The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.513 W Bleeker St.HP-1988-18 5013 00 E, C Â«4 , 6 + // 0 24 - (~4 5 â‚¬ ' 14 9-1999-4 \ HPC February 23, 1988 L ./,204%1:13115 5-6 W FiaÂ»4 9 ~ 8 mA 1 e 12+.- )4 j es>'- . 4 ~AL_ J/71 K 1-l P-S-k Hj I. -1-v--_â€ž 3% 1 , .1 4 04: -0-. I ' , 5.tel.L .-* v *F - V h . /9 04 , -5% ,~.1 ". . I '21 f 't i, t 373 64. 644 - .. MEMORANDUM To: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Window added to new garage at 513 W. Bleeker Date: June 21, 1988 I have reviewed an application from Welton Anderson, Architect, to install one double hung wood sash window in the east elevation of the new garage. Because the structure is a designated historic landmark, development is subject to the regulations of Section 7-601 of the Municipal Code. Based on my review of the regulations, I find that the proposal constitutes only a minor change to the exterior of the structure and has no impact on its character. The new window is 24" x 26", not visible from any street elevation, and constructed of compatible materials to the historic structure and addition. I recommend that you approve this minor development activity pursuant to Section 7-601(C) (2) of the Municipal Code, thereby authorizing the applicant to apply for building permit. If you approve, please sign the signature block below. I hereby approve the proposed development activity. Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director CC: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Inspector Bill Drueding, Zoning Official staff.signoff.4 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 513 W. Bleeker, Significant Development Review Conceptual and Final (Public Hearing, continued) DATE: May 24, 1988 PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTIONS: On February 23, 1988, HPC reviewed the minor development application, which included alterations and minor variations from the prior approved plans. More recently, on May 10, 1988, HPC reviewed the significant development plan, tabling conceptual approval and the public hearing to this meeting. The committee's concerns primarily centered around the incompatibility in character of the proposed garage to the existing main structure and the carriage house, specifically in roof pitch. The committee also expressed concern regarding the continued expansion of buildings on this site and asked for total FAR calculations which are included in this memo. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The applicant has considered HPC's concerns ' regarding roof pitch and has responded with the attached letter. ( Specifically, three factors are addressed: 1) The breakfast porch is the closest portion of the house to the proposed garage and the idea is to make them more 0, unified 2) The garage's low pitched roof allows for south light into the back yard and breakfast room and views of the mountain 3) Code limits the height of accessory buildings to 12 feet; the proposed garage is 12' at the median point of the pitched roof. Even in light of the height limitation, it remains staff's opinion that the combination of the garage setback of 75' from Bleeker St., tucked behind the house and partially screened from the street by vegetation make this an acceptable project. The garage's low profile does not create attention allowing the main structure to stand out, plus it is accessed off the alley. These elements prevent its high visibility in staff's opinion. The FAR calculations are as follows: Lot size: 7,500 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 3,660 sq.ft. Existing FAR: 3,386 sq.ft. Garage addition(exempt): 486 sq. ft. .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 220 W. Main St., European Flower Market Minor Development (awnings) DATE: May 24, 1988 LOCATION: 220 W. Main St., E. 1/2 of Lot N, all of Lot O, Block 51, Townsite and City of Aspen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for minor development involving the attachment of two awnings to the main facade of this property. The proposed two awnings will appear as one continuous awning mounted to the storefront on a framing system constructed of 1" tubing painted black. The awning dimensions are 15.3' in length, 2' in height and projecting 2' from the facade. A sample of the striped material to be used will be presented at this meeting. HISTORIC DESIGNATION STATUS: The building is located within the Main Street Historic Overlay District, however, it is not listed as historic in the inventory. $ PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: This is a one-step process, with HPC approval based on the proposed development meeting the standards in Sec. 7-601(E). The application is for awnings only, with no other exterior changes proposed for the building. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a historic landmark. Response: Staff finds the proposed development in keeping with recommendations stated in the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. Although the residential guidelines apply more specifically to development in the Main Street Historic Overlay District, the "Awnings" section specified in the guidelines under Comm4rcial Buildings, Section E - Storefronts (Page 25) apply to this development and are discussed as follows: "Consider using awnings or canopies to provide color and depth to the facade. On many storefronts and upper story windows awnings are appropriate. These awnings should match the shape and width of the opening it is .. covering. They should not obscure important details. ( The awnings should also be aligned with other awnings on a building. Awnings or canopies made of aluminum, fiberglass and other rigid materials are not encouraged. Awnings that do not serve as useful sheltering from sun, rain, or snow are not encouraged." The applicant states: "The proposed awning over the entryway of the building is designed to enhance the appearance of the entryway and to promote a European style to the building." The building is a modest one story gable roof structure which does not stand out visually along that block of Main Street. Staff supports this development which will attract attention in a compatible way to this building, and enhances the character of the Main Street Historic Overlay District. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff finds the design elements of the awnings to be compatible with the storefront and the Guidelines as stated above. Historically, awnings were used extensively in commercial buildings. They served not only as a sheltering devise from adverse weather but for summer heat reduction and shading of intense sun which could potentially fade window display items. Awnings also served as a decorative element to the facade, and often times contained the name of the business as signage. No signs are proposed for these awnings however. 1*,M 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: It is staff's opinion that the storefront will be greatly enhanced with the addition of these awnings, which will go a long way to present a lively business atmosphere. There are no historic structures listed in the inventory along this particular block of 200 West Main. For reference, the adjacent business to the west is the Christmas Inn. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: No exterior building changes are proposed in this application. The awnings are relatively small and do not visually impact the existing architecture. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the minor development of 220 W. Main St., finding the proposed . < development to be in keeping with the Guidelines and compatible with the standards for development in a Historic Overlay District. . .9 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 513 W. Bleeker, Significant Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 2, 1988 LOCATION: 513 W. Bleeker St., Lots F, G, and the East 1/2 of E, Block 30, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conceptual and Final Significant Development Review at this meeting for the garage addition, connected to the main house via a 3 foot by 4 foot breezeway. The total square footage of the proposed garage and storage space is 486, just under the 500 sq. ft.maximum for exemption from FAR. The existing carriage house will also be connected to the proposed garage via a similar breezeway. SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Area: 7,500 sq. ft. Proposed Floor Area (garage): 460 sq. ft. (23 X 20 ft.) (attached storage): 29.6 sq.ft (2.5 X 11.4) Proposed Maximum Height: 15 ft. Proposed Front Yard Setback: 75 ft. Proposed Alley Setback: 5 ft. ZONING: R-6 HISTORIC DESIGNATION STATUS: Designated, Rated "Excellent" PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: The application must meet the standards for development review in Section 24-9.4(d) The two- step Significant Development Review process involves both Conceptual and Final approval by HPC, which the applicant is requesting both approvals at this meeting. Required public notice for the Conceptual Development review process has been made. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Planning Office has the following comments in response to the standards for development review in Section 24-9.4(d). Conceptual Development Review: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the .. subject site is in a Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark, Response: The Planning Office finds the development plan appropriate in many areas. The proposed garage is a one story structure with a shallow pitched roof matching the nearby new breakfast room porch roof. The roofing material will be wood shingles, and the siding will be wood bevel with decorative cut shingles in the south gable. All materials represented, along with detail and trim work will match the existing house. The breezeway connectors between the existing carriage house, the proposed garage and the main house link the three structures together. The Planning Office finds the proposed garage and breezeway connectors compatible with the existing structures. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff finds the setback of the new proposed garage and the renovation of the existing original carriage house in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and consistent with the Guidelines, Section VI. Residential Buildings - E: Alleys and Parking. This section states: "The traditional residential pattern placed...support structures at the rear of the lot at the alley. Buildings on alleys have an importance of their own, and give the alleys a special character." Entered off the alley, the location of the garage tucked behind the large, main house prevents it from being significantly viewed from Bleeker Street. Its low profile is also consistent with the Guidelines (same section) #2. Preserve existing scale in new construction at the alley and wherever possible historic outbuildings as well. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed development does not detract from the cultural value of the designated structure, in our opinion. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development enhances, in our opinion, the architectural integrity of the main house, and its design lends itself well as a link between the carriage house and the main house. Its low profile, siting and simple design allow the two historic structures to stand out architecturally. .. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of Significant Development (both Conceptual and Final) for 513 W. Bleeker St. -4 .. AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE February 23, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Minutes of February 9, 1988 III. Committee Member and Staff Comments IV. Public Comments V. Monitoring of Projects VI. OLD BUSINESS 2:40 A. Conceptual Development Review (Continued): 300 West Main Alterations and additions. Scott and Caroline McDonald VII. NEW BUSINESS 3:10 A. Minor Development Review: 513 W. Bleeker porch alterations and minor variations from prior approved renovation plans. Welton Anderson f 3:25 B. Pre-application conference: 334 W. Hallam historic designation demolition of carriage house and portions of main house and new additions. Patricia Harris VIII. Adjourn - f /l il 6 42&, 1 -e 444 Pot j h.tit FO . .. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall February 9, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Patricia O'Bryan, Zoe Compton, Charles Cunniffe, Charlie Knight, Augie Reno and Joe Krabacher present. Minutes of May 26, 1987; June 9, 1987; Jan. 26, 1988 were approved. MONITORING PROJECTS Nick: The swamp coolers are still on the roof of Elli's. Augie: Welton Anderson has been hired for the Barnett project at 517 W. Bleeker. He will be here the next meeting to report on the changes. Georgeann: The firm bid on the guidelines from the Duplicator's is $1800. The Stallard House: We have gotten working drawings from the pella people and I will look at the drawings and compare them to the actual windows this week. Bill Poss: The Committee had asked me to write a letter to the City requesting funding for the purchasing of the windows. Since we do not do that for other applicants that have a hardship I did not write the letter. If the applicant (Historical Society) went to the City directly I would reinforce them. Steve: We should contact Bob Anderson to see if that is appropriate. Bill Poss stepped down. 516 E. Hyman Demolition, Reconstruction and Addition Kim Wiel: We are talking about Cheapshots which is an old tin building. This is a two phase development. The first phase would be replacing the first floor that is there now and structure it to receive a second floor. The second phase is similar but taller. The project consists of three floors: basement, plaza level and an upper story each con- taining 2250 square feet. The basement will be used for storage; the first floor will be retail and the upper floor would be office space and probably one tenant per floor. .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 The conceptual review: The new code allows for cash in lieu of open space if Planning and Zoning deems it appropriate and we will attempt that through P&Z. If we went to 25% open space it puts the building back further and would put a hardship on the tenants and also it seems to work a little better flowing with the open space in the street if it is pulled ahead of Mason & Morse a little bit. Georgeann: How far ahead of Mason & Morse do you intend to pull it. Kim: Five feet. We are going to go for reduction of open space. The building is basically the same size of Mason & Morse. It has two floors two stories tall about 31 feet in height. We have attempted to use a vertical element. The building will be mainly brick with sandstone banding similar to the Elks Building. There would be pink sandstone detailing over the windows and around the building. There would be wood kickplates similar to Pitkin Center. Nick: On Phase I and II is that going to be a one story building for a year or two and then be a two story. Kim: Phase II needs a GMP allocation to build the second floor as it presently stands. We feel that the Planning Office didn't give us credit for everything that is there. They said they are willing to re-verify it. At that time we will evaluate the - square footage that we need. We propose to build the entire shell and only add the second floor when we receive an allocation however they felt that would be circumventing P&Z's ability to approve the design of the building. So as it stands we are going to be a one story building and then add a second floor if we receive an allocation. Steve: We did feel that this project meets the criteria to allow for demolition. This building has questionable structural stability. The points about conceptual review of Phase I and Phase II are the setbacks which we think are being handled appropriately. The guidelines generally encourage continuation of the alignment along the street front but here is a case in which the street front doesn't really have an established alignment. Stepping it back is the most appropriate at this time. We feel the store front scale is appropriate and it compliments some of the features of the Pitkin Center Building next door. We raised some concerns with Phase II which would be the two story building. We are concerned that the second floor central windows are not really historic and to some extent are not vertical elements and should be further studied. Kim has 2 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 addressed the massing with the vertical element although the Mason & Morse is quite squat looking and we would encourage them to further address it. Georgeann: I'm not concerned about the massing. I think Steve has a good point about he horizontal look of the upper window. I don't think I would want a dormer or anything as it is nicely treated but maybe it could be four windows across instead of three which would make it more vertical. I'm concerned about the short wall going up to Mason & Morse if there would be anyway to make steps there or something to get the traffic to flow along more softly. Kim: If we are allowed to tear down the wall we will either have to put steps or some kind of railing up. Georgeann: I'm concerned about the color...it becomes too monolithic. Maybe if you changed the store front or changing the brick color you would get that feeling of separation which will give it a more individual structure and a more vertical feeling. Patricia: I have no objection to the windows because it does make it different from the Pitkin Center. What about the awning color. Kim: I sent for information on other colors and it will be different than the other building. Charles: The building seems like it is trying to be more like Pitkin Center than anything else. I think the material is too similar to the Pitkin Center; there is no relief of brick. Zoe: The demolition is agreeable and the store front scale is fine. The upper bank of windows seems a little bit foreign to the design of the building itself. Whatever color of awning you choose it should be different than the Pitkin Center. The trim at the top of the window appears very art deco. The buildings are too similar and possibly slate could be used as an added element so it doesn't look like an addition to Pitkin Center. The presentation and design are excellent. Augie: I have no problem with the design they are proposing because the Pitkin Center building steps back and you loose what could have been a massive structure all the way across. I would encourage planting etc. so that the wall doesn't become a deadend. Nick: I find the proposed perfectly acceptable. 3 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 Joe: I like the design but have a concern with the horizontal element of the second floor windows. It needs something to emphasize the verticality of the building. Georgeann: Public hearing open. No comment from public. Public hearing closed. Steve: The direction of the Committee is to include in the conditions of approval on page 5, #5 further study the materials, the brick, stone, slate and wood in the structure. Also #6 further study on how the steps and railing up to the Mason & Morse building works. We would also eliminate #3 of the recommendations. Kim: I have no problem with #5 but #6 will be hard to do at this time. Georgeann: We could make our motion contingent that when you come up with something for the steps that you have to come back to HPC. We would like you to come back next time with more representation of materials and more study on the windows. Also if you don't get your 25% open space you would have to come back. MOTION: Nick: I so move to approve the recommendation on page 5 of the Planning Office memo dated Feb. 9, 1988. Charles second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. MOTION Approval of the demolition of the existing structure at 516 E. Hyman Avenue and conceptual development for both Phase I one story and Phase 2 two story proposals subject to the following conditions: 1. Detailed representation of materials shall be presented at HPC's final development review. 2. The second floor central windows shall be studied as to how the window spacing may better relate to historic upper story window patterns, how these windows may give a stronger sense of verticality, and how this building may be better differentiated from the Pitkin Center building. The results of this study shall be presented at finall develop- ment review. 3. Prior to final development review, approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for reduction in required open space shall be obtained or a revised design with 25% open space shall be submitted. 4 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 4. Further study the materials, the brick, stone, slate and wood in the structure. 5. Also #6 further study on how the steps and railing up to the Mason and Morse building works. We would also eliminate #3 of the recommendations. 300 W. MAIN HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Augie: Monitor for 516 E. Hyman Georgeann: Monitor for 300 W. Main Scott McDonald: This is our design equation and it is the minimum needs plus the HPC prior guidelines equals the restored cabin plus the addition. What we own is a 1280 square foot four bedroom log home situated in the middle of three lots and they are O-office zoned. We are allowed a duplex construction of 6500 square feet and the existing structure has an assessed economic life of 5 years and this is per Molica and Assoc. Our total liv- ing area needs are 2600 sq. ft., of that we will have 410 sq. ft. employee housing, the restaurant kitchen of 144 sq. ft. and a residence living area of 2000 sq. feet. 162 sq. ft. of employee housing will be incorporated on the second story. The Main St. setback is approximately 45 ft. The original house is the dominant structure and the addition height is the same as the original house. The original house will remain at the present location. Zoe: What are the french doors and the railing made out of. Scott: We haven't made a decision on the detailing. The house is constructed with two sided logs. The railing would be heavy timber construction. We are proposing three skylights to provide natural lighting. Steve: The McDonalds are trying to get designated and do a few modifications to the original house and to do a good size addition. The house doesn't have historic association that we are aware of. We find that this house is a rustic cabin from approximately 1944. We feel that the cabin is fairly unique in its setting and in its prominence on Main St. We feel we could support that it meets the criteria of a rustic style of the 40's. This cabin has good craftsmanship especially the fireplace which has remarkable stonework. This cabin has a definite contribution to the neighborhood on Main St. I am concerned that the addition might actually decrease its historic significance if it is not treated in a special way. We do support historic designation of the property. 5 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 With regard to conceptual development: In the guidelines we try to discourage skylights if they are visible from a public way. The roofing material is pro-panel and it is considered generally appropriate. The enclosure of the porch with glass on the 3rd St. side is probably something that could be accomplished but we would like to see further detail at the final review. Looking at the addition of the design they have come a long way in trying to fit a 2600 sq. ft. addition into the northwest corner of the property in minimize the impact from Main St. They have concerns about crowding the neighbor etc. We had some ideas of how certain design alternations might be more acceptable in par- ticular we were looking at the length of the roof, the length of the walls, the window treatment, the use of perhaps a peak roof and use of materials. The major concerns are the continuous walls and the roof pitches of the proposed addition. A little more attention should be paid to adhering to the original scale of the lengths of walls and what appears to be a 12-12 pitch of gabled roofs and cross gables. We suggest that they consider designing the gables, cross gables and dormers and that they try to break up the walls a little bit more effectively rather than make them continuous. With regard to the second floor window we realize the need for southern exposure but further study of how to make that component more in scale with the original house would enhance this structure. We also have suggested that the eastern property line which is next to the Elisha's carriage house; they are 4 ft. away from that property line and the setback is 5 ft. We think they can meet that setback. In the alley they have a problem with the design without doing something radical like moving the house. There is a requirement of a 15 ft. setback and they are proposing 5.2 feet. They would have to get a Board of Adjustment variance. Several options were given on page 7. We are recommending tabling of this proposal for them to come back with further study. Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Scott: I built this ramp which is in scale to what the sidewalk is and you cannot see any part of the flat roof from Main St. A gable construction would necessitate a loss in living space. Caroline: Your eye wants to go the Elisha house and we wanted something to traverse quickly so you don't catch it. Zoe: The restaurant idea is charming and an excellent idea. This building is significant to Aspen, Colo. and in a prestigious spot because it is next door to one of the most famous houses. If this gets historical designation the roof should not be metal. I also think you need an architect as the design is not appropri- ate. There should be no metal or clad showing from the street and too much glass dilutes the house itself. It crowds the 6 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 Elisha house just a little bit. It is too different from the main house and there is too much of a contrast to the main house. It should be more compatible and possibly a little more of a pitch to the roof; more of a traditional line. Charles: The addition is not compatible with the original house largely in mass. In trying to add to a building that you would like to get designation for the addition should be compatible with or possibly linked onto. The elements visible from Main St. should be in a manner more keeping with a log cabin; glass doors and the stairs that come down are not approp- riate. They are a disturbing element coming out in front of the carriage house. Patricia: The glass doors bother me and the stairway is not in keeping with the original house. The massing doesn't really bother me. Caroline: We are on a limited budget and limited time and we can't afford an architect and we are using every square inch. Zoe: The massing isn't bad but the design of it should be compatible with the existing house. Augie: The addition has to respect the existing building and should be done in a similar manner with roofs, shapes and materials. On the other hand the existing building should stand on its own. The roof continues on so you tend to loose that compatibility. I'm concerned about anything that will affect the Elisha house. I would rather see something that relates more in setback or something to what the carriage house is. Nick: My only concern with the historical designation is I would hate to see skylights used on a log cabin. I don't have any big objection to the addition. Joe: As far as designation I think it is great that they are trying to put something together to preserve that. The square footage that they are asking for is not anywhere near to what it could be developed to. My concern is the horizontal long walls and the use of more contemporary doors for the view and the southern exposure. I would hate to discourage the applicant from trying to work something out so the original house can be retained. Georgeann: Somehow we should work with these people because this is a building worth keeping and they are trying to do everything they can to keep it as much as possible the way we want it kept. I agree that I wish you could have an architect because you would come up with more concepts that would help you 7 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 come up with something that you would be happier with. We would have to eliminate those steps in the front. They are completely out of character. When you carried your natural materials over into the new addition somehow you contemporized it. I'd like to address the back and feel that could be handled better in some way. These people have a good attitude and good ideas and I think the massing can work. Charlie: I want to commend the applicant that without an architect this is a good presentation and helps us relate to all the things that are going on. I agree with the board and ignominiously we would like to see the structure saved. My comment will be that trying to carry that roof line not higher than the existing roof line made you design something that perhaps is not compatible. I don't think it is appropriate that you do an encroachment on the setbacks; the difference between one or two feet you should try to comply with in the regulations. Steve: The alley is 10 ft. Charlie: If there is any place to encroach I would try to stick to the alley. Scott: We are limited to a very limited area to build for a livable house otherwise it is not worth it. I cannot accommodate all those problems. I would like a set consensus of what is acceptable for this. Bill: One concern I have is the height of the addition; they have keyed in too much on that and tried to add on to the house as opposed to getting a structure that is going to be different and allow the log cabin to have its own identity. Steve: That was a concern of staff also that possibly if they came up with a peak roof a little bit higher it might actually be acceptable because it might not overshadow the original house. I would also encourage this Committee to accept some concept of the encroachment in the alley as the applicants have to go to the Board of Adjustments. They are proposing a 5.4 foot setback and it is 15 feet that is required but that seems to be the most compatible location for the addition. Scott: The easy solution for us is to say forget it. I need consensus on paper of what is acceptable for pitched roofs etc. Charles: We are here to respond not design. Georgeann: I would say everyone of us is willing to let you encroach on the alley. 8 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 Charles: Have you considered building in the northeast direction. Caroline: We need parking for the restaurant. Charles: It seems like you are trying to add everything to one spot and possibly you should consider several small additions to the sides of the cabin then you would get something more compatible in terms of gables, porches, windows etc. Scott: We have to live in this dwelling. Augie: You are throwing your desires on this board whether you want a restaurant and a house on this site is up to you. That is not our decision. MOTION: Georgeann: In trying to make a motion I have two thoughts: We are generally approving the massing and if they would re-study the design we would be willing to look at it the next meeting which would allow them to move on at the same speed they can move on and at that point some of us could talk to them. On the other hand I could go into specifics and the specifics I see are: Soften the contemporary features of the new addition on the Main St. side; eliminate the dominance of the porch, the steps etc. as they fight with the other building. They might want to consider pushing that back a few feet and pulling the eastern addition out a few feet to give them the same square footage. Georgeann, Zoe and Charles volunteered to work with the applic- ants. Georgeann: Lets make that motion to allow him preliminary massing approval contingent on Charles, Zoe and myself meeting with him and discussing some of the possibilities that our outlined in the minutes. Nick: I second the motion. Steve: Are you recommending tabling until the next meeting. Georgeann: No I'm not because he would loose too much time. Steve: I would recommend you tabling it because that is the cleanest action. This project will not be ready for final review because of all the other changes. Charles: I would feel more comfortable tabling it at this point. 9 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 Bill: Vote on motion. Georgeann, Zoe, Pat, Charlie, Joe, Nick- yes. Bill, Augie Charles-no. Motion carries. MOTION: Nick: I move to give approval for designation withholding any skylights on the old building. No second. Motion dies. MOTION: Charlie: I make a motion that we designate the structure historical provided however upon the approval of the addition otherwise they don't want it designated. The motion is conditional upon the boards approval of the addition. Charles: I'll second that but I would like to amend it: that the approval of the addition and any work that is going to effect the existing structure. Georgeann: So you are saying approval of the addition and any changes to the existing structure. Charles: Yes. Charlie: They have guidelines on the existing. Bill: We have a second and it has been amended. Discussion. Augie: If we feel this building should be designate we should do so whether it has an addition or not. Georgeann: I feel we are trying to do too much too fast. I think you would be wise to wait until the next session for designation. Scott: We don't want it designated until we get conceptual approval. Bill: You don't have to go through with designation we are only recommending that it be designated. Charlie: Georgeann, the motion is trying to keep in play their time schedule and the designation comes concurrent with the addition. All favored the motion except Augie. Nick abstained. Motion carries. 10 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 REMAND OF 222 E. HALLAM Charles stepped down. Lisa Purdy: I've been in the field of historic preservation for over 10 years. I usually put buildings on the national register for clients so I am familiar with how buildings are designated. It is real important when you set up a system to also allow for people to come back with additional information and relook at what you had done. We have done more thorough research on this house. Richard Kline: We think the house was originally built in 1887 and it used to be 12 ft. by 44 ft. and was made out of clap board and wood roof. That building no longer exists except for two 44 ft. logs underneath the house that was built second. The second residence roughly built in 1887. The next addition was in 1889 which was a new front porch. In 1890 the rear of the house was added onto with a porch. In 1893 the sunroom was added and an additional addition was added onto the back. In the 20's the porch was removed and a new one added on around 1924. In the 50's the porch was filled in and a new porch added on in the back. In the 1960's the imitation siding was on the original house and removed, cedar siding was placed on and is still presently on the house. In 1977 there was an addition to the back of the house again and the front porch again was altered. In 1982 the sunroom was added on. A tree fell on the house in 1985 and at that time a metal roof was added. The siding and windows have been changed. The corner of the sunroom is the only part of the existing house that remains that was originally historic. Lisa: The essence of the question here are the alternations that have been made to this house effected the historic integrity of the house. 90% of the original house is lost, the only original fabric left is that one corner of the sunroom. I would like to address the system you have set up from 0 to 5. Fours and fives are the cream of the crop in your system. I think this house belongs as a 2 and possibly a three in your system and the reason for that is so much has been altered on this house. The house is esthetically pleasing. I have compared this house with several others. Bill: Most of the changes occurred before 1900 so all of the changes are historic except the last two. Larry: All the windows are new and the siding is new and the roof is another material. 11 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 Steve: Council felt that the additional information should be assessed again by the Committee. Some changes have been made prior to 1904 but primarily the house had a few additions to the rear between 1890 and 1893 and the sunroom was added around 1893. The main alterations that we looked at were the replacement of the siding and we thought that narrow siding probably matched the original and very much in keeping. The original windows have been replaced but the style is similar. The originals in the sunroom are still there. The metal roof is not uncommon in Aspen. The porch in 1924 does change the appearance of the house. For the last 60 years the porch has been changed. The question is does the period of historic significance end in 1900. We felt that this house does have historic significance. We are recommending that HPC keep it at a #4. If this house were in a different neighborhood it probably would be a #3. Bill: I'll open the public hearing. Louise Vigoda owner of 232 E. Hallam, the Glidden House, who has been involved with historic preservation for over 10 years presented the Commission with a letter protesting the request to remand 222 E. Hallam. That letter is attached. Ann Austin: Louise's house is a total reproduction with a large contemporary addition. If that is preserving integrity it baffles me. The house that we are talking about has been changed so many times that it is hard for me to believe that we are saying this is something historic. Sally Roache: I was at many of the neighborhood meetings where the numbers were given to these homes and if facts were presented that demonstrated changes the Committee took that very seriously and numbers were lowered. Gideon Kaufman: This isn't an issue of historic or not historic. All we are arguing for is its appropriate score. We feel this score should be a two or three. Georgeann: Every house in this town has gone through changes. Anyone could come to us and make this same presentation and pretty soon we wouldn't have houses. One significant detail you are saying is that a porch was altered in 1977 when a tree fell on it, the porch could be altered back, that is not impossible. The fours and fives are not the cream of the crop, above them we have notable, exceptional and excellent. All we picked by making fours and fives was to say we would like demolition review on those buildings. This building would probably be given a three but it is in a significant neighborhood therefore we gave it a four requiring it to come before us for demolition review. I 12 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 think changing this from a four would be out of keeping with our original review. Patricia: I have reread all our standards again and I cannot change that number in good conscience. Nick: I was at the meetings and I also agree with Georgeann. Charlie: I would say that we would want to rely on the Board and that the ratings were well though out and are consistent. Bill: In looking at the evidence I would not change my score either. Joe: I wasn't there but in looking at the standards for various ratings it seems to be that the argument here is that it has been altered. For #3 it says a structure has been altered in a way that negatively effects its historic architectural integrity, whereas #4 says the structure has been altered in a way that is considered compatible with the original architecture. Were the alterations made in a manner that negatively effect the historic architectural integrity or were they compatible. Everyone can draw their own conclusion from that. Gideon: What Joe is talking about in #3 is exactly what we are talking about. That hits the nail on the head. The #4 were things that really weren't changed much. It is very hard for me to understand what was done here when you have a building a block away that had fewer changes and that is a two and this is a four. It seems to be that there is a inconsistency. Nick: Gideon you are saying that we are comparing one building against another building. We just compared that particular building against the criteria and we came up with a #4. The consensus on the Board is that it remain a #4. Zoe: Because of the strong influence on the neighborhood I would score it as a #4. Gideon: One of the statements that was made was that Mr. Amato knew what it was scored when he bought the house. When he bought the house he thought it was authentic. MOTION: Georgeann: I move that we retain the designation of #4 on the house at 222 E. Hallam. Patricia second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. 13 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 MINOR DEVELOPMENT-SCULPTURE GARDEN, ENTRY GATE 411 E. HOPKINS Bill Lipsey: I'm the architect acting for Laura Donnelley who owns the old Aspen Jewelry Bldg. and the adjacent open space all the way up to the Brand Building. We would like to take the open space and make it a public open space that has a new terrace for the existing restaurant and taking the rest and developing it into a high level kind of environment for modern contemporary sculpture to be placed in. Along the front property line we plan to add five new trees and leave the existing tree and redo the entire sidewalk from the curb to the property line putting in tree grates. We felt to buffer the noise that a five foot high wall should be put up. A steel picket fence would be between the end of the wall and the Brand Building. The existing green canopy that the Smuggler has will stay. We hope to put in a decorative water sculpture. The idea is to make a space that has a specialness when entering it and you would be drawn in by the water feature. The sculptures would change over the seasons. There would be opportunity for poetry reading. We have shown this to several bodies and they all feel this would be a good thing for the town. c..<14 d ofed:.5 4 lf.1. for.vt.1-it,., ~ Steve: The Planning office applauds the basic ddren. The wall would be 5 feet tall and the segments would be 21 ft. long each. There would be a gate that closes the segments. The material would be masonry, a sand blasted tinted concrete; the columns would be stone and the roof metal. The concerns that we had are the continuity and massing of the facade alignment. The guideline in the commercial core encourages people to build out to the street front if you are going to continue that continuity. Is it appropriate to have a 5' high wall directly on the property line with nothing to buffer it. A little separation from the sidewalk might be desirable. I don't think the material is inappropriate and staff would recommend approval. Patricia: You didn't consider something softer like hedges for security reasons. Bill Lipsey: That is part of it, security and also do something for the City that is civic oriented. Georgeann: I like the wall and it being on the street and contemporary. I am concerned about the materials that they might be too harsh and too much of a shock. Patricia: But look what is across the street. Bill Lipsey: The trees shadow the wall and you see them as an 14 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 ingredient in the whole look of things when you are on the sidewalk. It also will have some pigment in it. Georgeann: Maybe you could show us some examples. Bill Lipsey: I also wanted to ask you your comments on the color of the sidewalk. Steve: That is a CCLC issue. Bill: I think this is refreshing and it is nice to see some contemporary things come into town. Zoe: I agree with Bill and I would just like to see some samples. Charlie: Are you going to heatmelt the sidewalk. Bill Lipsey: I don't think so. Augie: The design is very simplistic and achieves alot. Charlie: How committed to the fountain are you. Bill Lipsey: We thought the garden needs some noise to make a certain atmosphere. Georgeann: I see this as a private space and I'm not so sure if I was a tourist walking in town if I would go into that space. Bill Lipsey: It would be similar to Sante Fe and you will want to go into it. Joe: Is Laura deed restricting the property as you said it is going to be open space. Bill Lipsey: No she is not and at some time in the future it may not be a sculpture garden. This is an experiment. Patricia: Will the musicians play there in the summer. Bill Lipsey: Yes they will. We hope it will be very pleasant and educational and beneficial to the town. Patricia: What is the gate made out of. Bill Lipsey: Steel picket fence. Georgeann: What is the material in the garden. 15 .. HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 Bill Lipsey: Gravel. Charlie: Is the lighting structure reflected lights. Bill Lipsey: Light would be coming up into the discs that will be painted white and can be adjusted. Steve: Would there be any lighting on the front wall. Bill Lipsey: There would be lighting around the water feature to encourage people to come in after dusk. MOTION: Charlie: I would like to make the motion to approve the plans as presented. Augie second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Georgeann: I would like to amend that motion and while we give total approval that we would appreciate it if Bill Lipsey would show us the material on the wall. Zoe second the motion. All approved. 16 .. VI MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Continued Conceptual Development Review of 300 W. Main Alterations and Addition DATE: February 19, 1988 On February 9, 1988 HPC recommended historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main and gave conceptual development review approval for proposed alterations and new construction subject to the conditions that: \ 1. The applicant shall come back to HPC with further study and clarifications of: (a) the massing, generally found accep- table, (b) softening Of contemporary features of the addition, (c) elimination of the dominant character of the porch and steps on the south elevation, (d) consideration of extending the addition further east while pulling back the addition from the south, and (e) changing the roof pitches slightly; and 2. A sub-committee of the HPC consisting of Georgeann Waggaman, Charles Cunniffe and Zoe Compton Will meet with the applicant prior to the next meeting to generally discuss concepts of compatible architectural design that should be considered by the applicant for the addition. The sub-committee and applicant met early this week. Enclosed in this packet is the south elevation as amended to respond to the HPC's concerns. The east, west and south elevations, and a site and roof plan will be presented by the applicant at the February 19, 1988 meeting to show further design changes. The south elevation should help the Committee to evaluate the general direction the applicant is taking for the design. Of course, the remaining elevations must also be reviewed. Staff has not had the chance to review the proposal as amended and has no further comments at this time. We anticipate that the February 23 meeting will work somewhat as a "work session" to air the new design and to give the Committee an opportunity to comment on its - development. Please bring your packet from February 9, 1988 meeting as there is useful information in the staff memorandum and the applicant's first submittal. sb.30Ow.main.2 9 Â® 0 ADQ]Il 1, N __. ._08_/6 l-,VAL... .5TRUCTURE 4 AUP,7-/DA.1 . CORMER ' -7.-r ..r ,r_11 1 1 9 : --- ~i ~ ~ - ~ ~ EL t,> gain It ' 11 4.- r I H 1 1 1 1 t! !1 1 I 1 ..4.=. =2. 1 ' 1 ! 1 1 1 / - I Tter---%444.-1 i, 6 , 9- i ' :' 7=3 -r j i J 1 A k~- fn-n_ -ar~jl.f 1--_71Â« 6 2 131:111 :.1- 1 : 1 1, - I 5 â€¢[ 4--.4.1.6 . .. .Â· . i ..4 .Â· L . â€¢Â· â€¢,...â€¢Â·6Â·.fÂ·...-+Â·, Ildlij,1.1 1, 1 11 \ 1,1 'i;' i , 1 i I r. + il d ~ git:EL. ~-LE i I ;1 11. .,u.= U /07. \ L.j-% 1 .i - 3lk/fll 1: - Il - :i 111 1 ..t -4..-,610 1 ! - . .1 - 1 41- l< v 14>1 -t,-9-I -fL_- 4-ZIN L 71 -0 . r . 1.3 i ? 1.=~ 4-201_,Â· Rac. , i 10 1 -0211 Hmv 1 'f h 1 1 -- L-- 4 k.- -:t--RE.L.._ ...p- i/~i Pbe.-4 0,4 7Â»'EÂ»-1' h~ k- , i 1 /1 CL '-- 12.- . 7 2 L St Li - j . 1 -4,-h fla,- C)<1971,15. COLS. 1 24IUUC., *--- ---i 4 Â·Â·~ 5 5>eye.* i i IN 4 11 -I , r. , .:I i b il:!,ji~.: 1 1 ., ell., 411 â€¢ 4 1 !11': Ill 11 11.. 4 0 1 ....1-!:1.4-=UL--Ii. i 0 1 1 + . - d E ...-1, r--8 J : HorrU e:Lex/AlloN 4. .. 1 7>, Â·Â· . i \VE-5- garnett 4, i ctenct , 5/3 W. 8 lei IGÂ¢ c Â·b - A, , f i A, V " 4 11 1 Vh D l,)1 1 - - - C. M mu~ro thi tk j-jf c Efi~ .4 j / I VII. 01... 411- 6 6 4--4.-~-12 : ' ',!'.. h ili iDÂ·.2.Z - --r / --- L ...1-1 . 615#48 OV Ec Fe,EN> tkz>ELE 9 - I.- - I . - ----* -- ... - h EAV *W I NALES -0 Ha- - -VZIN) ..4. i E___1 1 ~ l ' Luu-- i 2 --/ It - 19,-1! 9 1 1 Â¢1 . 1 -F,j-3 x11 14 Â· ~'61;Iii!1 1111;'III,,"i~:,,IÂ·jill'1;211.:,11: 1 i li ll i li t i t i! 11 ;1 4Dril il i: c -: i Ii }! 11 ;i li ti l: 11 11 11 11 i: : L __-~ 1 LIJ ! l i , - Macel {5' 464 -8 MIA-5,J .Â£*INAL <., 71,1111,,' 4.j|'Ii,1,1,10.11.11.11,11,44,'9-1 Â· ! i - . 1 -. 1 I - W E.sT Â· a,EVA-TloN 11:34 7 i /4 01 1 1 / \ / k Â·Â·Â·Â· L'ELE-E Â£05, fEAkf Â·-Â·.>----- - ~ %> '' ! \ ' . - 1 AAest AT F,â‚¬2+ ED,5.5 -Â· O - LY,4Â·3 -, Â·,A , - <2 4 - .212>4 - , - .-- -il \ 0/ - \ ---- *, - L -- T 7 4~ Ort*A i.-, 1 1 ~1 - 1 4 -1= 11 11 1; 10 1 1 114 1.1 1 ' 1 1 ! 1 1 . ' i LLy i 1--- - f, III '' 1 1 i! 1 . f i .-. I - :: , , r-. - â€¢u:-- - - 1, 1 1 0 VII) 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Pre-application Conference on 334 W. Hallam Street DATE: February 19, 1988 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The owner of the house at 334 W. Hallam, Marta Chaikovska, is requesting HPC to recommend in favor of historic landmark designation, grant permission to demolish the carriage house, and grant permission to replace the carriage house with a new two story structure similar in size containing a garage and dwelling unit. The northern portion of the main house would be demolished and replaced with a new addition. A green- house would be attached to the east side of the existing house. PIJRPOSE OF PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE: The purpose of a pre- application meeting with the HPC is to introduce the project and identify issues associated with the proposal. This informal meeting allows HPC members to express inclinations on how to deal with certain issues or problems, but it is not intended to supplant the formal review process or to necessarily be com- prehensive. A formal public hearing has been noticed and scheduled for HPC's next meeting of March 8, 1988. ISSUES: The Planning Office has not yet completed its review of the proposal. We have identified the following issues which we believe to be critical to the review of the project: 1. Do the main house and carriage house at 334 W. Hallam Street possess historic and architectural significance, and/or con- tribute to the historic character of the neighborhood and community to warrant historic landmark designation? A National Register nomination form was prepared for this property, known as the Eugene Wilder House, by Barbara Norgren in 1986. The house was determined to be eligible for National Register nomination; however, the current owner did not choose to have it listed. 2. From records noted in the National Register nomination form, it appears that the carriage house is original. It has been moved to the southeast from its original position in the northwest corner of the property. Is the carriage house a significant historic structure, such that its loss will diminish the historic importance of the property? . 3. Should the owner be encouraged to save and rehabilitate the 1 .. existing carriage house, as the most appropriate historic preservation treatment of the property? 4. Can the carriage house be practically rehabilitated or moved? 5. Does the proposed replacement of the carriage house mitigate to the extent practical the impact of loosing the carriage house? Are the architectural style, bulk, massing, height, roof type, fenestration and materials of this new structure compatible with the existing house and with the neighborhood? 6. Is the proposed location of the structure replacing the carriage house more compatible with the property than would be placement within the sideyard and rearyard setbacks? Do the streetscape patterns of setbacks, spacing, and orientation of structures make the proposed location most appropriate? 7. Are the portions of the main house to be demolished original construction or old additions that have historic and architec- tural significance? Should the applicant be encouraged to save and rehabilitate those portions of the house rather than undertake the partial demolition? 8. Are the architectural style, bulk, massing, height, roof types, fenestration and materials of the proposed new additions compatible with the original structure and with the neighborhood? 9. Will any significant vegetation, which contributes to the historic character of the property, be removed because of the proposed construction? 10. Are the form, bulk, massing, and location of the proposed greenhouse appropriate and compatible? What demolition of original materials results from the greenhouse attachment and is this partial demolition appropriate? 11. Will the applicant be doing anything that can undermine the structural stability of the original house? 12. Will the original house, particularly the south and west elevations visible from Hallam and Third Streets, be carefully restored, with no unnecessary loss of significant historic materials? sb.334w.hallam 2 0 0 --- 2 7\ -2 ''hi .' 11 APPL ICAT ION FOR H IST ORI C PRES ERVAT ION COMMITTEE REVIEW FEB 1 2 388 3 A. Name of Applicant: Marta Chaikovska and Frank E. Peters liU B. Authorization by owner for Representative to Submit Appli- - cation: See attached. C. Name and Location of Property: 334 West Hallam Avenue, Block 42, Lots K, L and M. D. Description of Proposal: See attached letter. E. List elevation plans, site plan, detail drawings, historic photographs, current photographs, etc. which are being submitted with this application: Site Plan. survey. existing floor plans, existing elevations, proposed elevations, historic inventories (National and 'City of Aspen), photo of property, Sandborne Map, structural observation. F. Building Materials: To match existing: wood shingle roof, narrow clapboard siding, corner baards. -. G. Colors: To match existing. H. Illumination: N/A I. Signage: N/A J. Effect of the proposal on the oripinal design and architectural elements: See attached letter ror specifics. K. Identify encroachment licenses or other City approvals needed by applicant: PLZ apgroval of ripsignation; City Connril approval of designation; P&Z approval of setback encroachments on the designated property. â€¢ i ' 11 h P -, 1-11 FEB I 2 -13 ; and associates ~ 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN,COLORADO?1611 TEL (303) 925-4755 February 12, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Steve: This package is presented to you with information that you will need for the following: Informal presentation to the HPC on February 23, 1988 for a preliminary review of our proposal. Formal presentation to the HPC on March 8, 1988 for a review of our proposal. Pursuant to our telephone conversation on February 4, 1988, I think you will find everything you need to prepare for both meetings and to get this published for Public Notice fifteen days prior to the March 8th meeting. This is a re-submittal of the package I gave you on January 29th, including the survey of the site, existing plans and elevations, a new Application for Historic Preservation Committee review, and a letter outlining our proposal. Please put this package with our previous submittal paperwork. If you have any problems with this package, please call meg Sincerely, it,1,Â»1, Patricia Harris Project Manager PH:dem Enclosures . 7 4 t - , 71 FEB 1 61988 11 2 1 ~ and associates 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN,COLORAD081611 ' TEL : (303) 925-4755 February 16, 1988 iÂ·,1 v- 1 11 w ..'I i : - i-, ut = t. tÂ·.: A. It Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Stre=+ Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval 6.2.4 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K, L and M City of Aspen Dear Steve: With respect to the letter 1 gave you on February 12, 1968, and pursuant to your telepnone request on February 15, 1988, I enclose the following brief summation: Our proposal is as follows: 1. Obtain historic designation for the property. a. Demolish oortions of the main house shown on our enclosed plans; i.e., those portions that were additions to the main "L-shaped" plan of 'the historic ..Â·, l. ructure. Basically, tnis includes that part of the building north of the main north-south gable, and north 04 the easr-wesr cross - c:,1 a ble . b. Demolish the carriage house. Obtain approval for our conceptual development. We are proposing an adoition to the north side of the house which we feel is more compatible with the structure. rhis will also increase the size of the house (see enclosed table of square tootaae involved). We will restore the house by replacing siding (to match) where needed, and replacing and/or refurbishing those portions of the trim and derail as needed. â€¢ Mr. Steve Burstein ' 1 C' C' CD February 10, 1 7ow ~ and associates 1-' a o e 'C W o b. Obtain approval for a conceptual development plan of the carriage house. This plan incorporates both a garage ano owelling unit, with exterior to match the materials and architectural style of the proposed designated historic structure. Enclos ect with this letter is a table outlining the square footage involved, along with our setback requirements and proposed encroachments. - A _A Lly, 15 1 rl (Â· Â·Re-Â·1 All.. d/' Â¥ vv 1 Patricia Harris Proiect Manager Â· PH: dem Eric l osuras â€¢ ~ and associates - 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: ZONING R-6 Lot Area: 9,000 b. 1 -Â· . Existing House Floor Area: 2,90/.6 5.1-. Proposed Addition Floor Area: 1 5 06-.4 m). r . Proposed Total House Floor Area: 4,570 S.F. Maximum Allowed Ploor Area: 4,580 S.F. Existing Carriage House Floor Area: 1,144 S.F. Proposed Carriage House Floor Area: 1,137 S.F. Proposed Garage Area: 260 5. r. Maximum Allowed Area: 500 S.F. I. 1 '- 1 1-1'7 */ I Existing Site Coverage: 2,090 S.F. Allowable Site Coverage: .4- 19 . -- - .... .1 1 (30%) Â·' / 1/1 0 ,-1 r r-Â· Proposed Site Coveraae: 2,06-2, b.r. (28%) PROPOSED DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURE: Total Front-Rear Setbacks Proposed: 45 Feet Minimum Allowed Front-Rear SetbacKs: .2,0 reet Total Side Yards Proposed: 40 Feet Minimum Allowed Total Side Yards: 25 Feet PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE DEVELOPMENT: Total Front-Rear Setbacks Proposed: reet Minimum Allowed Front-Rear betbacks: 30 Feet Total Side Yards Proposed: il Feet Minimum Allowed total >Â·Â·Â·Â·i <Â·1 m Yards: ''~- -eet ..C Â·_j 10'-0" Distance between Buildings . I With regard to the encroachment in the Alley and on [hiro screet, we are utilizing the Variance SecoacK allowed with the (Proposed) Historic Designation. â€¢ 4. 7 49' Â·Â· : A... 4 kn# i--- . - 0 t . y,> j .*:1 .t '222'. Â·H,~ ~ 0~~ /'.2 -- f . - F kI z LAÂ·-9 .,.~/but4Â»Â· -w< ,- , .1.. . 1,374 - 12-:"-.. '* --- C.,1.-0Â£=~ - . - - .. I. ' 4,92,4444/1**f./--~ $#4440:9'.f ~..1' 11:'1'rÂ¢.+7. 2 87 ' ::~2:.7,-*-.,-"~1~M-IN,-1-, . 73.- I - f'Ke.MEL- 12.92_ n. flil,11[' L.A. 21-- . 6-' Fakiz. fAe-r -el- BA.r*- , Fâ‚¬Â·" 097Â£ rze 1 -- T -~ 1 -3%-1 i - . - -- rAPJZ \AA-- -- 1- 1 -* rl. / 1- kltilmik.-/~ 1 1 31111 . ..1 ; -2442 1/ / C- 1 r :>- I /' 10' ReG'D. MW. 0161-Aklce 66-r,4â‚¬6 N e,l-Cts. C lilli 9241 1 4,- == r --1 1 '- ; ..2% A A -J . .. -1, t= - rer 17 1 --kin â€¢ Fi FAS. -1 f . -~ M... * . - 4 V MUK L .-i ... - Lit, 1 L 1 . ..2 1 2 - - -13 ------ J .-C lilli 4 1 - 1 2/ I :-+ su)4 SEÂ·Aa= , -/ 4. - -1-1-JL.16 Fer PE i 232- r"-*Rf~ 1.1 i I j 1 1 i 1 1,31 1 A 1 0 a 41 / - -E :....7.-p.lIiI i-*1 ' 1 - r: \ f I 54/ i 91#F , - tÂ· - 1 ' >i L . , w ' 47 - i I'- , 4 '1 U Â£ 1 k.4... HALLAM AVENUE 3 04 i 90 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Report on Elli's Roof-top Mechanical Equipment DATE: February 19, 1988 On December 22, 1987 HPC approved two alternatives for the placement of swamp coolers and ducts on the roof-top of the Elli's Building. The applicant chose to use the approved plan called "Exhibit 4," which shifted the three swamp coolers to the west. A final layout drawing was submitted to the Planning Office on February 9, 1988. This drawing shows general conformance with "Exhibit 4" except that an elbow duet comes off the farthest east swamp cooler (closest to Mill Street) in an arrangement not approved by HPC. The swamp cooler relocations and new duct work have been ac- complished, so HPC members can observe the results and determine if this variation is acceptable to you. Staff will ask HPC during staff comments whether you want to bring this matter as a new item on the agenda. The applicant has been notified of our approach. Roof-top restaurant mechanical equipment was anticipated at the December 22 meeting. John Cottle informed me that the design and location of this equipment has not been finalized. Another review will be scheduled when the Planning Office receives an applica- tion for this equipment. sb.e2.19 , N N ~Note Tki~ duct*WDrit /~ 1 i., 'As ni *flrowed tn f ' j "Exhibi'+41 04 3 005 / 1 tojo ar,(jft sov#h fro<4 i 3 w â€¢ fl'; f C & e ler' 5 2 1 / M-%* po -fo cle +ir[2:146'" l~ * MATe -OP AIA 01)1 0 I . / -Â» /1- RGLOCATE: EAC )1 UUr-r ~ To rÂ«19'nu, cuZE&'i / COMAUST _ --J Ain Br<.4 2,<TT f N 0 4 AN'DO 4 r'y EMLY,(K\5Â· CUCE C-ZOOA 2 1 ,-- ; /34 2<-- TO ReÂ·,1 A'U voui,60 3(/ef 1 lic. 1-<, [j ~c. ~ g>~,l [~'f ~ p --il ~ Low Ro rf 1: -ill L=t 2- -2 --7-ji -f.~6~311 1 1 -- N /6,065 t-*167. T , ~f 14,16 REf /Â·'~ 50/22 --%- .Â£_~ , -1 M AÂ· e*671. 6. 006,JIU, *DAJOr'DAI : 2 1 , ---- 1 6 9-Jpl Het.0441* N Nelk) CORB .. V Z/*.Â·* -, -W, -'.*.---4...., Â£ h 1 tÂ·Yl-- 8*V,TIN G '50/2,2. C>Â», 1 ~ i NEW OPÂ¢f>JIW G - r----â‚¬-11 Â·f so/h, tia 2~F---= t 1.g D/Â·24 ..Il/ 4---- L ! IEr--I. L...1 1 1 47 0/60 Sell-r ry 8 --, F#Svit>e t<.)47'iMÂ« ~14~er,li~ 11 ftÂ»TOF MEGH AA) LCAL A40)* CLW -ADD IT! ON -123 6 Ll_4 4> i) Il /88 Â»4--*g- Put i f~~ 05 Ll-:38 MON 7-5=11 rÂ·1 KK--ENGI F-4 EE1/ F'.01 81 1 24 T?P 03_62 7 - f -*--7%;.1 \1 4 30/ 2 7. Â£ 30/14 T - -\ 4 4/22 Z sec-nor. 1 AT Ed) L U M N (2) LOOK.! UG K.)0(21- U 58 A.Le 1/10 . f '. 0, 8 1 F B ; 4, f k 3-- 1 1/94 -1 1 .Ji SECTION' 17 2,;DLI)/91. N (2) LOOK-( US E A 6-7 idAÂ·,2- 931 i (LoÂ·5 ADE) rl-[ON -T-6 --eu.s,i's Ael *22 lili /93 Pr-%.r'~ n~-17\ Fi=/1.05 /~~fiqilif IR\191~ .. 9:\ I FEB 1 7 '988 t; ti lu\\-i- - - - j 1% i - 1 - 47/2 P - 1 41 - 71 2,2-0>dM ) *~ L --"-1 6,27- C Â»2/1 -2,LU-24--U (144 /-4-- _J2Q-Ap -29 072 7-Â»a-â‚¬ A E-/ 3 /34.-0- /09,21-eght 34- d--O-c cxÂ« 04/taL the e 41 M y?ta k/_tz-30.--_ 47 - I i