The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20010627ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 27, 2001 0 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS SITE VISITS - NOON - Meet at the first site. If you cannot attend, be sure to visit the properties on your own before the meeting. NONE 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - none III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments and project monitoring V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. 735 W. Bleeker - Final review - Public Hearing - continued from to June 13,2001 5:40 B. 629 W. Smuggler - Conceptual Review, Partial Demolition, Public Hearing VII. WORKSESSION 6:15 A. Infill program 7:30 VIII. ADJOURN 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 735 W. Bleeker- Final review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 27,2001 SUMMARY: In 1998, HPC held several worksessions, site visits, and hearings to consider a redevelopment of the property at 735 W. Bleeker Street. Numerous plans were presented that involved making very large additions to the historic house on the site, all of which were rejected. The applicant (the former owner of the property), ultimately pursued HPC's recommendation to create two completely detached structures, with a limited amount of square footage added to the old house. After the conceptual approval, the property was sold to the current owner, Randall Bone. Mr. Bone chose to focus on the new unit first, and proceeded to secure all of the necessary final approvals, completing construction in 2000. He received one extension of conceptual approval for the old house, and submitted this application for final review before that extension expired. The final development application for the old house was reviewed by HPC in January 2001. The board expressed concerns with the project and the applicant asked for a continuation in order to explore other options. APPLICANT: Randall Bone, owner. LOCATION: 735 W. Bleeker Street, Unit 735 of the 106 N. 79735 W. Bleeker Common Interest Community. ZONING: "R-6," Historic Landmark. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards in order for HPC to grant approval. 1 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: As noted above, the HPC reviewed several different schemes for this property in 1998, the earliest of which were found to have significant negative impacts on the historic structure. The decision to split the development into two units was viewed as a "win-win" plan for both the community and the applicant. The project that was conceptually approved allocated the allowed floor area on the site approximately equally between the old and new structures. Staff and the HPC expressed numerous reservations about the design of the addition to the old house, and the demolition of an early portion of the building. The conditions of conceptual approval included direction for restudy, specifically that the west elevation was to be examined in regard to the character of the rooflines. For final review, the applicant has modified the roofline in question on the west faGade, and has made minor changes to the placement of new windows on the addition. Some minor "clean-ups" have been made to the design since the January 2001 meeting, but is essentially unchanged. In considering the final review standards for this project, and whether the proposal is compatible in "general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan" with the historic structure, stafffinds that the standards are not met, particularly in regard to the second story addition. In order to accommodate two units on the site, there is very limited area to add onto the historic house on the first floor level. The conceptual design attempted to maximize the space that could be added by making an addition on the northwest corner of the historic house (right at the front of the structure) and by demolishing a pre-1904 section of the building to allow for a garage with a second story above it. Both of these actions are generally inconsistent with HPC policies aimed at retaining all areas of a house which are at least 50 years old and which have historic significance, and the idea of placing all new construction at the back of a historic building. At the time of the 1998 conceptual approval, the staff and HPC felt some flexibility was appropriate in the interest of creating two detached structures, as long as the resulting addition was appropriate. However, the location of the second story, essentially on top of 2 the original building, severely compromises the design, massing, and scale of the structure and destroys its character. Staff finds that the design for the addition to the historic structure must be revisited. As discussed in January, the most obvious choice to make more space would be to eliminate the garage and use that area to create a master bedroom. While this may not be ideal from the applicant's point of view, the destruction of approximately 50% ofthe original walls of the house and a large section of the roof is simply inappropriate and cannot be considered a successful preservation of the miner's cottage, the sole motivating factor in having allowed two free market homes on such a smalllot. The applicant has concerns with his rights under the conceptual approval that is in place. While staff is sympathetic to his point of view, the HPC should note that the Land Use Code states that the effect of conceptual approval "shall not constitute final approval of a significant development or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan." Again, staff advises a revisit of the design. It may be of interest to know that the Planning Staff expects that, if the concept of "Transferrable Development Rights" (or TDR) is well received by other city boards, a program could be in place by the end of the year. allowing the applicant to potentially recoup square footage that cannot be appropriately realized on this project. Staff finds that this standard is not met. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The character of the neighborhood is a mix of mining era cottages and large newer second homes. The overall concept of this plan was to preserve the scale of the historic house, to build a similarly sized residence next to it, and to reflect the building density that was historically characteristic of the neighborhood. Staff finds that this standard is met. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: By maintaining the old house in its original orientation and very close to its original location, and by taking most of the mass that could be added to it and placing it in a detached home. the intent of the project is to protect the building as a representation of 19th century mining era housing. With the modifications discussed above, this standard could be ~ met. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 3 Response: Staffs primary concern is that the proposed addition, particularly the second floor component, diminishes the architectural character and integrity of the original design and has a significant visual impact on the building and the streetscape. The integrity ofthe original floor plan of the building is diminished and its character as a one story structure negatively affected. The addition is taller than the original structure when viewed from the street and has a blank wall facing West Bleeker. Staff finds that this standard is not met. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the final review standards are not met by the project as currently proposed. Given the constraints on the site, an addition cannot be set back from the historic structure in the manner typically encouraged by HPC. The applicant must redesign the project and eliminate the second floor in order to meet the standards. Staff recommends that the case be continued to a date certain. Exhibits 1. Staff memo dated June 27,2001 2. Final application. 3. Minutes ofJanuary 24,2001. 4 r. LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: 735 West Bleeker Location: (Unit A of 735 West Bleeker / 106 North 7 Common Interest Community- (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPUCANT: Name: Randall Bone Address: 117 Aspen Business Center, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970-920-9911 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Same Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Conditional Use j Conceptual PUD Â£ Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review ~1 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ~ Final Historic Development Design Rsview Appeal IJ Conceptual SPA Â£ Minor Historic Devt GMQS Allotment D Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) U Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption Â£ Subdivision U Historic Designation ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes U Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane U Lot Split I Temporary Use ~ Other: ~ Lot Line Adjustment El Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) See attached summary. PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) See attached summary. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ~ Pre-Application Conference Summary U Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement 7 Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents d Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application U00000 735 West BleekerÂ· Historic Project Final Development Application To: The City Of Aspen CC: Randall Bone Date i October 13,2000 Subject: 715 West Bleeker, Final Approval From: Randall Bone A Brief History of the Historic Home at 735 West Bleeker The historic home at 735 West Bleeker was acquired by Randall Bone in 1998 after an historic designation and conceptual development plan was approved by the HPC in October of 1998. Subsequent to that approval the new unit (Unit 106) received final approval and was constructed on the site. Randall Bone is now applying for final development approval from the historic renovation ofUnit 735, the pre existing historic home at 735 West Bleeker. Project Description: The property consists ofUnit 735 ofthe 735 West Bleeker/106 North 7th Common Interest Community, also know as the historic miner cottage at 735 West Bleeker. The property was designated an historic landmark. The home which is currently 707 square feet will be added on to in accordance with the conceptual approval of 1998. The 3,240 of available FAR for the 6,000 square foot lot has been divide between the homes 1,668 square feet for Unit 106 and 1,672 for Unit 735. The final plans for the project are in accordance with the conceptual approval of 1998, extended for 1 year in 1999. \ Some windows have been moved and some removed to reduce the impact on the historic structure. The second story roof lines have been restructure to reduce the second story mass and visual impact on the historic elevations. Materials Representation: The materials, details and finished to be used on the addition have been demonstrated on Unit 106. Prior Resolutions: October 1998: Historic Designation and conceptual approval from two units October 1999: 1 year extension of conceptual approval for Unit 735 September 2000: Conditional 6 Month extension of conceptual approval. (Applicant has chosen to submit under the original 1 year extension of 1999) DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM ATTACHMENT 2 Project: 735 west Bleeker Applicant: < Randall Rnnp Location: 735 West Bleeker Zone District: R- 6 Lot Size: Trrpoular W . Lot Area: 3000 Square Feet (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 ofLot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Number ofresidential units: Edsting: 1 Proposed: 1+ Number of bedrooms: Existing: 1 Proposed: 4+ Proposed% ofdemolition (Historic properties only): 78% nf perimeter Ca.32*2321) DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 707 Allowable: 1.572 Proposed: 1,572 Principal bldg. height: Existing: Â·19 ' Allowable: 15 Proposed: 25' Access. bldg. height: .Exmting: NA / lowable: NA Proposed: NA On-Site parking: Existing: 2 Required: 2 Proposed: 1 % Site coverage: Existing: 24% Required: NA Proposed: 49% % Open Space: Existing: 76% Required: NA Â· Proposed: 51% Front Setback: Existing: 20 Required: 10 Proposed: 16 C ?) Rear Setback: Eristing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 5 Combined F/R: Existing: 25 Required: 25 Ppoposed: 21 Side Setback: Existing: 10 Required: 5 Proposed: 5 Side Setback: Existing: 19. Required: 5 Proposed: 19 Combined Sides: Existing: 29 Required: 10 Proposed: 74 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: Frnnt;Rear combined set back. (?) 1 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 735 W. Bleeker- Final review, PUBLIC IIEARING DATE: June 27, 2001 SUMMARY: In 1998, HPC held several worksessions, site visits, and hearings to consider a redevelopment ofthe property at 735 W. Bleeker Street. Numerous plans were presented that involved making very large additions to the historic house on the site, all of which were rejected. The applicant (the former owner of the property), ultimately pursued HPC's recommendation to create two completely detached structures, with a limited amount of square footage added to the old house. After the conceptual approval, the property was sold to the current owner, Randall Bone. Mr. Bone chose to focus on the new unit first, and proceeded to secure all of the necessary final approvals, completing construction in 2000. He received one extension of conceptual approval for the old house, and submitted this application for final review before that extension expired. The final development application for the old house was reviewed by HPC in January 2001. The board expressed concerns with the project and the applicant asked for a continuation in order to explore other options. APPLICANT: Randall Bone, owner. LOCATION: 735 W. Bleeker Street, Unit 735 of the 106 N. 7t735 W. Bleeker Common Interest Community. ZONING: "R-6," Historic Landmark. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards in order for HPC to grant approval. 1 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and 0 volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: As noted above, the HPC reviewed several different schemes for this property in 1998, the earliest of which were found to have significant negative impacts on the historic structure. The decision to split the development into two units was viewed as a "win-win" plan for both the community and the applicant. The project that was conceptually approved allocated the allowed floor area on the site approximately equally between the old and new structures. Staff and the HPC expressed numerous reservations about the design of the addition to the old house, and the demolition of an early portion of the building. The conditions of conceptual approval included direction for restudy, specifically that the west elevation was to be examined in regard 0 to the character of the rooflines. For final review, the applicant has modified the roofline in question on the west faGade, and has made minor changes to the placement of new windows on the addition. Some minor "clean-ups" have been made to the design since the January 2001 meeting, but is essentially unchanged. In considering the final review standards for this project, and whether the proposal is compatible in "general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan" with the historic structure, staff finds that the standards are not met, particularly in regard to the second story addition. In order to accommodate two units on the site, there is very limited area to add onto the historic house on the first floor level. The conceptual design attempted to maximize the space that could be added by making an addition on the northwest corner of the historic house (right at the front ofthe structure) and by demolishing a pre-1904 section of the building to allow for a garage with a second story above it. Both of these actions are generally inconsistent with HPC policies aimed at retaining all areas of a house which are at least 50 years old and which have historic significance, and the idea of placing all new construction at the back of a historic building. At the time of the 1998 conceptual approval, the staff and HPC felt some flexibility was appropriate in the interest of creating two detached structures, as long as the resulting 0 addition was appropriate. However, the location of the second story, essentially on top of 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. January 24. 2001 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. In attendance were Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Rally Dupps and Melanie Roschko. Rally disclosed that he would step down on 735 W. Bleeker. Suzannah will step down for the inventory. Gilbert disclosed that he and Randall Bone are participants on another project but he will not be stepping. They have no contractual relationship. 735 W. BLEEKER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Affidavit was presented to the clerk. Amy: In Oct. the board agreed to extend conceptual but has serious reservations and said you wanted to do a full blown analysis again, so Randall submitted his application before his conceptual expired. In general the proj ect is a good idea. It is very important that the board got to an approval that divided the mass on the property into the two buildings because when the project first came in it was a duplex and all connected and has serious consequences to the old house. In 1998 the board still had reservations of what was happening with the historic hou-se. Staff still has those concerns. Staff feels what is being presented does not meet the final review criteria, mostly because of the second floor addition. There is some demolition to the historic house but the board went down that road in 1998. The second floor will be very visible from both of the streets and lands pretty much on top of the historic house, which is something the board, had not wanted to see. Staff recommended continuation ofthe project. Staff met with Randall and there are not a lot of options due to the way the site plan is set up and the yellow house is already built. He doesn't have a lot of room but granting variances was brought up even to go to the lot line on the east side. He can't move the building forward, backwards or westward. They discussed eliminating the garage, which is something the owner is not enthusiastic about. Possibly look at other places to locate the parking on site. Randall Bone was sworn in. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. January 24, 2001 The FAR is being set by code and the discussion was how can be protect the front house as much as possible and do something positive on the site. They ended up with two buildings with a significant second story and it was kept behind the rooflines which was a direction that was given. They then got conceptual approval. In reading the motion of conceptual approval Randall said the direction he was given by the board said that he needed to restudy the west roof line, the roof line and hit right on the ridge line and made for a very long plane which was odd looking. In coming back for final he focused on that roof issues and feels they have done that. Looking at the project now it was clear in the fall that the board had significant reservations about the second story being build on this house because of it being really on the historic structure. At the time conceptual approval was given that was seen as the best balance of where to split the FAR. If they kept the house as is and did not to any development all that development would have been shifted over on this house and this house would have been a much larger house and the feeling was that would dwarf this house so here we are. In talking to Amy how can we work it out and come up with something that everybody is happy with. I would like specific discussion about what options I can peruse and where to put the FAR on the site as the FAR cannot disappear. The new house has a five foot setback and that got conceptual approval. The second story sit in and it is a significant piece of development to try and put somewhere else. Possibly get some variances and move the FAR around. Randall said he is willing to look at options to get rid ofthe garage. In talking to the owner ofthe adjacent house maybe he is interested in re- combining this project into a single project which would then open up new opportunities. Maybe parking for this house goes away and some ofthe FAR could shift back onto the property. The house cannot move forward significantly due to the trees. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January 24. 2001 The owner asked about the possibility of attaching the two buildings together. What is possible? Going from conceptual into a new direction will require variances etc. There is disagreement on what conceptual approval was as it indicates one small item to look at. Randall desire to work with the HPC. Randall said the second floor cannot just be torn off. COMMENTS Melanie said in 98 there was concern about keeping the buildings separate and the yellow house turned out to be considerably larger. One plan shows a walkway and how did the changes occur. Randall said the FAR was set and the setbacks. It occurred due to the shifting of the FAR. Another architect was brought in also. Amy said where the kitchen is right now shows up on the Sanborn Map, on the east.* Gilbert inquired about the "blank wall". Randall said originally they had a window and the board directed us to take it back out. Gilbert said numerous times inflection and separation are added so that the addition is clearly different from the historic building and that is not happening here. Randall said the materials can change to a wider siding and a different eave detail to set it off. Any suggestion as to how to set it off let me know. We wanted the primary ridge lines of the old house intact. Melanie asked if there will be a porch. Randall said he was taking the back porch off. The posts on the back were HPC's belief to be historic that originally came from the front porch. The 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. January 24. 2001 plan shows reopening the front porch and reusing the back posts onto the front where they originally came from. Melanie asked if the house moves forward would that disturb the trees? Randall said that was why it was only moved 1 M foot forward. Melanie asked if the plan reflect any parking? Randall show two parking spaces for the house, garage and behind. Susan asked about the window in the front porch and Randall said it will be restored to the same proportion. Jeffrey asked if Randaillooked at moving some of the second story mass toward the eastern property line? Randall said they could take it to a one foot setback but would need variances. Randall said in the future maybe TDR;s would be a way to go. Amy asked the board if they felt the standards were met? David said failure to meet anyone would be a denial. Randall asked about conceptual? David said conceptual is not binding. Jeffrey said not all four standards have been met. Gilbert said no also and he has problems with the site issues that Amy has brought up. The two buildings are OK and the notion that the porch will be removed are supported. He can aIso support the general massing and feels it is workable. Massaging needs to happen to the second floor. The element is dominating the historic building. There are ways to look at the ridge line, 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. January 24, 2001 look at the way the gable works and putting windows in. Giving the distance you have gone down the work this could be a workable solution. Ph opened and closed. Susan said the addition does not enhance the historic structure and doesn't meet standard 3. Two years ago she felt it incompatible due to the second story. Melanie said it does not meet standard 3 or 4. The yellow house overwhelms the historic structure already. Some balance has to occur between the two ofthem. She is not happy ofthe plan as is. Randall asked what specifically it is. Melanie said she has concern ofthe closeness ofthe houses. Does not want to see anything more attach to the yellow house or in any way attach the two houses. Lisa said standard 3 has not been met. It is difficult because we are so far down that road and there are major impacts on that site. If you put massing on the other house, which is a different ownership, and make that bigger, how does that effect the house. If you put massing on the historic house and make it bigger it has impacts. It is the whole proximity issue. Suzannah said there is a general feeling that there is room to work on in a creative way to get the FAR on this building or the other one. Jeffrey said the problem is the allowable square footage in the lot as well as the site constraints with the historic trees. He wishes a TDR could happen. He would be looking at a scheme that moves toward the eastern setback property line. He likes leaving the resource in the same place or a little forward. It is framing the spruce trees which is important. As far as the second story addition he would find the best variance or the best hardship and try to work with that design. He does not like the concept of attaching the two buildings because the lot split should avoid that from happening. If the mass of the garage could go that might work. Massaging and good designing we could get through. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. January 24. 2001 Amy said .Randall is talking about the attachment being similar to the Coultier idea, where the historic cottage becomes a guest house and possibly a breezeway connection. It would not be a major addition. The Board is OK with some addition onto the non historic house to potentially cover the garage and some variances on the east side. Gilbert agreed with Jeffrey. He would explore options to not put the mass on the historic building. If all those options are not available he still feels there is a way to deal with the mass. Susan said the yellow over whelms the historic house more than what we originally thought. Melanie said she would like to see the house move forward to stand on its own. It is overwhelmed and you have to look carefully to see that they are not attached. More distinct. Lisa agreed with Susan and Melanie. Encourage the FAR on the east side or the alley side. There are always major impacts onto 7th and the highway. Suzannah said she agrees with what has been said in general. There is a point where that setback line falls but there should be some room to move. Removing the garage to do something to accommodate a car either in the space that is shown on the drawing as part ofthe historic house property and where that is a car port or something or a very light structure in there might work as opposed to a full blown garage. She would like to see the addition if there is a second floor, see that a little more of an isolated volume as opposed to attaching it with the roof shapes and slopes. One of the main problems is that it looks like an extension of the existing roofs that there is no visual separation there. Creative rearranging. Randall said it was a tight site. MOTION: Jejfrey moved to continue 735 W. Bleeker to March 28~ second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Lisa, Melanie, Susan 6 WEST BLEEKER STREET YEL CAP 9184 RED CAP ria n r 79mng'11.r n n 1-1 1 9 ?018 --0 0 60.02' U 0 -0 0 SPRUCE TREE PORCH ( TYPI CAL) 1 11 0 0 M UNIT 735 0 0 BLEEKER 0 WEST - 1 0 2 STORY WOOD FRAME 0 HOUSE C 1 It -711*l1 ' -- 1 ~ 1 W ENTRY ADU _ IMII-IE UNIT O 2 STORY WOOD FRAME HOUSE 14 TH ACCESSORY DhELLI NG 0 - UNIT 106 NT/f 0 ~/ NORTH SEVE 0 1.<â‚¬29&' 3 coÂ·*10 0 J 0 0 1 Â· 2- _rL n .0 N 75009'11'W 60.02' 6 Bone & Baldwin Residence 735 W. Bleeker St. Aspen, Colorado REFERENCE NORTH Proposed Site Plan 0 5 10 20 NOR TH SEVENTH STREE T 3.64.06â€¢Il N 0 .01 outo rd 1*90'49.w 1 - 11_ 4 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 629 W. Smuggler- Conceptual Development and Partial Demolition- Public Hearing DATE: June 27, 2001 SUMMARY: This property is currently listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" and contains a 19th century house and shed. The proposal involves demolishing a 1950's addition to the house and a garage built around the same time, and replacing those elements with new construction. HPC approved landmark designation for 629 W. Smuggler on April 11,2001. APPLICANT: Steven St. Clair, represented by Mike Hoffman, of Freilich, Myler, Leitner, and Carlisle and Cathi Martinez, of JBZ Architects. 0 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-001 ADDRESS: 629 W. Smuggler, Lot A and the west half of Lot B, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 4,500 sq. ft. lot containing a single-family residence, garage, and shed. 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 ofthe 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 pal'cels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark For historic 0 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 allowedfloor area by up tofive 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: The HPC has held several reviews of this project. At least three earlier schemes for an addition have been discussed, and each time the staff and HPC found that the addition was not compatible with the historic home and required restudy. Following the February 28th meeting, staff provided a summary of the board's concerns to the applicant's representatives. The HPC comments were: 1) There should be clear definition between the old portion of the house and the new addition. This definition should include jogging in the wall plane (on the east and west sides of the building), dropping the ridge height on the new addition, a change in materials, change in window design, change in details, etc. The differentiation can be subtle, but must be clear enough to identify the addition as new construction., 2) The break between the new and old should occur where the historic house ended; that is, where the back of the old house is minus that 50's addition, 3) There was a suggestion that the plate height on the dormer on the new addition should be lowered, 4) The board may be more in favor of seeing a one story connecting piece between the old and new construction, rather than having them butt into each other, 5) There was interest in keeping the garage facing 6th Street instead of the alley, although variances would be required, 6) There was concern that the new garage is too tall and competes with the historic house. On April 11th, a new plan was submitted and was met with the same basic concerns. The applicant was given some other projects to view as good examples in reference to this project. For this meeting, another design has been submitted, which is nearly identical to a previous version except that the wall planes of the addition to the house jog in one foot on each side. Staff finds that important issues that have been raised by HPC continue to go unaddressed. There are some very positive aspects to the general concept of this project. There are no alterations proposed to the north, east, and west sides of the house, the aluminum siding will be removed, and the historic foundation is not being disturbed. A historic shed is being preserved along the alley. While these efforts are sincerely appreciated, following issues from the design guidelines continue to be of issue: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. â€¢ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of 0 the primary building is inappropriate. Â· An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. â€¢ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. â€¢ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. It has been stated several times that the board has a concern with the complete removal of the south wall of the house. There have been discussions about creating a one story connector between the old and new (as discussed in the guidelines), or, alternatively, narrowing the point where the old and new structures connect. The one foot change in wall plane is not effective enough and the end product is an elongation of the historic house that significantly affects one's ability to understand the size and character of the original building. Other guidelines of note are: 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Â· An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. â€¢ 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. 0 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. â€¢ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. Since the last review, there has been progress on simplifying the overall character and design of the addition, which staff finds successful. However, staff does not support adding non-functional upper floor decks on the addition. They should be useable or be eliminated since they do not related to features on the original house. The folding doors that are shown on the south elevation, off the master bedroom, are not drawn the same way in plan view and elevation and need to be clarified (the individual doors are more narrow in plan view.) The architect has previously been asked to address the large chimney stack on the east elevation, which would best be accomplished by finding another way to vent the fireplaces (i.e. run the flues through the inside of the building or use direct vent flues where possible). The architect should also ensure that the historic windows in "Bedroom 2" will not be required to be altered to meet egress. In regard to the garage, the project needs several variances, all of which can be approved 0 by HPC with landmark designation. Specifically the design requires a rear yard setback variance, a combined front and rear yard variance, a west sideyard variance, a combined east and west sideyards variance, variances from the garage standards of the "Residential Design Guidelines" and a floor area variance to allow the garage doors to face 6th Street. Typically, HPC supports such variances if it allows for a more successful project in terms of reducing impacts on the historic structure. The variances will have to be reviewed after a proper public notice is issued and may be incorporated into the final submittal. As stated at the last meeting, staff has struggled to determine what recommendation would be appropriate to make to the HPC in light of the fact that the project seems to be making little progress. We are all striving to create a good review process, and have encouraged worksessions and invested time to write the design guidelines. Whatever the cause, this proposal continues to be in conflict with the guidelines and the review standards. The HPC can either continue the hearing and try to clarify the issues that have not been understood, or simply make the finding that the review standards are not met. The downside of the first option is that attempting to refine a project that is off the mark almost never has a good result and, in the second option, denying a project can be very discouraging to the property owner. Staff finds that this standard is not met. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed 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. Staff finds that this standard is 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: As designed, the project may detract from the historic significance of the home in that the addition diminishes ones ability to understand the relatively small size of the original home. Staff finds that this standard is not met. i 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 addition must be redesigned, particularly in terms of how it connects to the back of the historic house. Stafffinds that this standard is not met. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe following standards are met: 4 A. 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: The existing one story piece at the back of the house would make an ideal connecting element to the new construction, but it is proposed to be demolished. Staff does not find that it, or the garage, have historic significance, therefore this standard is met. B. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) 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 (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. Staff Finding: These impacts are addressed above, throught the conceptual review standards. RECOMMENDATION: 0 Staff recommends the following revisions to the project: 1. Either create a one story connector between the old and new, or narrow the point where the old and new structures connect in a more significant manner than has been proposed. Possibly the roofline could be altered on the upper floor, where the bath and laundry are located, to expose some part of the south elevation of the old house. 2. Eliminate the upper floor decks on the addition or make them large enough to be useable. 3. Clarify the design of the folding doors on the south elevation, off the master bedroom. 4. Eliminate the large chimney stack on the east elevation by finding another way to vent the fireplaces (i.e. run the flues through the inside of the building or use direct vent flues where possible). 5. Ensure that the historic windows in "Bedroom 2" will not be required to be altered to meet egress. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to continue the 629 W. Smuggler review for Conceptual Development and Partial Demolition to a date certain." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated June 27,2001 0 B. Revised drawings ST AIR RES IDENCE @ , ASPEN, COLORADO ADDITION TO HISTORICAL RESIDENCE AND GARAGE k rl=rilinFIRIFY'Mina 20240 6-14-01 1 fÂ«\> i X // 1 AL# 1 -AlÂ¥ 4. P 00/ 1- 1 -- --- - --1./1 CE -4 Il TE '1.eÂ· 11.1 1 1 /-/ 1 .Â« - 1 \\ 1 - 1-+ -.- .- 2. --JI --126â‚¬5t-=227' -771-2 +- L." -7. Â¥7 4 - 61 *+ 7 '31 711 - 'u U 1 12 - 21 -01 I EL - -1. ,- - I--- - El 777 1**fig .LE.'ll# -i~-6---1 i~i)~-~il- NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 0 #jil--ill 1 un lies 1 , UP~N' LEVEL â€¢ FLATE + 1 - - - - - - -- - ---- -Il",Â·.er r - - m , AH+111- 1--TA ..2 -447 \--- Irr Ic 744].1 111 C NOTE Â®Aoer-ENT ~-Ele-ETER - - F 1 - /*.10~rr 0, ul*ue ..06 - I ~ L. 0*8 METER -Ii.,0.... -1 0- .LEÂ¢â„¢Le Mel. EAST ELEVATION BASEMENT FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR EXISTING HISTORICAL PLANS & ELEVATIONS F'-fir 024 8 0 .Ph 20240 6-14-01 0 -1 A-& d 1 1 NICHE 1 // U Lt__!1'95. VOID VOID ' ~ ~ 0260 W ~ D TE LAU. m ii Â»43[)R. 2 11 11 1 1 11 t MBA o W.i.c:~~J (N) MBDR. 15Â° X &4 ~ vom O~929 ~ M ~ ~ ~A~ 1---1 , 1.< 1 --1 1 U 0-1 .IN 4 > 1 6/ 1 1 1 / (N) BDR. 3 9/ 12' X 12 1 4, 1 (NEW) SECOND FLOOR i i , f TABULATION FIRST FLOOR 4 > EXISTING 980 S.F. NEW 436 S.F. 1% TOTAL 1416 S,F. 1 :\ / 1 i SECONDFLOOR 1- i \ â€¢0 t> / - , EXISTING 372 S.F. 1 L. EXISTING HISTORIC NEW CONST. ~ NEW 880 S.F. HOUSE TOTAL 1252 S,F. -- TOTAL (1 st & 2nd FLOOR) 2668 S.F. --" 10]Erâ€ž k m n 427 S.F. KITCHEN Ly# 2% ~ ' GARAGE LOT SIZE = 4500 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED ON LOT = 2820 SF 2 up A (N) DECK i HISTORIC SHED 100 SF OF RESIDENCE 2668 -IÂ»- Tfi "ANTR~A 1 ---1 0 ~ ' ' HISTORIC GARAGE 427 T~~_C-EN Ar.==N) GREAT RM PORCLf ) BOR. 4/[3 U. i 3195 '1 up- .- 1 !1 Â¥ (E) 1,~il G ~ - ~-2~ 24 1 h 1 LESS ALLOW FOR OUTBUILDINGS 250 11 X fO I LJ-ENTRY ~ BA 4 - 125 375 1212 2 I V 0 231 9 d L.]Al 0 6.71 ~ | OVERALL SF + MAX. SF ALLOWED m n 11 4 11 1 3195 - 375= 2820 PORCH ~ -- ~ (ED GARAAE \ 12Vx~ 1 __~-_-4 SITE dc ROOF PLAN scilt't~2'!La. . ...W 1-- (NEW) FIRST FLOOR PROPOSED PLAN 024 8 100'x 45' LOTS 1& 20240 8-14-01 f-Â»27 .Â·j-f>k ' /14 A , r~ /yf-9Â« 1 1 /5 /4..U.-'X' \ . / .1 11,1 1111. ' '11 1 I lili. I . 1 /74*=W--1 H Â»MblE/624\. /121--11-11-124Â·9 \ 1 L-zftill_IL_~r'-n-sl-, 1 ,044"1HH:~~-*-+1\ N -- ..~ 1 1-1 1 11 ./ 6*41 ~rtilll=1-1~[Ir,Â· Â» 11 'JU W Â·imil i -- 0000_ 4 -- - CCIC['Com L ER Ii~IMIES:I WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 1 .. Vi*zw.r /92.-?6 ~2*Mzz==dÂ·#1,1Â»~ 1 // . L.~4* 1 ./'-1'll 1 1 :# Â·! -2,-/4.7. 2 //bm 24-,22, r EÂ» -%3\ 1//-=12'-~il Leirral 2---- 1-~ IH /911111Â®1.-Il'Act=\ 1 *FE==34~ 0%1111#11 ' 11,Lilll, E~L=Itun~tlizur.. - P.----In==1-4=22221' - ----Ela-NEEEl - 5.-1611 1. 1 - lilli==f=:11111Â«1[~1'FILI-~IdIF~r Niq 1 --M----- 4 - - -- ---- 1 --- - - --- - SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 024 8 ELEVATIONS 20240 8-14-01 t 0 4 HI P C FINAL DESIGN PACKAGE 06-27-2001 HISTORIC, HOME RENOVATION 735 Rest bleeker st. aspen' colorado NOTE: F.A.R. CALCULATIONS UNIT I = HISTORIC HOUSE , UNIT 2 = NEA HOUSE SITE COVERAGE: UNIT I: 1183 S.F. UNIT 2: 1182> S.F. TOTAL: 2371 5.F. < 2400 S.F. (4096 OF 6000 5.Fj ALLOINABLE F.A.R.: UNIT I: 1552 5.F. UNIT 2: 1688 S.F. TOTAL: 3240 S.F. eARAGE CALCULATIONS GARASE SROSS S.F. = 273 5.F. SARAGE REDUCTION = 2-13 S.F. - 250 S.F. =23 S.F. /2=12 5.F. SUBGRADE FAR: 69055 S.F. = 1183 S.F. MALL HEIGHT = q'-0 TOTAL MALL LENGTH = 152'-2" TOTAL SUBeRADE MALL AREA= 4'-O" x 152'-2" = 1370 S.F. ABV.GRADE MALL = 21'-0" EXPOSED MALL AREA = 21'-O" x 6'-O" = 126 S.F. 96 OF EXPOSED TO TOTAL AREA = 126 S.F. / 1370 5.F. = 4% SUBGRADE F.A.R. = 4% 0163 S.F.) = Icq S.F. AS BUILT PORCHES 4 DECKS: PORCHES = EXEMPT ABOVE GRADE CALCULATIONS: ABOVE GRADE SROSS S.F. = 827 S.F. (MAIN) + 558 S.F. (UPPER) = 1415 S.F. TOTAL F.A.R. 12 S.F. + log S.F. + 1415 S,F. = 1536 S.F. < 1552 S.F. - F.A.R. CALCULATIONS 49 ... REET BLEEKER. STREET l/ - NOTE: SITE PLAN TO BE VERIFIED PV NEFY SITE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY f ~ LINE - - - - -- -- - 1 - - ~LO~ AREA = /EXISTINS -REE 9 ~ ~ + < 60* 5.F. iN/ b I 1/ 0 0 1 1 ~L------_ NON LOCATION/ 2/ -- OF UNIT I / . h Ill- 2-2.- - -1 OUTLINE OF ~ 1. L_--___ -i 1 -CURRENT LOCATION / / | FORCH' - OF UNIT I \ -/ C 1 \ - I UN Fri ~~' 1~ ~ ~ ROOF ABOVE LkSHT FIELL l 1 ~ 1 1 1.11= 1 _ _ ~ - Iti Â«-u XI l 1 1 Ef- 1 ils r. W NEISHBORINS REMOVE NON-HISTORIC- J jIL â€¢ I 1 LOT I REAR PORCH ~ I 1 ; VI L f ilt I i -ill..... / 1\ \ 1 \ PORCH-~ M 1 \ 1 1 j ~-a'-6"xle'-O" 1 r - - - 1 - T / - PARKINS SPACE 1 1\ 11 2 ----2 -- 19 1 1 \t 41\ 1 1 L---1 11 1 1 + h I lu I /1. LteHT WELL 4 li ~ ~OUTLINE OF | ENTRY STAIRS FOR-~ UNIT 2 I NEIGHBORING HOUSE UNIT 2 lili 1 xx DUPLEX LOT LINE -- REF. SITE 11 IMPROVEMENT SURVEÂ¥ 1 1 11 1 - pu tq& ilit --PORCH LOT LINE --_1 b?Wi23 211KY \ -1 1\ --.-EXISTING TREE | TO BE MOVED ~EXISTINS DRIVE LDRIVE - REF. EASEMENT AeREEMENT ALLEY BLOCK 1 6 NORTH ----- -- - -- + 0 SITE PLAN 1/8. = 1 1-011 NORTH BEVENTH STREET ... PORCH ABOVE Â« SHOMER /0 ZE' /- TUB 0 == / P\\ Tue OP= 1 BATH BEDROOM 7 20 BATH 01. D 21 1 - LAUNDRY 30 LT. VFLL _ ~ COUNTER - t EGRESS LADDER -j PLAÂ¥ROOM r- ~ALL ABOVE L oup BEDROOM f - 1 11 11 1 - ~ LT. AELL LT. RELL = STAIR 0 ~ EGRESS LADDER 3 - 1, EGRESS LADDER 2 NORTH ~ BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = I'-O" ... 3 1-ROOF ABOVE 10 m l PORCH L_____ --7 lill r--- -----11 liLi- 9 -1 - J 1 L V.1.p. SIZE 4 - LOCATION OF HIen FOR. DININS 0 1 LIVINe - r COUNTER / 1 & 3 !I ... ~~RANSE / OVEN _~/ELOS. Un KITCHEN METAL ~ REEF. - GRATINS PV ACCESS (-HATCH 4 SHIP'S 7ZZ==Ip _ SARASE ~ LADDER SINK I r UP 7 ON /323 0 :) ---ifri[1 | DAN ~ >bj: -- 1 L--1 55>9% 1 4 :110111:- - 11 1 :t : Ii:1 6 11 1 0 NORTH 1 6 LOMER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-O" METAL VALLEY f~ FLASHING STANDING SEAM WF METAL ROOFINe -x 0- A 3% W 111 lilli Ifil li Mil 111 11 I111 [ I NT Ir T I ND 17131 - 1 T - - I 1 Hil|F[ 1 41 HFIA lili 11]11 E--------Â«ffÂ¢*9 35 I Ill I I Il Il l I li Il l 1 Wvjl li' ll [I ll li il l i Il Il I i Ii>~>emTrTF]Tr n~7978 -- ==111==222=-- METAL 11111111 li li 114 11 lil li lili ll 111111 Illili IN\>LLUL-IL -[PIL-1 ==*13===E===zz=~1--- CAP -- ~1~1~11 11 IT 11 11 IT 11 61 El li IT 11 -1 11 11 11Mle[F*111 11 IIAXÂ«-It L 11 11 111 1 ===-=-,5,2,p==--r--==Â»-=* FLASHINe Elli Il 1 1 [I [LI-I Â¢ IFI 1 8 I 1 I T [ 111 T TIKIP,11 111 11.111]\0<Ttl Ill[Ul - -2----I'llt--2-1- - 21*112--In--2-= I N THLII |,I N JI H.If 11 '|.|.11 J|.|'i ll ,11,1,T,11 11 IT,1,1,141 U,1,1,ih~ ~f~~i~ in=ELE==1-=121--=C= - .--1 - 1! 11 1 1 11 11 LI L.1 Il Il Il Il Illl Il Il Il 11 Il 11.-Li/ - 111111 U E-Z--=2=Â«--- Illill IlllII lilli.0[lulilli '1-1.1/~\ _~_ 111-1-Ell -== --- III]-_ Â»loOD SH~NO~~- I lil IT 0 JI IT [ 111*11 9111 U li li 11/>rÂ£ ~ - - -- 1-ttllittll=.21Â·==1===.==12--2-3- 1114L-LL11 - 1314Â·" 1 U H 11 8 114- U 1111 8 1/1/t/>F 111111 11 --- -7 -- 11.111%1111 1111 H gil lili! li 11 D/'>'kNE 03 4:12 77Â«1 A 1 11111? J' 11'1~HI'll' I~' 112/,r~j 17 --7- |I ~ 1-Ue | | PRESSINe ~ Ed=Â«91Â« <1 E M. BATH 41Â«44 /42Â« LINE OF ,-- ~EXerINEJ- Ed \1 LEVEL BELOIAI -4--7-=129 A ' 11 ~~~~~n~ 1~ HALL ~ DIRECTION r OF SLOPE - TYP. --=~Z=_ECE-~- k< - - 2 1- METAL CRICKET --7-1--=-r--t ~_ F DN -- -=1--ZECZE= 0 1= M. BEDROOM ~ -rb-F-ri---r 7 L- STAIR EeRESS MINDOR 7 'ROOF ABOVE \ 1 11 lilli 111111 11111! 11 L ELO--LL-1 ILL ] 1-0-1 1 11 f - 1 11 1 L______-___ 0 NORTHI or) (f) UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-O" ... VALLEÂ¥ f- FLASHING RIDeE P CAP FLASHING /1\ 4--- --Z.1/-/Lij--- 1 2211--22-7 3% 1211232 43==- =))==-f---Lai / E 921Â»21= =}- -1 -- i~E-~--=~=~==--TE -~ -= - - -I- Il ~ ==}-- -1-- = /-- ZE=J-- IZE]-- 3 23 ZZ]-_-3-_- = -- - ==1-1 -=- LINE OF - =22-- ~=-I- r]-I =]- /thi LEVEL BELOK -- ~~----~--~--i-----7--- ---- - --â‚¬ 2=2- 2- rD- =ZJ -~~9-of-*Ai -===72 24= =4==--==~ I~Â«23-1Â»*runi -an- -=-= LE---=-- ELOPE -=L- 21- 2- ROOF BELOR - --= - ZZ- -EZE]- i.-En]----_IZE~}- --= - - -==1- ==I- ===n -==1- 142=.// -T./2i/36/-'UI ~3E r-- Lri--_ ~-------~- ----~ -I-= ~tzzi~_-_/-___ -2--Â«1=4 -19 11= 3-r# =-- -1 21--1-ji4-- 9 = &6& I--1 -- =1- - I - I -- - 1 - J- ZZ'- ~ 22221- ZID- --- -.Ii - -~-- - /.~j~u j --i~i - '-li 21 3 El- 2 - - - =1- 2 6 NORTH rEl ROOF PLAN C - 7 1/4"= 1'-0" lilli I2 12~ 12 12 4F 74 MOOD SHINGLE MOOD FASCIA BOARD HORIZ.MOOD SIDING METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING i T.o. F.F. @ UPPER T ELEV. 1101-Oil RESTORE ORIGINAL PORCH MOOD TRIM 39 - V. I.F SIZE 4 LOCATION \ OF HISTORIC AINDOW 1 OPENING TO BE RESTORED HORIZ. Â»ID SIDINS TO MATCH HISTORIC hooD MATER ORIGINAL TABLE MODE) COLUMN - CONG. RET. FIALL ~ T.O. F.F. @ LOAER TO O T ELEV. 100'-O. MINDOM ~ FOUNDATION ~ SIDING ~ EXISTINS MOOD HORIZONTAL MOOD STEPS dll 1 1 -11 1 1 i T.O. CONG. L____1_______1_______ ~ ELEV. 861'-3" NORTH ELEVATION METAL VALLEÂ¥ FLASHING METAL CAP FLASHING MOOD SHINGLE ROOFINe EXISTING HORIZ. MOOD SIDINe â€¢1, T.o. F.F. @ UPPER ELEV. 110'-O" 0 000 PNOOD TRIM ORIGINAL MOOD COLUMN i T.o. F.F. @ LOMER T ELEV. 100'-O" HISTORIC AINDOW eRADE HORIZ. MOOD SICINe METAL FLASHINS | CONG. RETAINING MALLL FOUNDATION BEYOND -- 11 1 3 Ill r 1 T.O.GONG. C - 7 1/4" = 11-011 Milli CONTINUE HISTORIC ROOF LINE 12 12 E-- I2 METAL CRICKET ---74 METAL 12 FLASHING METAL CAP 4F- FLASHING MOOD FASCIA METAL VALLEY I FLASHINe 44 hooK) SHINSLE MOOD TRIM ROOFING i T.o. F.F. @ UPPER <' ELEV. 110'-O" HORIZONTAL MOOD SIDINS EXISTING HORIZ. MOOD FACED WOOD SIDING eARASE 1 - DOOR MOOD MATER 1 TABLE ~ T.O. F.F. @ LOWER T ELEV. 100'-0" 1\l ~ CONG. RETAJNING ~ MALL -1 11 HORIZONTAL METAL FLASHING MOOD SIDING ~ T.O. CONG. T~ ELEV. 82'-5 I (31 SOUTH ELEVATION METAL CAP FLASHINS - Fill - 11 11 11 1 1 1 E- 11 l i l l i I 1 lili 1 0 1 1 Ill 1 11 F I [ 1 -11 [1 111 1-1 lEi 1-1 El 1 [I hooD SHINGLE METAL CAP FLASHINS ROOFINe -4 1 [I ill T-1911-8-r Ill 111 1 1 1 N III 11 11 1 11 - 1 111 1] 111 7>U -1- 1 - .- TFFTTT717-PU--17-]-31-ET-- P FLASHING METAL VALLEÂ¥ Il- L F - - I [ I [ I I I I El i I 1 11 f -7-11 Illl DIN] F 1[11 Ell El l 11 11.1 11 1 3Tn--1-1 iin n-i-r 71 R 11 Il n Il Il n Il Il [1 1~ I Il 1-1 n [1 Il Il I I-1 I /1 1 1 Ill - 1 1. - 1 Al 11 - 1] I 11 1 1 11 1 1 VII I [ 1 , 11 1 , I, /1.-1.- _Il i , .1~~ J. Il HORIZ. AGOD 1 Il Nlili 1111 H l illi 1 i I 11 111-11 6131146 - 1-'~ 1 3-~4~ 4--TT--4--0 111 Eli Ill 1 III E I R~-1-UTE-ill---E-[-1----1-7 71 11 11.- f I ..1 f El i 11.11.1,n--- ELEV. 110'-0" ~ T.O. F.F. @ UPPER hooD SIDINS -7 - 1 - NJ - - /\ - 1 0 1/ I ~ ORISINAL - /1 1 1 \ - - - PORCH COL. HORIZ. WOOD - BEYOND SIDING 1 - - ~ T.O. F.F. @ LOWER \ ELEV. 100'-0" - 1-- METAL FLASHING / - CONG. RET. MALL -\ \ METAL SHIP'e LADDER L GRADE .* 2--~ PV EXIT HATCH PER CODE FOR EGRESS -TYP. @ LIGHTMELLS r- FOUNDATION 1_________f____________13 ELEV. &611-511 ~ T.O. CONG. EAST ELEVAT1ON 1/4" = 1 LO"