HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20150624
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 24, 2015
5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St.
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISITS
A. None
II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.)
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
5/13/2015 minutes
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. 135 E. Cooper- Minor Development, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM
APRIL 8th (5:10)
B. 834 W. HALLAM STREET – Conceptual Historic Major Development,
Relocation, Variances, Residential Design Standard Review, Establishment of
Affordable Housing Credits, GMQS, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO
SEPTEMBER 9TH
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Bike tour of recent HPC projects (5:50)
V. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: Resolution #21, 2015
TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW
BUSINESS
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation ( 5 minutes )
Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes )
Applicant presentation ( 20 minutes )
Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes )
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) ( 5 minutes )
Applicant Rebuttal
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes )
HPC discussion ( 15 minutes )
Motion ( 5 minutes )
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4)
members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct
any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require
the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of
the members of the commission then present and voting.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
1
Chairperson,Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were John Whipple, Sallie Golden, Eric
Sechrist, Bob Blaich, Gretchen Greenwood and Patrick Sagal. Nora Berko
and James DeFrancia were absent.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Justin Barker, Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Bob moved to approve the minutes of March 25 th second by Gretchen. All
in favor, motion carried.
114 Neale Avenue – Variance, Public Hearing
Debbie said the affidavit of postings are in order and the applicant can
proceed. Exhibit I
Justin said the property received approval for a major development in 2013
and construction began last July. A driveway access was included off King
Street that wrapped around the east side of the property and the south side of
the property to access a garage. The staff memo has some incorrect
information. The permit was constructed at the appropriate elevation. The
driveway, however was designed to access a garage that was anticipated to
be 18 inches higher. There was a misconnection between the two.
Essentially that means that the driveway requires a revised design. The
garage runs along the east side of the property and that required a retaining
wall. Originally the retaining wall was to be 30 inches all the way around
the driveway. With the new design that would increase the height of the
retaining wall up to 48 inches in one section. Since the code only allows 30
inches the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the retaining wall at the
additional height. There are three criteria that have to be met. The applicant
has only met one of those criteria and it must meet all three of them. The
variance is a self-created hardship so staff is recommending denial.
Justin reiterated that the garage slab was poured and constructed at the
appropriate location. It was the driveway design that didn’t match up. All
the potential ways to resolve this were not approved by the Engineering
Dept.
P1
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
2
Steev Wilson, Forum Phi
There are a number of different plate heights as you move through the
building. The historic resource is being held at its original location. There
are a few steps down onto a grass roof. The grass roof is six inches down
from the kitchen area and there are a couple of steps as you come back into
the house. The house was poured and backfilled for one story. When we
laid out the grades it became apparent there was a problem. We took it to
staff and went to the site and there weren’t many options other than to tear
down the house which we want to avoid. There is a 12% maximum slope
and anything above that Engineering feels it is a life and safety issue. It is
about a 25 foot section where it gets higher from 31 inches to 48 inches and
then back to 31 inches.
Steev went over elevations to explain where the variance would be.
Gretchen asked if the ditch could be lowered. Steev said it wouldn’t be
possible.
Sallie said this seems out of our scope and maybe there is another board that
should review the request.
Debbie said HPC is familiar with the property and this is the appropriate
board.
Bob asked Justin what the procedure would be if HPC approves the
variance.
Justin said if HPC approves it then it is approved.
Willis mentioned raising the garage 18 inches and the step in the terrace
eliminated. What would that do to the resource?
Steev said the deck wouldn’t have steps and would walk out to grade.
Bringing the grade up would eliminate access from the kitchen and it would
change the relationship of the original building.
HPC members discussed different scenarios.
Willis said the issues are:
Accept the variance as requested
P2
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
3
Deny the variance
Have the applicant come up with something that is less than 18 inches
through a number of means.
Willis said the things that support this is that you do see retaining walls that
net 60 inches out of the ground. That isn’t unusual. This area is a very dark
remote corner of the site. No one really sees it from the public right-of-way.
One of our charges is to watch out for historic resources.
John said we are reviewing unchartered territory and trying to clean up a
mistake. We are reasonable in terms of variances especially when it is
benefiting an historic resource and this is a different instance.
Sallie agreed that this isn’t benefiting the historic resource. This item was
also publically noticed and no neighbors showed up.
Gretchen said she wished the applicant would have come to the board with
some solution even if they weren’t acceptable.
Sallie said she feels we aren’t setting a precedence for whatever we decide.
Sallie said she would support the variance request for the reasons Willis
stated.
Willis said the area isn’t highly sensitive.
Gretchen said when you are bordering up 11% there is a potential problem
that you will go over that.
Bob said the site is very difficult. There will be a fence to protect the wall,
otherwise someone could fall into the driveway. It is a huge hardship having
to tear the garage down. It is the question going back to ground zero. I
consider it a hardship even though it is a human error. When you look at the
driveway there isn’t a big visual impact.
Patrick said raising the concrete floor of the garage is a suggestion.
MOTION: Willis moved to approve the request as stated in the application,
resolution #15, second by John.
John said he feels the variance is reasonable.
P3
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
4
Roll call vote: Eric yes; Sallie, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, no;
Patrick, yes. Motion approved 6-1.
61 Meadows Road – Minor, Public Hearing
Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed.
Exhibit I.
New elevations, Exhibit II
Amy said there are 8 original townhomes designed by Herbert Bayer and
they were used by the Institute as guest quarters. They are essentially cubes
linked by open car ports. There are three units on the site and as a collect
ion they are designated as landmarks. HPC has purview over the
alternations of the townhomes.
The minor development involves excavating under the existing building for
a basement and several exterior changes. Staff has no problem with the
removal of the non-historic door, light fixtures and extending the living
space toward the west. There are four things of concern: The door is
proposed to be a glazed door and the original doors were solid. The
applicant has offered to make that a solid door.
On the south side of the unit there is a proposal to shift two original small
windows. Staff has objected to that. The applicant has agreed to not move
the windows. The applicant wants to expand the space at the back of the
unit which most of the other units have already done. Our objection is when
they do that they want to go into the void where the car port is. They have
revised it so that it just meets the carport but you are still going to see some
aspect of the new construction in there and we still object to that. The other
item is the proposed dormer on the back side of the house. They are trying
to create some upper floor office by kicking the roof up with a dormer. The
main concern is that dormers should be discrete and isolated within the roof
form. We would like to see that dormer minimized and differentiated. The
HOA approved the revisions. Staff is recommending continuation.
Bob said if this is approved we should anticipate that others would want to
do remodels. It is the streetscape that we are most concerned about.
Kim Weil, Poss Architects
P4
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
5
Kim said the main reason to move the window is that it sits less than an inch
above the car port. There is no flashing on the bottom side of the window.
We were shifting it to help with our plan but we also wanted to keep the
water out. The unit is completely stripped and you can see water infiltration
Kim said the roof over the deck has been pulled back 8 feet as well as the
dormer. The fascia line has also been carried down.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing was closed.
Willis said there is no issue with the basement and the historic resource isn’t
being moved. The car port door will not be glazed. The south side window
will not be moved. The issue is the encroachment of the garage space and
the dormer.
Bob said having the HOA approval is a good thing.
Gretchen said one of the strengths of the design is the simplicity of the two
roof planes. I have no problem with the dormer because it is hidden. When
you start to extend the roof of the original Bayer form that changes things.
The flat roof would maintain more of the form of the original Bayer roof
which is what those buildings are about. I would want to see a different
design for the extension of the living room.
Patrick said the flat roof is more appropriate so that the original shape stays
the same.
Willis said the roof form is very pure and the back side dormer violates the
spirit of the Bauhaus design.
Eric said he is not thrilled about the dormer and changing the roof form. I’m
not too concerned with the front. In this case if we change one roof then
other owners of the row houses will want to change. I am concerned about
setting a precedence.
Sallie agreed with what has been said by the other commissioners.
Bob said once we approve this others might come into change their roofs. It
is a world class view.
P5
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
6
MOTION: Patrick moved to continue the meeting till May 27 th with the
recommendation to restudy taking the dormer out and study the flat roof.
The garage door will be solid and the south window will not be moved.
Motion second by Gretchen.
Roll call vote: Eric, yes; Sallie, yes; Bob, yes; Jon, yes; Gretchen, yes;
Patrick, yes; Willis, no. Motion carried 6-1.
John said his only concern is the dormer.
223 E. Hallam St. – Conceptual Major Development, On-Site
Relocation, Demolition and Variances, Public Hearing
Debbie said the affidavit of postings are in order and the applicant can
proceed – Exhibit I
Amy said this is a landmark, 6,000 square foot lot with a Victorian house on
it. This building is a nicely detailed high style Victorian house. The Berko
family bought the property in 1957. There was a one-story added to the
front porch which is not original and that will be demolished and the front
porch brought back. There is also a garage that doesn’t appear on the
Sanborne map and staff feels that is not contributing. The addition that fills
in the rear porch will also be removed. The proposal is to pick the Victorian
up, move it forward on the lot and put it on a new basement and do an
addition. Staff supports the revision dated May 7 th . This proposal shifts the
construction more toward the rear and has a one-story connector. The scale
and roof forms are appropriate and staff supports conceptual approval of this
project. There are two setback variances on the table; one is a combined and
they need a five foot variance. Because the addition is moved back they are
in the rear yard setback and are requesting a five foot setback. The applicant
is also asking for the 500 square foot floor area bonus and we feel that is
warranted due to the amount of restoration work that will be done including
the front porch. There are no photographs of the appearance of the front of
the house historically. Reconstruction of the front porch will be difficult.
Once evidence is uncovered when they tear the front off we will look at it to
make sure the porch on the front and back are restored accurately. The
applicant is also proposing to construct a stair case that is facing the front
bay window. HPC generally does not approve interiors but something done
on the inside that interferes with the exterior of the building could be a
P6
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
7
concern. The applicant cannot find a way to avoid the impact. Seeing the
stringer through the front bay seems unfortunate. All of the Victorian
fencing will be salvaged and brought onto this side and then it transitions
into a wood privacy fence in the back. The Berko studio will be back six
feet from the street and in front of the Victorian next door by a few feet.
The front steps will not need a railing because the building will be dropped 7
inches into the ground.
Sallie said if the house is dropped you will lose more of the foundation and
maybe something can be worked out with the Building Dept. and get relief
from the railing. The stairs are very graceful coming up to the house.
Steev Wilson, Forum Phi
Steev said this house and the Berko studio will be moved forward. We are
trying to make the Victorian have a street presence. We will research on the
porch and make sure it is reconstructed back to the original. We have the
historic building, connector and the two story element. The rear porch will
also be restored. The connector is ten feet long and 9 feet tall. We have
tried to pull the volume off the historic resource as much as we could. We
meet all the side yard variances. The entire mass is behind the rear of the
historic structure. We will hold the stairs back from the window but as far
as the space layout of the interior the stair in its location is the best solution
for us. The stair gains access to the guest area upstairs. The stringer will be
moved back to the center of the stair so that it is not visible. It is not a direct
application to the glass. We don’t know what the material of the tread will
be on the stairs, possibly acrylic. There will be grass over the front lawn.
We have also talked to Parks about the tree removal by the garage.
Steev said they had tried a number of different stair opportunities and it was
our intent to use the space best. The stairs access the attic space. We did not
look at a circular stair.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing.
Mirte Berko – Exhibit II
Mirte said the applicant has incorporated a lot of their suggestions and we
have been in close dialogue. Our goal is two legacy preservation projects
that honor and respect each other. They have respected the garage five yard
setback. We don’t support the plan presented today which is moving the
massing east which staff supports. The re-distribution of mass is a detriment
P7
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
8
to the historic preservation goals of our project. We desire to showcase the
geometric structures. The preservation strategy of tucking the new mass
behind the Victorian would be appropriate in the majority of cases and if
only viewed from the front entrance of the Victorian; however, to the west is
the AspenModern building. The new additions peaked roof visibly
protrudes from the modern studio’s roof line thereby breaking the
architectural integrity preservation efforts of the geometric structure.
Howie Mallory entered a letter from Nora Berko – Exhibit III
Nora stated that the Victorian house needs renovations. Nora said she feels
the relationship between the Berko studio and the Victorian are important.
Placing the staircase on the street front façade is inconsistent with the best
preservation. The staircase has a visual distraction seen from the street. The
upstairs windows seem to have a different form and arrangement than the
existing original windows. The foundation should be retained as part of the
good restoration effort. Howie said the community expects preservation to
the highest standard. With the input from staff and HPC we have ended up
with a better AspenModern program next door.
Steev said the top of the building will be dwarfed by the two story structure
that will be erected next door. The structure is so far back that I don’t think
the two will be seen together. Regarding the windows that Nora mentioned,
we are not changing the windows. We will reuse the stone from the base of
the building.
Scott Rider, owner
Scott said one of the comments we got back was to save the second level
within the Victorian. Initially we did not desire to do that. By doing that
required the stairs which also access the basement so they have to work
together. The steps provide natural light for the downstairs living area. We
have brought back the steps and we don’t feel they will be visible. We have
left room in the bay window for the curtains. The roof is set back at least 40
feet from the Berko studio. The second story of their building also impacts
the views and we aren’t complaining about that. We have supported their
application from the beginning.
Willis identified the issues:
Relocation
Setback variances
500 square foot bonus
P8
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
9
Dropping the resource 7 inches in the ground
Stairs at the bay window
Willis brought up a site design study especially when you are next door to an
AspenModern project. Instead of an L shaped plan it could have been
mirrored. The ground work on how to develop this property is not part of
this presentation. The bonus is achievable and the setbacks are OK. The
stair with the central stringer and floating treads that is pushed back two feet
from the glazing is fine. If the 7 inch drop eliminates the handrails I am all
for that.
Bob said the new rendering is no more of a problem then the addition to the
Berko studio. The addition to the studio is more apparent than what this
proposal is. Regarding the staircase I question HPC getting involved with
certain aspects of the interior. I can accept the new proposal of the stair
case.
John said he is OK with the stairs and this is a good project. There is a little
concern about restoration of the front façade because we do not know what it
looked like. It wouldn’t be an exact restoration so I cannot approve all of
the bonus. Everything else is well thought out.
Gretchen said she liked the idea of rethinking the site plan. They did a good
job by pushing the addition back and pulling the Victorian forward. The
addition overwhelms the Victorian and the entire development overwhelms
the AspenModern experience. If you are going to relocate the Victorian
perhaps there is an opportunity to allow the AspenModern to have space
around it. A site plan could have been studied in greater detail to enhance
both properties. There is a lot of development going on the site and in terms
of restoration I couldn’t support a 500 square foot bonus because you are
putting in a basement under the entire property which is going to preclude
the ability to screen the addition on any side. The addition needs scaled
down some.
Patrick said he like the mass and scale and the openness of the trellis and
deck to the north of the connector. The pitched roofs separate from the
AspenModern which has flat roofs. The project is well done. If there is a
way to reduce the square footage to the addition I would be in favor of that.
P9
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015
10
Sallie said she agrees with staff on their comments. At some point looking
from the street at the Berko Studio you will see the back drop of whatever
addition gets in the back I do like the mass and scale and how it is laid out.
I agree with Nora on the staircase not being in the entryway. There is a
standard that living rooms should look like living rooms when you walk by
the street and you are taking that away. I do support the 500 square foot
bonus.
Eric said this is a great presentation and the diagram is clear. The addition in
the back of the Berko studio is also imposing. The Victorian is closer to its
original position than the Berko studio. The stair location is OK.
Amy pointed out that the Berko project is the first time we had someone
reviewing different variations for the position of the studio which was
appropriate for their very unique situation. We would not encourage an
applicant to come in saying they can move it north/south east/west etc. We
send the message that you have to stay as close to the original location as
you can.
Gretchen said given that this is a new program, perhaps the AspenModern
needed more space and this house could move over.
Amy said they are doing a nice job attaching lightly to the back of the house.
MOTION: Sallie made the motion to approve resolution #16 as written by
staff for conceptual approval and incorporation the 500 square foot bonus
and restudy the staircase in the front and moving it; second by Patrick.
Willis made the friendly amendment to add more separation between the
resource and the western side yard and to look at the sideyard setback
variance request.
Sallie did not accept the friendly amendment.
Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, no; John, no; Bob, yes; Sallie, yes;
Eric, yes; Willis, no. Motion carried 4-3.
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor,
motion carried.
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P10
II.B.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 135 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Development, Continued Public Hearing
DATE: June 24, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed
on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures, as well as the National
Register of Historic Places. The site contains
the 1888 Dixon-Markle house, which itself is
virtually unaltered on the exterior. A more
modified 19 th century outbuilding is located
along the alley.
In 2003, HPC approved Major Development
review that entailed moving the house slightly
to the north and east of the original location,
constructing an addition along the west side
of the house, and constructing a new garage
along the alley. The project included a 500
square foot floor area bonus and setback
variances to accommodate existing and newly
created conditions. The project won a
Preservation Honor award upon completion
in 2005.
The applicant is requesting Minor
Development review to increase the size of
the connector between the old and new
construction. The modest amount of square
footage involved in the project qualifies this
as Minor Development.
HPC reviewed the proposal on January 22,
2014, August 27, 2014 and April 8, 2015. At
all meetings, Staff recommended denial,
finding that the proposal did not meet the
design guidelines. Minutes from the previous
hearings are attached. On April 8 th , some
HPC members expressed an interest in seeing
P11
III.A.
2
one option further developed. The requested information has been provided.
Staff continues to find that the work negatively impacts the historic resource and recommends
denial.
APPLICANT: Chris Pat Aspen LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning and Zone 4
Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003.
ADDRESS: 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City
and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: RMF, Residential Multi-Family.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: When the renovation of this house was reviewed in 2003, the applicant
requested a two story connector, which the board did not support. The connector was revised to
one story, which was approved as part of the HPC’s Conceptual review decision in September
2003.
In the subsequent years, staff has had numerous conversations with the property owner about
functional concerns with the layout of the house. The owner would like a central staircase
accommodated in the connector. HPC held a worksession on this topic in 2012 and has held
three public hearings without being able to come to a majority approval.
The design guidelines that relate to this project have not changed since 2003. At the time this
project was proposed, there were many options that were possible for adding onto the house. The
floor plan was not dictated by HPC. The addition could have been one story instead of two,
bedrooms could have been grouped closer together, etc.
P12
III.A.
3
Minimizing the size and height of the connector was an important issue to the HPC at the time
that Major Development was approved. It has been difficult to find a way to alter the connector
while maintaining the success of the existing project.
On April 8 th , the hearing was continued so that the applicant could provide more information
about one of the alternatives that had been presented. Below are the drawings that have been
provided to illustrate the current historic house, connector and addition, and the new proposal.
Staff finds that the project does not meet the design guidelines regarding connectors. The
purpose of a connector is to make a light-handed attachment to the historic resource and to
provide some breathing space between the volume of the historic resource and the volume of the
new addition. This was achieved with the existing design and is being undermined with the
proposed design. Staff has attached an exhibit, Exhibit E, which shows just some of the
numerous projects where HPC has insisted on a one story connector.
P13
III.A.
4
The proposed new connector requires a historic window on the ground floor to be relocated
southward. It creates a very narrow space that will likely trap snow against the historic resource
and may lead to deterioration issues.
The property is at the maximum floor area, including a 500 square foot bonus previously
awarded for outstanding preservation effort. No alterations to this project are possible unless the
applicant permanently frees up some floor area. It has been suggested this will be accomplished
by de-commissioning the existing finished attic space in the historic house. In order to remove
that space from floor area calculations, the Zoning Officer will have to find that access to the
attic is inconvenient and the area is uninhabitable, which will require removal of an existing stair
and likely removal of all finishes in the space, for instance taking the flooring down to plywood.
Further review by Zoning would be needed prior to building permit.
On several recent cases, staff has opposed the removal of functional interior space within a
historic resource and translating this into additional mass being constructed on the site.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
P14
III.A.
5
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposal be denied, finding that the
guidelines are not met.
Exhibit:
Resolution #___, Series of 2015
A. Design Guidelines
B. January 22, 2014 minutes
C. August 27, 2014 minutes
D. April 8, 2015 minutes
E. Illustrations of one story connectors
F. Application
“Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines, 135 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Review ”
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier features.
A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or
a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
A 1-story connector is preferred.
The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
P15
III.A.
6
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure.
P16
III.A.
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
DENYING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 135 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS H AND I,
AND THE EASTERLY 5 FEET OF LOT G, BLOCK 70, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2015
PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Chris Pat Aspen LLC, represented by Zone 4 Architects, requested
Minor Development approval for 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of
Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated landmark; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance
with the design guidelines per Section 26.415.070.C of the Municipal Code and other applicable
Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report dated June 24, 2015, performed an analysis of the
application and recommended that the review standards and design guidelines were not met for
the project as proposed; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 24, 2015, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was not consistent with the
applicable review standards and guidelines and denied the application by a vote of __ to __.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC denies Minor Development for the property located at 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H
and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24 th day of June, 2015.
__________________________
Willis Pember, Vice Chair
P17
III.A.
Approved as to Form:
____________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P18
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22 2014
Sallie said because of the architectural integrity of this house anything fixed
on the window could be uglier than what is there now.
Jay said he had a hard time figuring out the windows.
Nora asked about the proposed north window.
Willis said his only concern is the north windows. Maybe staff and monitor
can address the north window. Sallie agreed.
Kate said we are open to suggestions on the north window. We are not
architects.
Jay said all the APCHA properties should be identified that have an historic
overlay on them.
MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #4 for 947 E. Cooper
approving the French doors installed on the south deck; approve the already
installed upper south and west windows; applicant to submit revisions to the
proposed ground floor north windows to be reviewed and approved by staff
and monitor and moving the three windows from north to east is approved as
shown in the drawing. Motion second by Sallie.
Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, yes; Jay, yes.
Motion carried 5-0.
135 E. Cooper—Minor, Development— Public Hearing
Dylan Johns, Zone4architects
Mitch Haas, Haas Planning
Amy said this is a landmark property and on the National Register. There is
an 1888 Victorian on the site and an out building along the alley that is about
the same vintage. In 2003 the house was allowed to be picked up and
moved slightly closer to the corner and there was an addition made to the
west side with a one-story link between the new and old and some
construction to the out building and garage on the alley. The application is
to increase the size of the connector because it is causing circulation
problems with the living spaces. Staff finds that changing the connector to a
two story connector does not meet the guidelines. When this was approved
5P19
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2014
by HPC they allowed the new and old to be closer together than the ten foot
distance that is required. By turning this into a two story element and a
much larger connecting element it is really taking away from the success of
the project and not complying with the guidelines. They are at the max for
FAR and might have to alter the attic. The proposal diminishes the
distinction between new and old and it covers up four historic windows in
the large section of the west facing wall of the Victorian house. A skylight
is also being requested on the historic carriage house on the alley. The
skylight would be on the west facing slope and it would not be very visible.
Our recommendation has always been to use traditional windows to bring in
natural light in instead of incompatible skylights placed on a roof of an
historic building. Staff is recommending denial of the project.
Dylan Johns, Zone 4 architects
Mitch Haas, Haas Planning
Mitch said the historic house sits on the corner and the addition done in 2003
is to the side of the house, on the west side. The connecting element is 7 feet
instead of 10 feet. In 2003 the house got an award for the preservation
efforts. The biggest problem with the house is the function and flow of the
house. You have two two-story houses with a one-story connecting element.
If you are upstairs in the master bedroom of the new addition you have to go
down the stairs and across the house and back up the stairs to get to the other
bedrooms. The house is often used as a rental house by the owner. The
owner has tried different ways to make this work so it can function well so
that the form will follow the function. In 2012 there was a work session and
it was discussed making the linking element a two-story glass box. It is hard
to tell if the existing link is historic or added on. The proposal now is
similar to what was presented at the work session. The linking element
provides a hallway to get from one side of the house to the other. The
guidelines encourage owners to rehabilitate their historic homes and to
coincide with historic preservation. At the same time the guidelines are not
intended to result in dysfunctional homes where the livability of the home
gets compromised and the form doesn't follow the function. The guidelines
seek to balance the concerns with providing a product at the end of the day
that someone can be happy with and live with and provides incentives as a
way to get there. Guideline 10.7 talks about linking elements and it says
one-story elements are preferred but it doesn't say a one-story is required. I
would say the existing connector is not proportional. It is small and makes it
confusing as to what is old and new on this building. The proposed
6P20
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22 2014
connector sits below the eave lines and made to be fully transparent. We
feel guideline 10.3 and 10.4 are met. The length of the connector will still
be 7 feet and it has been pulled forward to have some space in front of the
stairway and open up the floor plan. We could pull the front curtain wall
back three feet and in doing so preserve another window on the ground
floor. The accessory dwelling unit is lived in and it is dark inside and the
windows on the outbuilding are small. The skylight would be a better
solution than proposing punching in new windows in the side of the
building. If windows are preferable we could do that. On the west fagade it
is blistering and we could put a window there because it needs repaired.
Dylan Johns said they met with the zoning officer to determine the floor area
calculations.
Jay said destroying historic fabrics is a concern of this board. This project as
proposed would remove 4 original windows and a considerable amount of a
wall. Jay asked how you justify removing the historic fabric.
Mitch said part of it is the lack of visibility. There is no other way to do the
connector. The function of the house is not there.
Willis asked why it is dysfunctional. Is it because the master bedroom
occupants have to go down stairs to visit the regular bedrooms.
Mitch said there is no flow to get to the living space. None of the stairs can
stack and there are three sets of stairs in this house and they don't stack with
one another. It is the intent to stack everything in one central corridor. The
central stair will give us the ability to eliminate two sets of stairs. The
dysfunction is mainly the lower level.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
Jay identified the issues.
Jay said the house has been built there for 11 years and it has been
functioning. The flow should not enter as part of the decision. We need as
a board to focus on our guidelines. The two-story linking element is an issue
and the destruction of the historic fabric.
7P21
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2014
Sallie said everyone was opposed to the skylight in the cabin at the work
session. The connector is a nice design and it is transparent but it is not
applicable to our charge as a commission and it doesn't fit the guidelines.
Nora said she is opposed to the skylight and the applicant needs to figure out
a way not to destroy three windows and the wall of the Victorian. This
building is on the National Register and won an HPC award. The wall of the
house should not be disrupted and I echo staff's concerns in her memo.
Willis agreed with Nora that the existing fabric needs to be unaltered and the
connector should be transparent. The roof should be glass.
Patrick said he agrees with staff's memo that guideline 10.3, 10.7, 10.81
10.99 10.10, 10.11 and 10.14 are not met and the skylight is not appropriate.
We are happy to do something as long as the historic fabric is not destroyed.
Staff noted that there are other options such as interior remodels to address
the concerns of the layout of the living space.
Jay said it is not appropriate to destroy any more historic fabric. From what
I understand you can't do this project without destroying three historic
windows and part of the historic house. I would be interested to see if there
is a solution that the applicant can come up with to solve their flow problems
and not touch the house. If there was ten feet between the house and
addition you could have probably fit the glass box in there without touching
the historic fabric. The linking element has some positive things to it.
Sallie said the siding should be repaired on the shed.
Mitch said hopefully we can continue this and look at other options and if I
can get success convincing my client that she should leave the stairs where
they are and work with the connecting link. We would probably come back
with a window rather than a skylight.
Nora also suggested an internal remodel so that you are not touching the
historic resource.
Dylan Johns said the eave line is rather low.
Mitch said an obvious solution would be a smaller link. Could we keep
walls and windows inside a linking element with some kind of condition or
8P22
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2014
agreement that those are still under HPC purview. They would still be
retrievable.
Willis said if your preserve the interior surfaces and the windows and made
it more transparent so that you could see in and see the historic fabric that
would work for me.
Nora asked what Willis suggestion would do to the integrity of the historic
resource and the integrity of the board.
Amy said HPC traditionally does not review interiors and it would be
difficult to monitor the inside of a building.
Sallie said we would be setting a precedent. I have seen a lot of houses like
this. I like the idea of taking away the connector and putting in a glass
connector but making it one-story. It doesn't solve getting from the master
bedroom to the other bedrooms.
Sallie said HPC has a problem with people being able to walk across their
connector or putting a hot tub on top of their connector.
MOTION: Jays moved to continue 135 E. Cooper to April 9t', second by
Sallie. All in favor, motion carried.
Patrick said he would rather they come back with a new proposal.
MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sallie. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Work Session — Main Street cross walk lighting
No- minutes
Kv Xe e
Kathleen J. trickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
9P23
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2014
Vice-chair, Willis Pember, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were John Whipple, Patrick Sagal, Jim
DeFrancia, Nora Berko and Sallie Golden. Jay Maytin was absent.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION: John moved to approve the minutes of July 23, 2014 and August
6, 2014; second by Jim.
Patrick amended the August 6t'
minutes page 24. All in favor, motion
carried.
Disclosure:
Nora will recuse herself on the work session of 223 E. Hallam as she is part
owner.
Willis will recuse himself on 549 Race Alley. He has been in contact with
the new owner.
135 E. Cooper Ave. — Minor Development, continued public hearing
Amy said this is a large Victorian listed on the National Register of Historic
Places and is on the corner site of Cooper and Aspen Street. In 2003 the
owner proposed a renovation of the house which has the Victorian preserved
on the corner and a similar mass next to it. The two pieces are linked
together with a one story hallway. There has always been a concern of the
minimal passageway between the two major living areas. The public
hearing was continued to tonight. There have been a few different designs
to try and turn this one story connector into a two story stair case that would
link the house together so you could walk more freely between both levels of
the house. In January HPC denied the project finding that the guidelines
have not been met and it deteriorated the success of the project when you
had a nice breathing space between the structures. There are a few proposal
tonight but staff is not able to find that they are successfully meeting the
guidelines. The linking element guideline shows that it should be as minimal
as possible. Trying to incorporate a stair into this part of the project is
1P24
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF-AUGUST 27, 2014
really creating an object between the two masses that is bigger than what we
think is successful in the context of the guidelines. This link is on top of the
Victorian in a few concepts and staff cannot support the application.
The compromise suggested is that the one story connector has a deck on it
and from the new house you can actually walk out onto this deck but you
cannot go into the Victorian because there is an historic window. Possibly
the window could be turned into a door to get to the second floor levels of
the house. Beyond that there is interior remodeling that could occur. There
is also a request for a skylight in the historic out building in the alley. A
skylight is an out of character way to add light into the building. Staff has
suggested a window that could be approved by staff and monitor. Staff
recommends that the proposal in your packet be denied but you would allow
them to convert this one historic window into the door on the Victorian and
that you would allow a window on the outbuilding to be approved by staff
and monitor.
Dillon Johns and Mitch Haas represented the owner Christy Ferer.
Mitch said this project has been back and forth and we are trying to find a
workable solution. The property is on the Corner of Cooper and Aspen
Street. There is an out building that is occupied and used as an ADU and a
garage. When the addition was made there was no room to go back with a
linking element which is normally the case. There are two bedrooms and a
stair in the historic house and a set of stairs in the addition that gets you to
the master bedroom. We are trying to resolve that you don't have to go
down the stairs and across the link and up the stairs to get from the one side
to the other. Over time this has been an ongoing function. At the last
meeting we heard that if we could find a way to solve the problem and
disturb less of the historic fabric then we could bring it back to the HPC.
We have tried to make it easier to tell where the old ends and the new
begins. We have come up with three options.
I Dillon said on the ground floor we would leave the existing connector
and the stairs and on the upper level where the existing window is we would
make a connection from the addition to the historic resource but stack the
connector over the existing connector. The two story connector would be all
glass. One window would need to be removed.
Mitch said because of the roof line you can't pop a door through the window
as suggested because the window goes up under the eave and if you put a
2P25
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 27 2014
door in you would have to cut into the roof to make the door a normal
height.
2 Dillon said the existing corridor would stay and the stairs are to the south
of the corridor. We have shifted the upper connector over so that it lands in
between two existing windows. We would be preserving all the main
features of the house and only penetrating the siding wall area in between
them. With this design the roof connection becomes more clean and you
don't destroy the historic windows.
3 Dillon said in this scenario we are eliminating the existing corridor and
taking a new corridor and new stair and pushing it into the house. We are
still leaving a gap between the new envelope and the historic house. We
could move the historic window to keep it on the site. On the upper level the
corridor would stack on top of the ground level connection.
Dillon said the property owner is willing to further screen the connector with
trees etc. On the carriage house the kitchen is dark and we are flexible as to
the size and location of the window instead of a skylight.
Mitch said the ADU is occupied year round as an ADU and it is dark. The
siding is somewhat damaged in the area where the window would go.
Nora inquired about the increase of site coverage. Would the two story
connector impact the light going into the cabin.
Mitch said he didn't think the connector would impact the cabin because it is
glass. There might be a little more light coming to the cabin.
Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Willis identified the issues:
Connector
Window on the outbuilding on the alley instead of a skylight.
Willis said the applicant has done a good job in explaining the difficulty in
simply using an outdoor connector above the existing connector and its
relationship to the roof option #1. Option #3 is a good synthesis between
option #1 and #2.
3P26
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2014
Amy said this is a two story addition to a two story house. Guideline 10.7
said if you are designing an addition that is taller than the historic building
set it back and use a connector. A one story connector is preferred and it
should be ten feet long. This guideline has some relevance but this situation
is somewhat different. There are other guidelines that talk about removingaslittlehistoricmaterialaspossible.
Mitch said the link is about 7 feet east to west.
Willis said the applicant has done a good job of interacting with the historic
resource.
Nora asked how far forward of the historic house is the connector moving.
Dillon said he believes the connector/stair is moving forward five feet. The
net change of the connector would be about the same. The question is do we
leave what is originally built or do we puu it back.
Willis said he is comfortable with #3 and there is vegetation and things
grown that obscure the connector and site lines to it.
Jim said he is also comfortable with option #3.
Sallie said she agrees with staff and is not in favor of deviating from the
guidelines with a two story connector between the buildings.
Nora said she feels the floor plan is an internal question. This building is on
the National Register and is a historically landmarked house and how do you
honor these listings when you are changing it significantly and bulking upthesite. The site is getting really heavy. Our charge is stewardship of the
historic house and this design seems counter to the integrity that I am
charged with.
John said when he looks at this project the existing linking element really
blends the two together where the glass delineates between the two
buildings. The two buildings look similar and hopefully one could be
painted differently. John said he could support option #3.
Patrick said he agrees with staff that the project should be denied. You
could put the bedrooms on the same side. The design destroys the character
4P27
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 27. 2014
and separation of the two houses. Even though it is glass it creates one
house where it should be two houses. The skylight in back should not be
approved but the window in the ADU could be approved.
John asked if the connector could step down two or three steps to make the
doorway as staff has suggested.
Dillon said we are already dealing with a level change from one side to the
other of approximately two steps as the addition is set slightly higher.
Patrick mentioned the attic and its use and possibly the next owner would
open up the attic.
Amy said community development is taking this seriously that this property
is maxed out on FAR and the idea of freeing some up for the project you are
looking at is questionable. They would have to turn the attic back to storage
instead of leaving it the way it is now.
Mitch said the attic space is legal right now. We would only have to get rid
of the space if we added the stairs.
Dillon said if we were to get approval for the connector we would have to
reconfigure the space no matter what. In order to convert the attic space we
would have to have a drop down ladder access.
Willis said the glass separates the two building and architecturally the design
is appropriate. They have met the intent of the guidelines. It says a one
story is preferred but it doesn't say never have two stories.
Sallie said she has seen architecture that doesn't meet the guidelines in the
past. The applicant should figure out a way to do what staff has
recommended.
MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve resolution #24 for 135 E.
Cooper Ave. with the connector option #3 as presented by the applicant.
Elimination of the skylight proposal on the out building and a window to be
replaced in the vertical wall that is approved by staff and monitor. Staff and
monitor to review the glass sample; motion second by Jim.
5P28
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST-27, 2014
Patrick said he would like to see two bedrooms on the same side. Staff
recommends altering the interior.
Mitch said there isn't enough room for two bedrooms on the same side. We
have explored interior and exterior. There isn't an interior re-working that
will solve this. This was originally approved as a one story connector
because HPC wouldn't approve two stories. The guidelines also say the
new should not mimic the old. We are still trying to find a reasonable
balance between a private property owner's rights and the historic
preservation interests of the city. A one story connector "is not a hard and
fast rule, it is a guideline.
Nora said she appreciates the glass connector. Her issue is the bulk of the
additional glass as it is quite massive.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Sallie, no; Nora, no; Willis, yes; John, yes; Patrick,
no. Tied vote 3-3, no action.
MOTION: John made the motion to continue the application until
November 19°2014. John made the motion to approve resolution #25 for the
window fon the ADU because they need light and it is not detrimental to the
project. Motion second by Willis.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Sallie, no, Nora, yes. Willis, yes, John, yes, Patrick,
no. Motion carried 4-2.
John said the applicant has the right to exercise their development rights
with a continuation and for us to flat out deny this closes the conversation.
We are here to have open conversations.
549 Race Alley and Lot 4 and Lot 5 for Fox Crossing Subdivision -
Final Major Development, Setback Variance, Public Hearing
Willis recused himself.
Jim chaired the meeting.
Debbie said the notice has been properly provided and the applicant can
proceed. Exhibit I.
6P29
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015
135 E. Cooper— Minor Development, cont'd public hearing
Amy said this is a land mark property and listed on the National Register. In
2003 the current property did an addition and renovation of the property.
There is also an historic out building along the alley. In 2003 the applicant
was concerned that there was the requirement that the connector be one
story. The applicant showed a two story connector but HPC did not accept
it. What was approved was the Victorian, one story link and a two story
addition. The applicant continues to say that there are livability issues with
the down.and up circulation. This is the third public hearing for changing
the link. In the previous two hearings staff has not supported the change.
We are not improving the situation and moving away from compliance of
the guidelines. The two story links either make the link stick out of the back
of the house or they come forward or they create a strange stacking
relationship which isn't in keeping with the Victorian massing. The
proposed alternative expands the link to two stories in the back and wraps up
the east side of the new construction so therefore the distance between the
new and old has tightened: Staff doesn't find that this is an improvement.
Staff feels that the hearing process has run out and recommends denial.
Staff has said all along that there are interior remodels that could happen to
solve theP roblems.
Dillon Johns, architect
Mitch Haas, Haas Planning
Mitch said making an improvement of the project has never been a criteria it
just needs to comply with the guidelines. We feel the most recent enhances
the project.
Dillon said there are 5 options being proposed. Dillon went over the power
point options.
Dillon said option #6 shifts the staircase into the house. There is a
transparent linkage on the second floor. As you pass by there are large trees
that hide the link.
Dillon said on option #I the stair is out of the way of the Cooper Street view.
10
P30
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015
Dillon said option #2 has an additional amount of area because in order to
minimize the disturbance of the window and fabric we had pulled the
connecting link to the north side of the existing linkage.
Option #3 proposes moving the existing linkage and stacking everything into
the middle of the fa9ade. We would then lose a window on the ground floor
which we would propose to move and reset back in the wall. This proposal
reduces the visibility from the Aspen Street side.
Mitch said chapter 10 of the guidelines applies to this project. Guideline
10.3 says the design should be able to interpret the historiccharacter of the
primary building. A lot of people think the addition is historic. The existing
link is too insubstantial and is out of scale. Also the handrails on top of the
link look like the handrails on the historic porch. Making the glass
connector more substantial and more in scale actually serves to better
differentiate between the old and new.
Mitch said guideline 10.4 talks about designing a new addition to be
recognized as a product of its own time. The proposal is to put the new
stairs in glass.
Mitch said guideline 10.6 talks about designing an addition to be compatible
in size and scale with the main building. Both the existing structure and
addition are substantial in size and scale. The existing link is too small to be
compatible with or to facilitate differentiation.
Mitch said guideline 10.7 states if it is necessary to design an addition that
is taller than an historic building then it should be set back substantially from
significant facades and use a connector to link the historic building. The
addition is not taller than the historic building. The guidelines state that a
one story connector is preferred but it doesn't say required. The entire
structure has been mistaken as being historic.
Mitch said guideline 10.8 addresses that the addition should be at the rear of
the building or setback from the front to minimize the visual impact. It
should be setback at least ten feet. None of the options are at the front of the
historic resource. The neo-victorian rail lends to the confusion in what is old
land new.
11
P31
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015
Mitch said the historic wraparound front porch was fully restored. There is a
master bedroom and if a child is in another bedroom the adult has to go
down the stairs across the house and through the connector and up the stairs.
The function lacks. The guidelines are about striking'a reasonable balance.
It is impossible to make the design of this home and the addition work
together without some minor alterations to the resource. It is felt that one of
the 5 options should be agreeable. The changes are barely visible from
Cooper Avenue. As viewed from Aspen Street it is difficult to tell where the
historic structure ends and the new construction begins. They are too similar
in design, color, massing and scale. The existing connector is too similar
and too insubstantial in size and scale to aid for the needed differentiation.
The proposed linking element will help improve this. The applicant is trying
to strike a balance between her property rights and the city's interest in
protecting the historic property. We will be using non-reflective glass to
link the old and new. The single staircase will unite the family living in the
house.
Gretchen said as an applicant you should come in with one option. This is
the same solution but just being moved around. Have you looked at
remodeling some of the interior changes to make for a more appropriate
link? You do see this proposal from the street. Perhaps the solution is
wrong from the start.
Mitch said the client would be happen if any of the plans were approved.
Amy said the options have accumulated and this is their third meeting.
Willis said we should take off the table the original application. We can
discuss 1,2,3 and 6. I recall supporting #3 but others felt it was too much
disturbance to the historic fabric. I feel #3 meets the intent of the code.
Bob said separating the two structures is important. A two story solution is
a good solution. The front perspective is the strong point. With the one-
story you don't get any read as it is almost invisible.
Patrick said the submissions before were undesirable because they were two
stories. By going with a two story connector we are pushing the two
together and losing the effect of separation. Redesigning the interior makes
more sense.
12
JP32
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015
Gretchen said she agrees with Bob. A two story glass connector looks nice.
I can see remodeling some of the interior to accommodate the stairs and
reduce the mass. Option #3 looks the best from the street. When glass is
purposed we should have purview over what is behind it.
Willis said he could approve #3 if the stair was the code minimum width.
Bob said he could support option #3.
Eric said he could accept option #3.
Eric said option #3 has the least impact on the historic resource.
Patrick said they could have remodeled the two structures but they don't
want to do that. They already have it approved as a single connector. I also
agree with staff and we should deny all of them.
MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve Option 43 with the
minimum width of the stairs to meet code to increase the separation between
the historic resource. and the new construction. Materials to be approved by
staff and monitor. Motion second by Bob.
Amy pointed out that no materials were submitted and she is concerned what
staff and monitors role is regarding materials. Can we tell how thick the
mullions are from the drawings?
Bob said they could be approved by staff and monitor.
Gretchen said we could ask them to come back with,a completed
application. We do not know the roof line or materials.
Roll call vote: Eric, no; Bob, yes; Willis, yes; Gretchen, no; Patrick, no.
Motion failed 3-2.
MOTION: Willis moved to continue 135 E . Cooper to June 24th with the
recommendation that riserless stairs be used as represented in the renderings.
One application with a fully developed set of details including material
palate, dimensional drawings etc. Motion second by Eric.
Roll call vote:
13
P33
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015
Eric, yes; Bob, yes; Willis, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, no. motion carried
4-1.
101 W. Main Street aka Molly Gibson — Lot 2 of 125 W. Main Street
Historic Landmark Lot Split— Planned Development Detailed Review,
Final Major Development and Commercial Design Final Review
MOTION: Bob moved to continue 101 W. Main public hearing to
5/27/2015; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried.
Debbie said at the 27' meeting we will review the affidavit.
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. trickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
14
P34
III.A.
P
3
5
I
I
I
.
A
.
P
3
6
I
I
I
.
A
.
P
3
7
I
I
I
.
A
.
P
3
8
I
I
I
.
A
.
420 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 10-B l ASPEN, CO 81611 l (970) 925-7819 l mitch@hlpaspen.com
Memo
To: Ms. Amy Simon and the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
From: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC
Thru: Christy Ferer, Owner of 135 East Cooper Avenue
Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects, LLC
Date: March 5, 2015
Re: 135 East Cooper Avenue
135 East Cooper Avenue is located on the southwest corner of South Aspen Street
and East Cooper Avenue, immediately across the street from the Limelight Lodge.
The 2004 renovation resulted in home that has proven very challenging for family use
due to the limiting ground floor connector element between the two-story resource
and the two-story addition. As a consequence, the home requires two interior
staircases: one that provides access to the master bedroom located above the
addition, and another providing access to the other bedrooms on the second floor of
the historic portion of the house. The owner of the home, her family and her friends
who have stayed there have been unhappy with the two staircases for nearly ten
years because of the many resulting functional problems.
The applicant has, over the last 10 years, appeared before the HPC several times in
an effort to find an acceptable design solution that will allow for the direct passage
from one second floor area to the other. The most recent set of efforts began with
the plans labeled ‘Original Submittal” in the rear of the accompanying package that
was prepared by Zone 4 Architects. The Original Submittal plan was subsequently
followed by what is now shown as the “Previous Submittal,” which included three
additional design options. Now, the applicant is putting forth another plan, referred to
in the accompanying plans set as “Option 6 – Latest Revision.” The following
narrative provides a summary of each option and is followed by a review of the
applicable HPC Design Guidelines. (I am not sure why the latest revision is labeled
as “Option 6;” this must be a numbering error as there is no Option 5.)
The “Original Submittal” provides a connector and stair that are fully integrated and
enclosed between the historic resource and the addition. While this connection
appears a bit more substantial than might be the case with subsequent options, it
Haas Land Planning, LLC
P39
III.A.
Page 2
creates a very distinct separation between the old and the new. The biggest issue
with this option was the impact to the historic west façade and two windows.
“Option 1” includes a second floor link stacked directly atop the existing ground floor
connector. While this option provides the cleanest looking connection from the front,
it projects far to the rear, results in the removal of a historic second floor window, and
requires a good deal of intrusion into the historic roof. These glass-enclosed stairs
would sit in the area where the existing exterior stairs down to the sunken hot tub
area reside today.
“Option 2” is similar to Option 1 and sits on the same footprint, but Option 2 provides
a second floor link that does not stack on top of the existing ground floor connector.
Instead, the second floor link in Option 2 is forward of the ground floor connector so
as to avoid removal of any historic windows and to minimize intrusion into the historic
roof. Like Option 1, these glass-enclosed stairs would also sit in the area where the
existing exterior stairs down to the sunken hot tub area reside today.
“Option 3” is something of a hybrid of Options 1 and 2. Option 3 involves the
replacement of the existing ground floor connector element and replacing it north of
its current location to stack cleanly and directly beneath the second floor link
described in Option 2. The affected historic window on the ground floor would be
relocated to the area where today’s link is, effectively moving to behind the new
connecting element. One result of this option is a good deal less projection of the
glass enclosed stairs out toward the rear of the resource and, therefore, a
significantly less visibility from the east/south than would be the case with the
aforementioned options.
Finally, under “Option 6” the stairs have been moved to the north of the existing link
rather than to the south (as was the case with all previous options). This utilizes a
non-stacking link like Options 1 and 2. In this Option 6, only one new flight of stairs is
created, utilizing an existing interior flight (half of the stair is within the house). While
it is recognized that this option decreases the distance between the resource and the
new construction, the visibility of the new stair will remain partially blocked by existing
trees and vegetation, and it will continue to sit well back from the historic house’s
front façade and wrap-around front porch. The new flight of stairs adjoins the non-
historic addition, keeping the impact to the historic structure with regard to its walls,
windows and roof all to a minimum. Furthermore, the new flight of stairs would be
glass enclosed, serving to finally provide much needed differentiation between the
historic resource and the new construction.
The applicable HPC Design Guidelines are discussed below relative to the various
proposed options. The portions printed in bold are the applicable design guideline
while the bulleted points beneath are merely examples of ways that the guideline
might be met/satisfied. These can be thought of as the “standard” in bold with
suggested means of achieving compliance provided in the bullet points.
P40
III.A.
Page 3
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
• A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character
of the primary building is inappropriate.
• An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building
also is inappropriate.
• An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
All of the presented design options improve upon the property’s current consistency
with the letter and intent of this Guideline. The existing condition does a relatively
poor job of maintaining one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary
building as the addition is often mistaken for being historic. The existing link is so
insubstantial as to be completely out-of-scale that it often gets “lost,” failing to
satisfactorily differentiate where the old meets the new. While all of the proposed
design options will greatly improve on the clarity of what is new versus what is old
while maintaining compatibility, it is felt that “Option 6” is the most successful relative
to this standard.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
• 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.
Please refer to the response provided for Guideline 10.3, above. In addition, by
enclosing the stairs in glass, a method that has been employed in many
successful preservation projects in town, the addition will be easily recognized as
a product of its own time.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
• An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is
preferred.
Both the existing historic structure and its two-story addition are substantial in
size and scale. The proposed addition, even while changing a single-story link to
a two-story connection, will easily maintain compatibility and subservience in size
and scale. To the contrary, the existing link is out-of-scale as it is too small to be
truly compatible or to facilitate differentiation between new and old.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set
it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the
historic building.
P41
III.A.
Page 4
• A 1-story connector is preferred.
• The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the
primary building.
• The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
Please note in considering this standard that it does not require a 1-story
connector. To the contrary, it merely suggests that a 1-story connector is
preferred but it is suspected that this language is biased toward the prevalence of
single-story historic structures and miner’s cottages. The subject resource is
unusual for its era in terms of its size, mass and scale. As such, and “unusual”
connector is appropriate. The existing link is out-of-scale as it is too small and
too subservient to be truly compatible or to facilitate differentiation between new
and old. It gets “lost” between the two sides, leaving it difficult for passersby to
recognize that there is a historic resource and a new addition. Instead, the entire
structure including the addition is often mistakenly assumed to be historic,
meaning the link is doing a disservice to the resource.
In all options, the new connector/linking element remains shorter than and
subservient to the historic building. In all provided options, the linking element
remains setback substantially from the significant facades. In all provided options,
the connector’s proportionality relative to the primary building is greatly improved.
While all of the proposed design options will greatly improve on the clarity of what is
new versus what is old while maintaining and even enhancing compatibility, it is felt
that “Option 6” is the most successful relative to this standard.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original
proportions and character to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement, which
will not alter the exterior mass of a building.
• Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original
proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on
primary structures is recommended.
No new additions, per se, are proposed. Rather, a redesign of the connection
between the existing addition and the historic structure is being requested. That said,
the redesign of the connection does involve adding to it one way or another. Options
are provided for adding to either the rear or the front of the existing connection but in
no case is an inadequate setback from primary facades contemplated. None of the
options proposes an addition at the front of the historic resource and the original
proportions and character will remain every bit as prominent as they are today. In all
proposed options, the improved connector will remain a good deal more than 10 feet
back from the primary historic façade, not to mention the front of its large warp-
around porch element. This standard is met.
P42
III.A.
Page 5
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
• Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
• Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with
sloped roofs.
The existing connector’s roof form is flat with a neo-historic hand railing. The flat
roof form is out of character with the sloped roofs of the historic structure and the
addition, particularly since the roof of the connector sits so low relative to the
adjoining building walls. Moreover, the neo-Victorian handrail on top of the
existing connector lend to the confusion of what is new versus what is old. In
other words, the existing handrail is far too similar to that of the restored historic
front porch and fails to adequately differentiate between the resource and the
addition.
All of the proposed connector options incorporate some degree of glass shed
roofing with an emphasis on minimizing intrusion into the historic structure’s roof
form. “Option 1” would require the greatest degree of intrusion into the historic
roof, while the “Original Submittal” would involve the next highest degree of
intrusion. The remaining options truly minimize impacts to the historic structure’s
roof and are successful in better differentiating the asset from the new
construction as products of their own time.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or
obscure historically important architectural features.
• For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines
should be avoided.
Please refer to the narratives provided above in response to the previous
guidelines. While all of the proposed design options will greatly improve on the
clarity of what is new versus what is old while maintaining compatibility, it is felt that
“Option 6” is the most successful relative to this standard. Furthermore, Option 6 will
destroy or obscure the least amount of historic fabric and architecturally important
features. Only a five or so foot wide section of second floor wall and roofing will be
minimally impacted and in a location that is already greatly obscured from view. The
remaining windows, walls and roofing will be unaffected.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
• The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original
materials.
All of the submitted design options use glass as the primary material so as to
lighten its visual affect in the same manner as has proven successful on many
historic preservation projects throughout Aspen. This material will be
subordinate and recede to the original structure while helping to improve one’s
P43
III.A.
Page 6
ability to interpret the historic structure from the new construction. Again, it is felt
that Option 6 is the most successful of all options in this regard.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the
historic building.
• If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the
addition should be similar.
• Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or
structure.
Please refer to the response provided under Guideline 10.10, above.
Between the historic wrap-around front porch (which the applicant fully restored at
her option, i.e., voluntarily) and the large evergreen tree that continues to grow, any
expansion of the linking element is and will become even more obscured from view.
Additionally, the neighborhood has changed enormously with very permissive,
unsympathetic structures (i.e., the Limelight Lodge redevelopment and the Dancing
Bear residences to name just two) overshadowing this house that the applicant
worked so hard to restore. In comparison, the proposed corrective remodel seems
like such a small and completely reasonable request.
“Form follows function,” is an underlying principle of all good architecture but, in the
case of the previous approvals, function was completely cast aside in the name of
something then assumed to provide a better form. After many years, it has become
evident that the approved design just does not work.
As part of the Purpose and Intent of Historic Preservation in Aspen, as outlined in
Chapter 26.415 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the following is stated;
The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to
preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance
between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the
City’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. [Emphasis added.]
While the remodel was awarded a commendation from the HPC, it fails to meet the
Purpose and Intent of the City’s Historic Preservation program inasmuch as the
resulting home fails to “draw a reasonable balance between private property rights
and the public interest in preserving the City’s cultural, historic, and architectural
heritage.” The private property owner has been unhappy with this design since day
one but the City’s interest in preservation has consistently been put ahead of her
private property rights, prohibiting her from achieving a reasonable balance between
preservation and functionality. It is felt that the five design alternatives now provided
and proposed, especially “Option 6,” supply solutions and will at last achieve the
reasonable balance that is the purpose and intent of the historic preservation
program.
P44
III.A.
Page 7
Unfortunately, it is impossible to make the design of the home and addition work
together without some minor alterations to the resource. The applicant has now
provided five options that have taken into account the concerns of the HPC, and it is
felt that one of these designs should be agreeable. The proposed designs are
extremely sensitive to the historic structure, and all five of the options disturb as little
of the historic fabric as practicable while providing for functionality. Furthermore, the
proposed changes will barely be visible from Cooper Avenue and will provide for
greater consistency with the HPC Deign Guidelines than is achieved with the existing
connector.
It is emphasized that outstanding historic preservation efforts clearly distinguish the
old from the new. This home, as it now stands, does not do this. As viewed from
Aspen Street, it is difficult to tell where the historic structure ends and the new
construction begins; they are simply too similar in design, color, massing and scale,
and the existing connector is far too insubstantial in size and scale to aid with this
needed differentiation. The proposed linking element (all provided options) will
greatly help to improve the distinction between old and new from both South Aspen
Street and Cooper Avenue, thereby enhancing the historic preservation effort on this
award-winning property. None of the five currently proposed design alternatives are
ideal for the property owner, but the applicant is trying in earnest to strike a balance
between her property rights and the City’s interest in protecting historic properties.
We feel our proposed solutions will create a sensitive, barely visible and
sympathetically designed link where non-reflective glass will be used to link the old
and the new. At the same time, the change will allow a single staircase to unite the
family living inside this house. At last, harmony between form and function will be
achieved through the reasonable balancing of interests.
We thank you for your consideration.
P45
III.A.
P
4
6
I
I
I
.
A
.
DATE
Date:
Scale:
Drawn by:
REVISIONS
Z4A
WWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COMWWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM
F :\00
ZO
N
E
4 \13
5
E
A
S
T
CO
O
P
E
R
\13
5
Ea
s
t
Co
o
p
e
r
3 .pl
n
BY
A203
11/26/2013Plotted On:
11/26/2013
AS NOTED
EXISTING
PLANS
1
3
5
E
A
S
T
C
O
O
P
E
R
S
T
.
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
1
3
5
E
A
S
T
C
O
O
P
E
R
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
IS
NO
T
LI
A
B
L
E
OR
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
AT
AN
Y
TI
M
E
FO
R
AN
Y
CH
A
N
G
E
S
TO
TH
E
S
E
DR
A
W
I
N
G
S
OR
SP
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
WI
T
H
O
U
T
PR
I
O
R
WR
I
T
T
E
N
AU
T
H
O
R
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
.
c
20
1
1
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
,
LL
C
.
TH
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
AN
D
DE
S
I
G
N
IN
T
E
N
T
CO
N
T
A
I
N
E
D
ON
TH
I
S
DO
C
U
M
E
N
T
IS
TH
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
OF
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
LL
C
.
NO
PA
R
T
OF
TH
I
S
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
MA
Y
BE
US
E
D
OR
CO
P
I
E
D
WI
T
H
O
U
T
TH
E
PR
I
O
R
WR
I
T
T
E
N
PE
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
OF
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
LL
C
.
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
LL
C
.
SH
A
L
L
RE
T
A
I
N
AL
L
CO
M
M
O
N
LA
W
ST
A
T
U
T
O
R
Y
AN
D
AL
L
OT
H
E
R
RE
S
E
R
V
E
D
RI
G
H
T
S
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
TH
E
R
E
T
O
.
AL
L
RI
G
H
T
S
RE
S
E
R
V
E
D
BEDROOM
010
STORAGE
001
BATH
002
BEDROOM
003
FAMILY
008
BATH
009
BEDROOM
011 FAMILYROOM
013
SPA
MECH.
006
BAR
007
HALL
004
BATH
012
3.1
4
5
A F
F
1
4
5
G H I J
G J
6
7
8
C
EXERCISE
005
A ED
3
B
1
2 STORAGE
NEW 2'-6"x4'-0" SKYLIGHT
GARAGE
113
R
S 14ø50'49"W 100.00'
N 14ø50'49"E 100.00'
10
0
PORCH
AL
L
E
Y
BL
O
C
K
70
PARKING
PORCH
1
0
1
10
1
GR
A
V
E
L
N
75
ø 09
'11
"W
65
.00
'
LIVING
101
ENTRY
100
SITTING
102
BREAKFAST
106
KITCHEN
108
DINING
107
POWDER
103
10
0
SITTING/KITCHEN
110
BEDROOM
112
BATH
111
TERRACE
TRASH/
RECYCLE
SPA
BBQ.
A C D E F
5
4
2
1
A B GF
8
7
6
JIHG
4
1
5
J
HALL
104
MUD
109
3 3
LK
10
9
3.1
A
5
B
3
3.1
4
1
ATTIC
301
A C
D
5
F
4
1
ED F
3
LIGHT
WELLBELOW
90
°
90°
BATH
209
BATH
203
BEDROOM
202
BEDROOM
204
STAIR
201
BATH
205
CL.
207
MASTERBEDROOM
206
A C D E F
5
4
1
A B D F
4
1
5
33
2
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL - EXISTING
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL - EXISTING
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 ATTIC LEVEL - EXISTING
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 UPPER LEVEL - EXISTING
P
4
7
I
I
I
.
A
.
DATE
Date:
Scale:
Drawn by:
REVISIONS
Z4A
WWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COMWWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM
F :\00
ZO
N
E
4 \13
5
E
A
S
T
CO
O
P
E
R
\13
5
Ea
s
t
Co
o
p
e
r
3 .pl
n
BY
A300
11/26/2013Plotted On:
11/26/2013
AS NOTED
EXISTING
ELEVATIONS
1
3
5
E
A
S
T
C
O
O
P
E
R
S
T
.
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
1
3
5
E
A
S
T
C
O
O
P
E
R
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
IS
NO
T
LI
A
B
L
E
OR
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
AT
AN
Y
TI
M
E
FO
R
AN
Y
CH
A
N
G
E
S
TO
TH
E
S
E
DR
A
W
I
N
G
S
OR
SP
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
WI
T
H
O
U
T
PR
I
O
R
WR
I
T
T
E
N
AU
T
H
O
R
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
.
c
20
1
1
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
,
LL
C
.
TH
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
AN
D
DE
S
I
G
N
IN
T
E
N
T
CO
N
T
A
I
N
E
D
ON
TH
I
S
DO
C
U
M
E
N
T
IS
TH
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
OF
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
LL
C
.
NO
PA
R
T
OF
TH
I
S
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
MA
Y
BE
US
E
D
OR
CO
P
I
E
D
WI
T
H
O
U
T
TH
E
PR
I
O
R
WR
I
T
T
E
N
PE
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
OF
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
LL
C
.
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
LL
C
.
SH
A
L
L
RE
T
A
I
N
AL
L
CO
M
M
O
N
LA
W
ST
A
T
U
T
O
R
Y
AN
D
AL
L
OT
H
E
R
RE
S
E
R
V
E
D
RI
G
H
T
S
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
TH
E
R
E
T
O
.
AL
L
RI
G
H
T
S
RE
S
E
R
V
E
D
SCALE: APROX. 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ELEVATIONS - EXISTING
P
4
8
I
I
I
.
A
.
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T R E E T R E S I D E N C E
0 6 . 0 3 . 2 0 1 5
H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N - R E V I E W
14
'
-
7
/
8
"
2'-9 13/16"
4'-3 15/16"
1'-
5
"
1'-
3
1/
4
"
2'-
2
1/
2
"
5'-3 15/16"
5'-5 1/4"
REBAR & CAP L.S.
#2376 FOUND
REBAR & CAP L.S.
#24669 SET
No. 5 REBAR FOUND
IVB
MANHOLE
DRAIN
CO
CO
3" DRAIN
EL=7903.12'
WOOD
DECK
WINDOW
WELL
WINDOW WELL
HOT
TUB
ELEC.
METER
DECK
3" PVC
RISER
WINDOW
WELL
WOOD
DECK
GAS
METER
CONC. WALK
FL
A
G
S
T
O
N
E
WA
L
K
CO
N
C
.
WA
L
K
FLAGSTONE
PATIO
RETAINING WALLS
WINDOW
WELL
CO
N
C
. WA
L
K
CONC. CURB & GUTTE
R
CO
N
C
.
CU
R
B
&
GU
T
T
E
R
1 STORY
WOOD FRAME
GARAGE
2 STORY WOOD FRAME
WITH BASEMENT
1 STORY
WOOD FRAME
AS
P
E
N
ST
R
E
E
T
CONC.
DRIVE
FOUND #5 REBAR AND CAP
LS #13166 S58°59'54"W
0.76'
C
O
N
C
.
S
T
A
I
R
S
A/C
A/C
GAS
METER
FENCE
GRAVEL DRIVE
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7914.25'
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7914.26'
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7903.30'
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7914.18'
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7914.28'
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7914.19'
7913
79
1
3
791
3
7913
79
1
3
79
1
3
7
9
1
3
7
9
1
3
79
1
3
79
1
3
7913
7913
79
1
3
7912
79
1
2
791
3
S 75°09'11" E
65.05'
N
14
°50
'49
"
E
10
0
.00
'
N 14
°50
'49
"E
10
0
.00
'
N75°09'11"W
65.05'
75
' R .O .W .
COOP
E
R
STREE
T75' R.O.W.
ALLEY18.74' R.O.W.
135 E. COOPER STREET
6,505 SQ.FT.
LO
T
G
(RE
M
A
I
N
D
E
R
)
LILAC
BUSH
PINE TREE
(TYP)
DECIDUOUS
TREE (TYP)
S 75°09'11" E 205.17'
EDGE OF
EXISTING LINK
03A-00
14
'
-
7
/
8
"
2'-9 13/16"
4'-3 15/16"
1'-
5
"
1'-
3
1/
4
"
2'-
2
1/
2
"
5'-3 15/16"
5'-5 1/4"
REBAR & CAP L.S.
#2376 FOUND
REBAR & CAP L.S.
#24669 SET
No. 5 REBAR FOUND
IVB
MANHOLE
DRAIN
CO
CO
WOOD
DECK
WINDOW
WELL
WINDOW WELL
HOT
TUB
ELEC.
METER
DECK
3" PVC
RISER
WINDOW
WELL
WOOD
DECK
GAS
METER
CONC. WALK
FL
A
G
S
T
O
N
E
WA
L
K
CO
N
C
.
WA
L
K
FLAGSTONE
PATIO
RETAINING WALLS
WINDOW
WELL
CO
N
C
. WA
L
K
CONC. CURB & GUTTE
R
CO
N
C
.
CU
R
B
&
GU
T
T
E
R
1 STORY
WOOD FRAME
GARAGE
2 STORY WOOD FRAME
WITH BASEMENT
1 STORY
WOOD FRAME
AS
P
E
N
ST
R
E
E
T
CONC.
DRIVE
FOUND #5 REBAR AND CAP
LS #13166 S58°59'54"W
0.76'
C
O
N
C
.
S
T
A
I
R
S
A/C
A/C
GAS
METER
FENCE
GRAVEL DRIVE
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7914.25'
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7914.26'
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7903.30'
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7914.18'
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7914.28'
FINISH FLOOR
EL=7914.19'
7913
79
1
3
791
3
7913
79
1
3
79
1
3
7
9
1
3
7
9
1
3
79
1
3
79
1
3
7913
7913
79
1
3
7912
79
1
2
791
3
S 75°09'11" E
65.05'
N
14
°50
'49
"
E
10
0
.00
'
N 14
°50
'49
"E
10
0
.00
'
N75°09'11"W
65.05'
75
' R .O .W .
COOP
E
R
STREE
T75' R.O.W.
ALLEY18.74' R.O.W.
135 E. COOPER STREET
6,505 SQ.FT.
LO
T
G
(RE
M
A
I
N
D
E
R
)
LILAC
BUSH
PINE TREE
(TYP)
DECIDUOUS
TREE (TYP)
S 75°09'11" E 205.17'
EDGE OF
EXISTING
LINK
NEW STAIR "LINK"
[HATCHED]
DN
UP
DN
DN
CO
WINDOW WELL
HOT
TUB
DECK
WOOD
DECK
FL
A
G
S
T
O
N
E
WA
L
K
FLAGSTONE
PATIO
RETAINING
WALLS
C
O
N
C
.
S
T
A
I
R
S
7913
79
1
3
791
3
EDGE OF
EXISTING
LINK
NEW STAIR
"LINK"
[HATCHED]
HISTORICADDITION
01 EXISTING SITE PLAN
1" = 10'
02 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
1" = 10'
03 PROPOSED [ENLARGED] SITE PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-00 | SITE PLANS | SCALE : AS NOTED
NNN
P
4
9
I
I
I
.
A
.
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T R E E T R E S I D E N C E
0 6 . 0 3 . 2 0 1 5
H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N - R E V I E W
01
A-05
01
A-03
DN
UP
LIVING ROOM
FAMILY
KITCHEN
NEW STAIR "LINK"
[EXISTING LINK TO BE DEMOLISHED]
01
A-02
02
A-02
03
A-02
EL. 100'-0"
EL. 100'-0"
HISTORIC
ADDITION
T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL
T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL
RELOCATED WINDOW AT
HISTORIC STRUCTURE,
RE: 01/A-03
02
A-05
01
A-03
01
A-02
02
A-02
03
A-02
DN
MASTER BATH
MASTER BED
BEDROOM #3 BEDROOM #4
BATH #3 BATH #4
PU
L
L
-DO
W
N
AT
T
I
C
ST
A
I
R
NEW STAIR "LINK"
[EXISTING LINK TO BE DEMOLISHED]
HISTORIC
ADDITION
EL. 110'-6"
EL. 109'-8"
DN
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL
[ADDITION]
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL
[HISTORIC STRUCTURE]
01 GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 02 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A-01 | GROUND + UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANS | 1/4" = 1'-0"
N
P
5
0
I
I
I
.
A
.
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T R E E T R E S I D E N C E
0 6 . 0 3 . 2 0 1 5
H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N - R E V I E W
NEW STAIR LINK
NEW WINDOW SYSTEM / GLAZING
EXISTING ADDITION BEYOND
EL. 100'-0"
EL. 110'-6"
EL. 105'-3"
EL. 109'-8"
T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL [LINK / ADDITION]
T.O. F.F. LANDING
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL [HISTORIC STRUCTURE]
NEW STAIR LINK
NEW WINDOW SYSTEM / GLAZING
EXISTING ADDITION
EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE
NEW GABLE ROOF
BOTTOM OF NEW LANDING BEYOND
EL. 100'-0"
EL. 110'-6"
EL. 109'-8"
T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL [LINK / ADDITION]
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL [HISTORIC STRUCTURE]
NEW STAIR LINK
NEW WINDOW SYSTEM / GLAZING
EXISTING ADDITION
EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE
NEW GABLE ROOF
BOTTOM OF NEW LANDING BEYOND
EL. 100'-0"
EL. 110'-6"
EL. 105'-3"
EL. 109'-8"
T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL [LINK / ADDITION]
T.O. F.F. LANDING
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL [HISTORIC STRUCTURE]
03 WEST ELEVATION [PROPOSED STAIR ADDITION]
01 NORTH ELEVATION [PROPOSED STAIR ADDITION]
02 SOUTH ELEVATION [PROPOSED STAIR ADDITION]
A-02 | ELEVATIONS | 1/4" = 1'-0"
NOTES:
1. ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS, LLC DOES NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE
ORIGINAL DRAWINGS DEPICTING THE EXISTING ELEVATIONS. THEY WERE
PROVIDED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
2. PROPOSED WINDOW SYSTEM TO BE FLEETWOOD OR SIMILAR.
P
5
1
I
I
I
.
A
.
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T R E E T R E S I D E N C E
0 6 . 0 3 . 2 0 1 5
H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N - R E V I E W
12
6
12
6
OUTLINE OF EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE
BEYOND
RELOCATED WINDOW
AT HISTORIC STRUCTURE
EXISTING ONE LEVEL "LINK" [HATCHED]
TO BE REMOVED
NEW STAIR "LINK" [POCHE]
EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN,
TYPICAL
EL. 100'-0"
EL. 110'-6"
EL. 109'-8"
T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL [LINK / ADDITION]
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL [HISTORIC STRUCTURE]
NEW LINK ROOF
HISTORIC STRUCTURE ROOFADDITION ROOF
01 SECTION / HISTORIC STRUCTURE WEST ELEVATION
3/8" = 1'-0"
02 PERSPECTIVE VIEW TOWARDS ROOFS
A-03 | SECTION / ELEVATION + PERSPECTIVES | AS NOTED
P
5
2
I
I
I
.
A
.
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T R E E T R E S I D E N C E
0 6 . 0 3 . 2 0 1 5
H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N - R E V I E W
01 PERSPECTIVE FROM ASPEN STREET 02 PERSPECTIVE FROM COOPER STREET
A-04 | PERSPECTIVES | NOT TO SCALE
P
5
3
I
I
I
.
A
.
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T R E E T R E S I D E N C E
0 6 . 0 3 . 2 0 1 5
H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N - R E V I E W
03
A-06
01
A-06
06
A-06
04
A-06
04
A-06
10
'
-
6
"
11
'
-
1
"
9'
-
8
"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
1
1/
2
"
3'
3'
-
3
"
LOWER LEVEL [BASEMENT]
OUTLINE OF EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE
BEYOND GLAZING
OUTLINE OF EXISTING ONE LEVEL "LINK"
TO BE REPLACED BY NEW STAIR "LINK"
12
6
12
6
12
1.625
WINDOW SYSTEM / FACADE
OPEN TO HISTORIC STRUCTURE BEYOND
CONTINUOUS HANDRAIL 3'-0" ABOVE TREAD
NOSING, TYPICAL
TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL
OPEN TO HISTORIC STRUCTURE BEYOND
TREADS WITH OPEN STEEL PLATE RISERS AND
STRINGER
HANDRAIL RETURN
STEEL PLATE RISER AND STRINGER IN
FOREGROUND
STEEL PLATE RISER AND STRINGER IN
FOREGROUND
OUTLINE OF EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE
BEYOND
EL. 100'-0"
EL. 95'-4"
EL. 88'-11"
EL. 110'-6"
EL. 105'-3"
EL. 109'-8"
T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL
T.O. F.F. LANDING
T.O. F.F. LOWER LEVEL
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL [LINK / ADDITION]
T.O. F.F. LANDING
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL [HISTORIC STRUCTURE]
4'6'-5"4'-2"
7'
-
5
1/
2
"
9
7/
8
"
8'
-
3
3/
8
"
3'
1'
3'
5
1/
2
"
4'-11"10'-7"
5 1/2"5 1/2"6'-9 3/4"
11"3'-3"
03
A-05
[EXISTING] HISTORIC RESIDENCE
[EXISTING] ADDITION
DN
UP
7 TREADS @ 11"
8 RISERS @ 7"
DN
OPEN WOOD TREADS, TYPICAL
STEEL STRINGER BELOW
TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL
METAL HANDRAIL
[DEPICTED WITH DASH LINES FOR CLARITY]
NOTE:
PROPOSED STAIR DESIGN
WILL CONFORM TO
IRC SECTION R311 + R312.
OULTINE OF STAIR + LANDING
NEW WINDOW SYSTEM
GLAZING
VERTICAL MULLIONS, TYPICAL
OULTINE OF LANDING ABOVE,
RE: 02/A-04
10 TREADS @ 11"
11 RISERS @ 7"
EL. 100'-0"EL. 95'-4"
T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL T.O. F.F. LANDING
05
A-06
02
A-06
4'7'-4"3'-3"
3'
1'
3'
03
A-05
[EXISTING] HISTORIC RESIDENCE
[EXISTING] ADDITION
DN 8 TREADS @ 11"
9 RISERS @ 7"
8 TREADS @ 11"
9 RISERS @ 7"DN
OPEN WOOD TREADS, TYPICAL
STEEL STRINGER BELOW
TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL
METAL HANDRAIL
[DEPICTED WITH DASH LINES FOR CLARITY]
NOTE:
PROPOSED STAIR DESIGN
WILL CONFORM TO
IRC SECTION R311 + R312.
OULTINE OF STAIR + LANDING
NEW WINDOW SYSTEM
GLAZING
VERTICAL MULLIONS, TYPICAL
DN
1 TREAD @ 11"
2 RISERS @ 5"
EL. 110'-6"EL. 105'-3"
EL. 109'-8"
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL T.O. F.F. LANDING
T.O. F.F. UPPER LEVEL
03 STAIR SECTION 01 GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
02 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A-05 | S T A I R P L A N S + S E C T I O N | 3/8" = 1'-0"
N
N
P
5
4
I
I
I
.
A
.
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T R E E T R E S I D E N C E
0 6 . 0 3 . 2 0 1 5
H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N - R E V I E W
RE: ROOF PLAN
12
EXTERIOR
INTERIOR
ROOF FINISH MATERIAL TO MATCH
EXISTING
GRACE Ice & Water Shield
PLYWOOD SHEATHING, PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
SPRAY FOAM INSULATION
(R-38)
ROOF JOISTS, PER STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER
GWB, REFER TO INTERIORS FOR
CEILING FINISH
NOTE:
1.ROOF INSULATION TO BE
INSTALLED PER IECC 2009 -
303.1.1.1. R-49 IS MINIMUM VALUE
PER TABLE 402.1.1.
BATT INSULATION
(R-19)
SMART BARRIER OR SIMILAR
VersaShield UNDERLAYMENT
[R-57 TOTAL]
5/
8
"
9
1/
2
"
3/
4
"
1
1/
2
"
1'
-
3
/
8
"
EL. RE: FLOOR PLAN
EL. RE: STRUCT.
F-1 : WOOD FLOOR ASSEMBLY
-WOOD FINISH FLOOR,
PER ARCHITECT
-PLYWOOD SHEATHING,
PER STRUCT.
-FLOOR JOISTS, PER STRUCT.
F-1
EXTERIOR INTERIOR
BEAMS PER STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER
GWB
HORIZONTAL WINDOW MULLION,
RE: ELEVATIONS
WINDOW SYSTEM / FACADE
T.O. F.F. LANDING
T.O. PLY.
INTERIOR
EXTERIOR
NEW WINDOW SYSTEM / GLAZING
NEW WINDOW SILL BELOW
NEW FRAMED OPENING ABOVE
NEW WOOD STUDS PER
STRUCTURAL, INTEGRATED WITH
EXISTING STUDS
NEW SPRAY FOAM INSULATION
EXISTING BATT INSULATION TO
REMAIN
NEW BUILDING WRAP WITH SELF-
ADHERED JAMB FLASHING
(2 LAYERS)
EXISTING SIDING, REMOVE ONLY
AS NEEDED TO INSTALL NEW STAIR
EXISTING GWB / NEW AS
REQUIRED
EXISTING 1/2" PLY., REMOVE ONLY
AS NEEDED TO INSTALL NEW STAIR
NEW BACKER ROD WITH SEALANT
NEW WOOD SHIM
5"
5"
INTERIOR
EXTERIOR
R .O .
R.O.
NEW WINDOW SYSTEM / GLAZING
NEW WINDOW SILL BELOW
NEW BUILDING WRAP WITH SELF-
ADHERED JAMB FLASHING
(2 LAYERS)
NEW METAL TRIM TO MATCH METAL
WINDOW CLADDING
NEW 1/2" PLY. PER STRUCT.
NEW BACKER ROD WITH SEALANT
NEW SPRAY FOAM INSULATION
NEW WOOD FRAMING / BLOCKING
NEW STEEL COLUMN PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
NEW METAL FINISH TO MATCH
METAL WINDOW CLADDING
RE
:
01
+
0
2
/
A-
0
4
3"
RE: 01+02 / A-04 1/2"
R 2"
GLASS GUARDRAIL BRACKETS
BY CR LAURENCE OR SIMILAR
(2) STEEL MC SHAPE, PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
STEEL PLATE RISER, PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
WOOD TREAD, TYPICAL
STEEL PLATE BEYOND
STEEL PLATE RISER BEYOND
WITH STEEL BOLT
CONNECTION TO STRINGER,
PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
BOTTOM OF TEMPERED
GLASS GUARDRAIL
1/2 1/2
3'
-
3
"
3'
-
0
"
1 1/2"
RE: 01+02 / A-04
CL
ELEVATION
PLAN
GLASS HANDRAIL BRACKETS
BY CR LAURENCE OR SIMILAR
CONTINUOUS METAL HANDRAIL
TO BE 1 1/2" x 1 1/2" WITH
EASED EDGES PER 2009 IBC
R311.7.7.3
TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL
PER 2009 IBC R312
GLASS GUARDRAIL BRACKETS
BY CR LAURENCE OR SIMILAR,
WELDED TO RECESSED STEEL
PLATE BELOW TREAD, PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
RECESSED STEEL PLATE, PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
STEEL PLATE RISER, PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
STEEL MC SHAPE, PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
EDGE OF TREAD ABOVE
STEEL MC SHAPE, PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL
PER 2009 IBC R312
OUTLINE OF HANDRAIL ABOVE
RECESSED STEEL PLATE
BELOW, PER STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER
GLASS GUARDRAIL BRACKET
STEEL RISER BELOW, PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
WOOD TREAD
HORIZONTAL MULLION
NEW WINDOW SYSTEM / FACADE
VERTICAL MULLION
NEW WINDOW SYSTEM / FACADE
EXT.INTERIOR
04 TYPICAL ROOF ASSEMBLY
3" = 1'-0"
01 TYPICAL FLOOR ASSEMBLY AT LANDING
3" = 1'-0"
05 TYPICAL WINDOW JAMB AT HISTORIC HOUSE
3" = 1'-0"
02 TYPICAL WINDOW JAMB AT CORNERS
3" = 1'-0"
03 STAIR STRINGER / TREAD DETAIL
1 1/2"= 1'-0"
06 STAIR TREAD / GUARDRAIL DETAIL
1 1/2"= 1'-0"
A-06 | DETAILS | SCALE : AS NOTED
P
5
5
I
I
I
.
A
.
N . T . S . 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | A D U - A S B U I L T I M A G E S
P
5
6
I
I
I
.
A
.
P
5
7
I
I
I
.
A
.
P
5
8
I
I
I
.
A
.
DATE
Date:
Scale:
Drawn by:
REVISIONS
Z4A
WWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COMWWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM
F :\00
ZO
N
E
4 \13
5
E
A
S
T
CO
O
P
E
R
\13
5
Ea
s
t
Co
o
p
e
r
3 .pl
n
BY
A204
11/26/2013Plotted On:
11/26/2013
AS NOTED
PLAN
PROPOSED
1
3
5
E
A
S
T
C
O
O
P
E
R
S
T
.
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
1
3
5
E
A
S
T
C
O
O
P
E
R
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
IS
NO
T
LI
A
B
L
E
OR
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
AT
AN
Y
TI
M
E
FO
R
AN
Y
CH
A
N
G
E
S
TO
TH
E
S
E
DR
A
W
I
N
G
S
OR
SP
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
WI
T
H
O
U
T
PR
I
O
R
WR
I
T
T
E
N
AU
T
H
O
R
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
.
c
20
1
1
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
,
LL
C
.
TH
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
AN
D
DE
S
I
G
N
IN
T
E
N
T
CO
N
T
A
I
N
E
D
ON
TH
I
S
DO
C
U
M
E
N
T
IS
TH
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
OF
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
LL
C
.
NO
PA
R
T
OF
TH
I
S
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
MA
Y
BE
US
E
D
OR
CO
P
I
E
D
WI
T
H
O
U
T
TH
E
PR
I
O
R
WR
I
T
T
E
N
PE
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
OF
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
LL
C
.
ZO
N
E
4
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
LL
C
.
SH
A
L
L
RE
T
A
I
N
AL
L
CO
M
M
O
N
LA
W
ST
A
T
U
T
O
R
Y
AN
D
AL
L
OT
H
E
R
RE
S
E
R
V
E
D
RI
G
H
T
S
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
TH
E
R
E
T
O
.
AL
L
RI
G
H
T
S
RE
S
E
R
V
E
D
MEDIA
CL.
BATH #1
BEDROOM #1
EXERCISE
MECH.
BATH #2
BEDROOM #2
FAMILY
MOVE EXISTING
DOOR TO THIS WALL
UP
18
R
I
S
E
R
S
@
7
3 /8 "
16
TR
E
A
D
S
@
11
"
HISTORIC
ADDITION
DN
UP
LIVING ROOM
FAMILY
KITCHEN
PWDR
CL.STOR.
18 RISERS @ 7 3/8"
16 TREADS @ 11"
18 RISERS @ 6 1/2"
16 TREADS @ 11"
EXISTING HISTORIC
WALL/WNDS. TO
BE REMOVED
EXISTING OPENING
HISTORIC
ADDITION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL - PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL - PROPOSED
P
5
9
I
I
I
.
A
.
N .T . S. 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 1 - F L O O R P L A N S
P
6
0
I
I
I
.
A
.
N .T . S. 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 2 - F L O O R P L A N S
P
6
1
I
I
I
.
A
.
N .T . S. 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 3 - F L O O R P L A N S
P
6
2
I
I
I
.
A
.
N .T . S. 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 4 - F L O O R P L A N S
P
6
3
I
I
I
.
A
.