The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20160525 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 25, 2016 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. None. II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of 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 J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. OLD BUSINESS A. None. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 5:15 P.M., 980 Gibson Avenue- Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING B. 6:15 P.M., 135 E. Cooper Avenue-Minor Development, PUBLIC HEARING V. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution #16, 2016 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. C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\9093.doc 5/20/2016 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 332 W. Main 1102 Waters (new duplex) 1006 E. Cooper 100 E. Main 417/421 W. Hallam 602 E. Hyman 61 Meadows Road ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision 232 E. Bleeker 609 W. Smuggler 209 E. Bleeker ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC 420 E. Cooper 420 E. Hyman 407 E. Hyman ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove 135 E. Cooper 1280 Ute 211 E. Hallam ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Willis Pember Aspen Core 101 E. Hallam 229 W. Smuggler 407 E. Hyman Patrick Segal 701 N. Third 612 W. Main 212 Lake Holden Marolt derrick 333 W. Bleeker John Whipple Aspen Core 201 E. Hyman 549 Race 420 E. Cooper 602 E. Hyman Hotel Aspen 610 E. Hyman 301 Lake Michael Brown 223 E. Hallam 1102 Waters Avenue Need: 530 W. Hallam P1 II.F. HPC Review 5.25.16 980 Gibson Avenue Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 980 Gibson Avenue- Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 25, 2016 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 980 Gibson Avenue is in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood and part of Alpine Acres Subdivision. In the 1960s, a number of Victorian era homes were moved to this subdivision from unknown locations in Aspen. These properties are all landmark designated. The miner’s cottage at 980 Gibson was significantly altered over the years. It is linked to another Victorian (990 Gibson) by a garage. The property has been sold and the new owner wishes to demolish all non-historic construction on the site, reposition and restore the Victorian, dedicate it as a deed restricted Carriage House (a form of Accessory Dwelling Unit) and build a new detached free market home on the south side of the lot. HPC approved Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation and Variations for this project on January 13, 2016, with two conditions that the applicant has addressed as part of this Final review submittal. • The applicant is required to make two adjustments to the site plan for Final review. The miner’s cottage is to be moved 2’ further away from Matchless Drive and the new house is to move 2-5’ further away from Gibson Avenue, at the applicant’s discretion. • The applicant is required to reduce the roof overhang on the northern side of the new house’s front porch for Final review. Staff recommends Final approval, with conditions. APPLICANT: Gibson Matchless LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning and Zone 4 Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-074-10-001. ADDRESS: 980 Gibson Avenue, Unit 1, Alpine Acres Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO. ZONING: R-6 P2 IV.A. HPC Review 5.25.16 980 Gibson Avenue Page 2 of 8 FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” Currently, it is difficult to distinguish the original Victorian house. At Conceptual review, an approach to remove non-historic elements and restore the form of the original building, as accurately as possible, was approved. There are no maps or photos available to guide this project. The work will be based on physical evidence and typical characteristics of other miner’s cottages in Aspen. There are indications that, when the historic resource was moved to 980 Gibson a few decades ago, it was placed so the historic rear façade is facing the street and the historic front façade faces the back yard. The image below, left, shows the house as seen today, from the back yard. The image below, right, shows how 980 Gibson might have looked originally. P3 IV.A. HPC Review 5.25.16 980 Gibson Avenue Page 3 of 8 With regard to the Final review plans for the Victorian structure, staff supports the applicants’ proposal, with the condition that, prior to building permit, the doors and windows on the historic structure be studied again to ensure that they reflect the tall and narrow proportions that are typical of homes of this era. Some of the openings appear to be wider than the typical design. Staff also recommends that more detail for the front porch be provided, with a revisit of the thickness of the roof profile and an exploration of whether wood shingles, rather than metal, could be used on this element. Given the low pitch of the roof, HPC has accepted a membrane roof as preferred to standing seam metal as well. The proposed new house is consistent with the design shown to HPC at Conceptual. The applicant reduced the roof overhang at the front porch, as depicted below. Staff finds the new house complies with the design guidelines, with the possible exception of the windows, which appear to combine several stylistic influences, creating a more complex character than the historic structure. In particular, the tripartite window on the front of the house, where the header of the central window is higher than the adjacent windows, is a possible area for restudy, per guideline 11.9. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. These include windows, doors and porches. Overall, details should be modest in character. In terms of the landscape and lighting plan, staff finds that the proposal, particularly surrounding the historic resource, is simple and appropriate, in keeping with the design guidelines. P4 IV.A. HPC Review 5.25.16 980 Gibson Avenue Page 4 of 8 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Final Major Development with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the doors and windows on the historic structure to ensure that they reflect the tall and narrow proportions that are typical of homes of this era. Provide more detail for the front porch, including the thickness of the roof profile and an exploration of whether wood shingles or a membrane roof could be used on this element. 2. Restudy the proposed windows on the new house to be more similar in shape and size to the historic resource, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 3. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 980 Gibson Avenue. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations P5 IV.A. HPC Review 5.25.16 980 Gibson Avenue Page 5 of 8 and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. EXHIBITS: HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 980 Gibson Avenue, Final review 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. P6 IV.A. HPC Review 5.25.16 980 Gibson Avenue Page 6 of 8 Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. Simple paneled doors were typical. Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. Use materials that appear similar to the original. While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. P7 IV.A. HPC Review 5.25.16 980 Gibson Avenue Page 7 of 8 Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non- reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. Seams should be of a low profile. A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 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 P8 IV.A. HPC Review 5.25.16 980 Gibson Avenue Page 8 of 8 techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. These include windows, doors and porches. Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. Do not wash an entire building facade in light. Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway from the street. Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete. P9 IV.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 980 GIBSON AVENUE, UNIT 1, ALPINE ACRES SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2016 PARCEL ID: 2737-074-10-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Gibson Matchless LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning and Zone 4 Architects, has requested HPC approval for Final Major Development for the property located at 980 Gibson Avenue; 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 Final Major 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 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Municipal Code. 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, HPC reviewed the project on May 25, 2016. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC grants Final Major Development with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the doors and windows on the historic structure to ensure that they reflect the tall and narrow proportions that are typical of homes of this era. Provide more detail for the front porch, including the thickness of the roof profile and an exploration of whether wood shingles or a membrane roof could be used on this element. 2. Restudy the proposed windows on the new house to be more similar in shape and size to the historic resource, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 3. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development P10 IV.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 2 of 2 order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 980 Gibson Avenue. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25th day of May, 2016. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ___________________________________ _____________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P11 IV.A. P 1 2 I V . A . P 1 3 I V . A . P 1 4 I V . A . P 1 5 I V . A . P 1 6 I V . A . P 1 7 I V . A . P 1 8 I V . A . P 1 9 I V . A . P 2 0 I V . A . P 2 1 I V . A . P 2 2 I V . A . P 2 3 I V . A . P 2 4 I V . A . P 2 5 I V . A . P 2 6 I V . A . P 2 7 I V . A . P 2 8 I V . A . P 2 9 I V . A . P 3 0 I V . A . P 3 1 I V . A . P 3 2 I V . A . P 3 3 I V . A . P 3 4 I V . A . P 3 5 I V . A . P 3 6 I V . A . P 3 7 I V . A . P 3 8 I V . A . P 3 9 I V . A . P 4 0 I V . A . P 4 1 I V . A . P 4 2 I V . A . P 4 3 I V . A . P 4 4 I V . A . P 4 5 I V . A . P 4 6 I V . A . P 4 7 I V . A . P 4 8 I V . A . P 4 9 I V . A . P 5 0 I V . A . P 5 1 I V . A . P 5 2 I V . A . P 5 3 I V . A . P 5 4 I V . A . P 5 5 I V . A . P 5 6 I V . A . P 5 7 I V . A . P 5 8 I V . A . P 5 9 I V . A . P 6 0 I V . A . P 6 1 I V . A . May 9, 2016 Ms. Amy Simon City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Supplement/Update to Final HPC Application for 980 Gibson Avenue (Parcel ID # 2737-074-10-001) Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the accompanying plans set to constitute a revised request for Final Approval of a Major Development to allow for the restoration and relocation of the existing historic home located at 980 Gibson Avenue, Aspen. This historic resource will become a voluntary Carriage House. The proposal also involves the development of a new single-family residence on the property. The Final HPC application was originally submitted on February 26, 2016 and remains valid; however, this letter and the accompanying plans prepared by Zone4 Architects are intended as an update to that submission. More specifically, the accompanying plans set completely replaces and supersedes the earlier set while this narrative simply supplies an explanation of the updates/revisions that have taken place since the February 26 submission. Earlier this year the applicant received Conceptual Major Development approval, Partial Demolition approval, Relocation approval and Dimensional Requirements/Setback Variations pursuant to HPC Resolution #3, Series of 2016. More specifically, the HPC approved demolition of the non-historic portions of the home and the relocation of the historic resource, and granted the following variations: • North side yard reduction of 7’-6” for the Miner’s cottage so that 7’-6” is provided; • South side yard reduction of up to 2’-3” for a fireplace and living space to project into the setback so that 12’-9” is provided; HHHHHHHH AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA SSSSSSSS LLLLLLLL AAAAAAAA NNNNNNNN DDDDDDDD PPPPPPPP LLLLLLLL AAAAAAAA NNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN IIIIIIII NNNNNNNN GGGGGGGG ,,,,,,,, LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL CCCCCCCC • 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 10-B • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 • • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • MITCH@HLPASPEN.COM • P62 IV.A. 980 Gibson Avenue Update (PID# 2737-074-10-001) Page 2 • Combined side yard reduction of 18’-9” so that 20’-3” is provided; and, • A waiver of the requirement for a below grade separation between the free-market home and the carriage house, with the condition that a 5’ wide dirt or gravel filled chamber be built for the full length that the basements of the two structures abut below grade. Additionally, the HPC waived compliance with the Building Orientation and Build-to-lines requirements of the Residential Design Standards, as well as the Carriage House design standards enumerated in Code Section 26.520.050.2, numbers 4, 5, and 6. The Resolution also states that the applicant must move the Miner’s cottage 2’ further away from Matchless Drive and the new house 2-5 feet from Gibson Avenue, at the applicant’s discretion. Finally, the roof overhang on the north side of the new home’s front porch must be reduced for Final Review. This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code (hereinafter the Code), as such was in effect on September 15, 2015: 26.412, Residential Design Standards; 26.415, Historic Preservation; and 26.620, School Land Dedication. Project Update The proposed development includes restoration and relocation of the historic resource, as well as the development of a new single-family home. The non- historic portions of the historic home will be removed and the remaining structure will become a voluntary Carriage House (CH). The CH will be turned around to face Gibson Avenue and be moved to the northwest corner of the lot so that its prominence will be maximized from the street. As required in Resolution No. 3, Series of 2016, the CH has been moved two feet further away from Matchless Drive than was proposed during Conceptual Review. Likewise, the proposed single-family home has been moved back an additional three feet from Gibson Avenue, as required by the HPC Resolution. Also consistent with the conditions of approval, the common foundation walls of the two units’ basements are separated by a five-foot wide dirt/gravel chamber. The depth of the roof overhang on the northern side of the new home’s front porch has been significantly reduced. In other words, each requirement enumerated in the conditions of Conceptual approval is being met by the current proposal. No other changes, from what was approved are now being proposed P63 IV.A. 980 Gibson Avenue Update (PID# 2737-074-10-001) Page 3 but a few revisions to the plans originally submitted for Final HPC Review have taken place, as described in greater detail below. It is noted that although the property will continue to contain a structure listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory), that it will continue to be historically designated, and that the applicant is undertaking relatively extreme measures to provide an outstanding preservation effort thereby maintaining the right to request an FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet, the applicant has chosen not make any such request. This Final Review will focus on landscape plans, outdoor/exterior lighting, fenestration and selection of new materials. Heights, forms, massing, scale, and proportions have remained the same as what was approved, and as such, are not discussed in this application. Since the original Final HPC submission on February 26, 2016, the following revisions to the proposal have taken place, as depicted on the updated plans prepared by Zone4 Architects and attached hereto: • The sidewalk that was to wrap around the Carriage House, from the parking area at its rear to its front door, has been removed, thereby simplifying the site plan and leaving it a good deal less busy. • A back door has been added to the side of the shed roof addition being made to the rear of the Carriage House so as to enable easy access from the parking area into the unit and vice versa. This eliminated the need for the aforementioned sidewalk. • The location and size of proposed window wells have been adjusted for better layout with interior spaces and reduced visibility/impact from adjacent public ways. • The roof plan of the new home has been updated by lowering the ridge height of the secondary gable/dormer forms. This change, while subtle, implies the proper hierarchy of interior spaces as seen from the exterior while accommodating codified height measurement requirements. The primary gable has also been extended to the east (rear). • Minor adjustments have been made to the windows on the main level of the new structure to work better with the interior spaces. While significant for living in these spaces, these adjustments are generally insignificant relative to the HPC standards and guidelines. P64 IV.A. 980 Gibson Avenue Update (PID# 2737-074-10-001) Page 4 • The previously proposed pair of double-hung windows on the south elevation of the miner’s cottage has been replaced with a single double- hung window, which is more typical of and traditionally appropriate on these historic structures. • In all other regards, the plans remain as proposed in the submission of February 26, 2016. Compliance and consistency with the applicable HPC review standards and design guidelines, as demonstrated then, has only been improved with these revisions. It is hoped that the information provided herein and in the accompanying plan sets proves helpful in the review and approval of this exceptional project and exemplary preservation effort. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch Haas Owner/Manager P65 IV.A. 9 8 0 G I B S O N A V E N U E H P C F I N A L R E V I E W | 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 P 6 6 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW SURVEY P 6 7 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW SITE PLAN 12'-9 1/2" 15'-0" 37 ' - 3 " 5' - 6 3/ 8 " 6' - 0 " 1 5 ' 7'-6" 41'-3 3/8" 34'-5 1/4" 38 ' - 9 1/ 4 " 22'-1 1 " 7945 7940 7950 7955 7945 7950 7955 PROPERTY LINE 3 8 . 0 0 ' S 82 °59 '52 " E 10 6 .85 ' S 23°44'00" E 24.22' N 23°44'00" W 75.78' N 5 5 ° 2 9 ' 5 1 " E S 48 °50 '17 " E 58 .19 ' N 66 °20 '39 " E 14 2 .85 ' M A T C H L E S S D R I V E H E R R O N R O A D R. O. W. EASEMENT GIBSON AVENUE 990 GIBSON DO W N UP CH PARKING SPOT OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE DECK ABOVE DOWN BUILDING BUMP-OUT ABOVE FIRE PLACE ABOVE WINDOW WELL BELOW PR O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y LI N E 7940 PATIO PATIO WINDOW WELL BELOW EXPOSED AGGREGATE DRIVEWAY WINDOW WELL BELOW WINDOW WELL BELOW CARRIAGE HOUSE 980 GIBSON 0 5 10 20 40 N true nort h P 6 8 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW LOWER LEVEL PLAN U P UP DI R T OR GR A V E L FI L L E D CH A M B E R PR O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 0 5'10'20' N true nort h P 6 9 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW MAIN LEVEL PLAN 22'-11 " PROPERTY LINE 3 8 . 0 0 ' S 23°44'00" E 24.22' N 23°44'00" W 75.78' N 5 5 ° 2 9 ' 5 1 " E N 6 6 °2 0 '39 " E 142 .85 ' M A T C H L E S S D R I V E HERRON ROAD R. O. W. EASEMENT 990 GIBSON DO W N U P CH PARKING SPOT OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE DECK ABOVE DOWN BUILDING BUMP-OUT ABOVE FIRE PLACE ABOVE WINDOW WELL BELOW PR O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E PATIO PATIO WINDOW WELL BELOW WINDOW WELL BELOW WINDOW WELL BELOW 0 5'10'20' N true nort h P 7 0 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW UPPER LEVEL PLAN 21'-6 1/2" DECK PROPERTY LINEN 23°44'00" W 75.78' DO W N PR O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 3 : 12 SL O P E 12 : 12 SLOPE 12 : 12 SLOPE 2 : 12 SL O P E 1'16'-6 1/2"6' 3 : 12 S L O P E 12 : 12 SL O P E 12 : 12 SL O P E 2 : 12 SL O P E 1 /4 : 12 SL O P E 0 5'10'20' N true nort h P 7 1 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW ROOF PLAN PROPERTY LINEN 23°44'00" W 75.78' PR O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 2 : 12 S L O P E 12 : 12 SLOPE 12 : 12 SLOPE 2 : 12 SL O P E 12 : 12 SL O P E 12 : 12 SL O P E 12 : 12 SLOPE 4 : 12 SLOPE 12 : 12 SLOPE 12 : 12 SL O P E 12 : 12 SL O P E 3 : 12 SL O P E 3 : 12 S L O P E DECKBELOW 12 : 12 SL O P E 12 : 12 S L O P E 2 : 12 SL O P E 0 5'10'20' N true nort h P 7 2 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW HISTORIC CARRIAGE HOUSE ELEVATIONS 4 5 6 1 1 5 6 4 F.F.E. @ UPPER LEVEL F.F.E. @ MAIN LEVEL 6 5 1 +100'-0" F.F.E. @ MAIN LEVEL +117'-1" TOP OF RIDGE 5 1 +100'-0" F.F.E. @ MAIN LEVEL +117'-1" TOP OF RIDGE +100'-0" F.F.E. @ MAIN LEVEL +117'-1" TOP OF RIDGE +100'-0" F.F.E. @ MAIN LEVEL +117'-1" TOP OF RIDGE +100'-0" F.F.E. @ MAIN LEVEL +117'-1" TOP OF RIDGE MATERIAL LEGEND LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT BOARD STONE VENEER 1 2 3 METAL ROOFING4 SHINGLE ROOFING5 SHINGLE SIDING6 SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATION 0 1'5'10'2' P 7 3 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW NEW HOUSE ELEVATIONS 111'-4" 100'-0" 124'-8 3/4" 2 1 4 3 25' OFFSET FROM EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE F.F.E. @ UPPER LEVEL F.F.E. @ MAIN LEVEL 12 3 1/3 POINT OF ROOF 12 4 24'-8 3/4" 11'-4" 100'-0" 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 2 1 3 4 1 1 MATERIAL LEGEND LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT BOARD STONE VENEER 1 2 3 METAL ROOFING4 SHINGLE ROOFING5 SHINGLE SIDING6 F.F.E. @ UPPER LEVEL 1/3 POINT OF ROOF F.F.E. @ MAIN LEVEL +100'-0" F.F.E. @ MAIN LEVEL +117'-1" TOP OF RIDGE SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 0 1'5'10'2' P 7 4 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW NEW HOUSE ELEVATIONS 100'-0" 111'-4" 124'-10 3/4"24'-8 1/2" 25' OFFSET FROM EXISTING GRADE 1 1 4 3 2 MATERIAL LEGEND F.F.E. @ MAIN LEVEL F.F.E. @ UPPER LEVEL 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 1/3 POINT OF ROOF 123 12 3 1/3 POINT OF ROOF 124'-1 1/4" 111'-4" 100'-0" 25' OFFSET FROM EXISTING GRADE 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 EXISTING GRADE F.F.E. @ MAIN LEVEL F.F.E. @ UPPER LEVEL 1/3 POINT OF ROOF 12 12 12 12 123 123 4 4 MATERIAL LEGEND LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT BOARD STONE VENEER 1 2 3 METAL ROOFING4 SHINGLE ROOFING5 SHINGLE SIDING6 WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 0 1'5'10'2' P 7 5 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STREETSCAPE ELEVATIONS WEST ELEVATION FROM GIBSON AVE P 7 6 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STREETSCAPE ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION FROM MATCHLESS P 7 7 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW SITE CONTEXT SCALE: 1" = 10' VICINITY MAP 05 04 03 02 01 0607080910 1213 16 15 14 11 NOTE: HISTORIC RESOURCES IN SURROUNDING AREA SHOWN IN GRAY E MAIN ST. NE A L E AV E . E MA I N ST . E MA I N ST . OR I G I N A L KIN G ST. GIB S O N AV E . SITE 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 1213 14 15 16 P 7 8 I V . A . 980 GIBSON 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 1 6 HPC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW MATERIALS 64 AYOUS VENEER Da r k B r o w n Cream De e p B r o w n Light Brown Mo c c a Rustik Pa l e Mint Ic e g r e y Nux Pr o d E X n a t u r a l w o o d p a n e l s d o n o t n e e d t h e r e g u l a r m a i n t e n a n c e o t h e r w o o d s f o r e x t e r i o r r e q u i r e . Pr o d E X pa n e l s o f f e r t h e d e s i g n w o r l d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o c r e a t e n a t u r a l , l i v i n g f a c a d e s w i t h a w i d e r a n g e o f t o n e s a n d cr e a t i v e o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e . MA I N T E N A N C E - F R E E : AE S T H E T I C : Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e t h e p e r f e c t m a t e r i a l f o r c l a d d i n g f a c a d e s t h a n k s t o t h e p a n e l ’ s t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s . T h e p a n e l ’ s b a k e l i t e co r e m e a n s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a d j u s t t h e p a n e l ’ s t h i c k n e s s a n d i t s s u b s e q u e n t t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s m a k i n g Pr o d E X t h e i d e a l so l u t i o n f o r a l l t y p e s o f p r o j e c t s . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e e x t r e m e l y h a r d , r e n d e r i n g t h e m p e r f e c t l y r e s i s t a n t t o c o n t i n u o u s e x p o s u r e t o s u n l i g h t a n d s h a r p ch a n g e s i n t e m p e r a t u r e a n d h u m i d i t y . Th e y a l s o o f f e r a h i g h l e v e l o f d u r a b i l i t y a g a i n s t t e r m i t e a t t a c k s a n d m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e t o v a n d a l i s m . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a l s o o f f e r e x c e l l e n t d i m e n s i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . Th e P V D F s u r f a c e p r e v e n t s d u s t a n d a l l k i n d s o f d i r t f r o m s t i c k i n g t o t h e p a n e l su r f a c e , e n s u r i n g e a s e o f m a i n t e n a n c e a n d c l e a n i n g . Th e o u t e r c h e m i c a l n o n - s t i c k l a y e r i m p r e g n a t e d i n t o P r o d E X p a n e l s p r e v e n t s a e r o s o l p a i n t f r o m s t i c k i n g pe r m a n e n t l y t o t h e s u r f a c e . Le n g t h x w i d t h : 2 . 4 4 0 m m x 1 . 2 2 0 m m . T h i c k n e s s e s 6 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 2 m m . On r e q u e s t , p a n e l s m a y b e s u p p l i e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n s t o f i r e i n l i n e w i t h s t a n d a r d E N 1 3 . 5 0 1 - 1 : v Pr o d E X C - s 2 , d 0 v P r o d E X I G N B - s 2 , d 0 v P r o d E X F I R E P R O O F B - s 1 , d 0 RE S I S T A N C E A N D D U R A B I L I T Y : CL E A N I N G : AN T I - G R A F F I T I R E S I S T E N C E : PA N E L D I M E N S I O N S : FI R E R A T I N G : Pr o d E X p a n e l s h a v e a b a k e l i t e c o r e c o v e r e d w i t h a n a t u r a l w o o d v e n e e r t h a t i s s p e c i a l l y t r e a t e d to e n s u r e m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e . We h a v e d e v e l o p e d a n e x t e r i o r P V D F f i l m w i t h n o n - s t i c k q u a l i t i e s i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a m a x i m u m l e v e l of c a r e f o r t h e w o o d , e n s u r i n g p a n e l s a r e p r o t e c t e d f r o m m o i s t u r e , r a i n , s u n l i g h t , a n d e v e n t h e bu i l d - u p o f d i r t o n t h e p a n e l s ’ s u r f a c e . PA N E L C O M P O S I T I O N : OKUME VENEER In t h e Pr o d E X t e c h n i c a l c a t a l o g u e a l l t h e t e c h n i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d p o s s i b le u s e s f o r t h e p r o d u c t c a n b e f o u n d 64 A Y O U S V E N E E R D a r k B r o w n C r e a m D e e p B r o w n L i g h t B r o w n M o c c a R u s t i k P a l e M i n t I c e g r e y N u x ProdEX natural wood panels do not need the regular maintenance other woods for exterior require.ProdEX panels offer the design world the possibility to create natural, living facades with a wide range of tones and creative options available.MAINTENANCE-FREE:AESTHETIC:ProdEX panels are the perfect material for cladding facades thanks to the panel’s technical qualities. The panel’s bakelite core means it is possible to adjust the panel’s thickness and its subsequent technical qualities making ProdEX the ideal solution for all types of projects.ProdEX panels are extremely hard, rendering them perfectly resistant to continuous exposure to sunlight and sharp changes in temperature and humidity.They also offer a high level of durability against termite attacks and maximum resistance to vandalism.ProdEX panels also offer excellent dimensional stability.The PVDF surface prevents dust and all kinds of dirt from sticking to the panel surface, ensuring ease of maintenance and cleaning.The outer chemical non-stick layer impregnated into ProdEX panels prevents aerosol paint from sticking permanently to the surface.Length x width: 2.440 mm x 1.220 mm. Thicknesses 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 mm.On request, panels may be supplied with different reactions to fire in line with standard EN 13.501-1: v ProdEX C - s2, d0 v ProdEX IGN B - s2, d0 v ProdEX FIREPROOF B - s1, d0 RESISTANCE AND DURABILITY:CLEANING:ANTI-GRAFFITI RESISTENCE:PANEL DIMENSIONS:FIRE RATING:ProdEX panels have a bakelite core covered with a natural wood veneer that is specially treated to ensure maximum resistance.We have developed an exterior PVDF film with non-stick qualities in order to achieve a maximum level of care for the wood, ensuring panels are protected from moisture, rain, sunlight, and even the build-up of dirt on the panels’ surface.PANEL COMPOSITION: O K U M E V E N E E R In the ProdEX technical catalogue all the technical specifications and possible uses for the product can be found 64 AYOUS VENEER Da r k B r o w n Cream De e p B r o w n Light Brown Mo c c a Rustik Pa l e Mint Ic e g r e y Nux Pr o d E X n a t u r a l w o o d p a n e l s d o n o t n e e d t h e r e g u l a r m a i n t e n a n c e o t h e r w o o d s f o r e x t e r i o r r e q u i r e . Pr o d E X pa n e l s o f f e r t h e d e s i g n w o r l d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o c r e a t e n a t u r a l , l i v i n g f a c a d e s w i t h a w i d e r a n g e o f t o n e s a n d cr e a t i v e o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e . MA I N T E N A N C E - F R E E : AE S T H E T I C : Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e t h e p e r f e c t m a t e r i a l f o r c l a d d i n g f a c a d e s t h a n k s t o t h e p a n e l ’ s t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s . T h e p a n e l ’ s b a k e l i t e co r e m e a n s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a d j u s t t h e p a n e l ’ s t h i c k n e s s a n d i t s s u b s e q u e n t t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s m a k i n g Pr o d E X t h e i d e a l so l u t i o n f o r a l l t y p e s o f p r o j e c t s . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e e x t r e m e l y h a r d , r e n d e r i n g t h e m p e r f e c t l y r e s i s t a n t t o c o n t i n u o u s e x p o s u r e t o s u n l i g h t a n d s h a r p ch a n g e s i n t e m p e r a t u r e a n d h u m i d i t y . Th e y a l s o o f f e r a h i g h l e v e l o f d u r a b i l i t y a g a i n s t t e r m i t e a t t a c k s a n d m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e t o v a n d a l i s m . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a l s o o f f e r e x c e l l e n t d i m e n s i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . Th e P V D F s u r f a c e p r e v e n t s d u s t a n d a l l k i n d s o f d i r t f r o m s t i c k i n g t o t h e p a n e l su r f a c e , e n s u r i n g e a s e o f m a i n t e n a n c e a n d c l e a n i n g . Th e o u t e r c h e m i c a l n o n - s t i c k l a y e r i m p r e g n a t e d i n t o P r o d E X p a n e l s p r e v e n t s a e r o s o l p a i n t f r o m s t i c k i n g pe r m a n e n t l y t o t h e s u r f a c e . Le n g t h x w i d t h : 2 . 4 4 0 m m x 1 . 2 2 0 m m . T h i c k n e s s e s 6 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 2 m m . On r e q u e s t , p a n e l s m a y b e s u p p l i e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n s t o f i r e i n l i n e w i t h s t a n d a r d E N 1 3 . 5 0 1 - 1 : v Pr o d E X C - s 2 , d 0 v P r o d E X I G N B - s 2 , d 0 v P r o d E X F I R E P R O O F B - s 1 , d 0 RE S I S T A N C E A N D D U R A B I L I T Y : CL E A N I N G : AN T I - G R A F F I T I R E S I S T E N C E : PA N E L D I M E N S I O N S : FI R E R A T I N G : Pr o d E X p a n e l s h a v e a b a k e l i t e c o r e c o v e r e d w i t h a n a t u r a l w o o d v e n e e r t h a t i s s p e c i a l l y t r e a t e d to e n s u r e m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e . We h a v e d e v e l o p e d a n e x t e r i o r P V D F f i l m w i t h n o n - s t i c k q u a l i t i e s i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a m a x i m u m l e v e l of c a r e f o r t h e w o o d , e n s u r i n g p a n e l s a r e p r o t e c t e d f r o m m o i s t u r e , r a i n , s u n l i g h t , a n d e v e n t h e bu i l d - u p o f d i r t o n t h e p a n e l s ’ s u r f a c e . PA N E L C O M P O S I T I O N : OKUME VENEER In t h e Pr o d E X t e c h n i c a l c a t a l o g u e a l l t h e t e c h n i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d p o s s i b le u s e s f o r t h e p r o d u c t c a n b e f o u n d 64 AY O U S V E N E E R Da r k B r o w n Cream De e p B r o w n Light Brown Mo c c a Rustik Pa l e Mint Ic e g r e y Nux P r o d E X n a t u r a l w o o d p a n e l s d o n o t n e e d t h e r e g u l a r m a i n t e n a n c e o t h e r w o o d s f o r e x t e r i o r r e q u i r e . P r o d E X pa n e l s o f f e r t h e d e s i g n w o r l d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o c r e a t e n a t u r a l , l i v i n g f a c a d e s w i t h a w i d e r a n g e o f t o n e s a n d cr e a t i v e o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e . M A I N T E N A N C E - F R E E : A E S T H E T I C : Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e t h e p e r f e c t m a t e r i a l f o r c l a d d i n g f a c a d e s t h a n k s t o t h e p a n e l ’ s t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s . T h e p a n e l ’ s b a k e l i t e co r e m e a n s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a d j u s t t h e p a n e l ’ s t h i c k n e s s a n d i t s s u b s e q u e n t t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s m a k i n g Pr o d E X t h e i d e a l so l u t i o n f o r a l l t y p e s o f p r o j e c t s . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e e x t r e m e l y h a r d , r e n d e r i n g t h e m p e r f e c t l y r e s i s t a n t t o c o n t i n u o u s e x p o s u r e t o s u n l i g h t a n d s h a r p ch a n g e s i n t e m p e r a t u r e a n d h u m i d i t y . Th e y a l s o o f f e r a h i g h l e v e l o f d u r a b i l i t y a g a i n s t t e r m i t e a t t a c k s a n d m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e t o v a n d a l i s m . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a l s o o f f e r e x c e l l e n t d i m e n s i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . Th e P V D F s u r f a c e p r e v e n t s d u s t a n d a l l k i n d s o f d i r t f r o m s t i c k i n g t o t h e p a n e l su r f a c e , e n s u r i n g e a s e o f m a i n t e n a n c e a n d c l e a n i n g . Th e o u t e r c h e m i c a l n o n - s t i c k l a y e r i m p r e g n a t e d i n t o Pr o d E X p a n e l s p r e v e n t s a e r o s o l p a i n t f r o m s t i c k i n g pe r m a n e n t l y t o t h e s u r f a c e . Le n g t h x w i d t h : 2 . 4 4 0 m m x 1 . 2 2 0 m m . T h i c k n e s s e s 6 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 2 m m . On r e q u e s t , p a n e l s m a y b e s u p p l i e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n s t o f i r e i n l i n e w i t h s t a n d a r d E N 1 3 . 5 0 1 - 1 : v P r o d E X C - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X I G N B - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X F I R E P R O O F B - s 1 , d 0 RE S I S T A N C E A N D D U R A B I L I T Y : CL E A N I N G : AN T I - G R A F F I T I R E S I S T E N C E : PA N E L D I M E N S I O N S : FI R E R A T I N G : P r o d E X p a n e l s h a v e a b a k e l i t e c o r e c o v e r e d w i t h a n a t u r a l w o o d v e n e e r t h a t i s s p e c i a l l y t r e a t e d to e n s u r e m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e . We h a v e d e v e l o p e d a n e x t e r i o r P V D F f i l m w i t h n o n - s t i c k q u a l i t i e s i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a m a x i m u m l e v e l of c a r e f o r t h e w o o d , e n s u r i n g p a n e l s a r e p r o t e c t e d f r o m m o i s t u r e , r a i n , s u n l i g h t , a n d e v e n t h e bu i l d - u p o f d i r t o n t h e p a n e l s ’ s u r f a c e . PA N E L C O M P O S I T I O N : O K U M E V E N E E R In t h e P r o d E X t e c h n i c a l c a t a l o g u e a l l t h e t e c h n i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d p o s s i b le u s e s f o r t h e p r o d u c t c a n b e f o u n d 64 A Y O U S V E N E E R D a r k B r o w n C r e a m D e e p B r o w n L i g h t B r o w n M o c c a R u s t i k P a l e M i n t I c e g r e y N u x ProdEX natural wood panels do not need the regular maintenance other woods for exterior require.ProdEX panels offer the design world the possibility to create natural, living facades with a wide range of tones and creative options available.MAINTENANCE-FREE:AESTHETIC:ProdEX panels are the perfect material for cladding facades thanks to the panel’s technical qualities. The panel’s bakelite core means it is possible to adjust the panel’s thickness and its subsequent technical qualities making ProdEX the ideal solution for all types of projects.ProdEX panels are extremely hard, rendering them perfectly resistant to continuous exposure to sunlight and sharp changes in temperature and humidity.They also offer a high level of durability against termite attacks and maximum resistance to vandalism.ProdEX panels also offer excellent dimensional stability.The PVDF surface prevents dust and all kinds of dirt from sticking to the panel surface, ensuring ease of maintenance and cleaning.The outer chemical non-stick layer impregnated into ProdEX panels prevents aerosol paint from sticking permanently to the surface.Length x width: 2.440 mm x 1.220 mm. Thicknesses 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 mm.On request, panels may be supplied with different reactions to fire in line with standard EN 13.501-1: v ProdEX C - s2, d0 v ProdEX IGN B - s2, d0 v ProdEX FIREPROOF B - s1, d0 RESISTANCE AND DURABILITY:CLEANING:ANTI-GRAFFITI RESISTENCE:PANEL DIMENSIONS:FIRE RATING:ProdEX panels have a bakelite core covered with a natural wood veneer that is specially treated to ensure maximum resistance.We have developed an exterior PVDF film with non-stick qualities in order to achieve a maximum level of care for the wood, ensuring panels are protected from moisture, rain, sunlight, and even the build-up of dirt on the panels’ surface.PANEL COMPOSITION: O K U M E V E N E E R In the ProdEX technical catalogue all the technical specifications and possible uses for the product can be found 64 AY O U S V E N E E R Da r k B r o w n Cream De e p B r o w n Light Brown Mo c c a Rustik Pa l e Mint Ic e g r e y Nux P r o d E X n a t u r a l w o o d p a n e l s d o n o t n e e d t h e r e g u l a r m a i n t e n a n c e o t h e r w o o d s f o r e x t e r i o r r e q u i r e . P r o d E X pa n e l s o f f e r t h e d e s i g n w o r l d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o c r e a t e n a t u r a l , l i v i n g f a c a d e s w i t h a w i d e r a n g e o f t o n e s a n d cr e a t i v e o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e . M A I N T E N A N C E - F R E E : A E S T H E T I C : Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e t h e p e r f e c t m a t e r i a l f o r c l a d d i n g f a c a d e s t h a n k s t o t h e p a n e l ’ s t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s . T h e p a n e l ’ s b a k e l i t e co r e m e a n s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a d j u s t t h e p a n e l ’ s t h i c k n e s s a n d i t s s u b s e q u e n t t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s m a k i n g Pr o d E X t h e i d e a l so l u t i o n f o r a l l t y p e s o f p r o j e c t s . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e e x t r e m e l y h a r d , r e n d e r i n g t h e m p e r f e c t l y r e s i s t a n t t o c o n t i n u o u s e x p o s u r e t o s u n l i g h t a n d s h a r p ch a n g e s i n t e m p e r a t u r e a n d h u m i d i t y . Th e y a l s o o f f e r a h i g h l e v e l o f d u r a b i l i t y a g a i n s t t e r m i t e a t t a c k s a n d m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e t o v a n d a l i s m . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a l s o o f f e r e x c e l l e n t d i m e n s i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . Th e P V D F s u r f a c e p r e v e n t s d u s t a n d a l l k i n d s o f d i r t f r o m s t i c k i n g t o t h e p a n e l su r f a c e , e n s u r i n g e a s e o f m a i n t e n a n c e a n d c l e a n i n g . Th e o u t e r c h e m i c a l n o n - s t i c k l a y e r i m p r e g n a t e d i n t o Pr o d E X p a n e l s p r e v e n t s a e r o s o l p a i n t f r o m s t i c k i n g pe r m a n e n t l y t o t h e s u r f a c e . Le n g t h x w i d t h : 2 . 4 4 0 m m x 1 . 2 2 0 m m . T h i c k n e s s e s 6 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 2 m m . On r e q u e s t , p a n e l s m a y b e s u p p l i e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n s t o f i r e i n l i n e w i t h s t a n d a r d E N 1 3 . 5 0 1 - 1 : v P r o d E X C - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X I G N B - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X F I R E P R O O F B - s 1 , d 0 RE S I S T A N C E A N D D U R A B I L I T Y : CL E A N I N G : AN T I - G R A F F I T I R E S I S T E N C E : PA N E L D I M E N S I O N S : FI R E R A T I N G : P r o d E X p a n e l s h a v e a b a k e l i t e c o r e c o v e r e d w i t h a n a t u r a l w o o d v e n e e r t h a t i s s p e c i a l l y t r e a t e d to e n s u r e m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e . We h a v e d e v e l o p e d a n e x t e r i o r P V D F f i l m w i t h n o n - s t i c k q u a l i t i e s i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a m a x i m u m l e v e l of c a r e f o r t h e w o o d , e n s u r i n g p a n e l s a r e p r o t e c t e d f r o m m o i s t u r e , r a i n , s u n l i g h t , a n d e v e n t h e bu i l d - u p o f d i r t o n t h e p a n e l s ’ s u r f a c e . PA N E L C O M P O S I T I O N : O K U M E V E N E E R In t h e P r o d E X t e c h n i c a l c a t a l o g u e a l l t h e t e c h n i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d p o s s i b le u s e s f o r t h e p r o d u c t c a n b e f o u n d 64 AY O U S V E N E E R Da r k B r o w n Cream De e p B r o w n Light Brown Mo c c a Rustik Pa l e Mint Ic e g r e y Nux Pr o d E X n a t u r a l w o o d p a n e l s d o n o t n e e d t h e r e g u l a r m a i n t e n a n c e o t h e r w o o d s f o r e x t e r i o r r e q u i r e . Pr o d E X pa n e l s o f f e r t h e d e s i g n w o r l d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o c r e a t e n a t u r a l , l i v i n g f a c a d e s w i t h a w i d e r a n g e o f t o n e s a n d cr e a t i v e o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e . MA I N T E N A N C E - F R E E : AE S T H E T I C : Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e t h e p e r f e c t m a t e r i a l f o r c l a d d i n g f a c a d e s t h a n k s t o t h e p a n e l ’ s t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s . T h e p a n e l ’ s b a k e l i t e co r e m e a n s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a d j u s t t h e p a n e l ’ s t h i c k n e s s a n d i t s s u b s e q u e n t t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s m a k i n g Pr o d E X t h e i d e a l so l u t i o n f o r a l l t y p e s o f p r o j e c t s . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e e x t r e m e l y h a r d , r e n d e r i n g t h e m p e r f e c t l y r e s i s t a n t t o c o n t i n u o u s e x p o s u r e t o s u n l i g h t a n d s h a r p ch a n g e s i n t e m p e r a t u r e a n d h u m i d i t y . Th e y a l s o o f f e r a h i g h l e v e l o f d u r a b i l i t y a g a i n s t t e r m i t e a t t a c k s a n d m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e t o v a n d a l i s m . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a l s o o f f e r e x c e l l e n t d i m e n s i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . Th e P V D F s u r f a c e p r e v e n t s d u s t a n d a l l k i n d s o f d i r t f r o m s t i c k i n g t o t h e p a n e l su r f a c e , e n s u r i n g e a s e o f m a i n t e n a n c e a n d c l e a n i n g . Th e o u t e r c h e m i c a l n o n - s t i c k l a y e r i m p r e g n a t e d i n t o Pr o d E X p a n e l s p r e v e n t s a e r o s o l p a i n t f r o m s t i c k i n g pe r m a n e n t l y t o t h e s u r f a c e . Le n g t h x w i d t h : 2 . 4 4 0 m m x 1 . 2 2 0 m m . T h i c k n e s s e s 6 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 2 m m . O n r e q u e s t , p a n e l s m a y b e s u p p l i e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n s t o f i r e i n l i n e w i t h s t a n d a r d E N 1 3 . 5 0 1 - 1 : v Pr o d E X C - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X I G N B - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X F I R E P R O O F B - s 1 , d 0 RE S I S T A N C E A N D D U R A B I L I T Y : CL E A N I N G : AN T I - G R A F F I T I R E S I S T E N C E : PA N E L D I M E N S I O N S : FI R E R A T I N G : Pr o d E X p a n e l s h a v e a b a k e l i t e c o r e c o v e r e d w i t h a n a t u r a l w o o d v e n e e r t h a t i s s p e c i a l l y t r e a t e d to e n s u r e m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e . W e h a v e d e v e l o p e d a n e x t e r i o r P V D F f i l m w i t h n o n - s t i c k q u a l i t i e s i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a m a x i m u m l e v e l of c a r e f o r t h e w o o d , e n s u r i n g p a n e l s a r e p r o t e c t e d f r o m m o i s t u r e , r a i n , s u n l i g h t , a n d e v e n t h e bu i l d - u p o f d i r t o n t h e p a n e l s ’ s u r f a c e . PA N E L C O M P O S I T I O N : OK U M E V E N E E R In t h e Pr o d E X t e c h n i c a l c a t a l o g u e a l l t h e t e c h n i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d p o s s i b le u s e s f o r t h e p r o d u c t c a n b e f o u n d 64 A Y O U S V E N E E R D a r k B r o w n C r e a m D e e p B r o w n L i g h t B r o w n M o c c a R u s t i k P a l e M i n t I c e g r e y N u x ProdEX natural wood panels do not need the regular maintenance other woods for exterior require.ProdEX panels offer the design world the possibility to create natural, living facades with a wide range of t o n e s a n d creative options available.MAINTENANCE-FREE:AESTHETIC:ProdEX panels are the perfect material for cladding facades thanks to the panel’s technical qualities. The p a n e l ’ s b a k e l i t e core means it is possible to adjust the panel’s thickness and its subsequent technical qualities making Pr o d E X t h e i d e a l solution for all types of projects.ProdEX panels are extremely hard, rendering them perfectly resistant to continuous exposure to sunlight a n d s h a r p changes in temperature and humidity.They also offer a high level of durability against termite attacks and maximum resistance to vandalism.ProdEX panels also offer excellent dimensional stability.The PVDF surface prevents dust and all kinds of dirt from sticking to the panel surface, ensuring ease of maintenance and cleaning.The outer chemical non-stick layer impregnated into ProdEX panels prevents aerosol paint from sticking permanently to the surface.Length x width: 2.440 mm x 1.220 mm. Thicknesses 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 mm.On request, panels may be supplied with different reactions to fire in line with standard EN 13.501-1: v ProdEX C - s2, d0 v ProdEX IGN B - s2, d0 v ProdEX FIREPROOF B - s1, d0 RESISTANCE AND DURABILITY:CLEANING:ANTI-GRAFFITI RESISTENCE:PANEL DIMENSIONS:FIRE RATING:ProdEX panels have a bakelite core covered with a natural wood veneer that is specially treated to ensure maximum resistance.We have developed an exterior PVDF film with non-stick qualities in order to achieve a maximum level of care for the wood, ensuring panels are protected from moisture, rain, sunlight, and even the build-up of dirt on the panels’ surface.PANEL COMPOSITION: O K U M E V E N E E R In the ProdEX technical catalogue all the technical specifications and possible uses for the product c a n b e f o u n d 64 AY O U S V E N E E R Da r k B r o w n Cream De e p B r o w n Light Brown Mo c c a Rustik Pa l e Mint Ic e g r e y Nux Pr o d E X n a t u r a l w o o d p a n e l s d o n o t n e e d t h e r e g u l a r m a i n t e n a n c e o t h e r w o o d s f o r e x t e r i o r r e q u i r e . Pr o d E X pa n e l s o f f e r t h e d e s i g n w o r l d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o c r e a t e n a t u r a l , l i v i n g f a c a d e s w i t h a w i d e r a n g e o f t o n e s a n d cr e a t i v e o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e . MA I N T E N A N C E - F R E E : AE S T H E T I C : Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e t h e p e r f e c t m a t e r i a l f o r c l a d d i n g f a c a d e s t h a n k s t o t h e p a n e l ’ s t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s . T h e p a n e l ’ s b a k e l i t e co r e m e a n s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a d j u s t t h e p a n e l ’ s t h i c k n e s s a n d i t s s u b s e q u e n t t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s m a k i n g Pr o d E X t h e i d e a l so l u t i o n f o r a l l t y p e s o f p r o j e c t s . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a r e e x t r e m e l y h a r d , r e n d e r i n g t h e m p e r f e c t l y r e s i s t a n t t o c o n t i n u o u s e x p o s u r e t o s u n l i g h t a n d s h a r p ch a n g e s i n t e m p e r a t u r e a n d h u m i d i t y . Th e y a l s o o f f e r a h i g h l e v e l o f d u r a b i l i t y a g a i n s t t e r m i t e a t t a c k s a n d m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e t o v a n d a l i s m . Pr o d E X p a n e l s a l s o o f f e r e x c e l l e n t d i m e n s i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . Th e P V D F s u r f a c e p r e v e n t s d u s t a n d a l l k i n d s o f d i r t f r o m s t i c k i n g t o t h e p a n e l su r f a c e , e n s u r i n g e a s e o f m a i n t e n a n c e a n d c l e a n i n g . Th e o u t e r c h e m i c a l n o n - s t i c k l a y e r i m p r e g n a t e d i n t o Pr o d E X p a n e l s p r e v e n t s a e r o s o l p a i n t f r o m s t i c k i n g pe r m a n e n t l y t o t h e s u r f a c e . Le n g t h x w i d t h : 2 . 4 4 0 m m x 1 . 2 2 0 m m . T h i c k n e s s e s 6 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 2 m m . O n r e q u e s t , p a n e l s m a y b e s u p p l i e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n s t o f i r e i n l i n e w i t h s t a n d a r d E N 1 3 . 5 0 1 - 1 : v Pr o d E X C - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X I G N B - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X F I R E P R O O F B - s 1 , d 0 RE S I S T A N C E A N D D U R A B I L I T Y : CL E A N I N G : AN T I - G R A F F I T I R E S I S T E N C E : PA N E L D I M E N S I O N S : FI R E R A T I N G : Pr o d E X p a n e l s h a v e a b a k e l i t e c o r e c o v e r e d w i t h a n a t u r a l w o o d v e n e e r t h a t i s s p e c i a l l y t r e a t e d to e n s u r e m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e . W e h a v e d e v e l o p e d a n e x t e r i o r P V D F f i l m w i t h n o n - s t i c k q u a l i t i e s i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a m a x i m u m l e v e l of c a r e f o r t h e w o o d , e n s u r i n g p a n e l s a r e p r o t e c t e d f r o m m o i s t u r e , r a i n , s u n l i g h t , a n d e v e n t h e bu i l d - u p o f d i r t o n t h e p a n e l s ’ s u r f a c e . PA N E L C O M P O S I T I O N : OK U M E V E N E E R In t h e Pr o d E X t e c h n i c a l c a t a l o g u e a l l t h e t e c h n i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d p o s s i b le u s e s f o r t h e p r o d u c t c a n b e f o u n d 6 4 AY O U S V E N E E R Da r k B r o w n Cr e a m De e p B r o w n Li g h t B r o w n Mo c c a Ru s t i k Pa l e Mi n t Ic e g r e y Nu x Pr o d E X n a t u r a l w o o d p a n e l s d o n o t n e e d t h e r e g u l a r m a i n t e n a n c e o t h e r w o o d s f o r e x t e r i o r r e q u i r e . Pr o d E X pa n e l s o f f e r t h e d e s i g n w o r l d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o c r e a t e n a t u r a l , l i v i n g f a c a d e s w i t h a w i d e r a n g e o f t o n e s a n d cr e a t i v e o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e . M A I N T E N A N C E - F R E E : AE S T H E T I C : P r o d E X p a n e l s a r e t h e p e r f e c t m a t e r i a l f o r c l a d d i n g f a c a d e s t h a n k s t o t h e p a n e l ’ s t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s . T h e p a n e l ’ s b a k e l i t e co r e m e a n s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a d j u s t t h e p a n e l ’ s t h i c k n e s s a n d i t s s u b s e q u e n t t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s m a k i n g P r o d E X t h e i d e a l so l u t i o n f o r a l l t y p e s o f p r o j e c t s . P r o d E X p a n e l s a r e e x t r e m e l y h a r d , r e n d e r i n g t h e m p e r f e c t l y r e s i s t a n t t o c o n t i n u o u s e x p o s u r e t o s u n l i g h t a n d s h a r p ch a n g e s i n t e m p e r a t u r e a n d h u m i d i t y . Th e y a l s o o f f e r a h i g h l e v e l o f d u r a b i l i t y a g a i n s t t e r m i t e a t t a c k s a n d m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e t o v a n d a l i s m . P r o d E X p a n e l s a l s o o f f e r e x c e l l e n t d i m e n s i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . Th e P V D F s u r f a c e p r e v e n t s d u s t a n d a l l k i n d s o f d i r t f r o m s t i c k i n g t o t h e p a n e l su r f a c e , e n s u r i n g e a s e o f m a i n t e n a n c e a n d c l e a n i n g . Th e o u t e r c h e m i c a l n o n - s t i c k l a y e r i m p r e g n a t e d i n t o Pr o d E X p a n e l s p r e v e n t s a e r o s o l p a i n t f r o m s t i c k i n g pe r m a n e n t l y t o t h e s u r f a c e . Le n g t h x w i d t h : 2 . 4 4 0 m m x 1 . 2 2 0 m m . T h i c k n e s s e s 6 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 2 m m . On r e q u e s t , p a n e l s m a y b e s u p p l i e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n s t o f i r e i n l i n e w i t h s t a n d a r d E N 1 3 . 5 0 1 - 1 : v Pr o d E X C - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X I G N B - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X F I R E P R O O F B - s 1 , d 0 R E S I S T A N C E A N D D U R A B I L I T Y : C L E A N I N G : AN T I - G R A F F I T I R E S I S T E N C E : PA N E L D I M E N S I O N S : FI R E R A T I N G : Pr o d E X p a n e l s h a v e a b a k e l i t e c o r e c o v e r e d w i t h a n a t u r a l w o o d v e n e e r t h a t i s s p e c i a l l y t r e a t e d to e n s u r e m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e . We h a v e d e v e l o p e d a n e x t e r i o r P V D F f i l m w i t h n o n - s t i c k q u a l i t i e s i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a m a x i m u m l e v e l of c a r e f o r t h e w o o d , e n s u r i n g p a n e l s a r e p r o t e c t e d f r o m m o i s t u r e , r a i n , s u n l i g h t , a n d e v e n t h e bu i l d - u p o f d i r t o n t h e p a n e l s ’ s u r f a c e . PA N E L C O M P O S I T I O N : OK U M E V E N E E R In t h e Pr o d E X t e c h n i c a l c a t a l o g u e a l l t h e t e c h n i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d p o s s i b le u s e s f o r t h e p r o d u c t c a n b e f o u n d 64 A Y O U S V E N E E R D a r k B r o w n C r e a m D e e p B r o w n L i g h t B r o w n M o c c a R u s t i k P a l e M i n t I c e g r e y N u x ProdEX natural wood panels do not need the regular maintenance other woods for e x t e r i o r r e q u i r e . ProdEX panels offer the design world the possibility to create natural, living facade s w i t h a w i d e r a n g e o f t o n e s a n d creative options available.MAINTENANCE-FREE:AESTHETIC:ProdEX panels are the perfect material for cladding facades thanks to the panel’s t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s . T h e p a n e l ’ s b a k e l i t e core means it is possible to adjust the panel’s thickness and its subsequent technic a l q u a l i t i e s m a k i n g P r o d E X t h e i d e a l solution for all types of projects.ProdEX panels are extremely hard, rendering them perfectly resistant to continuous e x p o s u r e t o s u n l i g h t a n d s h a r p changes in temperature and humidity.They also offer a high level of durability against termite attacks and maximum resist a n c e t o v a n d a l i s m . ProdEX panels also offer excellent dimensional stability.The PVDF surface prevents dust and all kinds of dirt from sticking to the panel surface, ensuring ease of maintenance and cleaning.The outer chemical non-stick layer impregnated into ProdEX panels prevents aeros o l p a i n t f r o m s t i c k i n g permanently to the surface.Length x width: 2.440 mm x 1.220 mm. Thicknesses 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 m m . On request, panels may be supplied with different reactions to fire in line with stan d a r d E N 1 3 . 5 0 1 - 1 : v ProdEX C - s2, d0 v ProdEX IGN B - s2, d0 v ProdEX FIREPRO O F B - s 1 , d 0 RESISTANCE AND DURABILITY:CLEANING:ANTI-GRAFFITI RESISTENCE:PANEL DIMENSIONS:FIRE RATING:ProdEX panels have a bakelite core covered with a natural wood veneer that is spe c i a l l y t r e a t e d to ensure maximum resistance.We have developed an exterior PVDF film with non-stick qualities in order to achie v e a m a x i m u m l e v e l of care for the wood, ensuring panels are protected from moisture, rain, sunlight, an d e v e n t h e build-up of dirt on the panels’ surface.PANEL COMPOSITION: O K U M E V E N E E R In the ProdEX technical catalogue all the technical specifications and possible u s e s f o r t h e p r o d u c t c a n b e f o u n d 6 4 AY O U S V E N E E R Da r k B r o w n Cr e a m De e p B r o w n Li g h t B r o w n Mo c c a Ru s t i k Pa l e Mi n t Ic e g r e y Nu x Pr o d E X n a t u r a l w o o d p a n e l s d o n o t n e e d t h e r e g u l a r m a i n t e n a n c e o t h e r w o o d s f o r e x t e r i o r r e q u i r e . Pr o d E X pa n e l s o f f e r t h e d e s i g n w o r l d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o c r e a t e n a t u r a l , l i v i n g f a c a d e s w i t h a w i d e r a n g e o f t o n e s a n d cr e a t i v e o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e . M A I N T E N A N C E - F R E E : AE S T H E T I C : P r o d E X p a n e l s a r e t h e p e r f e c t m a t e r i a l f o r c l a d d i n g f a c a d e s t h a n k s t o t h e p a n e l ’ s t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s . T h e p a n e l ’ s b a k e l i t e co r e m e a n s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a d j u s t t h e p a n e l ’ s t h i c k n e s s a n d i t s s u b s e q u e n t t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t i e s m a k i n g P r o d E X t h e i d e a l so l u t i o n f o r a l l t y p e s o f p r o j e c t s . P r o d E X p a n e l s a r e e x t r e m e l y h a r d , r e n d e r i n g t h e m p e r f e c t l y r e s i s t a n t t o c o n t i n u o u s e x p o s u r e t o s u n l i g h t a n d s h a r p ch a n g e s i n t e m p e r a t u r e a n d h u m i d i t y . Th e y a l s o o f f e r a h i g h l e v e l o f d u r a b i l i t y a g a i n s t t e r m i t e a t t a c k s a n d m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e t o v a n d a l i s m . P r o d E X p a n e l s a l s o o f f e r e x c e l l e n t d i m e n s i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . Th e P V D F s u r f a c e p r e v e n t s d u s t a n d a l l k i n d s o f d i r t f r o m s t i c k i n g t o t h e p a n e l su r f a c e , e n s u r i n g e a s e o f m a i n t e n a n c e a n d c l e a n i n g . Th e o u t e r c h e m i c a l n o n - s t i c k l a y e r i m p r e g n a t e d i n t o Pr o d E X p a n e l s p r e v e n t s a e r o s o l p a i n t f r o m s t i c k i n g pe r m a n e n t l y t o t h e s u r f a c e . Le n g t h x w i d t h : 2 . 4 4 0 m m x 1 . 2 2 0 m m . T h i c k n e s s e s 6 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 2 m m . On r e q u e s t , p a n e l s m a y b e s u p p l i e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n s t o f i r e i n l i n e w i t h s t a n d a r d E N 1 3 . 5 0 1 - 1 : v Pr o d E X C - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X I G N B - s 2 , d 0 v Pr o d E X F I R E P R O O F B - s 1 , d 0 R E S I S T A N C E A N D D U R A B I L I T Y : C L E A N I N G : AN T I - G R A F F I T I R E S I S T E N C E : PA N E L D I M E N S I O N S : FI R E R A T I N G : Pr o d E X p a n e l s h a v e a b a k e l i t e c o r e c o v e r e d w i t h a n a t u r a l w o o d v e n e e r t h a t i s s p e c i a l l y t r e a t e d to e n s u r e m a x i m u m r e s i s t a n c e . We h a v e d e v e l o p e d a n e x t e r i o r P V D F f i l m w i t h n o n - s t i c k q u a l i t i e s i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a m a x i m u m l e v e l of c a r e f o r t h e w o o d , e n s u r i n g p a n e l s a r e p r o t e c t e d f r o m m o i s t u r e , r a i n , s u n l i g h t , a n d e v e n t h e bu i l d - u p o f d i r t o n t h e p a n e l s ’ s u r f a c e . PA N E L C O M P O S I T I O N : OK U M E V E N E E R In t h e Pr o d E X t e c h n i c a l c a t a l o g u e a l l t h e t e c h n i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d p o s s i b le u s e s f o r t h e p r o d u c t c a n b e f o u n d VIEW FROM MATCHLESS DRIVE VIEW FROM GIBSON AVENUE VIEW FROM GIBSON AVE OF HISTORIC RESOURCE EXISTING HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGROUND SAWN SHINGLE ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING PROPOSED SMOOTH FIBER CEMENT BOARD PROPOSED LAP SIDING PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PROPOSED STONE SIDING P 7 9 I V . A . 1 2 3 4 5 7 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 53 5455 56 57 77 78 79 80 81 92 93 949543 44 50 5152 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667 69 70 68 71 72 73 74 75 76 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 51b 6.1" ASPEN 7.1" ASPEN 6.3" ASPEN 7.9" ASPEN 7.8" ASPEN 13.7" SUB-ALPINE FIR 10.5" ASPEN 10.7" ASPEN 7.9" ASPEN ASPEN MULTI-STEM: 7.2", 5.7", 4.5" COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE MULTI-STEM: 6.8", 5.5", 3.5" 9.3" COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 8.8" LODGEPOLE PINE 7.2" LODGEPOLE PINE 7.1" ASPEN 7.4" ASPEN 7.4" ASPEN 7.3" ASPEN 7.3" LODGEPOLE PINE 8.9" ASPEN 11.3" COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 9.4" LODGE POLE PINE 7.2" LODGEPOLE PINE 7.2" ASPEN 9.7" ASPEN 9.4" COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 8.8" COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 6.6" COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 12.4" COTTONWOOD 15.3" COTTONWOOD 10.2" LODGEPOLE PINE EXISTING RESIDENCE EXISTING PATIO G I B S O N A V E N U E MATCHLESS DRIVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING FENCE EXISTING P R O P E R T Y L I N E EXIST I N G P R O P E R T Y L I N E EXISTING BOULDER WALL 4.5" ASPEN BELOW CODE SIZE 5.5" ASPEN BELOW CODE SIZE 5.8" ASPEN BELOW CODE SIZE EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN # # # # N SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" 0 105 20 LEGEND: NOTES: 1. ALL EXISTING TREES IDENTIFIED AS TO BE REMOVED WILL BE FULLY MITIGATED PER CITY OF ASPEN CODE. 2. CODE-SIZED TREES ARE TO REMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THIS PLAN. 3. CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IF ANY TREE SHOWN AS 'TO REMAIN' IS TO BE REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 4. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DOCUMENT IS ON FILE AT THE ASPEN PARKS DEPARTMENT AND MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE PROJECT SITE. 5. ENGAGE A CERTIFIED ARBORIST TO ROOT PRUNE ANY TREE TO REMAIN THAT WILL HAVE EXCAVATION WORK WITHIN THE TREE'S DRIP LINE. ROOT PRUNING IS TO BE PER THE CITY'S OF ASPEN'S STANDARDS AND THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY TREE PROTECTION. 6. VEGETATION PROTECTION FENCE SHALL BE ERECTED AT THE DRIP LINE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL TREE OR GROUPINGS OF TREES ON SITE. THIS FENCE MUST BE INSPECTED BY THE CITY FORESTER OR HIS/ HER DESIGNEE (920-5120) BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE TO COMMENCE. NO EXCAVATION, STORAGE, OF MATERIALS, STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION BACKFILL, STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, FOOT OR VEHICLE TRAFFIC ALLOWED WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY TREE ON SITE. 7. ALL EXCAVATIONS WITHIN THE DRIP ZONE WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE VERTICAL EXCAVATION ONLY WITH NO OVER-DIGGING. EXCAVATIONS WILL BE SOIL STABILIZED IN A MANNER THAT PREVENTS OVER EXCAVATION OF THE SITE. 8. DRIPLINE EXCAVATION PROTOCOL: A) CONTRACTOR TO IDENTIFY LIMITS OF EXCAVATION IN THE FIELD. B) AIRSPADE TO EXPOSE ANY ROOTS THAT MAY BE IMPACTED. C) CLEARLY CUT ROOT TRENCH AT LINE OF DISTURBANCE. D) BACKFILL WITH HIGH QUALITY TOPSOIL AND MULCH. ENSURE IRRIGATION OF ROOT ZONE 9. ALL ROOTS SHALL BE CUT PRIOR TO FULL EXCAVATION USING A CLEAN, SHARP PRUNING SAW. ALL ROOTS WILL BE CUT FLUSH WITH THE EXPOSED SOIL LINE. 10. SIX INCHES OF MULCH ARE REQUIRED TO BE PLACED WITHIN THE ZONE OF VEGETATION PROTECTION. THE MULCH SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT A LEVEL OF 6" DURING THE ENTIRE PROJECT. 11. IRRIGATION OF TREES IS REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL SUPPLY WATER TO THE TREES AT A RATE WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR PROPER HEALTH. ADDITIONAL WATERING WILL TAKE PLACE ALONG THE EDGE OF THE ROOT CUTTINGS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PLACE A BURLAP PROTECTION COVER OVER THE CUT ROOTS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL IRRIGATE THE BURLAP WITH AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF WATER IN ORDER TO KEEP THE BURLAP MOIST. 12. COTTONWOOD TREES #45 - #49 AND TREES #52 - #55 ARE TO REMAIN. COTTONWOOD TREES WILL BE MAINTAINED AND MONITORED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND COULD BE REMOVED IF THEIR HEALTH CONTINUES TO DECLINE. L-1.0 TREE REMOVAL PLAN TYPICAL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AT DRIP LINE SECTION NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. MULCH SHOULD BE 6" DEEP. 2. ADDITIONAL PROTECTION OUTSIDE AT TREE DRIP LINE MAY BE REQUIRED (EXAMPLE: 12" OF MULCH). 3. TREES MAY BE FENCED IN GROUPS. DO NOT CUT LEADER WRAP ENTIRE SURFACE OF TRUNK UP TO SECOND BRANCH WITH TWO LAYER CREPE TREE WRAP SECURED AT TOP AND BOTTOM& TWO FOOT INTERVALS PROTECTION FENCING TO BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED AT TREE DRIP LINE. FINAL DESIGN TO BE COORDINATED WITH OWNER. PRUNE DAMAGED OR DEAD WOOD AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT NO DISTURBANCE WITHIN TREE DRIP LINE TREE TABLE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING URBAN DESIGN 580 Main Street, Suite 110 Carbondale, CO 81623|970.963.6520 05.17.2016 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PLAN HPC FINAL REVIEW P 8 0 I V . A . G I B S O N A V E N U E MATCHLESS DRIVE PROP E R T Y L I N E STONE WALKWAY HISTORIC CARRIAGE HOUSE DECK; RE ARCH OUTDOOR KITCHEN R . O . W . CARRIAGE HOUSE PARKING P R O P E R T Y L I N E GARAGE STONE PATIO STONE STEPS EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN STONE STEPS EXISTING COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN DECK; RE ARCH STEPPING STONE PATH STONE STEPS FIRE FEATURE STONE PATIO STONE WALL; MAX HEIGHT: 2.5' STONE WALL; MAX HEIGHT: 2' STEPPING STONE PATH ROOF LINE EXISTING COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN STONE SITE WALLS STEPPING STONE PATH MORTAR SET STONE PAVERS; RUNNING BOND SAND SET STONE PAVERS EXPOSED AGGREGATE CONCRETE WITH STONE BORDER ADU PARKING; ONE SPACE N SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" 0 105 20 LEGEND: NOTES: L-2.0 SITE MATERIALS PLAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING URBAN DESIGN 580 Main Street, Suite 110 Carbondale, CO 81623|970.963.6520 05.17.16 HPC FINAL REVIEW 1. CIVIL ENGINEER TO VERIFY UTILITY LOCATION AND REQUIREMENTS AND IDENTIFY ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSED SITE DESIGN. 2. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR GRADING AND HORIZONTAL LAYOUT. 3. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND DETAILS. 4. ALL LAYOUT OF SITE WALLS, PAVING AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES TO BE PERFORMED IN FIELD BY SURVEYOR AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 5. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR ALL PROPOSED UTILITIES. 6. PAVING PATTERN SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ILLUSTRATES DESIGN INTENT. FINAL PAVING PATTERN AND LOCATION OF EXPANSION AND CONTROL JOINTS TO BE COORDINATED WITH CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT. P 8 1 I V . A . G I B S O N A V E N U E MATCHLESS DRIVE CSA-9 P R O P E R T Y L I N E PROP E R T Y L I N E PROPOSED RESIDENCE HISTORIC CARRIAGE HOUSE P R O P E R T Y L I N E R . O . W PT-3 CC-4 CC-8 BG-27 CSA-7 CC-8 EXISTING COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN 15' S E T B A C K EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN EXISTING COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN GARAGE BG-6 SJA-4 SJA-12 DRIVEWAY OWNER TO REVEGETATE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AREA PER AGREEMENT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER SV-5 CC-3 CC-3 PVP-6 CC-4 CC-8 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN PROPOSED TREES PROPOSED SHRUBS ORNAMENTAL GRASSES GROUNDCOVERS AND PERENNIALS WILDFLOWER SEEDMIX TURF N SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" 0 105 20 LEGEND: L-3.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN 05.17.16 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING URBAN DESIGN 580 Main Street, Suite 110 Carbondale, CO 81623|970.963.6520 HPC FINAL REVIEW P 8 2 I V . A . NOTES: 1. PLANT MATERIAL IS TO BE HEALTHY SPECIMENS FREE FROM DISEASE OR DAMAGE. 2. CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES; IN CASE OF DISCREPANCIES, GRAPHICALLY SHOWN PLANT AND QUANTITIES SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE. PROVIDE MATCHING SIZES AND FORMS FOR EACH TREE TO BE INSTALLED. 3. ALL MATERIALS USED SHALL CONFORM TO THE GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY THE CURRENT AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. 4. ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 5. FINAL PLACEMENT OF TREES AND LARGE SHRUBS TO BE ADJUSTED IN FIELD TO PRESERVE VIEWS. 6. CONTRACTOR TO STAKE ALL TREE LOCATIONS PER PLAN. 7. OBTAIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL OF STAKED LOCATIONS PRIOR TO PLANTING. 8. STOCKPILED PLANT MATERIAL TO BE PLACED IN THE SHADE AND HAND-WATERED UNTIL PLANTED. 9. MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM WALLS, WALKS, BUILDINGS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES AT ALL TIMES. FINE GRADING SHALL BE APPROVED PRIOR TO SEEDING. 10. DO NOT PLACE MULCH WITHIN 6" OF TREE TRUNKS. 11. INSTALL LANDSCAPE EDGER AT ALL BED/GRASS BORDERS. 12. SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED GRADES. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FINE GRADE ALL AREAS TO BE PLANTED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE REQUIRED DEPTH OF SOIL ALONG WALK WAYS TO ACCOMMODATE SEED, TOPSOIL, OR MULCH DEPTH. 14. AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION TO BE PROVIDED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS. IRRGATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGN/BUILD BY CONTRACTOR. 15. SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR IRRIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN 10' OF STRUCTURES. CONTACT OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY SHOULD A CONFLICT ARISE BETWEEN THESE PLANS AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 16. TREES TO REMAIN WILL BE PROTECTED PER CITY OF ASPEN CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR EXCAVATION ADJACENT TO PROTECTED RESOURCES. 17. PROTECT ROOT SYSTEMS FROM PONDING, ERODING, OR EXCESSIVE WETTING CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 18. MAINTAIN TREE PROTECTION ZONES FREE OF WEEDS AND TRASH. 19. TREES PLANTED NEAR DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES SHALL BE HAND DUG. L-3.1 PLANT LIST AND NOTES PLANT LIST: 05.09.16 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING URBAN DESIGN 580 Main Street, Suite 110 Carbondale, CO 81623|970.963.6520 HPC FINAL REVIEW P 8 3 I V . A . G I B S O N A V E N U E MATCHLESS DRIVE RESIDENCE HISTORIC CARRIAGE HOUSE R . O . W . RECESSED DOWN LIGHTING WALL MOUNTED DOWN LIGHT BOLLARD LIGHTING; HEIGHT: 33 3 8"; BEGA 99058 DECK; RE ARCH P R O P E R T Y L I N E GARAGE DECK; RE ARCH DRIVEWAY PROP E R T Y L I N E ROOF LINE BOLLARD LIGHTING; HEIGHT: 21 5 8"; BEGA 99056 RECESSED WALL MOUNTED LIGHT WALL MOUNTED DOWN LIGHT WALL MOUNTED DOWN LIGHT WALL MOUNTED DOWN LIGHT RECESSED WALL-MOUNTED LIGHTING WALL MOUNTED DOWN LIGHTING BOLLARD LIGHTING RECESSED DOWN LIGHTING WALL MOUNTED DOWN LIGHT; MAKE: KICHLER MODEL: 49059OZ BOLLARD LANDSCAPE LIGHTING; MAKE: BEGA MODEL: 99056 RECESSED WALL-MOUNTED LIGHTING; MAKE: BEGA MODEL: 2190LED RECESSED DOWN LIGHTING; MAKE: COOPER MODEL: H1499ICAT BOLLARD LANDSCAPE LIGHTING; MAKE: BEGA MODEL: 99058 N SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" 0 105 20 SITE LIGHTING LEGEND: L-4.0 LIGHTING PLAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING URBAN DESIGN 580 Main Street, Suite 110 Carbondale, CO 81623|970.963.6520 05.17.16 HPC FINAL REVIEW 1. SITE AND EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING TO BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 2. LOCATION OF FIXTURES AS SHOWN IS SCHEMATIC. LOCATIONS OF EXTERIOR AND SITE FIXTURES TO BE VERIFIED PER FINAL ARCHITECTURE AND SITE PLANS. 3. FINAL TYPE, LOCATION, AND NUMBER OF EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES T.B.D. 4. NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTRICAL CODES SHALL GOVERN THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF WORK. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE DRAWINGS AND APPLICABLE CODE, THE CODE SHALL PREVAIL AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE MADE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CODE. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY LIGHTING EQUIPMENT. 5. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES TO COMPLY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF ASPEN LIGHTING ORDINANCE. 6. EXTERIOR LIGHTING AT HISTORIC CARRIAGE HOUSE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES. 7. SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR INFORMATION REGARDING GRADING AND DRAINAGE, AND UTILITIES. 8. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR PRELIMINARY PLANTING INFORMATION. GENERAL SITE LIGHTING NOTES: P 8 4 I V . A . 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 19th 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 this proposal on January 22, 2014, August 27, 2014, April 8, 2015 and June 24, 2015. At all meetings, Staff recommended denial, finding that the proposal did not meet the design guidelines. Minutes from the previous hearings are attached. The board has been split on the project. Concerns with destruction of historic P85 IV.B. 2 fabric and compliance with the design guidelines have been the consistent theme. Motions to approve have failed twice. On June 24th, 2015, a motion to approve passed after HPC member Gretchen Greenwood suggested the revised connector would be acceptable so long as it tucked below the eave of the historic resource. Resolution #21, Series of 2015 passed by a vote of 4-0, with the following conditions: 1. The new connector shall be redesigned so that it does not interrupt the fascia on the west side of the historic resource, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. If this cannot be accomplished, the project must be brought back to the full board for further review and determination before proceeding. 2. The metal components of the new connector shall have a dark finish, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 3. The new connector shall be as transparent as possible, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. In October 2015 the architect contacted staff to say that, after further confirmation of field measurements it would not be possible to design a connector that would sit below the eave as requested. Because the public hearing was concluded when HPC took action, staff directed the applicant that a new application for Minor review would be needed for any further consideration by the Commission. HPC is asked again to grant Minor Development approval. The architect has addressed the request to specify a dark finish on the metal components of the connector, and has increased transparency by roofing the connector with glass. Below are sections showing the existing connector, the June 2015 proposal and the current proposal. P86 IV.B. 3 P87 IV.B. 4 Staff continues to find that the work negatively impacts the historic resource by removing two historic windows. Though glass connectors have been approved for numerous projects, they have typically not exceeded the width or height of the historic resource and the transparency of the element is an asset. In this case, the height of the connector and the significant amount of glazing compete with the historic structure. Staff is concerned that approval of this proposal would undermine the interpretation of an appropriate connector element that the board has established over a long period of time. The remainder of this memo, leading up to the staff recommendation, is unchanged from June 24, 2015. 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. P88 IV.B. 5 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. 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 8th, 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 F, which shows just some of the numerous projects where HPC has insisted on a one story connector. P89 IV.B. 6 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 P90 IV.B. 7 • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposal be denied, finding that the guidelines are not met. Exhibit: Resolution #___, Series of 2016 A. Design Guidelines B. January 22, 2014 minutes C. August 27, 2014 minutes D. April 8, 2015 minutes E. June 24, 2015 minutes F. Illustrations of one story connectors G. Text and graphics representing current proposal H. Graphics representing June 2015 proposal, approved with conditions “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. P91 IV.B. 8 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. 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. P92 IV.B. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) DENYING 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, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2016 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 May 25, 2016, 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 May 25, 2016, 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 25th day of May, 2016. __________________________ Willis Pember, Vice Chair Approved as to Form: ____________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P93 IV.B. 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 5P94 IV.B. 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 6P95 IV.B. 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. 7P96 IV.B. 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 8P97 IV.B. 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 9P98 IV.B. 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 1P99 IV.B. 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 2P100 IV.B. 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. 3P101 IV.B. 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 4P102 IV.B. 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. 5P103 IV.B. 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. 6P104 IV.B. 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 P105 IV.B. 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 P106 IV.B. 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 JP107 IV.B. 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 P108 IV.B. 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 P109 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2015 2 market development exempt from mitigation; however that half of the equation is not available here because we are in the commercial core. The access would have to come from the Hyman mall. Patrick said he envisioned one door and an open stair case. John said that would cause security issues. Bob said you also have the possibility of pilfering but pollutions of other types when you combine facilities. VOTE: Patrick, yes; Bob, no; Willis, no; Gretchen, no; John, no Motion will not be reconsidered. 135 E. Cooper – Minor Development – Public hearing cont’d from April 8th, 2015 Amy said this is the fourth hearing we have had on this proposal to modify the existing one-story connector between an historic resource and addition and make it a two story connector. Staff recommends that the project be denied because we feel there is a negative visual impact being created by the new connector. It fills in what is supposed to be a sense of openness between the two volumes. It also results in the relocation of an historic window and it creates a very tight gap between the west wall of the historic resource and the connector where we feel snow and debris maybe trapped and cause deterioration against that side of the building. We also feel it is not consistent with previous HPC decisions. Staff also objects to removing square footage and putting it in another addition. We are also uncertain whether the applicant has the floor area available. They plan to destroy the usable attic space and take that square footage and move it into the connector. The applicant is proposing to move the connector forward between the two masses and we feel this does not meet the guideline. Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Dillon Johns, Zone 4 architects Dillon went over the power point regarding the design changes. The link moves forward to work between a couple of windows on the site. The roof of the connector is solid but it could be glass if the commission wants it transparent. The stairs were designed so that they are a minimum of 3 feet. P110 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2015 3 The profile is very thin. The risers will be open with a center support rail to minimize what goes on in the corridor. Mitch said he believes the attic space was labeled as a smoking room. The 2003 design is not functional for the client. We feel this proposal complies and does a better job than what is there today. Guideline 10.3 – Our feeling is that the connector doesn’t do a good job of complying with this guideline. The addition is often mistaken for being historic. The link is insubstantial in size and out of scale with the historic resource and addition. Guideline 10.4 Enclosing the stairs in glass will show that it is a product of its own time and it will provide a clear separation from the historic resource and the addition. Guideline 10.6 – Both existing buildings are similar in height. By having a two story connector it will be compatible. Guideline 10.7 – this standard does not require a one story connector. The connector should be proportional to the primary building. A two story connector would be more proportional. The connector is well beyond ten feet back. We are proposing a flat roof over the link to keep the mass minimized and it slopes to the rear of the property. The property is well maintained and there is a caretaker that lives on the property. The plan minimizes the addition and maximizes the transparency. Dillon said we will have a metal roof and we could do shingle on the gable part if needed. We are happy to work with the monitor and staff on finishes and colors. The enclosure is glass. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Marc Feinstein, neighbor said he likes the proposal and the way it will be retaining the historic nature. This Victorian is very close to the commercial core and it has not been touched. Willis closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Patrick recused himself. Willis identified the issues: Mass and scale Connector Design guidelines P111 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2015 4 Willis said this is a 2 ½ story with a 2 story addition. We don’t often see this. This is a large resource. The idea is to provide relief between the two masses. There is an equal rhythm with this proposal. The two story connector is warranted. The weakness is that we are permitting a destruction of the original Victorian character. We give license to modify existing fabric all the time. In terms of mass and scale I am fine with it. The applicant has offered to make it more glassier. Gretchen said where this falls short for me is that the roof line between the new addition and the Victorian is lost on one side and that shouldn’t be allowed. You could lower the two story addition and make sure that the fascia line maintains itself. We are here to protect the historic resource and cutting the fascia line up with another gabled roof line is a mistake. A flat roof addition and minimizing the floor so that the two roof lines are expressed and that they maintain their expression will help make this building feel like two separate buildings. Interrupting the fascia line on the historic building needs addressed. John said we are impacting a very small portion of the Victorian where in the past we have seen dormers built. I think the roof should also be a transparent glass and that might separate the two structures and give them breathing room. The white railing etc. all bleeds together as one big huge structure. Bob said maximizing the transparency is what needs to happen. The finish material should look different than the two structures on each side. What exists is a mistake right now. We have a unique project here. I could be comfortable approving it and working out the details with staff. John said if we get some separation between the two that is an improvement. Gretchen said you look at the details and they should be maintained on the historic resource. Willis asked if it is possible to have a roof tuck under the eave of the existing Victorian. Maybe they could re-work it and leave the fascia untouched. Bob said he likes the idea of it being glass and dark as it goes away. Most successful connectors are dark. P112 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2015 5 Willis suggested a black framed structure. John said he feels the mass and scale can be achieved and the issue is destructing the fabric of the historic resource. Bob said glass roofs could be bubbled or you could have a barreled vault etc. Gretchen said the fascia line should be maintained and deal with the architecture on the inside and if that is changing the floor level to bring that connector addition down then so be it. Dark does go away. Bob said he is comfortable having staff and monitor resolve the issues. MOTION: Willis made the motion that the fascia cannot be interrupted on the west side of the historic resource. If this cannot be accomplished the applicant must return to the board for further review. The metal finish is to be a dark color. The connector is to be as transparent as possible which could mean a glass roof. All items to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Bob, Gretchen, John and Willis. Motion carried. 4-0. Gretchen is the monitor. 834 W. Hallam St. – Conceptual Historic Major Development, Relocation, Variances, Residential Design Standard Review, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits, GMQS, continue public hearing to September 9, 2015 MOTION: Willis made the motion to continue 834 W. Hallam until September 9th; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn the meeting; second by Gretchen. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P113 IV.B. P 1 1 4 I V . B . P 1 1 5 I V . B . P 1 1 6 I V . B . P 1 1 7 I V . B . P 1 1 8 I V . B . P 1 1 9 I V . B . P 1 2 0 I V . B . P 1 2 1 I V . B . P 1 2 2 I V . B . P 1 2 3 I V . B . P 1 2 4 I V . B . P 1 2 5 I V . B . P 1 2 6 I V . B . P 1 2 7 I V . B . P 1 2 8 I V . B . P 1 2 9 I V . B . P 1 3 0 I V . B . P 1 3 1 I V . B . P 1 3 2 I V . B . P 1 3 3 I V . B . P 1 3 4 I V . B . P 1 3 5 I V . B . P 1 3 6 I V . B . P 1 3 7 I V . B . P 1 3 8 I V . B . P 1 3 9 I V . B . P 1 4 0 I V . B . P 1 4 1 I V . B . 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 1 2 . 1 8 . 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 1 4 2 I V . B . 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 1 2 . 1 8 . 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 1 4 3 I V . B . 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 1 2 . 1 8 . 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 ROOF BEYOND 1.75 12 EXISTING ADDITION FACADE BEYOND PROPOSED CRICKET TO MOVE MOISTURE AWAY FROM STRUCTURE, IN FOREGROUND, DASHED FOR CLARITY [RE: 02 + 03 / A-03] 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 AND SKYLIGHTS 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 WITH SKYLIGHTS 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 1 4 4 I V . B . 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 1 2 . 1 8 . 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 04 A-06 1'4'-11" 4' - 7 " 12 1.7512 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 BOTTOM OF ROOF JOISTS BEYOND SKYLIGHT BEYOND AT FRAMED ROOF SOFFIT AT DOORWAY PROPOSED CRICKET TO MOVE MOISTURE AWAY FROM STRUCTURE [RE: 02 + 03 / A-03] 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 ROOF ADDITION ROOF ADDITION ROOF NEW LINK ROOF HISTORIC STRUCTURE ROOF HISTORIC STRUCTURE ROOF NEW LINK ROOF ADDITION ROOF 01 SECTION / HISTORIC STRUCTURE EAST ELEVATION 3/8" = 1'-0" 04 PERSPECTIVE VIEW TOWARDS ROOFS FROM NORTHWEST 02 OVERALL PERSPECTIVE VIEW TOWARDS ROOFS FROM SOUTH 03 OVERALL PERSPECTIVE VIEW TOWARDS ROOFS FROM SOUTHEAST A-03 | SECTION / ELEVATION + PERSPECTIVES | AS NOTED P 1 4 5 I V . B . 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 1 2 . 1 8 . 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 02 PERSPECTIVE FROM COOPER STREET01PERSPECTIVE FROM ASPEN STREET A-04 | PERSPECTIVES | NOT TO SCALE P 1 4 6 I V . B . 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 1 2 . 1 8 . 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 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 WINDOW WALL 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 BEYOND12 1.75 FABRICATED SKYLIGHT SYSTEM TO MATCH WINDOW WALL SYSTEM / FACADE 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"3'-9 1/4" 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 1 4 7 I V . B . 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 1 2 . 1 8 . 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 (SOFFIT WHERE REQUIRED) 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 " 4" 3/ 4 " 1 1/ 2 " 6 7/ 8 " EL. RE: FLOOR PLAN EL. RE: STRUCT. F-1 : WOOD FLOOR ASSEMBLY -WOOD FINISH FLOOR, PER ARCHITECT -PLYWOOD SHEATHING, PER STRUCT. -STEEL FRAMING, PER STRUCT. F-1 EXTERIOR INTERIOR T.S. BEAMS / FRAMING 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 1 4 8 I V . B . 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 1 2 . 1 8 . 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 5' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 5 ' - 8 1 / 4 " 8 ' - 9 1 / 8 " 1 1 1 / 4 " 1 ' - 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 3 5 / 8 " 1' - 2 1 / 4 " 4 1 / 4 " 5' - 3 5 / 8 " 5 1 / 2 " 9 1 / 2 " EXISTING 12 12 ADDITION HISTORIC 7 ' - 2 " 7' - 6 " 1' - 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 3 5 / 8 " 1' - 2 1 / 4 " 2' - 7 7 / 8 " 6' - 8 1 / 1 6 " 4 " 4'-6 1/4"THIS IS ABOUT AS SKINNY AS IT CAN GET AND THIS MAY NOT EVEN BE POSSIBLE 12 12 ATTEMPT TO WORK WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES (DOES NOT WORK) DOES NOT MEET CODE ADDITION HISTORIC 8 ' - 9 1 / 8 " 1 ' - 8 7 / 8 " 1 ' - 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 3 5 / 8 " 1' - 2 1 / 4 " 7 ' - 9 " 6 1/ 4 " 9 ' - 9 1 / 4 " 9 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 7 ' - 9 " 12 12 ADDITION HISTORIC PROPOSED CONFIGURATION (DOES WORK) PEAK ROOF PLATE BEYOND [T O P O F W I N D O W ] A-07 | EXISTING CONDITIONS DIAGRAM | SCALE : 1/2" = 1'-0" P 1 4 9 I V . B . P 1 5 0 I V . B . 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 1 5 1 I V . B . 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 1 5 2 I V . B . 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 1 5 3 I V . B . 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 1 5 4 I V . B . 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 1 5 5 I V . B . 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 1 5 6 I V . B . 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 1 5 7 I V . B . 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 1 5 8 I V . B . 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 1 5 9 I V . B . 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 1 6 0 I V . B . P 1 6 1 I V . B . P 1 6 2 I V . B . 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 1 6 3 I V . B . 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 1 6 4 I V . B . 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 1 6 5 I V . B . 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 1 6 6 I V . B . 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 1 6 7 I V . B .