEN GIS SALES 130 SOUTH GA~ â€¢ ASPEN, CO 81611 d~&0-5453 GIS REVENUES ACCOUNT # 00160 - 00000 - 63465 Please make check payable to City of Aspen Customer's Order No. Phone No. Date G - Sold To St-CiPG'\ ti-al l u~ Address City Sold By Cash C.O.D. Charge On Acct. Mdse. Ret'd. Paid Out Qty. Description Price Amount Wia,U 59. 1.2.1-2.e..2 NO 0 A-*A-p Vl Hd , 0 Fri C 4--Rk \ cdo-al g \AaÂ»- \ All claims and returned goods MUST be accompanied by this bill. Tax Rec'd. By Total 5i 240115 12311 Thank You Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 5160Â® .. 212 N SECOND ST LLC 318 FOURTH STREET LTD ALLEN ROBERT H & JUDY LEY C/O RICHARD CORBETT 4545 POST OAK PL STE 101 5050 WOODWAY 5L 2202 N WEST SHORE BLVD STE 110 HOUSTON, TX 77056 HOUSTON, TX 77027 , TAMPA, FL 33607-5749 ASPEN RETINA SURGEONS LLC BARKER JACK 1/2 INT BENNINGHOFF ESTHER 5014 WOODHURST LN PO BOX 7943 233 W HALLAM AVE MINNETONKA, MN 55345 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLEEKER STREET PARTNERS 11 BLEEKER STREET PARTNERS 11 BLEVINS J RONALD & PHYLLIS M 201 N MILL ST STE 102 PO BOX 8837 20320 FAIRWAY OAKS DR #353 i ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ' BOCA RATON, FL 33434 11 Â«/ 1 BRADLEY EDWARD W & JANIE G CITY OF ASPEN j 1 COOPER JOHN T 3006 S HUGHES 130 S GALENA ST i PO BOX 1747 AMARILLO, TX 79109 ASPEN, CO 81611 1 SPRINGFIELD, MO 65802 DEVOS ESTHER LEONARD DIIANNI DONNA M ' DOBBS JOHN C & SARA F PO BOX 3238 323 W HALLAM ST PO BOX 241750 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~ ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ MEMPHIS, TN 38124 EPPLER KLAUS TRUSTEE FIGGE THOMAS K TRUSTEE EGGLESTON ROBERT H JR C/O HEINZ EPPLER ' 1-ROBERTS AVE 434 W HALLAM CARRIAGE HOUSE 150 NORTH OCEAN BLVD ASPEN, CO 81611 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 DAVENPORT, IA 52803 FIVE CONTINENTS ASPEN REALTY FINKLE S MARCUS & SARA F FISCHER SISTIE C/O EDWARDS JOSEPH 111 117 AABC 442 W BLEEKER 502 MAIN ST STE 201 ASPEN, CO 81611 , ASPEN, CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 GRETLS ASPEN LLC 50 % FRIEDBERG BARRY S GALLANT MARILYN CO ANTON JOSEPH UHL 555 PARK AVE 7W 617 VINE ST STE 1430 2455 EMMA RD NEW YORK, NY 10021 CINCINNATI, OH 45202 BASALT, CO 81621 3 1 - HAAS JUDY HAISFIELD TRACY E , HALPERIN ELLEN & BARRY PO BOX 330 434 W HALL_AM ST 420 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1233 JONES STEPHEN MARTIN TRUST IV HOUGH JENNINE JANSS MARY TRUST 500 CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY N 265 BRIGHTON RD NE 403 W HALLAM BLD 6 STE 125 ATLANTA, GA 30309 ASPEN, CO 81611 AUSTIN, TX 78746 ~AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 5160Â® .. KINNEY STEPHEN J & SUSAN M KOUTSOUBOS TED A MARION BRANDON L & ANGELA M 3330 DEVON RD 415 E HYMAN AVE #206 PO BOX 8837 MIAMI, FL 33133 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MCANIFF RICHARD J MCMAHAN JAMES A & JACQUELINE MOSS CHARLOTTE C/O CORNERSTONE ADVISORS 2 OAKMONT DR 555 PARK AVE 7W 10885 NE 4TH ST STE 1400 ~ LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 ' NEW YORK, NY 10021 BELLEVUE, WA 98004-5579 1 i.11/ - MULLINS DON R MULKEY DAVID A & LAURA li MYERS JOSEPH V JR C/O HARDING & CARBONE 2860 AUGUSTA DR , 421 W HALLAM ST 3903 BELLAIRE BLVD LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77025 NEISSER JUDITH E REV TRUST NATHAN REVOCABLE TRUST PATRICK JAMES K CO BERNADETTE REED 718 N LINDEN DR 3281 GRAFTON LN 417 W HALLAM ST BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81611 , AURORA, IL 60504 PEARLSTONE ESTHER S , PENINSULA LLC POTVIN SALLY ALLEN PO BOX 8750 ' PO BOX 6594 320 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ' ASPEN, CO 81611 RENATE UHL INVESTMENTS LLC 50% ' ' RICHTER SAM RIGGS ASPEN TRUST C/O ANTON JOSEPH UHL 7874 AFTON VILLA CT 8226 DOUGLAS STE 709 2455 EMMA RD ~ i, BOCA RATON, FL 33433 , DALLAS, TX 75225 BASALT, CO 81621 \ RISPOLI PETER ' SAX JOEL D SCHLOFFER BRUNHILDE P 323 W HALLAM ST 303 W FRANCIS ST , i PO BOX 941 ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ ASPEN, CO 81611 1 ASPEN, CO 81612 , hi, SIRKIN ALICIA SMART PAMELA STEEPLECHASE PARTNERS LLC 3500 S BAYHOMES DR 1040 W CONWAY DR PO BOX 10686 MIAMI, FL 33133 ATLANTA, GA 30305 ASPEN, CO 81612 SUGAR MOUNTAIN TRUST STILWELL REED & CLAIRE TEAGUE LEWIS TRUST C/O WIEN & MALKIN LLP 191 UNIVERSITY BLVD #714 862 NORTH BEVERLY GLEN BLVD 60 E 42ND ST DENVER, CO 80206 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 NEW YORK, NY 10165 TITUS JOHN & JOAN REV TRST TOBIN MAURICE B WALNUT CREEK RANCH LLC 3025 BRYN MAWR 1850 K ST NW #380 4520 MAIN ST STE 1050 DALLAS, TX 75225 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 KANSAS CITY, MO 64111-1816 ~AVERYÂ® Address Labels ' Laser 5160Â® Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160Â® .. WALTON CAROLYN F WEST PHILLIP N & SUSAN J WHYTE RUTH 2579-N COMMON DR 2114 MT CALVARY RD PO BOX 774787 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105 ~ STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, Cp 80477-4787 WRIGHT STEWART REX & EMILY WOLOFSKY MOIRA GRAHAM 129 CLARENDON AVE 111 SIERRA VISTA PALM BEACH, FL 33480 REDLANDS, CA 92373 1 1 --- -n m I ~AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® 11/--- .. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 34&L,~ Li) , /44 % / ~ M , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 112904 , 200- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I. 31 w,Â«26 l a<Iil rt-/ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public.notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land. Use Code in the following manner: ~ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. . Posting ofnotice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the f Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, , â‚¬5' waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide 0,4 and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not P 9 less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days i prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of N , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section . 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subj ect to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. Rezorling or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 0Â«a_f011-Â»27Â«t,tfAN- SÂ»re The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this / G day ofT-S~.. , 20031. by TISk.,-6 1...1 -r:,cit WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 9/'23/ 09 Notary Public A i sps,0 j On & i. 00 lioN --16â‚¬9' --C V /4 -AdssS>-'- ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL 830 The Aspen Times â€¢ Saturday-Sui PUBLIC NOTICE - RE: 334 W HALLAM STREET, HPC REVIEW OF' MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a publk i hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 28th, 2004 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City + Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., As- 1 pen, to consider an application submitted by 1 Hayden Connor, represented by Poss Architec- 4 ture and Planning, affecting the property located -~ at 334 W Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen. HPC is asked to grant approval to re-locate the existing residence ~ on this property closer to Hallam and Third Streets, and to demolish and replace a non-his- torie rear addition. The proposal includes a re- quest for the following variances: a variance from the height limit and a waiver of a "Residen- tial Design Standard" related to the location of a lightweli, and a 500 square foot FAR bonus. For lurther information, cont.ct Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Depart- ment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920â€¢ 5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jeffrey Halferty Chair, Aspen Histo: Ic Preservation Commission Published in The Aspen Times on January 10, 2004.(1111) .. November 26,2002 61 Hayden Connor ASPEN/PITKIN 444 Grape Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Denver. CO 80220 Dear Hayden; At their November 20th meeting, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission opened and continued the public hearing regarding proposed alterations to your house until January 8.2003: the next available agenda. I am writing to let you know that this is the last continuance that will be recommended to the board because Community Development Department staff is concerned that notice has not been provided to any members of the public that may be interested in the project for one year. The application has been continued by HPC, in most instances at your request, at least 11 times and it would be difficult for any citizen to know when the hearing will take place at this point. th If you are not able to attend an HPC review on January 8 , we will require that a new notice be Issued for a date that is workable for you. This will entail us publishing a notice in the newspaper and you posting a sign on the property, and mailing notice to the surrounding property owners. - It is our understanding that the January 8th meeting will pick up where we left off in August, when you had a concern about the number of board members who were present to vote on your project. We now have a full board of seven in place. My office has copies of your application as you submitted it at that time, and will provide HPC with the same staff memo and recommendation. If you choose to make any amendments to the proposal for the January 8th meeting, 12 copies of the revised application will be due in th our office no later than December 26 . Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely. - 4 Lit <-actt~Â« .. - Amy Gl~rie--= Histori~ Presen-ation Officer 130 SouTH GALENA STREET AsPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 Â· FAx 970.920.5439 - Printed m Rea'cled Paper . ~ 14. ,Â¥11, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 334 W. Hallam Street- Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Variances - Public Hearing (continued from March 12, 2002) DATE: August 28,2002 SUMMARY: This property is a designated landmark and is listed on the National Register o f Historic Places. The site contains a 19th century house and an outbuilding that was reconstructed in 1990. The proposal before HPC involves demolishing a non-historic addition on the house, adding a basement, and building a new addition with an attached garage. The applicant requests an FAR bonus for an exemplary historic preservation project and an FAR waiver to the restrictions on the calculation of garages. HPC reviewed this project on December 12, 2001 and continued it for restudy of areas that were not in compliance with the design guidelines. At that time, one of the problematic items was the proposal to move the house towards the west property line in order to accommodate an addition on the east and preserve a cottonwood tree that the Parks Department did not want to see removed. HPC indicated that the relocation was not acceptable. The applicant subsequently received Parks approval to remove the tree, and because this change affected some of the development constraints on the site, HPC was asked to revisit the same plans on March 13, 2002, at which time they repeated their opposition to moving the house. Other concerns expressed by staff and HPC at both of the earlier meetings were the inappropriateness of granting the approvals (including variances) needed to construct a garage in the proposed location, issues with the location and design characteristics of the addition, and an inability to find that the FAR bonus , should be granted under the circumstances. Minutes from both of these meetings are provided as exhibits to this memo, along with the original application and drawings. The proposal that has been submitted for the August 28,2002 hearing, which will be evaluated in detail below, is, in staff's opinion, revised in only minor ways and does not resolve the issues noted above. Appropriate actions for HPC to take when reviewing a development action are to either (1) approve as submitted, (2) approve with conditions, (3) disapprove, or (4) continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Over the course of three hearings, the only new 1 .. information that has been brought to the application is that the tree in the middle of the site can be removed (a fact that did not change the majority of the board's findings at the last meeting) and some design modifications that do not comprehensively address the direction for restudy given by the board. Because significant progress has not been made in bringing the proposal into compliance with the review criteria, staff finds that the HPC should deny the application. Staff would like to point out that although this case has been open for some months (submitted 4/17/01), the length of time that elapsed between each hearing has been at the applicant's request, due to their schedule and their representatives' schedules and does not represent a delay in action on HPC's part. The HPC will also note that the applicant has mentioned an old approval granted for the redevelopment of the property by the HPC in 1988. For the board's reference, all development approvals granted by the City have a "vested rights" period of 3 years, which means that the approval is protected for a three year period from any new regulations that the City may adopt. After that time, the approval itself does not expire, but any new criteria apply. In this case, the 1988 approval is only valid to the extent that it meets our current regulations, which include the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the new historic preservation ordinance adopted in March 2002. The applicant may resubmit those plans for review if desired, but, unless the plans are approved accordingly, does not have the right to pull a building permit to construct them. Please note that this memo is written using the format and criteria in place at the date this application was originally submitted. APPLICANT: Hayden and Louise Connor, owners. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-23-005. ADDRESS: 334 W. Hallam Street, Lot K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) 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.C.5) are met, and finds that the development is in accordance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines": 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 2 .. buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to Jive (5) percent, HPC 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, and Staff Finding: The proposal is to demolish and replace an existing addition to the house, to add a basement, and to build a garage. The applicant proposes no alterations to the two story portion of the historic residence. As shown in the attached checklist of relevant guidelines, staff agrees that all of the review standards in Chapters 2-7 which deal with rehabilitation issues, are being met at this time, or the applicant has suggested no activites that would be contrary to these guidelines. It is important that the historic structure itself is to be properly preserved without alteration, which is commendable. Staff does find however, that numerous guidelines that relate to the design of the new addition and proposed garage (from Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 14) are not being met at this time, as will be discussed below. Proposed new addition The addition that currently exists on the back of this house appears to have been done in two or three phases. There is a one story gable roofed piece with a porch at the northwest corner that appears on the 1904 Sanborne map and the 1893 Bird' s Eye view ofthe City. (There are no historic photographs of this property available.) '1 :V 7 *7- 24 4 i 21.~ % 77-71 117-71 A. \>4 1 w ty / INI 0,5 00% The dimensions of the one story addition shown on the Sanborne map are very close to that area of the existing house that currently functions as a mudroom and west entry porch. This piece has been modified to include a storage closet and mudroom extension, and a second story addition was made on top of it, presumably some time in the 1960's. The only aspect of the historic construction in this area that can easily be preserved now is the west facing porch and the wall under the porch, which the application states will be done. It would be ideal for this project to pull the second story construction off of the historic addition and reconstruct it's original form. That is not something that HPC could 3 .. require, but is the sort of restoration activity that has justified an HPC floor area bonus on other sites in town. The proposed new addition at the back of the house maintains the same basic footprint of what exists now, except for a two story extension towards the east. Previously, the Commission has stated that (if one were removing and replacing the existing addition) it would be important to reveal the northeast corner of the original house. It was stated that there should at least be a jog in the wall plane to expose the corner before the construction extended eastward. Several members stated a preference that a more significant effort be made to direct the addition towards the north, behind the historic house. The important guideline to note is: 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. Nothing has changed in the revised application with regard to the location or size of the proposed east addition. The requested jog in wall planes has not been provided. The roof form has been changed to a gable, in order to address the previous concern about a flat roof proposed in this location, however, because the plan form is unaltered, the addition and the roof of the addition are "crashing" into the historic house more than ever. Its fascia even cuts off that of the original east facing gable end, which is in conflict with the following guidelines: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 4 .. In comments at a previous hearing, the proj ect architect stated that his goal was to avoid "compromising the independence of the single (east) gable," which staff finds is precisely what has happened in the new design. The architect also stated that the desire is to keep the new addition "tight to the house," which seems to define the conflict between the owner's goals and the City's preservation policies. Staff finds the addition as proposed on the east side of the structure does not preserve the character of the original house and that the roof, while similar in pitch, is now overly complex and therefore dissimilar from the character of the 19th century design. At the previous meetings, discussion about the new addition also addressed the detailing of the new construction and how it replicates too many of the features of the original house. This is problematic because it creates confusion as to what is new and what is old construction (Guideline 10.3). The applicant has attempted to resolve this by making the windows easement style, which is not typical of the historic house, but leaving the crown moulding, which was the most troubling element. Proposed new garage In regard to the proposed new garage, which is to be attached to the north side of the house, the guidelines emphasize that a separate garage structure is preferable and that garages are to be located along alleys. The following guidelines are at issue: 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. o Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. o Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. HPC members previously expressed a concern about the diminishment of the existing separation between the main house and existing alley house. The applicant has increased that separation by 3" in the new design, by moving the historic house towards Hallam Street, which staff finds does not meaningfully address the issue. A gable has been added to the garage, and the doors have been redesigned, but these actions do not bring the addition into greater compliance with the guidelines noted above. At the December 12, 2001 meeting, one of the applicant's representatives summarized the feedback he had heard from HPC regarding the placement of the garage, stating that "if development could move to the north then it sounded like there could be support for the 500 square foot bonus." HPC has been clear from the first meeting about their concerns and desire to move the new construction away from Third Street. 5 .. HPC FAR Bonus The applicant is requesting a 364 square foot floor area bonus. The 1988 approval for the redevelopment of this site included a 500 square foot bonus. Only a portion of that bonus (136 square feet) was used in the reconstruction of the carriage house. The balance, 364 square feet, is not available without the authorization of this body because new standards in regard to the bonus have been adopted. The applicable standard is: "A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus." This may be an appropriate site for the extra square footage, given the size of the lot and the large, detached "carriage house" structure on the alley, which serves to take some of the bulk away from the historic building, however the project as proposed does not currently meet a number of the design guidelines, and therefore, at this time would not rise to a level that staff or HPC considers "exemplary" work. The condition of the historic portion of the building is to be improved, which is very important, but too many aspects o f the proposed new construction detract from the overall success o f the proj ect. Staff finds that review standard "a" is not met and that the criteria for an FAR bonus is not met. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel propesed for development, and Staff Finding: The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of old and new homes, and a wide variety of architectural styles. 19th century structures throughout the West End have been restored and expanded and an acceptable solution could be found for this project so that this standard would be met. In the proposed form, however, staff finds that review standard "b" is not met. 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 on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project as proposed would detract from the historic significance of this home if the building were relocated on the site. This house, the Eugene Wilder House, was built c. 1885. From the National Register nomination, "The Wilder house was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber and may have been built by the Aspen Lumber Company. Wilder was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, along with R. F. Roberts from the mid-1880s to the early 1890s. This business was one of the pioneer Aspen lumber companies established ca. 1880-1882." As discussed below, one 6 .. of the components of significance is related to original location, and in this case, an inappropriate change to that quality is being proposed. Staff finds that review standard "c" is not met. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The historic house is to be preserved with no alterations made directly to it, except for the demolition of part of the eaveline on the east gable end. Part of the applicant's proposal includes reconstruction of the north roof slope of this gable, which was demolished by the 1960's remodel. Limiting the alterations to the historic house itself goes far to preserve its architectural character and integrity, however, the proposed addition does have negative impacts to the original house, and a finding on this standard must be tempered with the impact of the proposal to relocate the house, which, as noted below is one of the aspects of integrity. Because that action is without merit, as evaluated below, compliance with review standard "d" is affected and staff finds that it is not met. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: 1. 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. Staff Finding: Staff agrees that the partial demolition of the existing 1960's addition is necessary for the proposed remodel. This standard is met. 2. 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, and b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. 7 .. Staff Finding: The applicant could mitigate the negative impacts on the existing historical structure caused by the addition if the concerns described above were resolved. Staff finds that this standard is not met. ON-SITE RELOCATION No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe following standards are met: A. 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. Staff Finding: The Parks Department is issuing a permit to remove the tree that was an obstacle in the middle of the site. As a result, there is no justification that has been presented to allow the house to be moved. The guidelines state that "A part of a historic building's integrity is derived from its placement on its site and therefore, its original position is important." Guideline 9.1 is: 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. The degree to which the house is being relocated is also a factor to weigh. In this case, the house's distance from Third Street is cut in half (reduced by 10'), which is substantial. The guideline is: Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission's policies and philosophies are based on the standards established by National Park Service, including the moving of historic 8 0 0 f 000 0 .. properties. Location is one of the seven measures used to evaluate the historic integrity of a property and therefore should be taken as a serious component o f a property' s characteristics. According to National Register criteria, "significance is embodied in locations and settings as well as in the properties themselves. Moving a property destroys the relationships between the property and its surroundings and destroys associations with historic events and persons. A move may also cause the loss of historic features such as landscaping, foundations, and chimneys, as well as loss of the potential for associated archeological deposits." As a result, HPC has determined that proposals to relocate a building will be considered each on their own merits, and heavily weighing the reasons why, in each case, the move may provide a tool to better preserve a building. Most often, relocation has been found to be appropriate when a small structure, usually the 19th century miner's cottages, is located on a large lot where the potential for redevelopment is so large that the "best preservation alternative" is a lot split, which results in the physical separation of the resource from a large amount of the new construction. Even in the case of a lot split, though, it is not a given that moving a house will be approved. There is adequate room on this property to site new construction in an appropriate manner. No case has been made that there is a need to move the house in order to better preserve it and protect it from an overwhelming addition or other threat. The desire to maximize private yard space does not meet the criteria above and is not a justification for this element of the proposal. The relocation of the house in this case is not the "best preservation alternative." Staff finds that this standard is not met. B. 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. Staff Finding: Said report would be a condition of approval. C. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, 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. Staff Finding: The relocation plan and letter of credit would be conditions of approval. VARIANCE FROM THE CALCULATION OF FAR RELATED TO GARAGES Garages are exempt from FAR if they are accessed from an alley when one is available. Because this applicant is choosing to use an existing, old driveway off of Third Street, the garage will count in FAR. A variance from this policy, based on hardship, is requested. 9 .. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Finding: The AACP does not specifically address this issue. The Land Use Code clearly intends to remove garages from the streetscape and to minimize pedestrian/ automobile conflicts created by backing out into a street. Staff finds that this review standard is not met. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Finding: A garage is not necessary for reasonable use of a parcel. Staff finds that this review standard is not met. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: There is room available on the site to place a garage along the alley. Staff finds that this review standard is not met. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and Staff Finding: The applicant has other options to create a garage that complies with the requirements. In discussion at a previous meeting, the applicant' s representative noted that there are "at least a hundred historic houses that have parking access from the street rather than the alley." Reviewing the "Aspen Inventory ofHistoric Landmark Sites and Structures" map, there are approximately 17 historic properties that have a street facing garage. Half of these are housed in historic structures, where adaptive use as a garage is a historic preservation action, and half are new structures, none of which were approved under current regulations. The City has developed clear policies over the past several years that 10 .. discourage street facing garages and aim to eliminate curb cuts whenever possible. In all cases where a garage faces a side street despite the existence of an alley the garage counts in FAR. Staff is not aware of any instance when a floor area waiver has been granted for a new garage like the one proposed at 334 W. Hallam based on hardship. Staff finds that this review standard is not met. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS All residential development must comply with the following review standard or receive a variance based on a finding that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals o f the Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Standard: PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standard is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential - Alley < \ uses, parking, garages, and ~~~~~~ No. 1 Yes. g ~ carports shall be accessed ' I from an alley or private road Yes. if one exists. Street. Response: As noted above, staff does not find that the garage placement complies with any specific goals of the AACP. It does not comply with the intent of this guideline and there are no unusual site constraints on this property that prevent location of the garage off the alley. Staff finds that this review standard is not met. 11 1-.11111!1111 .. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards for Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, FAR variances, a "Residential Design Standards" variance for the garage, and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines" 8.3,9.1, 9.4, 10.3, 10.4, 10.9, 10.10, 14.18 and 14.20 are not met and recommends that the application for 334 W. Hallam Street be denied by the HPC. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to adopt Resolution # , Series of 2002. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated August 28,2002 B. Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines C. Minutes ofDecember 12,2001 D. Minutes ofMarch, 13, 2002 E. Application and drawings from March 13, 2002 F. "Aspen Inventory o f Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" site form G. "National Register of Historic Places" nomination form H. Revised application 12 .. Exhibit B 334 W. Hallam, Historic Design Guidelines Checklist, Conceptual Review (Note that the guidelines that are not me, in staffs opinion, are underlined. Guidelines on new landscaping, fencing, and lighting have not been included because they are details that are more properly addressed at Final.) Treatment of Materials 1 Preserve original building materials. Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. o Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. .2 Protect wood features from deterioration. Provide proper drainage and ventilation to minimize rot. Maintain protective coatings to retard drying and ultraviolet damage. 2.3 Plan repainting carefully. o Always prepare a good substrate. Prior to painting, remove damaged or deteriorated paint only to the next intact layer, using the gentlest means possible. o Use compatible paints. Some latex paints will not bond well to earlier oil-based paints without a primer coat. 2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted. o Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer, or patina, to protect it from the elements. Repair of Materials 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. o Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. u Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition. o Original mortar that is in good condition should be preserved in place. 13 CON 0 0 0 N .. o Repoint only those mortar joints where there is evidence of a moisture problem or when mortar is missing. u Duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint width and profile. o Mortar joints should be cleared with hand tools. Using electric saws and hammers to remove mortar can seriously damage the adjacent brick. 3 Do not use mortar with a high portland cement content, which will be substantially harder than the brick and does not allow for expansion and contraction. The result is deterioration of the brick itself. See Chapter 14: General Guidelines for masonry cleaning. Replacement Materials 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. o If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. o Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials. o In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such as a fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic model. Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick. EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco. Covering Materials 2.9 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. o Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. For example, vinyl siding, aluminum siding and new stucco are inappropriate on historic buildings. Other imitation materials that are designed to look like wood or masonry siding, but that are fabricated from other materials, are also inappropriate. o If a property already has a non-historic building material covering the original, it is not appropriate to add another layer of new material, which would further obscure the original. o Any material that covers historic materials will also trap moisture between the two layers. This may cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which will go unnoticed. 14 CC C .. 2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. o Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. Treatment of Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. o Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. Replacement Windows 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. 1 Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. 3 If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double- hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 15 0 0 CC C .. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. o A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's easing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. Energy Conservation 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic window. o Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. o If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning around the perimeter. Treatment of Existing Doors These guidelines for the treatment of doors apply primarily to front doors, although they do include secondary entrance doors and screen doors. Greater flexibility can be applied when replacing side and rear doors when they are not visible from the public right-of- way. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. o Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. o If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. o Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. o For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door. o Match the frame design and color of the primary door. 16 00 .. 3 If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. Replacement Doors 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. Simple paneled doors were typical. Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. Energy Conservation 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. u Generally, wood storm doors are most appropriate when the original door is wood. o If a storm door is to be installed, match the frame design, character and color of the original door. Treatment of Porches 5.1 Preserve an original porch. 3 Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch. Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. Keeping an open porch is preferred. Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable. o Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted. â€¢The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged. Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. o This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. 17 00 OUC 0 0000 .. Porch Replacement 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. o Use materials that appear similar to the original. o While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. 3 Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. Treatment of Architectural Features Preserve significant architectural features. Repair only those features that are deteriorated. Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. o Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. o Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. o Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. o If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which traditionally was a smooth painted finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. o The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building's heritage. 18 UUt 000 .. 3 When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. 1 Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. o Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. o It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. 6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities. Replace only those portions that are beyond repair. Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence. Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible. A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass comice may be considered at the top of a building. Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. o Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. o Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. 3 The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. o Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. o A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically. o A new chimney should reflect the width and height of those used historically. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. 19 0O0O9 .. o An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. See also: Chapter 10, Guidelines for Building Additions. 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. o A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. o The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. Materials 7.8 Preserve original roof materials. o Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. o Specialty materials such as tile, slate or concrete should be replaced with a matching material. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. o Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. Seams should be of a low profile. A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 7.11 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. o Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed creates a false impression of the building's original appearance, and is inappropriate. Secondary Structures 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. 20 000 0 00 0 .. 3 Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. o A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. u If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. 1 If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. o If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. o On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. o Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 21 0 0 f 000 0 .. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. o Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. o Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). The size of a lightwell should be minimized. A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Existing Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. u A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. 1 An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. u An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 22 00 0 .. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. 1 The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. Driveways & Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. u If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. o Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway from the street. o Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. o Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. 23 00 .. 14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area rather than paving an entire driveway. o Using minimally paved tracks will reduce the driveway's visual impact. o Consider using a porous paving material to reduce the driveways visual impact. u Also consider using modular paving materials for these tracks to provide visual interest along the street. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. o Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 24 .. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 334 W. HALLAM STREET, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 42, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID#: 2735-124-23-005 RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2002 WHEREAS, the applicants, Hayden and Louise Connor, represented by Pat Cashen, architect, have requested Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On- Site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" 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 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code and be in accordance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines in order for HPC to grant approval. The review standards are below and the guidelines are on file in the Planning Office: 1.Standard: 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) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC 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. A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. .. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an 11" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 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; 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 "H" 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, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and WHEREAS, in order for HPC to grant a variance from the "Residential Design Standards," according to Section 26.410 of the Muncipal Code, the HPC must find that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals ofthe Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; and .. WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 28, 2002, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended that it be denied on the finding that the review standards for Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, FAR variances, a "Residential Design Standards" variance for the garage, and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines" 8.3,9.1, 9.4, 10.3, 10.4, 10.9, 10.10, 14.18 and 14.20 are not met; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 28, 2002, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found that the review standards for Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, FAR variances, a "Residential Design Standards" variance for the garage, and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines" 8.3, 9.1, 9.4, 10.3, 10.4, 10.9, 10.10, 14.18 and 14.20 are not met, for the reasons stated in the staff memorandum, and denied the application by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado is not approved. DENIED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 28th day of August, 2002. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Vice Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 1 91 1.5 C . ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name 14 AVDâ‚¬2 00*NOR. PAOME*PI HISTDAIL *3)EVELAPAâ‚¬AJT 2. Project location 354- Wa T- HALLAR 51*â‚¬BTI Asfe)i co 007-I Kl Lt /4 1 E U)Â£5* -4 2. 1 6 11-M 'f: A Sfed (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning r-- 6 4. Lot size 9,05 2- S F 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number HAToaO co Buog. 4-4-4- 4 AMâ‚¬ ST'ReET 1 -PER Vez- f CD 3 6 0 -2.20 Â£03-6ll' 2-1 19 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number PATÂ®la- C/NHEW, 1495 EnST JEk) eu- AVE *ILD(o Delver Ce Â£50 2,2.2.- 44 1 6 - 151 Lu PE)55 +05 Ehic /n,ti M , 85 9Â¢5Â» 1 0 9 16 -4155 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA X Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD 34 Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment Â· GMQS exemption X 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) 2 DETACHED *810â‚¬wri AL Pwal,INÂ«.5 UNIT 14- 1 - OAL6/WAL S'Ell,UC,1-U,2,2 1- ADP InDAS 5 | LE pleOL - ]944 Sp Sedc*o F LOOK= 13 11 I.F 1 4 BR LMOLT #A 2 - 1 4-r f,6004 = 34&, 10 1F) 2 40 ftoc* - 4$20 5Fj Basemeâ€¢,r 19 ifif, 2 80. 9. Description of developmeiJ application AENOVATE UNLT *1 W 1117 NEW Fou,Â»41-100 W l'11 Â°.MSEmek}T j Recous1Mcdla) r,-EULat).1 A-ve 1 71 04 W I TN r':>Orf AJâ€¢JC CHAA 66 1 /tw 6*8*66 No L.OOR K AT U A I T *- 2- 10. Have you completed and attached the following? J Attachment 1- Land 04*application form t/' Attachment 2- Dirilehsional requirements form 4 Items required iriAtiddhtn@h{-3 4 Response to Attachmints 4 and 5 E>acto A E- .APR-12-01 THU 08:15 AM PATRICK CASHEN FAX:3037590852 PAGE 2 .. f ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: 8*kn 6-r>rÂ·=-0/ Address: 3 3 7 0/ - J+t:u 1 6-r-, Zone district: (yR - 6 Lot size: 900.5 M Existing FAR: 9/9 5 -5 14 Allowable FAR: 452>0 8 Le,,/ 500'64 bey-,1,5 3 Proposed FAR: 450 9 til Existing net leasable (commercjal): Proposed net leasable (commercial): - Existing % of site coverage: 04 - 590 Proposed % of site coverager ale. 590 Existing % of open space: Proposed % of open space: 4 Existing maximum height: Principal bldg:-25 ' Accesorv bldq: n /4 Proposed max. height: Principal bldg:,25 1 Accessory bldq:f Proposed % of demolition: 3'Do Existing number of bedrooms: 1.1 (prAâ„¢4,1,3 Proposed-number of bedrooms: 5 Existing on-site parking spaces: / On-site parking spaces required: 4 - bel' rÂ·-,cu.riÂ¥a-6,4~ ncyn -corF. Setbacks Existing: , Minimum required: Proposed: , Front: I O Front: JO' Front: / 0 Rear: 3' Rear: F.'/CD' Rear. 3 1 Combined , Combined $. - Combined i Front/rear-j;3_ Fron{/reac: z--BO Front/rear ) 3 Side: 1-11 - f Side: 49. Side: 65 ' Sider - 2 .' 48 Side: .' 1' /Q' Side: 4-1 1 Combined Combined Combined , Sides: 5% Sides: Â·Â·1 7- 1 30 Sides: _ft A Existing nonconformities or encroachments: 0-2*Â·r 6-Y,A. :_ __ 1~u<-5~ -SIAL- 7'g-r,A Â«* tkt+Eds 6 0*Â·rkine Variations requested: %,4 R, J'I) 54 17-6 7 612..5 1,(~~1-~72~-0,~ c#eli;iy-~ 5/6*17<&*rA <. 6 A~7.-=-175 I rr,0.-1 "ll/) reL-Y-4-35 -Wo +U- 6Â«,Â£9Â»1.- 4-><er-Â·gE+1971 0-1PC 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 infili program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R.6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone 1] .. 334 WEST HALLAA STREET $ 4 - ..B. -S:KN.\/ 04, f r E {~Â·~2'. 'PS #-- %Â£ 1,/u-29 1 - s c,st 4 1 ., . : 35 11 + cc cm.4- %5 ..=Un 1 Z.St t)- (927\ 4.,4 44 i HR Haioid Ross Ct / 9 % LS luk. Short Ct 3 * 4% i % WC Wlims Rinch Ct f 4- r. c,4 4 p,44 1 e 5 W r--Jeteet St U St Bnck C lo '* i k , 4 Trail Ad ; ~ 44 ~ '~ 1 (* 1963 9> 4, %'4 y%tf a.j ~-1 Mi - M LY Vi,4., 469.13 1 8.,82 ..1!$,>t,"4 Match % i 1 te,Ar . .4,M 1 r Â°' 4 4 le:*Dr 9 ."C lih,3 "Coe,thozle t *,i~> 4 4 fk # Whife Ri,Â·r,Â· a ciry â€¢i/ Â·~ le Ouâ€¢in St- . *41 4$' N.tion.1 kies: 1~ Coo A, Misconi mu W GrovAT Â·Â·'-- Wkirp F.AÂ·rr A/:-0,1.afternâ€¢ 4 0 0 FWâ€¢ A. 7 mof. Ct 4 TE' 0 2*-- monty I %4 Downtown : 4 C. 'Â· a. .0 I rÂ· v 5 2 0 8 1Â§ 9 4:p,n 6' Aspen - 8 3; i? RM#*94 v Weittew Or tE 0% lit. M : li 9* 7 \44 F,k 1 2 n- 0 1/4 i 1/2 9 - .-- 7,Â»G -- a i Scale in miles 0 82 M t f 'st Smu ler Mountain Rd MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 334 W. Hallam Street- Conceptual Development, On-Site Relocation, Partial Demolition and Variances - Public Hearing (continued from December 12, 2001) DATE: March 13,2002 SUMMARY: This property is a designated landmark and is on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed project involves demolishing an existing addition on the house, adding a basement, and building a new addition with an attached garage. The applicant requests two FAR bonus variances; one for an exemplary historic preservation project and one as a waiver to the FAR restrictions on the calculation of the garage. HPC reviewed this project on December 12, 2001 and continued it for restudy of areas that were not in compliance with the design guidelines. At that time, one of the problematic issues was the applicant's proposal to move the house towards the west property line to accommodate an addition and preserve a tree that Parks did not want to see removed. HPC indicated that the relocation was not acceptable. The applicant has since received Parks approval to remove the cottonwood tree. Because this does change some of the development constraints on the site, HPC is asked to revisit the plans that were submitted in December and make new findings on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. An opinion regarding compliance with the guidelines has been provided for the applicant by Mitch Haas, Planning Consultant. Please note that Mr. Haas' memo makes mention of an approval granted by HPC for this property in 1988. The previous property owner acted on part of that approval by reconstructing the carriage house at the back of the lot. They did not complete any of the renovations to the main historic house. The remainder of the plans approved in 1988 can only be constructed to the extent that they would comply with the new laws that have been adopted in the ensuing 14 years, which include the design guidelines. The applicant could ask HPC to review the old approval in that light, but has instead submitted a revised plan that they presumably prefer. APPLICANT: Hayden Connor, owner; represented by Patrick Cashen Architect. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-23-005. 1 .. ADDRESS: 334 W. Hallam Street, Lot K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) 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.C.5) 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) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC 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)(23, for detached accessory dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The proposal is to demolish and replace an existing addition to the house, to add a basement, and to build a garage. The applicant proposes no alterations to the two story portion of the historic residence. As noted in the attached checklist of relevant guidelines, staff agrees that all of the review standards in Chapters 2-7 (with the possible exception of guideline 5.1), which deal with rehabilitation issues, are being met at this time, or the applicant has suggested no activites that would be contrary to these guidelines. It is important to note that the historic structure is to be properly preserved without alteration, which is commendable. Staff does find that numerous guidelines that relate to the design of the new addition and proposed garage are not being met at this time, as will be discussed below. The addition that currently exists on the back of this house appears to have been done in two or three phases. There is a one story gable roofed piece with a porch at the northwest corner that appears on the 1904 Sanborne map and the 1893 Bird's Eye view of the City. a - O N ><~11 499'A l 2' , k 9 -,Â£2 - 2 -1 + .r,714/. LL-1. . r C'r 9/f~/ ir// T/09 ibil ~-3- d M i: r' 1-; 31. .- 1 'R -~~--.521~14F y % N 84 F.TIE| 1-10 1 4 3Ef 9ZE .. The dimensions of the addition shown on the Sanborne map are very close to the area of the existing house that functions as a mudroom and west entry porch. This piece has been modified to include a storage closet and mudroom extension, and a second story addition, presumably some time in the 1960's. The only aspect of the historic construction in this area that can easily be preserved now is the west facing porch and the wall under the porch. When this part of the project was addressed by staff in the December memo, the intent was to clarify that these portions of the existing construction must be retained, and not be replaced as implied by the plans. It would be ideal for this project to pull the second story construction off of the historic addition and reconstruct it's original form. That is not something that HPC could require, but is the sort of restoration activity that has justified an HPC floor area bonus on other sites in town. Guidelines relevant to these points are: 5.1 Preserve an original porch. o Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. The proposed new addition at the back of the house maintains the same basic footprint of what exists now, except for a two story extension towards the east. The tree issue diverted much of HPC's attention on this part of the project in December, however, those Commissioners who did speak to the appropriateness of the construction from a historic preservation point of view expressed some concerns. Commissioner Sanchez stated that (if one were removing and replacing the existing addition) it would be important to reveal the northeast corner of the original house. He suggested that there be at least a jog in the wall plane to expose the corner before the construction extended eastward. Other members stated a preference that the addition be directed entirely towards the north, behind the historic house. The important guidelines to note are: 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 3 O 0 .. While the low pitched roof over the east section of the new addition helps to reduce its profile, it is out o f character with the gable forms used on the historic building. Staff also has concerns that the overall detailing of the new construction replicates too much of the features of the original house and will confusing as to what is new and what is old construction. In regard to the proposed new garage, which is meant to be attached to the north side of the house, the guidelines emphasize that a separate garage structure is preferable and that garages are to be located along alleys. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. o Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. o Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. HPC members previously expressed a concern about the diminishment of the existing separation between the main house and existing alley house. HPC FAR Bonus The applicant is requesting a 364 square foot floor area bonus. The 1988 approval for the redevelopment of this site included a 500 square foot bonus. Only a portion of that bonus (136 square feet) was used in the reconstruction of the carriage house. The balance, 364 square feet, is not available without the authorization of this body because we have adopted new standards in regard to the bonus. Today's standard is: "A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus." This may be an appropriate site for the extra square footage, given the size of the lot and the large, detached "carriage house" structure on the alley, which serves to take some of the bulk away from the historic building, however the proj ect as proposed does not currently meet the design guidelines, and therefore, at this time would not rise to a level that HPC considers "exemplary" work. If it can be amended accordingly, and there is a successful effort to preserve the character of the property, the bonus could be awarded. 4 .. Staff acknowledges that the house is in need of repair and the owner is making a substantial financial commitment to this important historic structure. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel propfsed for development, and Staff Finding: The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of old and new homes, and a wide variety of architectural styles. 19th century structures throughout the West End have been restored and expanded and an acceptable solution can be found for this project so that this standard will be met. 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 on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project as proposed would detract from the historic significance of this home if the building were relocated on the site, a concept that the applicant is still interested in. This house, the Eugene Wilder House, was built c. 1885. From the National Register nomination, "The Wilder house was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber and may have been built by the Aspen Lumber Company. Wilder was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, along with R. F. Roberts from the mid-1880s to the early 1890s. This business was one of the pioneer Aspen lumber companies established ca. 1880-1882." d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity Of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The historic house is being preserved with no alterations made directly to it. Part of the applicant's proposal includes reconstruction of the north roof slope of the east facing gable end, which was demolished by the 1960's remodel. Although there are concerns with the character of the addition, staff would agree that the integrity of the house itself is not being negatively affected by this project. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe following standards are met: 1. 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. Staff Finding: Staff agrees that the partial demolition of the existing 1960's addition is necessary for the proposed remodel, but further demolition of the historic rear addition as mentioned above, is not appropriate. 5 .. 2. 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, and b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Staff Finding: The applicant can mitigate the negative impacts on the existing historical structure caused by the addition by meeting the concerns described above. ON-SITE RELOCATION No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe following standards are met: A. 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. Staff Finding: The Parks Department is issuing a permit to remove the tree that was an obstacle in the middle of the site. As a result, there is no justification that has been presented to allow the house to be moved. Nevertheless, the applicant requests a formal determination on this matter. The guidelines state that "A part of a historic building's integrity is derived from its placement on its site and therefore, its original position is important." Guideline 9.1 states: 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 6 .. There is adequate room on this property to site new construction in an appropriate manner. There is no need to move the house in order to better preserve it and protect it from an overwhelming addition or other threat. B. 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. Staff Finding: Said report would be a condition of approval. C. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, 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. Staff Finding: The relocation plan and letter of credit would be conditions o f approval. VARIANCE FROM THE CALCULATION OF FAR RELATED TO GARAGES Garages are exempt from FAR if they are accessed from an alley when one is available. Because this applicant is choosing to use an existing, not formally permitted driveway off of Third Street, the garage will count in FAR. A variance from this policy, based on hardship, is requested. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Finding: The AACP does not specifically address this issue. The Land Use Code clearly intends to remove garages from the streetscape and to minimize pedestrian/ automobile conflicts created by backing out into a street. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that wit! make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Finding: A garage is not necessary for reasonable use o f a parcel. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficully. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprNed, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: 7 .. a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: There is room available on the site to place a garage along the alley. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and Staff Finding: The applicant has other options to create a garage that complies with the requirements. Although there are other garages that are accessed from streets in the West End, most are historic and they are not exempted from FAR. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS All residential development must comply with the following review standard or receive a variance based on a finding that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals o f the Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Standard: PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standard is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential Alley , - 1 uses, parking, garages, and ~ Yes. 6-~ 1 carports shall be accessed ( *_j from an alley or private road Yes. Â· ~ if one exists. .p i ~i ili Street. 8 .. Response: As noted above, staff does not find that the garage placement complies with any specific goals of the AACP. It does not comply with the intent of this guideline and there are no unusual site constraints on this property that prevent location of the garage off the alley. This review standard is not met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards for on-site relocation, and the FAR variance and "Residential Design Standards" variance for the garage are not met and should be denied by HPC. Staff recommends HPC continue the hearing on conceptual development, partial demolition and the HPC FAR bonus request with the following direction: 1. The west porch, and wall under the porch, must be retained. 2. The character and placement of the proposed new addition must be restudied. The flat roof form is out of character with the historic house, and the overall detailing is too replicative. 3. The preservation o f the house with no new alterations is a positive aspect o f this proposal and may speak to the qualities needed for an FAR bonus. The bonus could be better justified with more of an effort to physically separate the new addition (or at least reveal the original northeast corner) and/or by reconstructing the historic one story rear addition. 4. This application requires a variance from the "Residential Design Standards" for a lightwell on the west side. Notice for this variance must be posted on the site at least five days before the next hearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to continue the application to a date certain." Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated March 13, 2002 B. Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines C. Letter from Mitch Haas, Planning Consultant D. Minutes ofDecember 12,2002 E. Drawings 9 .. Exhibit B 334 W. Hallam, Historic Design Guidelines Checklist, Conceptual Review (Note that the guidelines that are not me, in staffs opinion, are underlined. Guidelines on new landscaping, fencing, and lighting have not been included because they are details that are more properly addressed at Final.) Treatment of Materials Preserve original building materials. Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. o Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 2.2 Protect wood features from deterioration. o Provide proper drainage and ventilation to minimize rot. o Maintain protective coatings to retard drying and ultraviolet damage. 2.3 Plan repainting carefully. o Always prepare a good substrate. Prior to painting, remove damaged or deteriorated paint only to the next intact layer, using the gentlest means possible. o Use compatible paints. Some latex paints will not bond well to earlier oil-based paints without a primer coat. 2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted. o Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer, or patina, to protect it from the elements. Repair of Materials 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. o Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition. 3 Original mortar that is in good condition should be preserved in place. o Repoint only those mortar joints where there is evidence of a moisture problem or when mortar is missing. o Duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint width and profile. 10 COOM .. o Mortar joints should be cleared with hand tools. Using electric saws and hammers to remove mortar can seriously damage the adjacent brick. o Do not use mortar with a high portland cement content which will be substantially harder than the brick and does not allow for expansion and contraction. The result is deterioration of the brick itself. See C/mpter 14: General Guidelines for masonry cleaning. Replacement Materials 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. o If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. o Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials. o In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such as a fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic model. o Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. o Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick. o EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco. Couering Materials 2.9 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. o Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. For example, vinyl siding, aluminum siding and new stucco are inappropriate on historic buildings. Other imitation materials that are designed to look like wood or masonry siding, but that are fabricated from other materials, are also inappropriate. o If a property already has a non-historic building material covering the original, it is not appropriate to add another layer of new material, which would further obscure the original. o Any material that covers historic materials will also trap moisture between the two layers. This may cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which will go unnoticed. 2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. o Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. 11 .. Treatment of Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. o Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. o Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. Replacement Windows 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. o If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double- hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. o A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's easing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are 12 00 00 .. important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. Energy Conservation 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic window. o Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. o If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning around the perimeter. Treatment of Existing Doors These guidelines for the treatment of doors apply primarily to front doors, although they do include secondary entrance doors and screen doors. Greater flexibility can be applied when replacing side and rear doors when they are not visible from the public right-of-way. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. o Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. o Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. o If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. o If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. o Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. o For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door. Â¤ Match the frame design and color of the primary door. o If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. 13 .. Replacement Doors 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. o A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. o A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. o Simple paneled doors were typical. o Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. Energy Conservation 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. o Generally, wood storm doors are most appropriate when the original door is wood. o If a storm door is to be installed, match the frame design, character and color of the original door. Treatment of P orches 5.1 Preserve an original porch. o Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch. Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. Keeping an open porch is preferred. Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable. o Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted. â€¢ The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged. Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. o This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. 14 00 00C 0 .. Porch Replacement 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. o Use materials that appear similar to the original. o While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. o Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. o The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. Treatment of Architectural Features 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. o Repair only those features that are deteriorated. o Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. o Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. o Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. o Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. o If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which traditionally was a smooth painted finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. o The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building's heritage. o When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 15 00 .. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. o Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. o Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. o It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities. Replace only those portions that are beyond repair. Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence. Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible. A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass cornice may be considered at the top of a building. Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. o Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. u Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. o The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. o Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. o A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically. o A new chimney should reflect the width and height of those used historically. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. 3 An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. See also: Chapter 10, Guidelines for Building Additions. 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. 16 OOOOt .. o A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. o The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. Materials 7.8 Preserve original roof materials. o Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. o Specialty materials such as tile, slate or concrete should be replaced with a matching material. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. o Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. o If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non- reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. Seams should be of a low profile. A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 7.11 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. o Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed creates a false impression of the building's original appearance, and is inappropriate. Secondary Structures 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. o Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. 17 O 06 000 0 O 0 .. o If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. o If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. o On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. o Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. o Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. o Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. o In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). o The size of a lightwell should be minimized. 18 00f 00 0 .. Â¤ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Existing Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. o Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Â¤ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. 3 Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 19 .. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. o The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. Driveways & Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. o Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway from the street. o Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. o Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. 14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area rather than paving an entire driveway. Using minimally paved tracks will reduce the driveway's visual impact. Consider using a porous paving material to reduce the driveways visual impact. Also consider using modular paving materials for these tracks to provide visual interest along the street. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. 20 000 .. o Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. Large parking areas should be screened from view from the street. Divide large parking lots with planting areas. (Large parking areas are those with more than five cars.) Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature. Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas should be screened from adjacent lots and the street. 21 00 00 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 334 W. Hallam Street- Conceptual Development, Partial Demolition and Variances - Public Hearing DATE: December 12,2001 SUMMARY: This property is a designated landmark and is on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed project involves demolishing an addition on the existing house and rebuilding a somewhat larger addition with an attached garage. The applicant proposes to relocate the house on the site to avoid removing an old, large cottonwood tree. The applicant also requests two FAR bonus variances; one for an exemplary historic preservation proj ect and one as a waiver to the FAR restrictions on the calculation of the garage. APPLICANT: Hayden Connor, owner; represented by Patrick Cashen Architect. PARCEL ID: 2735 - 124 - 23005. ADDRESS: 334 W. Hallam Street, Lot K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) 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.C.5) 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) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC L21 1 L-Li li LA..1,:pq~-* 4-0 6 &-1 LAAÂ°,0 vt : *blstvuotÂ»1,1 1/list-"-1 =1 .. may grant necessary variances after making a jinding 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, and Staff Finding: The proposal is to demolish and replace an existing addition to the house and to build a garage. There are two threshold issues with the project. If the house remains in the current location, there is a large, old cottonwood tree in the way of the proposed addition. The applicant requests permission to either cut down the tree or move the house to accommodate for the tree and the addition. The Parks Department is not willing to let the cottonwood in question be removed. They will allow a basement to be excavated under the existing footprint of the house, but no further expansion in the area that would affect the cottonwood. As there are other alternatives to the placement of a new addition, staff finds that moving the structure is not the best or most appropriate alternative for the preservation of the historic resource. The guidelines state that "A part of a historic building' s integrity is derived from its placement on its site and therefore, its original position is important." Therefore, the proposed plans for the addition are not viable per the Parks Department and design guideline 9.1. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. With regard to rebuilding the existing addition on the north side of the house, staff has determined that only a portion of that addition is modern construction. As shown on the attached 1904 Sanborne map of the property, a 15'x20' portion of the construction at the back of the house is historic and should be further researched and properly preserved. The owner has stated to staff that this area is not intended to be demolished, but that is not clear on the drawings and more of this piece is destroyed by the new garage. Staff recommends that the proposed addition be restudied in light of the restrictions created by the tree and the fact that more ofthe existing construction must be preserved. In regard to the proposed new garage, a separate structure is preferable to one that is attached to the house. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. 1 Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 2 .. HPC FAR Bonus The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot bonus, which is reserved for exemplary projects. This may be an appropriate site for the extra square footage, given the size of the lot and the large, detached "carriage house" structure on the alley, which serves to take some of the bulk away from the historic building, however the project as proposed does not currently meet the design guidelines. If it can be amended accordingly, and there is a successful effort to preserve the character of the property, the bonus could be awarded. Staff acknowledges that the house is in need of repair and the owner is making a substantial financial commitment to this important historic structure. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel propesed for development, and Staff Finding: The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of old and new homes, and a wide variety of architectural styles. 19th century structures throughout the West End have been restored and expanded and an acceptable solution can be found for this project so that this standard will be met. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic signijicance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project as proposed would detract from the historic significance of this home if the building were relocated. This house, the Eugene Wilder House, was built c. 1885. From the National Register nomination, "The Wilder house was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber and may have been built by the Aspen Lumber Company. Wilder was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, along with R. F. Roberts from the mid-1880s to the early 1890s. This business was one of the pioneer Aspen lumber companies established ca. 1880-1882." d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The integrity of the building and the historic landscape could be negatively affected by the project as proposed. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: 3 .. 1. 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. Staff Finding: Staff agrees the partial demolition of the existing 1960's remodel is necessary for the proposed remodel, but the demolition of the historic portion of the addition as mentioned above, is not appropriate. 2. 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, and b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Staff Finding: The applicant has not mitigated the negative impact on the existing historical structure in the proposal as discussed above. VARIANCE FROM THE CALCULATION OF FAR RELATED TO GARAGES Garages are exempt from FAR if they are accessed from an alley when one is available. Because this applicant is choosing to use an existing, not formally permitted driveway off of Third Street, the garage will count in FAR. A variance from this policy, based on hardship, is requested. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Finding: The AACP does not specifically address this issue. The Land Use Code clearly intends to remove garages from the streetscape and to minimize pedestrian/ automobile conflicts created by backing out into a street. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that wiN make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Finding: A garage is not necessary for reasonable use of a parcel. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other pal'cels in the same 4 .. zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shaN consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: There is room available on the site to place a garage along the alley. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and Staff Finding: The applicant has other options to create a garage that complies with the requirements. Although there are other garages that are accessed from streets in the West End, most are historic and they are not exempted from FAR. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards are not met and recommends HPC continue the hearing on conceptual development, partial demolition and FAR bonus requests with the following direction: 1. The remodeling of the 1960's addition needs to take the historical portion of the existing building into consideration. 2. A feasible proposal for the placement of the new addition must be submitted and must comply with the design guidelines. 3. The FAR bonus for the garage will not be granted because the criteria are not met. 4. In order to receive the additional HPC 500square foot FAR bonus, the concerns stated above must be addressed in a manner that successfully preserves this building. RECOMMENDED MoTION "I move to continue the application to a date certain." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated December 12,2001 B. Sanborne map C. Application 5 0 1 06 . 4 0 eou jo 11 4 11 N. 3Flp F.R. ID.H. ST. 50% . 400 - A ?00 310 3l8 i 75' 11 ~2~ 20' 1 74 11 11 K /1/1 11 / 11 -- -1 11 1, .1 Â¢ C1 11 0 R :1 2 1.91 D N 3 Â£ D -, -1-7-1 -L-3 Â£ 8 + N 1 1 0 11 1- 11 - . I *1 d -- 11 11 U 11 2 i-7 --- -.-Fil Al 1~ H 7 c 77 ' 27 toze 1 4 1 _rA 10\ 11 0 1 ,-1 0 4 3127 f t /1/ / 11 LCULL 1 11 - Gl, -42 11 0 /1/ 1 /1,1 1 0 Â£ 0 11 1 Zag foloj 0 - 6-7 0 11 2.1 + 1 43'1 31 7 11 1,1, 1 1 --' It -- Di< E.4 * 11 17 f -8 G 1/ , / I t, r.1 6 11 o l.: , 1 - 0 / 11 A U R. 11 RHII 11 . 11 - li 0- 11 I B v. % 3 11 % 0 S 11 . It 11 40/ 301 u 0 11 M 0- " 311 N.2 4!p rj 11 11 11 11 11 11 400 300 11 - 11 11 Â· C/-2 11 4 11 11 a FF- o.b & I K /1 Â· DJ 11 b F.C. 9-11 11 11 Â¢ Z 0 11 11 2 3 11 - /0 - il -ill--- 11 / 11 1 il P C PE || 11 11 4/ 11 8 11 0 11 4 1l -- 0 1/. 49 Ill L 6 2Â¢4 jj 57 . + 14 P - 1 308 1.~1. .. 'I - SET OF 11X17 DRAWINGS .e t, EXISTING BITE FLAN - 1 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN - 2 EXISTING SECOND FLOOK FLAN - 3 EXISTING SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS - 4 EXISTING NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS - 5 EXISTING ROOF PLAN - 6 PROPOSED SITE FLAW A WITH ON-SITE RELOCATION - 7 FROFOSED SITE FLAN B WITH TREE REMOVAL - 8 FROFOSED FIKST FLOOR PLAN - 9 FKOFOSED SECOND FLOOK FLAN - 10 FKOFOSED BASEMENT FLOOK FLAN - 11 FKOFOSED SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS - 12 FROFOSED NOKTH & EAST ELEVATIONS - 13 FROFOSED ROOF PLAN - 14 FKOFOSED LIGHT WELLS - 15 FROFOSED NOKTH ELEVATION WITHOUT GARAGE - 16 e SOUTHEAST & SOUTHWEBT EXTEKIOK 9KETCHES - 17 NORTHEAST & NOKTHWEST EXTEKIOR SKETCHES - 18 'ts BET OF 24X36 DRAWINGS EXISTING FLOOK FLANS - 19 EXISTING EXTEKIOK ELEVATION9 - 20 FKOFOSED BITE FLAW A & SITE FLAN 5 - 21 FROFOSED FLOOK FLANS - 22 FKOFOSED EXTEKIOK ELEVATIONS - 23 FATKICK CASHEN ARCHITECT 4155 EABT JEWELL AVENUE, #1106 DENVER, COLORADO 80222-4516 303.759.0650 303.759.0852 FAX pcasheri@pcaco.com .. HAYDEN CONNOR PROPERTY HISTORICAL REDEVELOPMENT 334 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 20' ALLEY /57 ; 310 < FROFERTY LINE, ' FENCE /94 612/) 1 BRICK | EXIBTING TWO WALK ~ STORY DWELLING 2 CRABAFFLE LU'. LL 1 11 -4 '1 --------lh 'i to | - 37.0' , 32.8' 1~ .. GRAVEL DRIVE | - 94-it~ 0 0' 1 N . 4 09 - L 031 % I 1 2 IE O ' 1. 1 1 6 EXISTING TWO ~ C ':// 1. ~ lib .0 Iii STORY DWELLING - 8118 dilig | FENCE_~ ~ ~ 1 1 'W FOKCH 20.2 , 1 0 0 ---- , 0 1 1!02 0 2 CKABAFF[a~/2! N tO SFRL~(!E 0 0 37-1 .-Ill.-Ill.-:-'-Ill.-.-. . --4 1 - ~ Â° ~ COTTONWOOD ~ TEE - TYFICAL EDGE OF BTREET PAYING HALLAM STREET ~~ EXISTING SITE FLAW 1"=16' .. C. 1 trjrl -2/1 5>< 3 I ~_ MUDKOOM - KITCHEN f n - _t 1 1 11 -~ 1 49 DINING ROOM Ott LIVING ROOM - A - 1. 11 1 ,--2- FORCH -fk n r Ii UP 1 y 011 FORCH 0 C Rog:M -- O EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~ 1/8'=1'-0" - 0 0 - '-so--1 a BEDROOM C ~ BEDROOM_~:;, Al /1 - _11-, li 2 R 41 ~ STUDY :12 0 1 D ~~BEDKOOM ~ J -1=4 BEDROOM I - -1 2 n= WORTH 0 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR FLAN < 1/8'=1'-0" . 0 . PAINTED FISH - SCALE SHINGLES BRICK CHIMNEYS PAINTED LAF A SIDING WOOD SHINGLES WOOD SHINGLES COLOKED -.-0....- Ga,455 BBB B BB B LITES FLOOR. U.WE - BRACKETS, BE 8.01 Â£1001 8 DENTILS, & FENDANTS Â¤ Â¤ 00 0 0 0 0 FLORR 11[NE - _ -PE!91NALSTRUCTURE _ ____J EXISTING WEST ELEVATION EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8'=1'-0" 1/8"=1'-0" .... 7-77 Â»"2- 1 WOOD SHINGLES Â¥. *r. WOOD SHINGLES a ..tgr=.T.,9XW474?r22>~'- 0 8 0 B FAINTED LAF BIDING ORIGINAL STRUCTURE FREVIOUB ADDITION PREVIOUSADDITION EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXIBTING NORTH ELEVATION 1/8"=1'-0" 1/8"=1'-0" 00000 .... --7 E-- --7 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E- 1 4-12 1 SLOPE | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - EXISTING 1 | CHIMNEYS RIDGE | 1 11/ 1 1 1 1 i 9-12 1 BLOFE 1 1 13 1 0 1 la C 1 -------2 1 942 9-12 I 1 SLOFE SLOPE I 1 phi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4% 2/4 I --1 L LOW BLOFE l--Ill \021 4- FOKCH ROOFS EXISTING FIRST EXISTING SECOND FLOOR ROOF FLAN FLOOR ROOF FLAN 1/8"=1'-0" 1/5 '=1'-0" KIDGE .... 9 4//) ONE ~ EXISTING TWO i I STORY 1 STORY DWELLING il GARAGE I p- 1 ! t< ADDITIQN 1 '1 DRIVEWAY 4 '4 1 * 4.5 22.0' ~ 15.0' ,. 9.5' 0 33.9 Ido HEATED JutÂ»30Â«:34 TWO ETORY ~-1 ili STRIFS - 24%2%2 1 / 14 90/9299 HOT ADDITION // '/,/.,513:4.0*L,.- TU 5 F OIlll 0 .I KEFLACE 'lifil 1U i * ~ PREVIOUS 35555 2-1. |~ 22'>54/ â€žTREE r i ADDITION -j lil l1 L'REMAINS ' ~ 1! .LU 1! WINDOW-> & 0 11 WELL KEMODELED TWO 4 h NE ,Â· i ~ STORY DWELLING WINDOW WELL , | PORTION OF EAST | ~ ~ ~[-- FENCE REMOVED FORCH KEMOVE . BACK TO HERE 10.0'~ . --- FENCE (0700 1 1 Y ES .' 21.0' k 16.0 0. ./ O .-Il./I.I./Ill--Ill.-I- .- .- I ..:.-4 O ) (O 0 ADD LOW IKON FENCE ALONG ~ - C-, STKEET FRONTAGES -- EDGE OF STREET FAVING HALLAM STREET FKOFOSED BITE FLAN - A RELOCATE STRUCTURE ~ TO KEEF TREE BY ADDITION 7 1"=16 THIKD ETKEET ONIAV,1 133319 00 3903 .... (3 (9 11 ONE ~ EXISTING TWO i I ' BTOKY I STORY DWELLING il GARAGE I ~ 11 t< ADDITION I _... \ i.8 7' L 10 r)' ,~ 22.0' 19.4' , 95 7 23.3' HEATED <f< f DRIVEWAY hA TWO BTORY-~ 5TKIFS 9-3- - 44//7,49 9% ADDITION~01-21- 11 ,/ , 1- HOT / LU 7 -,94<57Li<.i':/2 . Tue ,~,/,~ 0 01 ! N LI) .0 0 . 9 oIl A LD ( .I KEFLACE 1U O \ 2 FREVIOUS 9 -~-r oz 10 9% 0~1--[j-57 â€¢L I ADDITION -4- REMOVE ~ l TREE 1. I. 1 - 11 L - 1 11 KEMODELED TWO G li KEMOVE i ~ 7- STORY DWELLING WINDOW - ! SHED 1 WELL wiNDow i ! - , WELL FORCH REMOy t ~ 202 --- FENCE % J' 1 . 42[i - 1 I.--.. LI~El-' CJ 0 21.01 ~0 16.01 f - r . : 11 0 7- _ 077---0:Â·- 46 3 0 0 ADD LOW IRON FENCE ALONG STREET FRONTAGES- EDGE OF STREET FAyING HALLAM STKEET FROFOSED SITE FLAW - 5 TKEE REMOVAL AT EAST ADDITION 8 1"=16 - ONIAVA 133319 30 3903 1 .OF DUFLEX UNIT ~ - 0 0 22'-0" 15'-0" 0 94" . 0 . . r- - 'm e NOTE WITH SITE PLAN B GARAGE GARAGE 4 19 MOVED 4' WEST - - SAME FOOTPRINT 1 ~@tu KITCHE CERT\FlED LE ..1 lAi# + 273 --4 WOODSTOVE % ~37 MUDKOOM BUNKOOM I Eg WINDOW . C-- .- -- - t--1 hi-~ -4 - WELL BELOW ~~~0~ r ' 9-9" L I 4 1 F_ _ -2 1 WINDOW L-- DINING KOOM ~t WELL BELOW LIVING KOOM t = I h : EXISTING FIKEFLACE L KEFAIR FLUE - FORCH F n r r-n~[VII~z 1/ -1 FOKCH O C WORTA 0 FROFOSED FIRST FLOOR FLAN 1/8'=1'-0" .... LINE OF ONE STORY GAKAGE BELOW E-----------7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L_ -6Â« DECOKATIVE DECORATIVE GAS AFFLIANCE F GAS APPLIANCE il 1 0 0 9 u., .. STUDY - L 9 &17 A.~-7 1001 BEDROOM 3 0 E- M- 1 1 O J \: -' DECORATIVE GAG AFFLIANCE - FL-SA . 9KYLIGHT J #------ .J~ BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 === .=9 DECOKATIVE -16== GAS APPLIANCE 101 8ORTH - O FROFOSED SECOND FLOOR FLAN 1/8"=1'-0" *XEM* IL_-1 1-11 -- <4 -... . I. . 4 . I UNEXCAVATED iÂ·. 4 .... 1 - - D Â¥ .7 0 (2 .. . . HATCH W[TH f EQUIPMENT -5~ ACCESS FROM t BEDROOM t ,1 ~SAUNA K FORCH DECK â€ž â‚¬> 1 U 1 - .r I......1 . (:1.3 1 -i li.,~4. t ....1 211 1 WELL EM U I i WINDOW Of- BEDROOM -3 . A KEC ROOM t~. r-u . f'V.:.2 fu'-2 # I -. 2- FOE.18 FROFOSED BASEMENT FLAN ~ 1/8'=1'-0 ... EXISTING BRICK ~i5>r CHIMNEYS WOOD SHINGLES rlerÂ©#Yry Vt WOOD SHINGLES 451<7.2.r-Â¢ Â¥ 1 -Al.* 1 PAINTED LAF 1 EDNG B B B B 0 - i BE]1 B B B m Cij WOOD SHINGLES El=QQR-LiNE_~_ fl m -- - 00 0 01 =-- - -Lial 0 00 00 8 0 - El ~ FLOOK LINE | Â¤Â¤ PAINTED WOOD i I 1 1 DOORS & WINDOWS GARAGE KEFLACEMENT _29*ELS-TRU-(TUREARDITION FKOFOSED WEST ELEVATION FROFOBED SOUTH ELEVATION --- 115"=1'-0" 1/8"=1'-0" Â© . 0 . . FAINTED FISH SCALE SHINGLES 9KYLIGHTS f WOOD SHINGLES , -r' ..4/ I 1 Â· rÂ·Â·Â·rt teÂ· 2*54 w f . -9~Â·,724Â·-,6-- .V... , 47'-Â«Â» 2~Â· .. r w. .. FAINTED LAF 1 - ~ EK) EM SIÂ°LNG i EIB El B b b~ WOOD SHINGLES 011 tv,-xy -par -rÂ·Â·-r'wyÂ»r ' 'Â·1- Â¥'T 8 mÂ®m m ' 00 8 8 00 0 Â¤ FAINTED WOOD NOTE THAT SITE FLAN B DOORS & WINDOWS GARAGE MOVES 4 WEST KEFLACEMENT GARAGE -ORIGINALSTRUCTURE_ADDITION_622.Elâ‚¬L___,~ KEFLACEMENT ADDITION GARAGE ADDITION FROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED NOKTH ELEVATION ---- 1/8"=1'-0" 1/8'=1'-0" - ~ .... r---------7 1 1 1 1 1 6-12 ~ 6-12 1 DECORATIVE GAS AFFLIANCE FLUE 1 SLOPE 2 SLOPE I 1 1 1 1 1 9-12 9-12 | SLOPE SKYLIGPIT ~ 1-12 SLOFE | ~ SLOFE 1 1 1 1 0 1 92 06 1 SLOPE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ If I 1 1 Â· F 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /0 1 1 EXISTING RIDGE I ~ CHIMNEYS 1 I 9-12 1 1/ SLOPE | 1 1 illul li ilii i I 1 1 1 | L11 ~------- -J 1 0 9-12 Q 9-12 EXISTING KOOFS 1 SLOPE w 5LOFE 1 1 m i~ 1 1 1 1 % fy.~ 1 1 1 0 L ----1 L 117 \\ EXISTING ROOFS TO KEMAIN FORrd FROFOSED FIRST Rogia FROFOSED SECOND ~9::~ FLOOR KOOF FLAN O FLOOR ROOF PLAN ~ 1/8 =1'-0'" - 0 W . -- . /0 0 -- -- -- ir Â· -- ---Ill-Iillil-- - --.Ii-I WINDOW WELL | < 1 WINDOW 5-0 WIDE 10-0 5-6 WIDE X 7-0 1 X 6-0 HIGH BASEMENT 1 CEILING HIGH L __-1 HEIGHT -1 -- Il - PROFOBED EAST ELEVATION WITH LIGHT WELL 1/5"=1'-0'1 WINDOW WELL LOCATED AT INSIDE CORNER OF FOUNDATION WITH EXPOSURE TO SOUTH WALL ALSO - SEE BASEMENT FLOOK FLAN . 1 1 5I WINDOW WELL 1 WINDOW 7-0 WIDE 10-0 7-6 WIDE X 7-0 --0 X 6-0 HIGH BASEMENT 1 HIGH CEILING L___J HEIGHT I I.Il .-il - 1..- -I.- --. --- --- - -- -Ill -5,- I- ---- FKOFOSED WEST ELEVATION WITH LIGHT WELL ~ 1/8"=1'-0 0 111 11] 10 3. -~1 1) 11[1 Ill I li lli 1 11 ~ ICl El - M 1 1 1., 11 1 11 11 1 11 11 1 111 11 1 11 Al y i -000[00 0. 0. .T 1 -1 .45 0-4 r . ./ -r' I . ~bgrÂ»r"T ;~ 1 9., . -2 -7 - ~-Â·r 7 Y Â»--r' M ~8 8 8 I . Â¤Â¤ E.E.LAGEMENTADDlnEN FROFOSED NOKTH ELEVATION WITHOUT GARAGE - 1/8"=1'-0" .- ~ . [[0000 .. .-m =. ts - '' ' irÂ°F---~- 7~ , -9-9 - 381 -[~ m j C=- - eketch from eouthweet r-.--:*.----- %*IM .9\ 1 U=L,-LJ Â· - W t- Â«ll' -- 47 -]Eflf-In=t Ant nj eketch from eoutheast ~1 .. 3 1 -- -liE - eketch from northweet / fl E 2 11~ 0 . - : -0 = -- 9/ [L=_fliEIC- Il -- - -1 -- -- eketch from northeaet .. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: -334 \Af . 1)--1 a 1 {a l Â« , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 11,1 7-/oi , 200_ l STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County ofPitkin ) I, E-4 L,l/Ve_5 k ; MO(F (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: r/~t~ Publication ofnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters nN less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of ,200 , to and including the date and time of the public headng. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses ofproperty owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared rio mbre- than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether Such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. At twi (*xuaL--4-3414>dE - nature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged befure me this.20 day Of d-->ov. , 2001'by INA-<--6 1.-a ngz-f-- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 47423/0 1 ,15- 0<I> Notary Public -* 2555~AEAif:" h O : SARAH ~\ /O .....P, ATTACHMENTS: 9 v b COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGIX) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED B Y MAIL . PUBUC NOTICE RE: 334 W HALLAM STREET- HPC CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PARTIAL DEMOLITION, i ON-SITE RELOCATION, VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 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 Hayden ~ Conner, requesting conceptual development ap- proval, partial demolition, on-site relocation, and variances for the property located at 334 W. Hal- lam Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen. The variances requested are c a 500 square foot floor area bonus, a variance ~ from the way that floor area is calculated for ga- ~ rages, and a variance from the "Residential De- sign Standards" in regard to garages and light- 9 wells. 1 For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at ~ the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Develop- - ment Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@c}.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in The Aspen Times on November 24, 2001.(8119) N PUBUC NOTICE .. ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and UAY P P N CoN Nor (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Al,Tb Ric. KE-DeVGDD'MeNT- (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 45 (Series of 1999) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3, APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ /,2 0 5- which is for 5 71 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: By: g-322_ d~ Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director Date: Mailing Address: 444 CRA & sT. ~PE:JVS<. CO 90220 g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 12/27/99 (3096(9-2729 NOV-05-01 06:16 PM 303 322 7368 P.01 -- 0 i i:iyden Connor 144 Grapc Street i ,etiver, CO 80220 3(11.4(, i 9- 2779-Fax-303-322-7360 November 5, 2001 Amy Gutheric HPC -- fax - 970-920-5439 Aspen Amy: Everyone is set for the HPC mt ' on December 12 at 5 PM to review our proposal for 334 West Hallam. Please let me know what I need lo + Â·(, to comply with the various notification I understand that I need to cont:in , u 1 11 Stark for a list of neighbors within 300 feet Con labels for $50.00). Will you be c u i ine a copy ofthc notice placed in the paper, for me to copy and mail to the neigh,rÂ·' 25 days before December 12? Thanks for your hclp, f e Â»7 .. Hayden Connor 444 Grape Street Denver, CO 80220 303-322-7063-Fax-303-322-8794 Cell-303-619-2779 (Confidential office fax - 303-322-7360) April 12,2001 Historic Preservation Commission City Planning Department Community Development Department Aspen, CO 81611 To whom it may concern: My name is Hayden Connor, and I live at 444 Grape Street in Denver, CO 80220. My home telephone number is 303-322-7063, and my cell phone is 303-619-2779. I am the owner of a residence at 334 West Hallam Street -- lots K,L,M, Block 42, City and Township of Aspen, State of Colorado. I am submitting an application for a redevelopment ofthis historic house. There are two representatives authorized to act on my behalf. 1) The primary contact is: Patrick Cashen, Architect, 4155 East Jewell, #1106, Denver, CO 80222-4516, phone - 303-759-0650, fax - 303- 759-0852. 2) The secondary contact is Bill Poss, Architect, 605 East main, Aspen, CO 81611, phone - 970-925-4755, fax - 970-920-2950. Respectfully, Mtns-HPC-appl-ltr-4-12-01 7-01 08:58 AM 303 322 7360 0 0 2%45 Hayden Connor - 444 Orape Street Denver, CO 80220 303-322-7063-Fax-303-322-8794 CEL-303-619-2779 (Confidential office fax-303-322-7360) March 21, 2001 Stephen Ellsperman Parks Department - fax - 970-920-5128 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 334 West Hallam - 80 year old cottonwood tree in back yard. Dear Stephen: In our conversation last week, you expressed your concern for saving this tree if we were to receive HPC permission for a significant development to restore and refurbish the main house. When we bought the house three years ago, the inspection report stated that the foundation was crumbling and would need to bc replaced within 5 years. To replace the foundation, we would like to put in a full basement equal to the existing footprint. We also wish to construct a two.story addition to the kitchen (and second floor bedroom) on the eastern fa~ade, while demolishing a small portion to the north fagade (to the rear of the house) to accommodate a parking pad. I am not sure how close we can come to the tree without damaging the root system, The addition will extend the kitchen by 10 feet, and we propose moving the house 12 feet to the west (towards Third Ave) (to add 2 feet between the foundation and the tree) and 5 feet to the south (towards Hallam). We, too, want to save this tree. When we suggested moving the house at an informal HPC planning meeting, the members were not supportive of this idea. You said you would discuss this issue with the Planning Department and the HPC. We are facing a deadline of April 19 (when a new ordnance comcs into effect reducing the FAR) to submit a completed application. We hope to have everything in place by April 10. Please call me (303-619-2779) if I can answer any questions, or if I can do anything to help. Thanks for your help. Cordially, ec. Amy Guthrie/HPC/Aspen/fax-970-920-5439 Fred Jarman/City Planner/Aspen/fax-970.920-5439 1 /\ .. Memo TO: Amy Guthrie, Aspen Historic Preservation Planner FROM: Louise and Hayden Connor, Owners/Applicants ce. Pat Cashen, Architect, Denver RECEIVED Mitch Haas, Land Planner, Aspen Shane Harvey, Esq. Holland & Hart, Aspen AUb 1 0 Luul Bill Poss, Architect, Aspen ASPEN / 14 1 KIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: 334 West Hallam Street-Conceptual Development DATE: August 10,2002 The Owners/applicants request permission for the following: 1. A two-story addition to the east of the existing kitchen. Design revisions include: A gabled roof. Casement windows. A 12" square post delineating the new addition from the historic building. The west facing porch and wall to remain intact after the demolition of the 1960 add-on. 2. A single-car, off-street garage. Design revisions include: A gabled roof A barn-like garage door An enlarged breezeway of 7.5 feet between carriage house and garage. It takes parking off the street. It is more visually pleasing. A two car off-street parking area exists replacing a 1960's car-port. Off-street garages are common in the West End on corner lots. 3. To position the house 10 feet to the west of its current site Moving the house is allowed if a lot split were requested. 10 feet is not a great amount on a 9,002 square foot lot. The orientation of the house stays the same. It saves the tree per the Park Department's wishes and complies with Amy Gutherie' s August 2000 guidelines. Historical significance of the relationship of the house to the back yard is incorrect per 1904 Sanborn map. Although the owners prefer the changes applied for in the current application, if these changes are not permitted by the Historic Preservation Committee, the owners/applicants will default to the plans which were approved by the Committee in 1988. These plans call for: A two-car, off-street garage; garage is connected to the carriage house and to the main house 1 ECULL,4- A A first-floor sm/oom extension which continued alonglit entire east side of the house, affecting a significant portion of the original, historic structure. The question of whether the approval of the 1988 plan is still authorized revolves around the vested rights issue. The owner submits that the law allows the plans to be reactivated, subject to changes in the Code. As the HPC guidelines are only just that, guidelines, the owner submits that there have been no applicable Code changes which alter the approval of the 1988 plans. Without the authority to make these changes which will greatly enhance the comfort, the safety and the appearance of the house, the owner feels no motivation to invest an additional one- million dollars in the property. In our negotiations with the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee during the past 24 months (8/8/00-8/10/02), we have spent many hours and a considerable amount of money working to understand the perspective of the Committee members and staff to accommodate our plans for the rehabilitation, restoration and preservation of the 334 West Hallam Street property to that perspective. We have consulted with Bill Poss, an Aspen architect who served for several years as the Chairman of the HPC; Pat Cashen, a Denver architect familiar with many Colorado restorations; Mitch Haas, a land planning consultant and former city planner for the City of Aspen; Shane Harvey, an Aspen attorney whose specialty is vested rights and property law, Sarah Otis, a staff member at the Aspen Historical Society , and many Aspen residents who have worked with the Committee regarding similar projects. Minutes of the HPC meetings (December 12,2001 and March 13, 2002) reflect the content and tome of these negotiations, but, when all is said and done, three observations remain crystal clear. 1. The house requires an investment of well over a million dollars to rehabilitate, restore and preserve it. The foundation is crumbling, the plumbing, heating and wiring are defective. The roof must be replaced, and it is badly in need of paint. Our intent is to make the investment so that our house is a City of Aspen asset. The former owners sold the property, in part, because of frustration over differences with the HPC; the house deserves better than a constant turnover of ownership. 2. To invest significant time, energy and money in this restoration which will not "alter the historic building in any way" must be construed as an "outstanding preservation effort", an "exemplary effort", worthy of support from the Committee. Yet we are confused by the differences of an "outstanding restoration effort" and a "substantial financial commitment" (p.5 of Amy's March 13, 2002 Staff Recommendation) and "The bonus is usually reserved for someone making an outstanding restoration effort which they might be doing but it need to go beyond that in order to give a 500 square foot bonus which is a large benefit." (Amy's quote on p.15 of the December 12,2001 minutes). 3. Page 1 ofthe 2000 HPC Guidelines state: "Note that not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. ...We emphasize that these are only guidelines, are not applicable in all cases, and need to be weighed with the practicality of the measure." 2 Recent alterations to Me'design of the proposed addition and g~ e bring the application into compliance with 70 of the 71 guidelines referenced above, as described in Mitch Haas' memo to the Amy of February 22,2002. It appears that the staff and Committee, for whatever reasons, are overly critical of this application, holding it to a higher standard than the Guidelines require, or have been applied in other situations. The recordings of the HPC work sessions in which this application is reviewed reflect no consideration of the call to "balance the guidelines on a case- by-case basis" or to "weigh the practicality of the measure." In conclusion, the owners maintain that the following additions and changes are crucial to their investment: 1. A single-car, off-street garage. 2. Permission to move the house 10 feet to the west. 3. A two-story addition to the east of the existing kitchen. Respectfully submitted, HPC memo-8-10-02 3 . GENERAL WARRANTY DEED MARTA CHAIKOVSKA AND FRANK E. PETERS, whose address is P.O. Box 9698, Aspen Colorado, 81612, for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sell and convey to F. HAYDEN CONNOR, whose address is 444 Grape Street, Denver, Colorado, 80220, the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: Lots K, L, and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen. also known by street and number as: 334 West Hallam, Aspen CO 81611, with all its appurtenances, and warrant the title to the same, subject to and except for: 1. General taxes for 1998 and thereafter payable in 1999 and thereafter. 2. Building and zoning regulations. 3. Any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper, or any valid mining claim or possession held Â·- under existing laws, as reserved by M. G. Miller, County and Probate Judge of Pitkin--2* County, Colorado, in the Deed to Eugene Wilder recorded July 7, 1890, Book 79 at Page -8 13 16. C-CLED -l ALL REFERENCES BEING TO THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. 0 ~ .'7 Signed this First day of December, 199>f 45-8 Marta Chaikovska /-1 --' Â«t.9/ 30 \Diri O Frank E. Peters OK* 3 om STATE OF COLORADO ) Z C SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN J The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / day of December, 1998, by MARTA CHAIKOVSKA and FRANK E. PETERS. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: [Seal] ~4153$3745 4 1 Notary Public 2 1 1 #- E i : 2(* RECKLES ,/C, 'GÂ·... < OF CO\, 14 Conm Expires 07-15-2001 425132 TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 12/04/1998 lili'11111111111111111111'll"ill""1""11111111111111 425132 12/04/1998 09:30A WD DAVIS SILVI 1 of 2 R 11.00 D 240.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 40< 6/2 P>04/ .. EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PARr OF THE WARRANTY DEED 1. Any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar ar oopper, ar any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws, as reserved by M. G. Miller, County and Probate Judge of Pitkin County, Colorado, in the Deed to Eugene Wilder recorded July 7, 1890, in Book 79 at Page 16. 111'111 lilli 111111111111111111111/111111111 lilli lili lili 425132 12/04/1998 09:30A WD DAVIS SILVI 2 of 2 R 11.00 D 240.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 'r,A,tr<T~ .1>â€¢ r - Â· 7.. gi .Â·. y j th ...1. . r - i' I /41 t~32 '~~,Â· ,(Al' 4 1. 1 - " 4 4 4 *1Â£-9. f.1 ' ' Â·Â·11 â€¢, ~,Â· ~v,zÂ°*rÂ·2:11<11,-~,EDÂ» . ,-13;@â€¢2/4, . ~<,~.fkt 1 t:Â·-gl. Â·Â· 1 . ....4- .... *- --V* -- , '. 4 PE,/Ir.,/t 4[ 4.-1 H.f~ 7, . n '-Tgut , 4 / 0 */ p -rt'C,1 ' r &0,1 2 .4, 1 ' .PIC -' i * 23 . 3\ Eff i -IC (.4 "t r , 1. 'Â· E â€¢1 f J. / , 0,1 ,-,8,1 - . M , .3 1 1},1 1 L ,~-01 'Â·1'3 17 )13,r-~ '1 $ -0. # A , h \A A // It j i}j," i * j ))Al J .lir j ) 4 ' tr~ ) tif r . ~ ~ r 1 1/ 2. 6 04 ./91 :& C C 7, , 1 4 "41)}phpil Â¥> J n tf JA\* irÂ»Â· 1, I,f j),>j ~ L. \ i 1 I. i I J 1 ' 7 1. f 1- ...: i ~ >Ch 4,/1/,4/7 j,j â€ž (717,1/j///4/cy) //' 9/ cy,7 4 -0.-h 9 f :1 â€¢ 1 f. ! o /3 94Â·i->9f///bf . i Â£ 1 i '' t 11(:)/)?Vi}0 4 ,(:9')41 2(f .,t f )1,1, j) 1 \\24- 3> ' p fit i 1 . 4, 1 L 1, r' i i ..1 + 1 1 4t Z i 1,1) f 1 7 ..)99 10.,l 1, . C)'U. ./.4 r. r ..t I - , .:.4 '...... .Â· Lt-'tric: :1440*-'1 -# &1 ; 4 ...29-.Â·Â·: . I ':7 7 s.&*.tfic ' *- L '9*. L :t, 0 e .32 -1 397,7 ..9 4 VA' 0-1/ . &0403 ,: I . 4 . 33. .. .. Form 1756 Commitment Face Page COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land descr ibed or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Scliedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent indorsement. This Commitment ispreliminarY to the issuance o f such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obli gations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its ByÂ·Laws, This Comnitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." First American Title Insurance Company a 914.K PRESIDENT ' ATTEST /al/i A SECRETARY I j n J.-x - BY Xb.Â·,co,6,4541Â¢1 7929 COUNTERSI GNED .. ll 11 d 11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED BY COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 0' Â§10-11-122 Colorado Revised Statutes Â§10-11-122 requires that"every title insiirance agent or title insurance company shall li provide, along with each title commitment issued, a statement disclosing the following information: n Cal That Ihe subject real properly may be located in a special taxing district; r-14 (b) That a certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained trom the 11 H county lreasurer or the county treasurer's authorized agent ?lf (c) That information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be , 1 obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder or the County Assessor." ' 71 11 11 lilli,1 lit .:1 i i PR li 1:j Iii 11' COMMITMEN1/ SCHEDULE A HAYDEN CONNOR 444 Grape Street Denver, CO 80220 1. Effective Date: February 14, 2001 at 7:00 AM Order No. 406791 -C JM/es Customer Reference Connor 2. ALTA Owner's Policy Amount: $ Proposed Insured: A BUYER TO BE DETERMINED 3. ALTA Loan Policies Amount: $ Proposed Insured: Proposed Insured: Amount: $ 4. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: FEE SIMPLE and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: F. HAYDEN CONNOR issued by: Owner's Premium: $ THE TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, INC. Lender's Premium: $ 517 E HOPKINS AVENUE Add'l Lender Chg: $ ASPEN CO 81611 Add'l Charges: $ FX 970-920-4052 Tax Certificate: $ PH 970-920-4050 DENVER 303-595-8463 Endorsement Chg: $ TBD Charges: $ 150.00 TOTAL CHARGES: $ 150.00 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY .. COMMITMENT Plat id No. 1-1 SCHEDULE A (continued) Order No. 406791 -C 5. The land referred to in the Commitment is covering the land in the State of Colorado, County of PITKIN , described as follows: Lots K, L, and M, Block 42, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY .. REQUIREMENTS (continued) Order No. 406791 C- NOTE: Corporations that do not maintain a permanent place of business in Colorado, and individuals, estates and trusts that do not reside in Colorado may be subject to a Colorado withholding tax on the sale of real property in the amount of $100,000.00 or more. The withholding tax will be the smaller of two percent (2%) of the sales price or the net proceeds from the sale of such real property. The tax will be withheld by the title company and remitted to the Colorado Department of Revenue unless the seller executes an affidavit confirming the exemption of the transfer from this withholdingÂ·requirement. NOTE: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the Clerk and Recorder's Office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one-half inch. The Clerk and Recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform. The requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. THE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT AN ADDITIONAL SEARCH OF THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER FOR GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO FOR JUDGMENT LIENS, TAX LIENS OR OTHER SIMILAR OR DISSIMILAR INVOLUNTARY MATTERS AFFECTING THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES, AND TO MAKE SUCH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY, AFTER THE IDENTITY OF THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE COMPANY. NOTE: THIS COMMITMENT IS ISSUED UPON THE EXPRESS AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICABLE PREMIUMS, CHARGES AND FEES SHALL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT IF THE APPLICANT AND/OR ITS DESIGNEE OR NOMINEE CLOSES THE TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED BY OR OTHERWISE RELIES UPON THE COMMITMENT, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND SCHEDULES OF RATES ON FILE WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 4 .. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Order No. 406791 -C Section 1 REQUIREMENTS THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH: Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to wit: 1. Deed from F. HAYDEN CONNOR to A BUYER TO BE DETERMINED. NOTE: Duly executed real property transfer declaration, executed by either the Grantor or Grantee, to accompany the Deed mentioned above, pursuant to Article 14 of House Bill No. 1288 - CRS 39-14-102. 2. Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent either (a) that the "real estate transfer taxes" imposed by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979), and by Ordinance No. 13, (Series of 1990), of the City of Aspen, Colorado have been paid, and that the liens imposed thereby have been fully satisfied, or (b) that Certificates of Exemption have been issued pursuant to the provisions thereof. 3. Release by the Public Trustee of PITKIN County of the Deed of Trust from F. Hayden Connor for the use of Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation, to secure $1,800,000, dated November 30, 1998, and recorded December 4, 1998, at Reception No. 425133. 4. Release by the Public Trustee of PITKIN County of the Deed of Trust from F. Hayden Connor for the use of Robert A. Scofield, Custodian for the benefit of Bailey H. Connor under the Colorado Minors Transfers to Minors Act, to secure $300,000, dated July 30, 1999, and recorded September 29, 1999, and recorded - at Reception No. 436075. A CERTIFICATE OF TAXES DUE LISTING EACH TAXING JURISDICTION SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY TREASURER OR THE COUNTY TREASURER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT PURSUANT TO 1983 C.R.S., 39-1-102 (14.5). (Continued) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY I -i .. THE CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 Phone: 925-2620 bC6C Customer's Phone Order No. No. D{.ire._.'~//'3, 1'4--C t Narne ~4Â·L<~U -- CJ Address SOLD BÂ¥ CASH C. O. D. CHARGE ON ACCT. ~ MOSE, RETD PAID 03' 1 Quantity DESCRIPTION 1 PRIC Â£ 1 1-WOUL, 1 / Ck'7LC/Z,6 Â£,1.-il.,-FrAL /L -t /10- 1 9/ / 1 1 1 1 /4,2 -O 2 4 1 ,<224% Y l 2 ki k, Â· 3,,45 /.. r I APT,hI .4.. Lrk h . - 1- 1 1 TOTAL 3 1 All claims and returned goods bA}IST be a companied bv thic bill. l} I. 010104 Rec'd by <~--Â·-(-- j~rd/l:-1:'.1-- - --- - arc o a 1 '._1110/16' C lf-HI f-1 INDEPENDENCE PRESSING ASPEN CÂ¢, 8,6%1 4 1 .. aa REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT LICENSE -- -:(':, C 1 (. fl'< 1 (((1 {r =d=-1-7-1-1-7-7-3-1-7-7-1----377n-Â·n-7-7-1 ~ COUNTY RECORDING DATA: RECEPTION NUMBER: BOOK NUMBER: PAGE NUMBER: - -7-r---7,--r-,Aff.-(-1-rv-r-n-,r--1.-71,-mn-9-nnn-,-1---:-.1--1---:nnn Â·Â·,ETRUCT,'ONS: COMPLET,E THE FOLLOWING AS IT APPLES TO . u VOUR Rpon,2 THIS LICENSE IS FOR: (CHECK ONE) 1 12 TEMPORARY SHORT TERM OCCUPATION OF PUBLIC ROW FROM TO 3- TEMPORARY, PERPETUATED UNTIL REVOKED BY THE CITY K TEMPORARY FOR PRE-EXISTED CONDITION AND PERPETUATED UNTIL REVOKED BY THE CITY This Agreement made under this license and entered into this j > day of /~pl.1.2 , 200 L . by and ~ herween the CITY OF ASPEN. Pitkin County, Colorado. hereinafter referred to as "ASPEN" and ' 2 WAY?EN CONINÂ©2 al l~~ Cl Â©CAPE 5-Deâ‚¬*21-, -Desyâ‚¬:32, cO 3-02-zED :Nu,[ Fii:I N 11'eJ Prui' Lcul Nt/unK AcylicÂ·2., i hereinafter referred to as "Licensee", \WHERE.AS. Licensee is the owner of the following described properties located in the City of Aspen. , 2 Pirkin County, Colorado: ~ Street Address: 33 9 Li/2-75 T 4,9-cz W /11 Lecal Address 4 OTS Ki 4 + ~1 - 82 Dad 4 2 VHEREAS, said properties abut the following described public righICS)-of-wav' 3RD ; AALLAM AND ALLsy HHERE.AS. Licensee desires to encroach upon said right-of-way for the following purposes and as E shown and described in Exhibit ".4 ", attached to this License: G*/ST/NG 1)21 1/G:WAY 60198 ZAR.EGATIOIL' 73/Ta# . \ \I HERE.AS. Section 21.04.050 of City of Aspen Municipal Code delegates the authority to the City Engineer to grant encroachment licenses, WHEREAS. ASPEN agrees to the grant of a private license of encroachment as built subject zo certain i conditions. ~ THEREFORE, in consideration of the- mutual agreement hereinafter contained, ASPEN and Licensee covenant and agree as follows: 01. A revocable license is hereby granted to Licensee to occupy, maintain and utilize the above described portion of public right-of-way for the purposes described. 2 02. This license is granted for a specific use and within a specified term as checked above, subject to being terminated at any time and for any reason at the sole discretion of the City Engineer of the City of.Aspen. , 03. This license shall be subordinate to the right o f ASPEN to use said area for any public purposes. 04. Licensee is responsible for the maintenance and repair o f the public right-of-way, together with improvements constructed therein, which ASPEN, in the exercise o f its discretion, shall determine to ! be necessary to keep the same in a safe and clean condition. The Licensee shall obtain right-of-way and Building Permit as required by the City for ally work to be performed in the public right-of-way 0 0 '1 with design approvals for such work obtained from the City Engineering Depanment. Licensee agrees to join any improvement district formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in and [o tile public right-of-wav. , Unless the properry that is the subject of this license agreement is covered by a homeowners ..nsurance policy. Licensee shall at all times during the term hereof, carry public liability insurance for [he benefit of the City with limits of not less than those specified by Section 24-10-114, C.R.S.. paTently S 150,000 per person and S600,000 per occurrence) as may be amended from time to time. I naming the City as '51dditional Insured". 1 4 Do. Licensee shall maintain said public liability insurance coverage in full force and effect during the [erm o f this License and shall furnish the City with a most current certificate o f such coverage c. idencing its validity. All insurance policies maintained pursuant to this agreement shall contain the Following endorsement:, "lt is hereby understood and agreed that this insurance policy may not be canceled by the surety until thirty (30) days after receipt by the City, by registered inail, of a written notice of such intention to cancel or not to renew." The Licensee shall show proof ofthis insurance to the City before this agreement is filed. 47, Licensee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City o f Aspen. its officers. employees. insurers. ind sel Ansurance. from and against all liability, claims. and demands. on account o finjury. loss. or inmage. including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury. dearh. DroDertv loss or 1.linages. or any other loss of any kind whatsoever. which arise out of or are in any manner :opulected with this license, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is , riaimed zo be caused in whole or part by the act. omission. error. professional error. mistake. n.:gligence. or other fault of licensee. Licensee agrees to investigate. handle. respond to. and to provide defense for and defend against. any such liability. claim or demands at the sole expense of ~ i the licensee or. at the option of the City of Aspen, licensee agrees to pay City of .Aspen or reimburse Citv of Aspen for the defense costs incurred by the City of Aspen in connection with. any such , I liability, claims. or demands. [-he licensee also agrees to bear all other costs and expenses reiated thereto, including courT costs and i .ittorney fees. whether or not any such liability. claims. or demands alleged are groundless. false or : i fraudulent. 03, This license may be terminated by Licensee at any time and for any reason following delivery of a I Writtert notice of Licensee's intent to cancel. ASPEN may terminate this license at any i time and for any reason. Upon termination, Licensee shall at Licensee's expense, remove any improvements or encroachments from said property. The property shall be restored to a condition w nitisfactory to ASPEN. 09. 7nis license is subject to all stare laws, the provisions of the Charter of the City of Aspen as it now exists or may hereafter be amended, and the ordinances of the City of .Aspen now in effect Or those ' .which may hereafter is adopted. 1 u. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to prevent Aspen from granting such additional licenses or Droperty interests in or affecting said public property as it deems necessary. 1 L The conditions hereo f imposed on the granted license of encroachment shall constitute covenants running with the land, and binding upon Licensee, their heirs. successors and assigns. 1 2. in any legal action to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees. i :f. li- the structure for which this license was issued is removed for any reason. Licensee shall not con[1Ilue to rebuild in the public right-of-way. The public right-of-way is for the general public benefit, and i[ is not for occupation or construction of encroachments. -. The licensee waives any and all claims against the City of Aspen for loss or damage to the t improvements constructed within the encroachment area. 1 5 The Licensee clearly understands the following actions of Licensee or higher agents and employees r shall automatically terminate and cancel this agreement: a j Discontinuation of insurance coverage b)Change of ownership or alteration ofusefrom the original specific use in encroached area c,Restrietion of.ASPEN or its agents and contractors from access to its public land linder the encroached area not occupied by a previously constructed building. Under these circumstances, the Licensee shall restore the right-of-way under the encroachment to its original or better conditions immediately. ~ iN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties executed this agreement at ASPEN the day and year firSI :1 written. ,~% ~24edrz- ~ (Licensee) THE FOLLOWING SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY.4 NOTARY PUBLIC: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. 1 County of Pitkin ) 1 -Flie foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 1 8+A dav oY Apri/ .*L.by l.la Y Ckn (ton nof (Licensee). u'l-ENI~IY HAND A~p FFICIAL SEAL. 8 i CHERVE. â€¢~ ~ 4 kiyUPÂ®nisÂ¥1**pire*gli - /5 -04 4440 _ Ilcop.94...052221,9enG, Atpe.huf o RAL It 0& dp Ovag ==-771-Din-3nnin-nninnn-3 71--7 (DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE, FOR CITY USE ONLY) ' APPROVAL CONDITIONS (Ustif any): CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ; By: NICK.Â·\DEH, City Engineer 4 .ATTEST: DATE: KATHRYN S. KOCH, City Clerk f.wi./W 1 11 1 r- ..1 - ~ 1 U. C \ G/. 01 k 1 11 4 4 07 " ~ - '-TW 1. 4\\\ yÂ§Â§ 1\\1 \1 \...1 1 '. N . \ 801,9414:, Wil X Â· \ 711.r.. 3 lr. . .. i. .1 S J. \ h I \\ \ fl 1 1 1 . I t..1 1 6 ; I u 1 + h.1 / 41 ~ i ~ ' \ 1 .,1 XI I I . A 1 L 1 90 1. 14, ez\ 1 1 11 1 1 1 ' faw C.Ochâ€¢A /1 \Â· M \ 1 Cihri,NOD t, u 1 \ 1 1. 3 B! 41.-01 --- A -111 I mt- ?t' 1 \\ .\i?? -1: / 94# V * 1 ! 1,1 f (r-lit. 7 1 , .T (5\ 1 )\ 1 1 j 1 1 li y j j .: f 2-0 1 0\0 j nO go i " t'nal.7 -*.'1"......-fÂ· ' i n 1, 0 1 , ~t ) 91 Ld ---- 0- r I * C ' h b Le,b *9 i <*<I r 1 : 1 : 19 1 E, 2 , 6 U 1 L (-,-,1 1 . . O S -- - - ---- / l - . 1 Coloot , 1 - 1 .64,00 .1,1 N < C 00 iÂ«p , I <t ' , 1 J r 0 , ) 1 \11 , 2 4 4Â§ l. <+ 0 Â§2 L Â£1 1,(i 3 , 0 ' ------ - , Al u -4- ia ,-1 Fiuw- , 4 : 4 e --k - I .. FRM--9,EEME, \ C Â·1 ' 0 1 -1-134 1.9 c -T.>j 1 L. 1 1. 9 1 Â¥11 C .O - .1- ' Skr r le 3 . .. b 09,94 484 , tool Li -' 44 -VELOPMENT HAYDEN CONNOR PROPERTY HISTORIC REDEVELOPMENT 334 WEST HALLAM STREET Patrick Cashen Architect 4155 East Jewell Avenue, #1106 Denver, CO 80222-4516 303-759-0650 303-759-0852 FAX Page 1 0 . ATTACHMENT 3 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All development applications must include the following information. (Section 26.304.030): 1. Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant's name, address and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on the behalf of the applicant. Owner's Letter - Table of Contents item 3. 2. The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development. Owner's Letter - Table of Contents item 3. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate from a Title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts, and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right for the Development Application. Current Certificate from Title Insurance Company - Table of Contents item 5. 4. An 81/2' x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. Vicinity Map - Table of Contents item 8. 5. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. 11 x17 drawings 7 & 8; 24x36 drawing 21 - Table of Contents items 7.d. & 7.e. 6. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado, showings the current status of the parcel including the topography and vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Director if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) Draft Plat - Table of Contents item 9. 7. A written description of the proposal and a explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Written Description & Responses to Requirements - Table of Contents item 10. 8. Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. None requested thus far. Page 2 .. ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW All applications for conceptual review must include the following information: 1. A site plan and survey showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteristics. 11 x17 drawing 1 & Draft Plat - Table of Contents items 7.d. & 9. 2. The conceptual selection of major building materials to be used in the proposed development. Project Overview - Table of Contents item 10.a. 3. If applicable, a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and/or the character of the neighborhood. Project Overview - Table of Contents item 10.a. 4. Scale drawings of all elevations of any proposed structures, including a roof plan. 11 x17 drawings 12,13 & 14; 24x36 drawing 23 - Table of Contents items 7.d. & 7.e. 5. Without adding excessive costs to the applicant,a visual description of the neighborhood context through at least one of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models, or streetscape elevations. Photographs - Table of Contents item 7.c. Page 3 .. PROJECT OVERVIEW EXISTING CONDITIONS This property is at the northeast corner of 3rd and Hallam Streets with a site area of 9,002 sf. There are large cottonwoods on the site and more along the street frontages. Constructed in 1890, the Eugene Wilder Residence is a classic example of early Aspen architecture with a two story front polygonal bay accented with colored glass transom windows on both floors. Lap siding, fish scale shingles in the gables, finely detailed brackets with pendants, and small scale dentils complete the exterior trim. The roof is wood shingles with brick chimneys. A two story addition was constructed prior to 1961 to the north. It varies substantially from the original character with a large low slope roof and an assortment of window sizes and shapes. It is also compromised by having portions of the addition second floor lower by 24" from the original, making the window alignment and wall heights even more disparate. A separate two story dwelling with basement was built in 1990 on the northwest corner of the site. Interior remodeling of the house and addition has occurred over the years. The street elevations of the original structure are essentially intact, and the extent of the east wall is clearly visible even though the addition wall is in the same line. Settlement of the foundation coupled with decay in the wood members close to the ground has left the structure with uneven floors, wall bulges, and other signs of distress. Heating is uneven with a combination of electric baseboard, electric ceiling units, and limited hot water baseboard. An inspection report from August 1998, table of contents item 11, details the condition of the structure. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A complete renovation of the main structure is planned; no work is contemplated on the second dwelling. A. Replace the foundation entirely with a full basement and structural repairs to the framing. B. Preserve and repair the original exterior materials and elements. C. Replace the addition, with a slightly modified footprint, and align the floor levels; provide a sympathetic exterior character with matching materials. D. All new interior systems and finishes. E. Add an attached single car garage. Two sites plans are presented recognizing the existence of a cottonwood tree in the middle of the east yard. Site plan (A) proposes to move the structure to the west ten feet to allow an addition to be built and maintain the tree. Site plan (B) portrays keeping the structure in its present location with the addition encompassing the tree; removal of the tree would be necessary in this scheme. Page 4 0 . ATTACHMENT 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS No approval for any development in the "H" Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all the following standards are met: 1. 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 a 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 allowable floor area by up to 500 sq. ft., or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to 5%, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. The proposed project respects the character and massing of the original structure by designing the replacement addition to be secondary in these areas. -lower roof line (within height limitations) -maintain existing principal roof pitch on the addition but with smaller gables Additionally, these aspects of the parcel are maintained: -no change in front or rear setbacks; side yard setback increased with Osage relocation -preserve the original exteNor materials and extend them onto the addition, as well as keeping the new window proportions the same as the original -preserve in their entirety the street frontage elevations of the original structure as well as the east side gable -allow the three dominant gable ends of the original structure to be easily distinguished from the addition Combining all these attributes on the site results in a very sensitive design which qualifies for the 500 sq. ft. bonus. 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development; The scale and massing of the project maintains the street experience of the neighborhood while replacing the previous addition with a compatible structure. All four sides of the development have received specific design attention to complement the original architecture. Page 5 .. 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels, By addressing the west, east, and north sides of the parcel with a sensitive replacement addition, the adjacent parcels are actually enhanced. The extent of the original residence can readily be understood and is supported by the replacement addition. 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. The proposed project removes the previous addition which is perceived to be non contributory to the parcel. Careful offsets in the plan and roof design has created a much more livable structure while respecting the original personality of the residence. Page 6 .. ATTACHMENT 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS Standards for review of on-site relocation. No approval for on site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: b. 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 On site relocation preserves the large cottonwood in the east yard while permitting a significant improvement in the functionality of the first floor plan. Moving the structure closer to 3rd Street will generate a more substantial corner presence and a solid architectural anchor for the block. c. 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 To be provided. d. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department, 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. This bond will be posted should the relocation be approved. Standards for review of Danial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: a. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historical significance of the parcel The previous addition intended to be removed degrades the original architecture and was constructed without regard for the quality of the original design. Floor level alignments, window proportions, and roof slopes were ignored. These elements have been given careful consideration in the replacement addition. b. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: Page 7 .. (1) Impacts on the historical significance of the structure of structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions The original street frontages are maintained and highlighted by the replacement addition. No significant features are removed and the east wall gable, currently compromised, is set apart from the replacement addition. 2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. The replacement addition acknowledges the integrity and charm of the original structure. Page 8 .. VARIANCES The variances requested are as follows: a. Variance from Residential Design Standards. 26.410.040 (C)(1) and Alley Access: 26.410.040(C)(2)(b) - garage must be set back 10' from front facade of house. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE: Standards shou/d simp/yandsuccinct/y identify why, if granted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or to be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. A garage placement on this corner lot was made difficult by the construction of the second dwelling unit in 1990. Placed on the northwest corner, this structure takes the space where a garage would normally be placed on this parcel. The only available non street position for a garage is the northeast corner where a 500 sq. ft. building would present an atypical arrangement of two large secondary structures on the alley. By attaching the one story garage to the house on the 3rd Street side, the open space normally associated with the alley is preserved. The attached garage could be viewed as a subordinate structure to the main house and inflects as a one story element between the two story dwellings. The driveway is placed on the short dimension of the block on this corner lot, mitigating its impact away from the predominant street frontage. b. Variance from the dimensional requirements of the code: Section 26.575.020 states: For any dwelling unit which can be accessed from an alley or private road entering at the rear or side of the dwelling unit, the garage shall only be excluded from floor area calculations up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit if it is located on said alley or road. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE (Section 26.314.040) /n order to authorizeavariance fromthe dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure The proposed location for the garage is on the short dimension of the block, away from the predominant frontage of Hallam Street. It is only 308 sq. ft. 2. Literal enforcement and interpretation of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district. and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: Page 9 .. a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant The second dwelling unit construction in 1990 preceded the applicant"s ownership of the property. Its location has created a unique situation for this corner parcel. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Note that there are other off street garages across 3rd Street and in the immediate neighborhood. Page 10 .. STATEMENT OF THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The efforts of this project will replace the addition with a structure in keeping with the original character of the residence, but respecting its integrity in time. Particularly, roof lines of the addition have been designed to maintain views to the original gable end walls and to be lower than the original ridge line. Window proportions have been affirmed and matching wall materials are specified. Structural repairs, foundation replacement, and interior amenities will assure that the structure will be stable and easily maintained for continued use , enjoyment, and contribution to the historic streetscape. This street corner receives a high volume of pedestrian traffic in the summer and this project will be a noticeable asset to the streetscape. Page 11 .. RESPONSE TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The proposed work respects the original site orientation and setbacks. An existing 6' fence along Hallam Street will be removed opening up views to the backyard from the street. A low open iron fence will be placed along the street frontages at the property line. The form of the replacement addition has been carefully considered to permit the recognition of the original house form. This has been accomplished with wall offsets and roof design. A variance is requested for the garage access from 3rd Street and a dimensional variance if site plan (A) is approved. No windows exist in the exterior walls between nine and twelve feet. One basement window light well is proposed on the 3rd Street frontage. This location is unavoidable due to a corner lot and the separation required between the two basement egress windows required by the building code. The other light well is on the southeast side but well back from the street. Exterior wall materials are the same on all exposures with exposed concrete foundation and painted wood siding, wood windows and wood trim. Page 12 .. RESPONSE TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES Chapter 6 - Architectural Details Nearly all of the original exterior materials are present in a sound or repairable condition. The two story south bay was restored in 1965 and remains in very good condition. The west porch will need to be dismantled but the material will be reinstalled in a similar arrangement. The use of replacement materials is expected to be minimal. At some point in time, a cold roof was was placed over the original roof surface. This setup will be maintained on the replacement addition and gutters added. Chapter 9 - Building Relocation & Foundations Replacement of the foundation is essential to stabilize the structure and allow a thorough renovation. As the site currently has negative drainage toward the structure, the new floor level will be raised slightly, to be determined by a detailed topographic survey of the historic drainage patterns. The original foundation is concrete so the exposed portion of the replacement will be the same. The proposal to relocate the structure ten feet to the west is solely to preserve the cottonwood tree in the middle of the east yard. The Hallam Street setback and building orientation are unchanged. Two basement window light wells are proposed; the historic grade relationship to the first floor level puts the actual windows completely below grade. Chapter 10 - Building Additions The recent previous addition is perceived to be non-contributing to the historical character and is intended to be removed. The design of the replacement structure will use similar exterior materials and matching roof slopes as the original. Being lower than the original ridge, the addition roof is not competing with the strong line of the original ridge. Eave height is maintained on the addition. A "flaf' roof over the east addition will isolate the original east gable from the addition roof. Any other roof over this portion of the addition would compromise the independence of this shingled gable. The replacement addition will preserve the historic alignment of the Hallam Street frontage. OTHER ITEMS The concrete driveway strips leading to the proposed garage are intended to be heated. If the garage construction is denied, these heated driveway strips would lead to a heated concrete pad for parking two vehicles. Page 13 : WI Â£'3011 BLI)(~-[20111.-;,. -F,41176, INI. 9-1.': .E 'Â·40. : 370'39.e-5 At.2 7. 19 1998 09 : 1 BPI' HOME INSPECTION REPORT WILSON BUILDING CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: August 19, 1998 INSPECTION DATE: August 10,1998 CLIENTS: Hayden and Louise Connor PROPERTY LOCATION: 223 W. Hallam St., Aspen Purpose and Exclusions The inspection was essentially visual; it is not intended to be technically exhaustive, The identification of "environmental hazards" such as, asbestos, EMFs, lead, and radon is beyond the scope of the inspection. No equipment, items or systems were dismantled, The purpose of the inspection was to identify major problems or deficiencies apparant from a visual inspection of the readily accessible areas of the included systems excluding latent and concealed defects and defidencies. If evidence of a problem was encountered that may require additional analysis or the opinion of a specialist, it will be so recommended in this report. Conclusions reported gre objective, professional opinions based on observation and experience. This repoM is not Intended to be a warranty or guarantee, expressed or Implied, of adequacy or performance of Structures, Systems, or their component parts. Nor is this a report of compliance or certification for past or present governmental codes or regulations of any kind. Site Observations ORIENTATION The subject site is a corner lot bordered by W. Hallam Street to the south, N. Third Street to the west, and an alley to the north. Driveway access to the site !5 provided from N. Third Street. There are two buildings on the site. Both buildings are currently residential uses - a principle residence and a guest house. The length of the principle residence is oriented in a north-south direction The guest house is located north of the principle residence, along the alley, oriented in an east-west direction. The principle residence ts the focus of this report. LANDSCAPING Site vegetation includes aged cottonwoods, mature aspen and blue spruce, and established crabapple trees: lilac shrubs; lawn, and gardens Plantings appear to be suitea for their locat,on and established. Site vegetation appears to be well suited for the location, generally healthy, and well maintained. 1 FRaÂ·1 : WI 1501 1 EL[1.,.~IMJSLLTIRIJT.. I '~I. El-IOAE '10Â· 9709279345 Aug. 19 1998 09: 1991 PC2 A single cottonwood tree - the easteily one along W. Hallam St. - appears to be deteriorating in health. Cottonwoods have a life expectancy of approximately 80 - 100 years, and many of those that line the streets of Aspen have reached that age, It is likely the deterioration of this particular tree is age related. Treea along the streets are typically within the public right-of-way, and are maintained by the City of Aspan There is e mature cottonwood located close to the building in the eaat yard - a practice which is generally discouraged. A dose proximity can affect both the tree and the building. In this case effects appear to be limited. SITE DRAINAGE The natural topography of the area slopes gently to the northeast. Site grading generally resembles the natural topography It does not appear the buildings will be affected by slte drainage. An irrigation ditch flows south to north near the west boundary of the property. It does not appear tho ditch will have any direct affect on the existing buildings, but during irrigation season local groundwater (water table) levels rise significantly. PERIMETER GRADE Perimeter-grade controls are essential to limit the long-term effects of site drainage on a building A "positive grade", which directs surface drainage away from the building, is desirable at the perimeter. A positive grade also directs roof drainage away from foundations of buildings without gutters Flat, or "negative" grades, which direct surface or roof drainage toward the building, are potential problem areas. Negative-grade conditions wore noted along the west, exterior wall; on the patio along the north, exterlor wall; and st isolated locations around porches on the south side of the building. Otherwise, perimeter grade is generally flat. There are no gutters on the building, and grade is depressed along the "drip line" of the roof, When il rained during the inspection, it became obvious thal roof drainage contributed to the condition. isolated ground depressions located around the porches may have been created by tunneling animals. The building perimeter has evidently been exposed to water for a long time, Moss is growing along the west exterior wall. Rain and snow runoff from the roof, and lawn irrigation are likely water sources that could sustain the moss in this semi-arid climate, Efflorescence - accumulations of white mineral-deposits + was observed on the concrete-b:ock foundation wall along the north side of the crawl space. It is a tell tale of periodic seepage. (The mineral deposits are left behind when water that seeps through the wall evaporates.) The long-term water exposure has likely affected the building considfiring perimeter grade conditions. Typical effects include basement/crawl-space dampness, wood decay, frost heave and soil erosion, which can lead to foundation settling. 2 . 1 DPO I : WI 19011 B'_LIG. CONS'_LTH,111. 11Â·41 PHORE NO. : 97093%.8 45 Auo. 19 1998 09:13Pll Pe3 To prevent more problems from developing, a positive slope is recommended around the entire perimeter, Slopes of at least 1 Inch per foot, for a minimum of 6 to 10 feet, are generally effective. Paved areas, like the patio, need only slope 1/4 inch per foot to drain effectively. Site Improvements DRIVEWAY The driveway is gravel covered. It appears to be In satisfactory condition PATIO The patio along the north side of the building is sectioned concrete. The patlo surface and concrete sections appear to be in satisfactory condition. As mentioned previously, though, sections along the building have settled, creating a reversed slope. It js common for concrete placed along a building, over foundation backfill, to pitch toward the building as the backfill settles. Similar slab displacement can also result from frost "heaving" or "jacking". Initially the process is subtle, but as more drainage is misdirected toward the building by the settled concrete slab, the deterioration process accelerates. Erosion of the supporting soil begins and more settling occurs. Allowing the cycle to perpetuate increases the risk of water damage at the building perimeter, FENCING Wood privacy fencing encloses the north and east yards. It appears to be in generally satisfactory condition but a portion of fence along the alley is leaning significantly to the south, Evidently a fence post has failed, a victim of alley traffic, snow or snowplow, or decay. At 6 feet, 10 inches high this Section of fence may be nonconforming. The maximum fence height permitted in the city *8 6 feet, If the nonconforming height is legitimately 'grandfathered",it is possible the fence can legally remain and may be 6 repaired. Structural Observation6 BUILDING The subject building was possibly constructed, originally, in the early 1900's, or before. The Nootprint" of the original building is defined by concrete foundation walls. An addition, extending the building to the north, was constructed, it i5 estimated, in the 7 1960's, The addition Is defined by a concrete.block foundation. The building was 1 evidently remodeled in 1983 and, most recently, in 1995. The building is a two-story structure of wood-frame construction. There is a small collar, but it is primarily on a crawl space, The condition and adequacy of structural elements wore evaluated visually. Structural elements were only visible from the ceilar, the crawl space under the addition, and the ettie. There is not sufficient clearance under the floor of the original building to make it accessible, or even visible from the collar, because the floor framing is so close to 1 he ground This inaccessible crawl space and other structural elements concealed by interior finishes were evaluated 3 FROI : WI1SON BLI,3.VCONSL-- TRI'll E. INC. FÂ·HONE NC. 2 9709.rite,15 Aug- 19 19'98 09 23PI'l Pe4 indirectly. Observed conditions which may Indicate major, structural deficienciea or existing distress are described below Otherwise, the structure appeared to be in generally satisfactory condition. BULGING EXTERIOR WALL A bulge was observed in the west exterlor nail It is apparent as wavy siding, in the general location of the south chimney, when sighting along the wall, The bulge appears to be approximately 3 feet wide, and extends the entire two.story height of the wall. The cause of the condition was not determined, but its characteristics seem to indicate thal it is a framing irregularity rather than a structural defect. WOOD DECAY In the vidnity of the bulge along the weBt exterior wall, decayed wood trim was observed. Probing at the location determined the wood kerning behind the trim was also decayed. (A probe can be easily pushed trough decayed wood.) The extent of the damage could not be determined from the extorior and the crawl space was not acceBsible. Typically, however, wood decay at this location affects the sill, rim joist and the ends of floor joisis. Wood decay is a fungus that destroys the structural integrity of wood. Decay fungi feed on cellulose conta;ned inside individual wood cells. The cells are literally hollowed by the fungus, leaving only the cell walls (lignin) intact. The wood is left shrunken, cracked along and across the grain in cubes, and in a dry, powdery condition, so jt is commonly called "dry rot" Although called dry rot, decay fungl actually require damp conditions to survive. With a food source (wood), water, air, and ambient temperatures in the range of 40Â° - 100Â° F, decay fungi will thrive. Ae mentioned previously, there is evidence that the yard is frequently damp, and there are negative-gracie conditions on this side of the building. With Â«splash back" from roof drainage, there are several potential sources of water that could support decay. To reduce the potential for decay in a floor, building codes require floor beams to be at least 12 inches above the crawl-space ground, and floor joisis must be 18 inches. It Is apparent from the cellar that most of the first-floor framing in the original building is only 3-4 inches above the ground, and some structural members are in contact with the ground. These conditions are conducive to decay. In the Living Room, the floor has settled significantly along the stairwell. Decay of a structural support is also suspected here. To repair the floor framing at the perimeter and under tho Living Room, all decayed wood must be removed, including an additional 12 -18 inches beyond the visible decay. Decay fungus spreads through the distribution of spores (hyphae) which are microscopic in size. Overcutting the docayed wood will ensure that invisible infestation o does not remain, to eventually develop again. Most importantly, the water source must / be eliminated, so the wood will remain dry, 4 iRC)!Â·1 : LII 1 EL)11 BLI,13-rONS,- LTAIIT-3. Itâ‚¬. PHONE NCI. : 97092'1~645 Aun. 19 19'*: 09:21PIÂ·1 P'l'K - CONCRETE FOUNDATION Only the top of the concrete foundation Was visible from the exterlor, Several, veMicai cracks are visible at the top of the foundation walls. Some of the cracks qualify as serious, Mith a width of 1/4 inch or more, and may be significant considering their location. Although the cracks were not evaluated indivldually, colloctively they Indicated a deteriorated foundation Crack locations indicato the southeast and southwest corners of Ihe building may have settled: and a porlion of the north end of the west foundation wai appears to be "rolling' outward. Both can be effects of erosion. Old foundations like this rarely extend very far below the ground surface. They are j commonly only 12-18 inches deep. if this is a shallow foundation it is susceptible to 6 ~ frost heave. which can 480 cause foundation cracks. Frost heaving occurs when moisture in the soil freezes. When water freezes it expands If the expansion occurs under a foundation, thefe is enough force to lift a building (frost heave exerts tremendous pressure) and when the ground thaws, the building settles to its original position. Water and cold temperatures are necessary for frost heave, and it can be controlled by eliminating either one. Footing depth is the conventional method of avoiding frost heave. Below"frost line", ground temperatures stabilize, above freezing. Foundations bearing at that depth are not subject to heaving. In this area, footing depths less than 36 inches would likely be subject to regular, seasonal movement depths from 36 to 42 inches may move on occasion; and a depth of 42 inches or greater can ba assumed to be stable Foundation depth alone does not control frost heave. Foundations which bear above the frost line may not heave if the building is heated and uninsulated - heat loss from the building keeps the ground from freezing. Likewise, there can be no trost heaving ~ without water, Adequate drainage controls and tree-draining soil Can also control heavIng. For these reasons, It 18 Buspected the effects of frost heave on this building are limited, but It may have contributed to foundatiot cracks around the bay windows. SOILS Based on maps published by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS); the building appears to be located in "glaciofluvial" soils, a geologic area of "older alluvial deposits", According to the CGS, these soils generally consist of well-draining, "unconsolidated rock debris", and are prevalent in the Aspen vicinity. Materials can range in size from boulders to clay particles. Generally, they can be affected by erosion and "may be hazardous because of water table or drainage problems." The CGS, though, c,onsiders older terraces containing these soils to be "among the better areas for development." Exterior Observations ROOF The gable roof on the subject building is covered with wood shingles. They can 5 FROPI : l.ll l'SCirl BLI'LIROFELLTAIJ1=Â·. INC. PHOr .E :40. : 9709*Il-5 Aul. 19 1333 09: 22PIÂ·I FCG / reasonably be expected to last 20-25 years with appropriate care and maintenance. This roof is estimated to be 15 years old. The condition of the roofing was evaluated from the rooftop, with appropriate care and consideration for the roofing material. The roof is constructed over a previous wood-shingle roof, with an airspace between them, as a bid roof'. The wood shingies appear to nearing the end of their service life. Signs of aging, like "curling", are apparent. Isolated Dhingles are loose, missing, or "fly aways'. The biggest threat to the integrity of the shingles is widespread moss growth. Moss on the shingles will retain moisture under the shingles, which contributes to curling, and will promote decay. (Even cedar shingles are susceptible to decay.) It doeB not appear that widespread decay has developed yet, 90 the service life of this roof could be prolonged by removing (pressure washing) the moss. An additional 5 years of service may be realized with the moss removed and if the roof is kept clean The double roof over the original building should provide a relatively weathenight system. One exception Is the west chjmney, located low on the roof slope with the roof pitched directly into the chimney. There is no "saddle" (or "cricker), typically used to divert roof drainage around a chimney. Water spotting of the ceiling and upper walls was noted in the Southwest Bedroom, on the upper level There is also plaster cracking at the santa location It is suspected the water that caused the damage leaked through both roofs at the joint between the chimney and the roof, While the joint can be maintained temporarily weathertight with caulk, roofing cemenl, or grout, a more permanent fix, like a saddle, should be considered. ROOF DRAINAGE Eaves are provided on buildings with stoped roofs to, primarily, protect the exterlor walls and foundation from roof drainage. For this purpose, a minimum eave width of 18 , inches is generally desirable. At approximately 12 inches, eaves on the subject building do not appear to be adequate. Gutters and downspouts can compensate for narrow eaves, but they are not installed on this building. Roof drainage flows over the eaves. It appears that uncontrolled roof drainage has caused, or contributed to, building problems elsewhere. As mentioned previously, it is suspected the foundation damage is water related. With an eroded ground surface at the drip line of the roof, and negative-grade conditions at the perimeter of the building, drainage from the roof ends up at the foundation. In addition, splashback from roof drainage has contributed to decay of the lower walls at one known location. Unless gutters and downspouts are installed, on-grade controls are needed to avoid further damage from roof drainage. ROOF VENTILATION Roof ventilation provides a means of drying condeneation, or moisture from a roof leak, in attics and rafter spaces. Roof ventilation also coots the roof surface. This cooling effect can reduce ice dams in the winter. 6 CRC41 : IJI :SON BLI,<3-1.ONSLLTAIÂ·~16, 11Â£. FHE.it.E ;10. : 3709 7.4845 Aug. 19 1999 09 22PI'I PC7 r 1â‚¬/ Although there are no formal vent openings in the attic, there is no evidence of any moisture problems. Methods and materials used in the construction of this building must allow sufficient draft into the attic. The double roof syetem on this building is a form of "cold roof'. The cold air-space under the top layer of the roof should help to reduce ice dams. The air space is only provided on the roof over the original building Ice damming may occur on the north slope of the roof. EXTERIOR WALLS Wood, clapboard aiding and decorative wood shingles cover the exterior walls of the building. The aiding appears to be verrgood quality, vertical grain. Overall, the siding, shingles, and exterior trim appear to be in satisfactory condition. As mentioned previously the lower walls have been exposed to backsplash from roof drainage for many years, and wood decay was evident at one location. The lower courses of siding and trim may be similarly affected at other locations. The exterior is painted. It is not known when the building was painted last, but it Is due to be painted again (Depending on the quality of paint and application, a exterior paint will typically last from 3-5 years, locally.) Subtle, but widespread flaking was observed. Il Is suspected that isolated, heavy pooling on the north exterior wall may be an effect of other problems. Water in the walls can cause the paint to peel this way. As the water vapor dries toward the outside it "pushes" the paint off the siding on its way out of the wall, If paint 8 reapplied without addressing the water source, the condition will recur. Possible water sources are ice dams or humidity from the bathroom on the interior side of the Wall. PORCHES + There are three covered porches on the building. All three are constructed of wood. They appear to be in satisfactory condition, however. due to the close proximity of the wood to the ground, the underside of the porches were not inspected. The close proximity of the wood to the ground is also conducive to decay. Doors, Windows and Skylights DOORS There are four exlerior doors - one at each porch and one to the patio. The main-entry door appears to be original. It is a double-leaf wood door with decorative glass view-panels. The other exterior doors are also wood with glass view panels, All appear to be in generally satisfactory condition, Two of the exlerior doors operate satisfactorily and close relatively tight. Some effort was required to latch the exterior door in the Kitchen. An extorior door in the Dining Room could not be opened because of items stored in front of it. (The Dining Room was being used for storage at the time of the inspection.) 7 -Pol : I.JI 1Sulll BLL,~ONS,_LTAIRS:. INC. F'H[it.E '10. : 97[)9~,05 Auo. 13 1993 09: 23PIÂ·I PCS Glass view-panes in the exterior doors may not be lempered due to their apparent age. Any glass used in doors should be tempered or laminated for safety reasons. Normal, plate glass breaks into shards when broken, whereas tempered or laminated glass will not. It is recommended that plate glass panes in the exterior doors be replaced with tempered glass, Interior doors are wood panel and hollow core. Most appear to be in satisfactory condition. Doors to the Southwest Bedroom, and the Master Bathroom appear to be warped to the degree that operation is affected. Problems operating several doors were noted. In the second-floor Office, hardware on the interior door does not work properly. The door to the Southeast Bedroom did not latch, so a hook and eye are installed to keep it closed. The entry door to the Master Bedroom rubs at the top and does not latch. In addition to being distorted, the door to the Master Bathroom binds and rubs at the bottom. The door between the Living Room and Dining Room binds. The operating deficiencies noted do not appear to indicate more serious, structural, problems. They can likely be repaired by altering the door or hardware, or modifying the fit of the door. WINDOWS The majority of the windows are original. Windows in the original building are wood framed, with single-pane glass. Windows in the addition are steel framed, whth sjngle-pane glass. One window in the Master Bedroom and the window in the Master Bathroom are newer. They are wood-framed with double-pane insulating glass. Double-hung, easement, and awning window-styles were noted. Most of the windows appear to be in satisfactory condition. Condensation was observed between glass panes in the Master Bathroom window. The seal in this window has evidently failed. The air space between double-paned windows is sealed to provide an insulating value. If the seal is broken, the Insulating value is lost. Condensation then forms between the glass panos on the inside of the cold, outer pane. Trapped moisture may never evaporate. If it does, mineral deposits left behind may permanently cloud and/or streak the inaccessible glass surface. To restore clarity and Insulating value to the windows, the affected glass panes must be replaced. With operable windows it is often more cost effective to replace the entire window unit. Slight movement and age will typically cause window seals to fail. Most of the wood windows are significantly weathered on the exterior. Where possible, operable windows were tested for normal operation. Many of the windows are painted shul, but those that could be opened operate properly. Casement windows in the Master Bedroom do not meet minimum, building code standards for emergency escape and rescue. Also called "egress" windows, they are required to be sufficiently sized to allow an occupant to climb out of a "sleeping room", - or rescue personnel to dimb in, in the event of a fire. One of the windows (east) is 8 . cpolvi : u I l'SON BLDG. ,~,9._, 'NNU, 1'Â£- PH) E INCI. : 970927~ Aug. 134 1398 03:2.1Pll FCS original, so it predates code requirements for egress windows. The north window was probably installed subsequent to the requirement for egress windows, SKYLIGHTS There are two skylights on the north-sloping roof. They appear to be site-built They are glazed with poleax.Â·glass on a raised curb. Both skylights appear to be in satisfactory condition, Interior Observations At the time of the inspection, the residence was furnished and occupied. The interior of the subject residence was evaluated to standards consistent with a "custom" class#Ication - distinctive architectural design; materials and workmanship are very-good quality, with obvious attention given to construction details, Very-good quality fixtures, appliar,ces and equipment are typically provided, CEILINGS and WALLS Ceilings and walls are primarily plaster with a paint or wallpaper finish. In the Master Bedroom, the ceiling and walls are wood paneied. In the Master Bathroom and Kitchen, the ceilings and walls appear to be painted drywall Rathtub surrounds are tile, An alcove for the range in the Kitchen is constructed of brick Piaster cracks were noted throughout the residence, primarily on the ceilings, Plaster cracks in the walls may be concealed by wallpaper. Except for the cracking in the Southwest Bedrocrn thal may be associated with water damage, the plaster cracks appear to be normal and cosmetic in nature. Flaking paint and mildew spots noted on the ceiling of the Master Bathroom indicate high-humidity levels. FLOOR COVERINCS Floor coverings in the residence are wood, carpet, resilient tile, and ceramic tile. Wood floors appear to be original. The quality of flooring varies throughout the building, but it is primarily vary-good quality. All floor coverings appear to be properly installed and Ill generally satisfactory condition. A few floor tiles in the Common Bathroom on the upper level are cracked. CABINETS AND COUNTERS Cabinets and councertops throughout the residence are good quality. Countertops are plastic laminate and tile. There are numerous bum-ins that are characteristic of the period, All cabinets and counters appear to be in generally satisfactory condition. STAIRWAY The stairway appears to bain generally satisfactory condition, but one quirk was noted, Risers on the stairs are 7 inches high, or within acceptable tolerances of 3/8 inch. The bottom riser 18 cnly 4 inches high. Consistent geometry is fundamental to stalr safety. Irregularities in stair treads or risers may cause stumbles or falls. WATCH YOUR STEP. 9 1: 4, A-PaV : W I 1 SON E,LDC. ~LLTAf; is. I NE. PHONE Ill . 91927. Aug. 19 1398 09:23Pil P10 FIREPLACE A fireplace on the west wall of the Living Room appears to be original It appears to be masonry construction with a metal firebox. The flrebox, wood surround and tile hearth- extension appear to be in satisfactory condition. The chimney damper would not operate, There appears to be a brick (or bricks) stuck in the 'throar, where the damper is located. The brick(s) likely came from the chimney, which is untined. Through years of use, smoke and creosote can cause deterioration of mortar joints and brick in an unlined chimney. Open mortar joints in a chimney can allow smoke and heal to leak into a building. The heat is a fire hazard, and carbon monoxide contained in the smoke is a health threat that can be deadly Oddly, the chimney was not visible in the attic. It may be due to the coved ceilings in the Southwest Bedroom, Only the top of the chimney, above the roof line, was visibie. It appears to be deteriorating, although some mortar repairs may have been done. Based on the apparent condition of the chimney, the flreplace should not be used until the chimney Is inspected further. It !s recommended that the chimney be lined. Traditional clay tiles may be used, or flexible stainless atee!. A cement parging process could also be used to seal the chimney. The south chimney ventS the boiler and water heaters. It too is unlined ariel raises similar concerns. ATTIC Attic access is provided in the ceiling of the walk-in closet in the Southwest Bedroom. Despite no ventilation openings the attic is relatively airy. No evidence of past condensation or roof leaks was apparent. Approximately 8 inches of fiberglass insulation has been blown in to the attic. It provides an insulating value of approximately R-19 Ceiling insulation levels currently average R-30. (Insulation was not typically installed when the original building was constructed. It was not determined if insulation was also added to the walls.) Two carbon-tetrachloride fire extinguishers were observed in the attic space. (They look like hummingbird feeders ) They were used in the past for automatic, fire protection, Subeequently it was determined that the fumes emitted from the liquid can be hazardous. While some trade-off maybe reasonable during a fire, the chemical can be a problem if it leaks any other time. These devices should be disposed of by the ~' local fire department. CELLAR'CRAWL SPACE The cellar and crawl space are access through a scuttle door In the floor of the west â‚¬. porch. Ambient conditions in the crawl space were generally dry at the time of the ; inspection. The exposed ground that was visible appeared to be dry. There is t evidence of past dampness at the perimeter, e.g. offlorescence and wood decay, as mentioned previously. 10 IR'31 : MI 1 901 J BLL G. ~.Â·,L IANN. INC. FHUFÂ·E Â·NO. : 970927'~ Auci. 13 1998 09:25PH Pll e.Â· 't There is no Insulation in the crawl space. There are two more carbon-letrachloride fire-extinguishers in the cellar. Plumbing, Heating and Ventilation PLUMBING The building is evidently served by municipal water and district sewer. A 3/4-inch, galvanized steel, water main serves Ihe residence. It enlers the crawl : * space of the addition so it was presumably installed when the addition was built. Galvanized water-mains are susceptible to corrosion, from inside exposure to water, t'Y' and outside exposure to soil. Over time, Interior corrosion of the pipe will accumulate, *,51 obstructing flow and reducing the water supply. The established life expectancy for 4..1 galvanized service lines is 40 years. Although there were no indications of existing problems, old, galvanized, water lines are notorious for failure. 4 There is a main water shut-off is located at the east side of the addition crawl-space, thai is difficult to access A more convenient shut-off is provided in the cellar, just ahead of the meter loop. Water distribution lines are galvanized steel and copper, Water supply al the fix{ures seemed adequate, although it was not gauged. No leaks were apparent. Drain, waste and vent pipes are cast iron and copper Drains in individual plumbing fixtures function satisfactorily, seemingly with proper venting and without obstruction. No active leaks were apparent. Most plumbing fixtures are very-good quality. They appear to be in generally satisfactory condition, and most operate properly. Pop-up drain stops in both tubs did not work. The quality and condition of the shower in the Lower-level Bathroom Is inconsistent with ihe rest of the interior. The fiberglass panels are bowed and heavily caulked a fine crack in the concrete shower pan (floor) was noted; and the wire-glass shower doors are ghattered. There is a good possibility of latent water damage around this shower. HOT WATER Hot water Is appropriately supplied to most of the individual fixtures. There was no hot water supply to the sink in the Southeast Bedroom. Domestic hot-water Is supplied ? from two water heaters located in the cellar. Considering their combined storage * capacity of 80 gallons, and their estimated recovery rating, hot water supply should be sufficient for normal residential demands. i.Â· One water heater weD manufactured in latel 983, and the other In late 1994. The established life-expectancy for a water heater is 8 - 12 years. The older water hoater may not be reliable, considering its age. 11 FRO'r~: WI 1601, ELL,G. l.01+L.L~1 -, iNE. PHU .E .,0. : 970927~-5 ~ Aug. D 'rtd u9:=- Plk 1'~ 7 -- . - 7 -.Pil 1 Hot-waier temperature was not determined. Water ternperatures in excess of 125Â° F . I are consider ed a %,Cald hdze,ri. Most watei boaters normally operate at temperatures 'r i ran ging from 120Â° - 160Â° F. Dishwashers that don't preheat water require a minimum 1. li i hot-water tomperature of 140Â° F. Hot-water temperature can ba adjusted at the water ticlater. ,?i o HEAT ! The original residence is heated by electric baseboard: and the addition has hot.water i Gat. On the upper level, the electric baseboard heaters are individually controlled; on the lover level they are controlled by a wai thermoslat in the Living Room. The f i hot-water heat, on both floors, is conti oiled by a wall thermoslat in the Living Room. Overall, the heat di,tribution is inadequate and cor,Lrols are inefficient, This building is 1 likely cold and drafty in the winter. Electric-basaboard heaters on the south wall of the Southwest Bedroom did not work. j There is no heat in the Lower-level Bathroom. HotÂ·water heat for the upper level never came on otter the thermostat was activated. Evidently "it takes a while". This is Â· 1 uncharacteristic of this type ot heat and unacceptable for this building classification. It i is recommended the entire heating system be upgraded. If the current heating system t remains, heat must bo properly supplied to the upper level. 11; ?i Electric, ceiling heacers are installed in the upper-level bathrooms to provide ./ 11./ N supplemental heat. The one in the Master Bathroom did not work at the time of the . 3, 6 inspection. There is a hot-water heal run in the Master Bathroom also, but its operation :) f was not confirrned. Hot water for the heating system is supplied from a (Crane) boiler located in the cellar, . The manufacturer could not be located to confirm tho manufacture date, but this unique boilar is estimated to be in excess of 30 years old. The life-expectancy for a boiler of -k this type is 25 - 30 years, under normal operating conditions and with regular maintenance. Inoividual components (pumps, valves, etc.) are less durable o 1 -i The boiler appears lo be properly instailed, and there was no evidence of operating problems a{ the time of the inspection. it appears to have been maintained well and some components are relatively new. It is possible this boiler could function for longer, but it is definitely dated and inefficient, and should be replaced with the heating upgrade. VENTILATION Local ventilation Is essential for controlling indoor-humidity levels, High indoor-humidity levels typically occur in bathrooms laundry rooms and kitchens, Ellodive ventilation and humidity control should exhaust water vapor to the outside, at these locattons. H,gh indoor-humidity levels from insufficient ventilation contribute to a variety of problems, several of whicn are apparent in the Master Bathroom. 12 1 e 'b b '24 =RIC,1 : lil I 160*Â·i ELLIG. ~L'#41413, INZ. PHOI Â·E NO. .70927 Au,0. 13 1998 OP :2 7Pll P13 Exhaust fans are provided in the upper-level bathrooms and the Kitchen. All exhaust fans are working properly and they appear to vent outside. To be effective at controlling moisture the fans mutit be used. Judging from conditions in the Master Bedroom this one is not used. There is no exhaust fan in the Lower-level Bathroom. Range hoods operate on the principle of a "capture" area. Water and grease vapors rising from the cooking surface are typically contained, or "captured" by the hood, and then exhausted by the fan. The range ventilation in the Kitchen is not a formal hood, but it appears to apply the capture principal. The (drywall) ceiling over the range ; tapers to an exhaust fan. Plywood hung from the ceiling provides containment and defines the capture area. While this system may work in principle, it Is impractical, Range hoods are typically Constructed of metal, in some cases for fire resistance, but in all cases for cleanability. This wood and drywall hood will absorb moisture and grease-ladon vapors from the range, and they can't be cleaned. Installing a conventional hood over the range is recommended. F'. Electrical and Appliances ELECTRICAL SERVICE The building is served by an underground, electrical power-line. The service entrance and meter are located near Ihe west end of the north, exterior wall of the building. A 200-amp, 120/240 volt, single phase, electrical service is provided for the building. This electrical service should be sufficient for normal demands for a residence of this size. ELECTRICAL PANEL The electrical panel is located outside, on the north exterior wall of the building, next to the electric meter. 1-here is a main disconnect in the panel - a 200-amp breaker. Electrical circuits appear to be sufficient, but the circuit labeling has faded and is no longer legible. For the sake of safety and convenience, electrical codes require labeling of the ci,tuits. Wiring inside the electrical panel is copper, except for service cable, which is typical!y aluminum. Panel wiring appears to be properly sized and in satisfactory condition. SWITCHES AND OUTLETS A representative number of wall switches and electrical outlets were tested. AN switches may operate properly-operate properly. Ceiling lights in the hallway of the Southwest Bedroom, the Foyer, and the Lower-level Bathroom did not work. They may only require bulbs, but the proper operation of these fixtures should be confirmed. Accessible electrical outlets were tested only within the limits of a conventional plug.in 2 tester, which will identify common wiring deficiencies. (A qualified electrician should be contacted if a more comprehensive, electrical analysis is desired ) The tester is effective with 3-prong outlets only. Many of the outlets in the building are 2-prong, and could not be tested. 13 4 t -Â·Â·c -Pal : WI 1SON BLDG. ~BLLT,AtATS, IKE. PHOLE NO. : 97092,Â·"vlw- Auc. 19 1'398 03.23PI'l F'JV The 2-prong outlets predate the requirement for grounded. 3-prong outlets in the 1960 electrical code. Under some circumstances the outlets can be dangerous, but they are definitely dated. Adapters are available which permit use of the outlets, but the A adapters are not safe either. It is recommended that the outlets be updated. Electrical codes in effect at the time the building was constructed did not have minimum spacing requirements am they do now There is also a shortage of outlets in the original portion of the building. An electrical upgrade should include additional outlets. Of the outlets tested, several wiring defects were indicated. 'reversed polarity" was indicated at outlets in the Office and Master Bedroom. This condition can cause the improper operatio,7 of electrical motors and appliances. An Coperi ground" was Indicated at the outletin the Common Bathroom on the upper level. Ungrounded electrical outlets are an accidental shock, or electrocution, risk. (All 2-prong outlets are ungrounded,) Wiring connections to the defective outlets should be checked, and necessary repairs made, by a qualified electrician. Ground-fault circuit interrupter (GFC') protection is provided in the two upper-level bathrooms, A GFCI is an electrical safety device provided for outlets in potentially wet locations to prevent accidental electrocution If the devices trip, they can be reset at the GFCI breaker w,th the "test" button on it. The GFCI breaker in the Common Bathroom did not trip when tested. It is old and evidently defective. It should be replaced. SMOKE DETECTOR A battery-operated smoke detector is installed on the west wall at the top of the stairs. r.lf It tested satisfactorily with the integral test button, but its location is ineffective and does not comply with industry standardz It is mounted approximately 4 feet below the ceiling level of the upper-level hallway. Smoke will hit the ceiling and begin accumulating without activating the alarm. Worse, the fire will continue to develop without warning. Smoke detectors should be located to provide the earliest possible warning of a fire. This one should be moved to a more effective location. iÂ· APPLIANCES Appliances are good quality, and the range/oven Is excellent quality. They all appear to be in satisfactory condition. The griddle burners on the range could not be lit, It t- should be confirmed they are working properly. All other appliances appear to be jd wocking properly. The drain for the dishwasher le not properly connected. It is attached "downstream" of the sink trap on the sink drain. The dishwasher drain must be trapped Individually, with a standpipe, or connected to the 8ink drain ahead of ila 17 *2 trap. If it remains untrapped, sewer gas may escape through the dishwasher drain. f Based on the available manufacture dates, most of the appliances were apparently installed during the 1995 remodel. The refrigerator is older, manufactured iii 1990. Most kitchen appliances can reasonably be expected to last 15 -20 years, 14 - 2RCII : |'JI 15011 BLD'3. ~l-L'ANTS. IND. PHONE NO. : 970927.gll/ As. 13 1983 09 2DFil P15 /I . 4 Dishwashers and laundry appliances have less of life expectancy, and can reasonably be expected to last 6-12 years. Conclusion and Summary CONCLUSION / This is an old build1ng that 18 in need ot major renovation. Refurbishing done In recent ~ years focused only on the cosmetics of the building. The renovation could be done all at once, or phased on a maintenance and replacement schedule. Regardless of the approach, significant investment will be necessary to preserve the condition of this building. Historic, renovation projects typically require more than a financial investment. An emotional investment is also necessary, as these projects are often as metaphys#cal as they are physical, If the renovation is phased, priority should be given to repairing decayed lovmr wells and first-floor structure, maintaining the roof, and upgrading the heating system. Replacing the foundation, replacing the water line, reroofing and upgrading the electrical system could be delayed, but will ultimately be necessary. Of course, with a "big bang" renovation, it makes sense to collectively address these outdated and deteriorating systems. The renovation of any building of this age is liable to turn up materials that were ~ commonly used In construction when it was built that are now considered hazardous. Carbon-tetrachloride fire extinguishers, for example, were found in this building, Lead paint and asbestos are two, more cornmon examples. It is recommended that less obvious hazardous materials, such as lead and asbestos, be identified prior to U 4 li C purchase. Identification of these materials requires destructive teSting and laboratory analysis. During the renovation, keep in mind that all buildings are sensitive to change. Although construction practices at the time this one was built may not conform to current standards, this building has endured through the years as a result of an equilibrium established with its immediate environment. The balance should be recognized as potentially delicate when any improvements are considered. Well intended "improvements" - especially weather tightening for energy consgrvation -and minor changes can upset a long-term equilibrium, and actually accelerate deterioration of a building. SUMMARY Building systems and components described as "satisfactory" are in normal condition for their age and quality, and appeared to be functioning as intended at the time of the inspection. Serious or maJor defects include those noted items which may be expensive to remedy Cover $500) and/or safety issues. Remedy of these items should generally reoelve top priority. Serious or major defects existing at the time of the inspection ale: 1 5 FROM : IJ I '1 SOri BLIIG. ~5:LTCI; JT 6, 1 1412. PHICILE NO. : 9-70927'I-~ Aug. 19 1998 09. 33Pll P16 1. Wood decay observed along west exterior wall, (See Page 4.) 2. Floor has collapsed in Living Room. (See Page 4.) 3. Foundation walls are deteriorating (See Page 5.) 4. Exterlor needs paint. (See Page 7.) 5 Glass in exterlor doors may be unsafe. (See Page 8.) 6, No egress window provided In Master Bedroom. (Sec Page 8.) 7, Irregular bottom step on stairway. (See Page 9.) 8. Both chjmneys are unlined. See Page 10. ) 9, Carbon-tetrachloride fire extinguishers are located in the attic and cellar. (See Pages 10-11.) 10. Heat distribution is substandard. (See Page 12.) 11. GFCI safely device in Common Bathroom on upper level does not work. (See Page 14.) 12. Smoke detector poorly located. (See Page 14 ) Less serious observations include ttiose noted defects or deficiencies that are existing -or are probable, under existing conditions - which may significantly affect or reflect the condition of the building. Remedial action is generally less expensive, and the priority is less urgenl Less serious, but important, observations noted at the time of the inspection are: 1. Cottonwood tree apparently declining in health. (See Page 2.) 2, Cottonwood tree close to building. (See Page 2.) 3. Poor perimeter-grnde conditions. (See Page 2 ) 4. Efflorescence on north foundation wall. (See Page 2.) 5. Patio slope reversed. (See Page 3.) 6. West exterior wall bulges. (See Page 4 ) 7 Wood floor framing is very close to ground and susceptible to decay. (See Page 4.) 8. Moss growth on roof is widespread. (See Page 6.) #.4 9 West.sloping roof pitches toward chjmney (See Page 6.) 10 Water damaged ceiling In Southwest Bedroom. (See Page 6.) 11, Inadequate control of roof drainage. (Page 6.) 12. Porch floors are susceptible to decay. (See Page 7.) 13. Failed window seal In Master Bathroom. (See Page 8.) 14, Fireplace damper does not operate. (See Page 9.) 15. Water main i8 galvanized Steel. (See Page 9.) 16. Shower in Lower-level Bathroom is in poor condition. (See Page 11.) 17, No hot water to sink in Southeast Bedroom. (See Page 11.) 18. Inefficient heat controls. (See Page 12.) 19. Boiler dated and inefficient (See Page 12.) 20. Significant evidence of high humidity levels in Master Bathroom. (Soe Page 12.) 21. Undesirable range 'hood'. (See Page 13.) Minor repairs and recommended maintenance/servicing: 1. Portion of fence leaning at north property boundary. (See Page 3.) 2, Portions of fence exceed 6-foot height limit. (See Page 3.) 16 r . FPC11 : WI LSON PHI.Iil].~IELLTAIJTS, INE. PHONE NO. : 970927~~15 Aug. 19 1998 09:33Pll P17 3. Exterior door in Kitchen requires effort lo latch. (See Page 7.) 4, Warped doors in Southwest Bedroom and Master Bathroom. (See Page 8) F t 5. Problems operating several interior doors. (See Page 8.) 6. Many windows painted shut. (See Page 8.) 7. Cosmetic plaster cracks throughout. (See Page 9.) 8. Cracked floor tiles In Common Bathroom on upper level. (See Page 9.) 9, POp-up drain stops In bathtubs do not work. (See Page 11,) 10. Ceiling heater in Master Bathroom does not work. (See Page 12.) 11, Some ceiling lights do not work. (See Page 13.) 12. Dated, potentially unsafe, 2-prong electrical outlets installed. (See Page 14.) 13. Improperly wired electrical outlets. (See Page 14.) 14. Dishwasher drnin improperly connected (See Page 15.) The following building areas/elements/systems were not Inspected: 1. Guest House. 2. Original crawl space. Additional inspection/inveâ€¢tigation is recommended as follows: 1. identify hazardous building materials such as asbestos or lead paint. l. F r'k t 17 SUM.VETDA'D CEMII FICATE- L JAMED K IKEDFA, 1-16â‚¬ES<CEâ‚¬[1 rr -10 FllÂ©TAVIER.ICAN TITLE lfÂ©UK+CE COMFANT-,FlÂ«14< rETERS AND MARTA CHAIKOUS<A 61\ID -THE DAILET' CONKE)11 -Tâ‚¬Lt5r THIATON A.Â»-tjr 27, IllÂ© I lvIAOE A VISUAL INDFEET-ION OF Tl--IE. fFOraler SHOWN ANP DEGJ MED HEMEN ,Â«ID FOOPIP NIC) CH,Â«IGES), . ALFINE SUIÂ«DED, INE, 23-r; LIAI\/lib R ZESâ‚¬Â«, DATEL: ____________________ L.9. llÂ©21 NOTE- ADrEN Tin_E COArDIVE-ION COK/IN'lITWIENT- dAdE NO- 409612-0 71-Â·IE_T-ITLE. COIVI FANY' OF Tl-IE %2134121> CASDE NO. 21-c)(379 1 VAÂ© UDED IN THE FNEFAIÂ«TION OF THIÂ© DUAVEÂ·r, AO wAÂ© 0- - EÂ»EEC) 2.1,4.01, - / / \ ALLEY bLOCK 42 \ \ SUMMEYOFÂ¢t CEFTI FICATE 19.1 <18.3 1/ I â‚¬ STREEr / CAIbLE T.V , TELE., Â¤ -2 \ Â». ~rL-R / er-dr.rb /11) 1 JAIvIEÂ© FI iKEDE-le.9 1-IEMEDT~ CEKT-1 Fr Th-IAT- OIN ArIKI L-- 5 *ELEG. 20.STALSL.,0, 1 ?(01 5 5 303 1/ 1 MLAIDE. A VIâ‚¬JUAL- INIÂ©FETION Or= -DAL-fprorE:Frr 1 SET $ REbUL #/ FLA5. CAP r~ 75-09' 11"E 90.02' V - 3 EMGLC SEP TlE,AÂ»-1 ~4..~4 ' Fautir) : RE.15#K. vÂ« FLAS. CWÂ° DHOWN.1 1-1 53â‚¬EON. +40 CHANG,ED WDSÂ£ fTC*NED L.S. 15146 ~ 3 24630/// (391.-- -1---0-1--f-----1---231 .4-3 8+D Dâ‚¬-Iff T AE) 01-1(5WN AND INOTED) 1-1EEÂ¢~ikeâ‚¬30,'P~ IZ" 13. 612Â·,Ae~AFF'LE- f 15'-IGIC WALK. Al/ / ltv 1 r 0 , O 12' SPK.EAD / ALFINE Â©01Â«re>~ INÂ·IC, Dy, / cov-'-#ik, J C *tecr> 2-fl~tâ‚¬ 3 3~~7 *4- f WOOD FMÂ¢lt / / 4\ \1 -2 \1 / \ / 1 2 / HOU5[ . 4 1 - DATES -4-41-1.-al-____ L .. 91 Â©A~IGÂ«~~~>1 1 \ ..... . ip/<4 .1 / / Â»L ~ Frion ~ 0--4,~...t,A. Â«.i l,/ \ - 9 74 c \ L 1 6 Kcoop OH. (TYPIc,ki.) i \ cÂ· 76- 1 - GR-A V EL DA+VE i . 7 -Â· 3 ~ te ' CAS FLOW ED) \ 4 - ~ /9;14 20.9 f ff 4 -*-I-- .----* -* 2-r4i -*--I-......-.-44 --- -7,-T ,8-~t~ ,n_~ 14 4 c APR 1 7 2001 CO[NCAE.TE. It 1 i#/f# 1.5 1 5'\0 - L ) -8 Ill fqe Ios/// L.---70-6-HT~----- 2- 20' DIA r O 3 P=N / Pt i #.IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 ' O 8 ,/00,0 4...ile,e:,i,Â·,~ j i ' COTTONWOOIPS 0 _ h lotb / ' 36 " JO jAÂ· COTTÂ»1 - , r< 3 */COD \ & 2 3 5 l C j 4 / R f C Ff L 24" E>JA (I)-[Totlwooto .1 2 I 491 2 <1â€ž, 5Â§ 0 ' r;c--- Â« 12%78 1 1 . , Two 5TONY // r A 100Â·, Tr / \Noon FAAME / 7 Z f , 4 bTREET I / / /HouaL / / lifil// a LL/4/,r 30 Woor) rt 1 j 1 i _ (-_-- SH.[.0 f ~ lilli 1 1 1 j O 9 10 20 30 40 50 FI fo , - rh i t/ SCAL[ ' P Â· ID' 0/ 64515 OF NAAING Â·, FOUrirD MOHUMIEr'IT 5 AS 6HOWN I ./I -- r -r---- DATUM FLAME- $ ASSUMED, 100.0'AT CITY FlorIUMEMT / C L 0- 3 OVEND A 9/0013 FOF=H W / \\- ha SMOWN 3 A59019, 4 - 10" P IA , /RI (o \to C .Uvu / / 0 1 < 2-Ci' DiA. C.KABAPPLIL 38 1,0 SUAVE.NOK 5 C[AT IFIGATE : / / /1 ./ 1 HEKEDY CE.ITIFT TriAT Tt-115 MAIÂ° ACCUTATELY DE.FIC-[5 A 0-7 20 2 . ' - SUR.VEY MAD[- UMDEL MY aUFEAV\5[Ori OM J/\Mlater 24. 2910 33:-9 tf- illir,&-3-2 \<11 05'fl. h 8 COVEKED WOOD OF LOT 5 K., L i M, IbLOCK 42, CITY OF ASPA-I, PITI<IN 4 1, 9- DRCH CCUMITY- CO LORA[30. TRIETUO 51Â©PV 1--ICUDE AND THIE 1' CAF<%085 HOODE WEKE. ROUND-ID DE LOON ED 13 2 ' ENTIKELy 91/177-]IN THE BC]UNDAM>r LINED OF THE ACUID 1, f ,Â·Â·Â·'~-Â« C-Li-1 24.- PIA 1 0,1- t--2- 1 /~~3 r~V/.AV. ~ 1 DEÂ©GK.I[3EE) PROVES-Tr Th-lE EXEOÂ·-1 ANP DIMENDIOND FOUND $ It[IbAK W.// FL-.~S . OAP OF ALL EUILIPIPÂ·4(Â», 1 MI~MDVEMIE.1\ITE)~ EAÂ·DEVIE-1Â·Â·4119, ca'r-Dri YVCDO /1- . ; FIGHTD OF WAr IN EVIEPENCE OR KNOWN TD WE AND LOT K. 6n_, 2 LOT L LOT M | L.5. 1164 ENCBOACH K/IEN-ID .er OR: ON THEDE FIKEY[DED ARE C JO 6 -\ 4,1RJNG 4-- AIURATE]-Y- 24-4OVl/hI. CLEVATION $ ASSUME.134 ICI).O FT. ~ < Fa)HO $ CITY MorIUMENT f-4 75'01' Il" W 90.02' ~ &15/3 OF ~ , 24" IDDA COTTONÂ¥/0013 ~ 3 0 0 0 13 f 24' DIA ALY#ME. 5UAVEYS, inc. by: JAML,!ALT 61,1110 L.5 24" OM. co-TTO H WOOD COTTONWOOD . --1, ti lul,=f=~4~-Â«=--- -1-302 0 1-/ 1 // 3 L -21 J _12 ~ - IMDICATES A 45!tT ELEVATION Al FLOOR- OF IDOILDInG Â£)*, (11.0 ./dE c/-57*Zi, , <~ SURVEYOR'5 CERT IF ICATE: j HEREIDY CERTIFy THAT ON JUNE IÂ® Illl A VISUAL INSPECT ION KAÂ© PERFORHED UNDER MY SUFERVISION OF THE ABOVE CESCRIBED PROPERTY 97.6 % 100.13 HALLAM Â·5TPLE[-1 <6: STAUT NO CHANGE5 MERE ROUND EXCEPT AS 9-OWN lot 8 4: STRELT AND ACTED HEREDN. Al_FINE BURVEÂ¥9, INC. er JUNE 23, 113 L.9. NOTICEÂ· According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based Surveyed j 24 10 CC Revisions e. 23.93 UFDATE Title 11Â«IFFOVEVIENT SUAVEr Job No 08- 40-3 ~:Eno:tirttina~712222;nut~;eayney~~*; ri~ol~,f~ristudto= 223%: Alpine Surveys, Inc. Drafted I Â·bl. 90 E.A. Â©30.115 OFDKE LOTS K, L, Â¢ MI --t]LOCK 42 Client PO59/ more than ten years from the date of the certification Shown hereon. Post Office Box 1730 1.2-7.16 "FITICIN Ca.Nrr " CITY Of ASFEM BOUNIMING Aspen, Colorado 81611 9.99.9Â© luiv'IDE CORTIFICATED + . 303 925 2688 ~ 41101 UPPATE ~VOVE- HOT-TUE> - .. .....A*44.6.7: .. . 43.90 TH i liD ST RELT 90' 49' W loo. 00' Lo/LINE OF DITCM