The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20031217ASPENHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING December 17, 2003 (Dec. 24th HPC meeting is cancelled) CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE -VISIT: 1295 Riverside Drive, 28 Smuggler Grove Road, 470 N. Spring, and 701 W. Main. Please meet at the first site. 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring A. NONE VII. Staff comments: Certificates of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #24) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 1295 Riverside Drive - Historic Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Minor Development Review and Variances, Public Hearing Continue to Jan. *4, 2004 t~ 4 , j: 5:15 B. 28 Smuggler Grove Road - Historic Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Major Development Review (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation and Variance, Public Hearing (Cont'd from NON.+12, 2003) 9, 8 vi- D .Â·701/ 6:00 C. 470 N. Spring Street - Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variances, Public Hearing (Cont'd from Dec. 10, 2003) -Ill NEW BUSINESS A. NONE IX. WORK SESSION: 6:45 A. 701 W. Main Street B. 1295 Riverside Drive -Historic Designation, Lot Split, Minor Development XI. ADJOURN PROJECT MONITORING Jeffrey Halferty 428 E. Hyman (former Sportstalker Store) 213 W. Bleeker (Schelling) 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with Neill 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Mike 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus), with Teresa 922 W. Hallam 110 W. Main (Hotel Aspen) 118 E. Cooper (Little Red Ski Haus) 432 W. Francis - Minor Neill Hirst 434 E. Main (Hills) 409 E. Hyman (New York Pizza building) 205 S. Third 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with Jeffrey 635 W. Bleeker 110 E. Bleeker Mike Hoffman 950 Matchless Dive (Becker) 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Jeffrey 513 W. Smuggler (Harman) 633 W. Main (Dart) 920 W. Hallam (Guthrie) 640 N. Third 21 Meadows Road Valerie Alexander 216 E. Hallam (Frost) 533 W. Francis (Gibson) 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) 114 Neale Ave. 304 W. Hallam - Pan abode Derek Skalko 135 W. Hopkins 302 E. Hopkins 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) 331 W. Bleeker 114 Neale Ave. Sarah Broughton 135 E. Cooper - Dave Gibson project CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: PIPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit of notice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staffpresentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion gE O MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission \14* THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 470 N. Spring Street- Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variances- Public Hearing continued from December 10, 2003 DATE: December 17,2003 SUMMARY: The subject property is located in the Oklahoma Flats neighborhood and contains a Victorian era home which was moved to the site in the 1960's. The application proposes an addition to the rear (north side) of the historic home. Conceptual approval is requested, along with a 500 square foot floor area bonus, a front yard setback variance of up to 25 feet to accommodate the existing location of the house and the proposed location of the garage, a rear yard setback variance of up to 14' to accommodate a portion of the new addition, a north sideyard setback variance of 8'6," and a variance from one of the Residential Design Standards related to garages. The project was continued on May 28th so that the architect could study pushing the garage back on the site so that it is not closer to the street than the historic house. In addition, further thought was to be given to restoration opportunities that would justify the FAR bonus. Minutes of the meeting are attached. Revised plans were submitted for a June 25th hearing, changing the placement of the garage as requested. For that meeting, staff conducted additional site inspections and created a list of possible restoration actions that the board and owner should discuss. The recommendation was to approve the project with conditions, however the applicant asked for a continuation so that they could evaluate costs and other considerations. Additional continuations were requested leading to this December 17th meeting. Staff s recommendation, and the balance of this memo, are unchanged from the June version. APPLICANT: Dennis and Andrea Young, owners, represented by Lipkin Warner Design Partnership. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-08-002. ADDRESS: 470 N. Spring Street, Lot 2, Block 4, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, along with a metes and bounds parcel on the southerly side of said lot. 1 ZONING: R-30. CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residence. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, 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. 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: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time): 1. Why is the property significant? 2. What are the key features of the property? 3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? 5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? The property is important as an example of housing built during the mining era. It was moved to the current location, and a number of alterations to the building occurred after that time. Some information about the footprint and design of the house as it was originally constructed is available. Key features of the property are that the original roof and building walls on the front portion of the house are intact. There is some original trim, windows, doors, and porch elements. 2 This house stands in a neighborhood where the 19th century context has been eliminated. Only one other designated cabin is within the vicinity. Most of the adjacent homes are new construction and are significantly larger than this one. The proposal before HPC will create an addition linked to the back of the original house. Very little of the existing building fabric will be removed. Restoration work is envisioned for the Victorian. There is no potential for expansion beyond this application. Design Guideline review Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The 470 N. Spring Street site has many complexities due to encroachments that were created by the 1960's relocation, and the limited size of the lot. The owner is in the process of acquiring a portion of the area where the garage will be sited from a neighbor. This will of course be a , condition of approval. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed, are included in the memo. In general, staff finds the design to be very well done, and in character with the Victorian home. The addition will provide living space and a garage. The guidelines state: 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. o Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern' should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structufe is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. g Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. and 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 3 Because living space that is integral to the function of the house is designed to be located above the garage, detaching the new addition from the Victorian is not practical. At the May meeting, staff had proposed sliding the garage back from the street so that it does not project in front of the historic house. The board agreed and the architect has moved this piece back to the extent possible (4'33. The idea of moving the staircase element (the "connector") that joins the two buildings further back so that there is more of an appearance of separation between the two buildings was also discussed in May, but it did not appear that the majority of the board felt that this was necessary to meet the guidelines. Staff finds that the addition is now compatible in height, scale, massing, and proportions with the Victorian home and can be granted conceptual approval. Materials and fenestration will be reviewed at Final. SETBACK VARIANCES The setback variances needed are a front yard setback variance of up to 25 feet to accommodate the existing location of the house and the proposed location of the garage, a rear yard setback variance of up to 14' to accommodate a portion of the new addition, and a north sideyard setback variance of 8 ' 6". The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: This lot is unusually small, particularly for this neighborhood, which has a minimum standard lot area of 30,000 square feet. The development will butt up against the proposed new north and east property lines, and come close to the new west lot line. The property owner to the east has submitted a letter in support of the application. The owner to the north (uphill) has expressed a desire to see windows and skylights eliminated along that side of the project. No one will be directly impacted by variances granted along the west, or street side of the site. As the Commission is aware, setback variances are one of the benefits offered to owners of historic properties in order to address the requirements placed on them to retain and maintain a historic building. Staff finds that there is no other location on the property where any expansion 4 can be accommodated, and because there is no on-street parking in the immediate area, cars must be contained somewhere on the site. Staff supports the granting of the setback variances. An uphill neighbor has requested that all windows and skylights be eliminated on the north fagade of the addition. The applicant has already agreed to remove the skylights, but wishes to maintain some windows. There should be discussion as to whether losing the windows will create an appearance that is out of character with the Victorian. HPC should weigh the arguments on both sides of this issue as they pertain to the design guideline and discuss whether losing the windows will create an appearance that is out of character with the Victorian. A decision on this matter should be made at the Conceptual level since it is the granting of variances that has concerned the neighbor. Staff believes that having a blank wall on the addition is not in keeping with the following guideline: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. The chairacter ofthe Victorian is that each wall has some glazing. FAR BONUS The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot fioor area bonus. The following standards apply to an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets &11 applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or 0 5 d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or Â£ An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Staff Response: The applicant previously met with HPC for a worksession to discuss this project, as required by the review standard. The outcome of that conversation included a redesign of the roof form on the addition and the elimination of a glass "monitor" on the roof. Staff finds that these changes improved the project's relationship to the historic resource significantly. Staff can support an FAR bonus for this project, finding that criteria a, b, d, e, and f, above, are met, with the condition that as much restoration work as can be feasibly and accurately completed on the Victorian be undertaken (criteria c). HPC seemed to be in agreement with this position on May 28th. At this time, the proposal in HPC's packet includes the following restoration work: a reworking of the alterations that have been made to the front porch, removal of a non-historic side porch, reconfiguration of existing non-historic windows to make them more compatible with the Victorian proportions, removal of an inappropriate storm window that obscures a historic double hung on the west, removal of a skylight on the front roof plane, removal and revegetation of a parking space in front of the house, replacement of a non-historic door on the east faGade with one that is more architecturally appropriate, removal/reworking and patching of some vents on the east side of the house, and reworking of a dormer on the east side of the house. In general, these are all positive changes. However, staff has been able to locate a photo of this building in 1980, and has been able to view a picture of the house as it was being moved in 1968, which has shed new light on the status of this home. 6 . 2*x 1 1 i 1 1% t :. jil=mmu,ium=~Fi~:4:*,pwfv:IM 24Â£$ imll,-Breili~mur'Imi,Â· 0/ 4 HM,"T,â€ž41~,rM~13'Fl: 1-' I â‚¬ â‚¬ Ve. 4 / 1968 1980 Close examination of these photos, and further i......~Â·, , -___.. inspections of the property, suggest a few new things. .,.'4)Â·.'.. Ff-.~, -~...~Â·~ =Â·:.*.... 1 1 First, it is clear that the bay window on the front of the ;-~'-~'~~~~~ ~6-e~~ house is not historic. There are 19th century windows in I...... . 9 4"baad I -I ".* 1 the existing bay. so either the whole bay window f =4:~ 0 : .4 ~,~~ - 1*~u element, or just the window units themselves Â·were 4Â·Â·Â·Â·â€¢ Â·Â·. , '5*10 -- 1/ ..1* I salvaged from another property and applied to 470 N. ft,?.' .t . 0~ -a... . Spring Street. It is also highly suggested by these photos 46 : i. 4 : ~ li~4 ~$ f ~~1~ and site inspections that the front posts and decorative ~ /~ 4 323*1 /~ trim are all original. The only new feature there is the 2 4 covered staircase, which has also been built with trim f r ...2.-,9.,Â·41:=.73407 - -- tâ‚¬*, lt**1 that was salvaged from other locations or otherwise 6Â·Â·1 ~Â·â„¢..1 .Â·:Â· ,Â·-- .?- . 1 I I I. made to closely approximate the historic detailing. Existing front porch Both old pictures show asphalt shingle siding on the building, which has since been removed. Apparently, the original clapboards have been replaced with V-groove T&G siding. Finally, there is a window up in the west gable end that used to match the double hung on the front gable, but has since been replaced with something smaller. With this new information in hand, staff recommends that the HPC and owner have additional discussion at the hearing as to how far restoration can be reasonably taken in order to reverse some unfortunate alterations on this building. Everyone must bear in mind that the FAR bonus is a very valuable benefit. 7 Staff categorizes the following work as relatively easy to accomplish and mandatory for the bonus: â€¢ Removal of the canopy over the front stairs, and reworking of the railings in that area to bring them up to code in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic house. â€¢ Removal of the non-historic west side porch. â€¢ Removal of an inappropriate multi-paned storm window that obscures a historic double hung on the west. â€¢ Removal of a skylight on the front roof plane. â€¢ Removal and revegetation o f a parking space in front of the house. â€¢ Patching and removal of vents on the east wall as described in the application. â€¢ Replacement of a non-historic door on the east fagade with one that is more architecturally appropriate. â€¢ Relocation of a satellite dish that has been placed on the roof of the Victorian to a much less visible location, preferably.on the addition. â€¢ Relocation if possible, or at least painting a mushroom vent at the back of the Victorian. Staff categorizes the following work as meaningful restoration work that ought to be required for the bonus: â€¢ Removal of the existing siding, which is not historic, and replacement with clapboards. This would dramatically improve the historic integrity of the house. â€¢ Restoration of windows that have been altered on the west and east walls of the house to their original size and location, based on framing evidence that will be exposed when re- siding. (Particularly on the west at the kitchen window bay and gable end, as well as the living room window on the east.) Staff finds the following work to be very valuable, but requiring debate: â€¢ Reworking of the dormer on the east side of the house was discussed at some length on th May 28 , and the applicant has provided an elevation of how that might look. Staff completely agrees that this would benefit the house, but does not give it high priority in terms of any budget constraints compared to some of the more visible actions that restore lost features of the house.Â· â€¢ Although it would likely be considered undesirable by the home owner, another testoration move would be the removal of the front bay window. The bay has been in place since at least 1980, and more likely for a decade or so before that. It is a charming feature that has,Â· to a certain degree, become a part of the house, however it is not original and creates a more high style decorative character than this home apparently ever had. Staff believes that removing it and installing a large double hung window as shown in the 1968 photo is the appropriate thing to do from a preservation standpoint, but does not recommend that the board require this without the owner' s agreement. 8 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (III'C) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 470 N. SPRING STREET, LOT 2, BLOCK 4, OKLAHOMA FLATS ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ALONG WITH A METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2003 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-08-002 WHEREAS, the applicants, Dennis and Andrea Young, represented by Lipkin Warner Design Partnership, have requested Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variances for the property located at 470 N. Spring Street, Lot 2, Block 4, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, along with a metes and bounds parcel, Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" 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 Conceptual 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 per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 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, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, for approval of an FAR bonus, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code, that: a. The design ofthe project meets &11 applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are ofthe highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and WHEREAS, for approval of a variance from the "Residential Design Standards," according to Section 26.410 ofthe Municipal Code, the HPC must find that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 17, 2003, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended that the project be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 17, 2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Major Development (Conceptual) and Variance approval with the following conditions: l. HPC grants the following variances: a 500 square foot floor area bonus, a front yard setback variance of up to 25 feet to accommodate the existing location of the house and the proposed location of the garage, a rear yard setback variance of up to 14' to accommodate a portion of the new addition, a north sideyard setback variance of 8'6," and a variance from the Residential Design Standards related to setting the garage back from the face of the house. 2. In order to warrant the FAR bonus, the applicant must undertake: â€¢ Removal of the canopy over the front stairs, and reworking of the railings in that area to bring them up to code in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic house. â€¢ Removal of the non-historic west side porch. â€¢ Removal of an inappropriate multi-paned storm window that obscures a historic double hung on the west. â€¢ Removal of the skylight on the front roof plane. â€¢ Removal and revegetation of a parking space in front ofthe house. â€¢ Patching and removal of vents on the east wall as described in the application. â€¢ Replacement of a non-historic door on the east faGade with one that is more architecturally appropriate. â€¢ Relocation of a satellite dish that has been placed on the roof of the Victorian to a much less visible location, preferably on the addition. â€¢ Relocation if possible, or at least painting a mushroom vent at the back of the Victorian. â€¢ Removal of the existing siding, which is not historic, and replacement with clapboards. This would dramatically improve the historic integrity of the house. â€¢ Restoration of windows that have been altered on the west and east walls of the house to their original size and location, based on framing evidence that will be exposed when re- siding. (Particularly on the west at the kitchen window bay and gable end, as well as the Â· living room window on the east.) 3. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 4. The applicant shall be required to finalize all necessary lot line adjustments before any building permit will be issued for this development. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 17th day of December, 2003. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk i Dimensional Requirement Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Proj ect: Of A 1/\ ApplcaM: f,:~ A>n~~31,-2~U Ol,Â·a - - , LiplotÂ« (AD arvw'*00- 'Drai,yl Project, Location: 43-0 4 â‚¬cpr i &40 %4. Zone Distict: #4-30 ~, Â· Lot Size: 21 5 02_ Lot Area: 0231 S o -2. (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas - within the high wateb mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Arda in the Â·Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: O Proposed: D Number of residential units: Existing: 1- Proposed: 1 Nurnber ofbedrooms: Existing: ~'-1. Proposed: 15 ., Proposed % of demolition: D C 0 DIMENSIONS: (write rl/a where no requirement existsin Uie zone district) Floor Area: Existing: Lâ‚¬<59/Arlowable: 8/1'1(. & Proposed: 2,3-31, 63 Height PIincipal Bldg.: Existing: 203-/c> Allowable: P+oposed: Accessory Bldg.: ' Existing: >f/AÂ· Allowable: _A/,/ A Proposed: A,/A- +6 On-Site parking: Existing: \ 5 Required: 2 Proposed: 9 5/0 Site coverage: Existing: :,/1/A Required: /4 /A Proposed: â€ž?At % Open Space: Existing: *,4/4 Required: N,/A Proposed: */6 Front Setback: Existing: / *1' Required: 2 â‚¬ ' Proposed: C / I Rear Setback: Existing: i D-2 Required: /S' Proposed.1 / L G. Combined Front/Rear: " Existing: 'H /6 Requ\:red: ~ N/A Proposed: N / A Indicate N. S. 2, W Side Setbade 50*,+A Existing: 45'- 9' Required: /O' Proposed: - 15 '- 7 0 Side Setback n.7-+ A Existing: 54- 6" Required: /O/ Proposell /'- 6 ' Combined Sides: biseeÂ© N/Ar Res#Exe.&. N /A Propost&. N /6 Existing non-confoaities or encro#chments and note if encroacbment licenses have been issued: 11.St 44AC-r-02Â£5$,MAeÂ«V (pe,fot W 139 couA.t- f~li.<1Â¥ 4~a-495â‚¬3 Variations requested (identify the exact vanances needed): st>O si uâ€ž, Â·Â·Pod# 44 0 P// 0, 4 fU.. b'*A:* hy.1. â‚¬48 6,j.11:.9-tretil.Â£,M ist AÂ·e Vi~n *Â·at.~cisrd[45=r#les . ./ r 1 HOUSE ORIGINAL LOCATION Corner of 5th and BLEEKER Â· T ,/ '' ' .'J ' 7 -1 %'. 1 I . , 4 _ 21 4 4.04 ' , 1 8/' a - bl . -19'154 1.\0 1 1 1. 4. . C I , -73 7 21 Â· ill-Ii-,1.. :g i alill"I""Illi:./ #FR '/. - - 7 - .1 ... U.'' .,& 2- -/ - " 2.)- fs>.2*2/7 / SC)-5 196 0 -- /1/ 0,1/1.01 /Â«Far-~ MR/d E Q Kisr\1 5 (C-- ( A..0, crtl-rni-r/1/virl -v-1 -1 JOi3277 rv ( 5, (fl-Ph ELE. U A/Ot=F- 3(460 BLWP yt-VAr/\r fR=/UE f -23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 CJ LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING, LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 Young Addition 470 N. Spring St. Lot 2, Block 4 Oklahoma Flats Proj ect Description The Residence The Young Residence is located at 470 North Spring Street in the Oklahoma Flats section of Aspen. It is a relatively small one and a half story miner's Victorian house. There is a main structure with crossing gables and a front porch facing south. To the north there are multiple additions with a variety of roof shapes. House Moved We know from a contemporary newspaper article accompanied by a photograph that the house was moved in 1968 from Aspen's West End. In addition, we know from the building permit on file that the house was known then as the "Tagert House". A 1965 phone directory lists a W. C. Tagert as living at 535 West Bleeker. We found a biography and obituary in the Heritage Aspen archive from which we learned that William Tagert and his wife Cora lived in Aspen from at least 1895. The House's Original Location (?) An isometric drawing of Aspen dated 1893 shows a house at 535 West Bleeker with some similar familiar features to the house now in Oklahoma Flats. A 1904 map of the city, which includes building footprints, shows presumably the same house. We have found no other documentation for this lot, and we have not found anything that confirms the house depicted in these renderings is actually the Tagert house of 1968. There is no verifiable documentation for the existing house prior to 1968. The most recognizable feature of the isometric rendering is a gabled structure with two windows facing west and additions to the main volume to the south. If indeed this is the same house, it indicates that it was rotated 180 degrees when moved to its new location. 1968 Changes A 1968 newspaper photograph shows the house as its being moved from the West End. In this photograph the building has no south porch or south window bay. We conclude that the somewhat frilly (neo) Victorian south porch and the south window bay are both 1968 additions. The south bay looks to be an historic artifact. The porch seems less authentic. Unfortunately, the newspaper photograph shows nothing of the other three sides. When the house was moved it was set on a new foundation with basement. The house.now probably sits higher above the ground than it did originally. The somewhat crazy stair configuration on the west, which is part of today's tangle of northern additions, we guess, was added in 1968 to account for the new ground floor height elevation. Historic Parts of North Additions 01.Project Description.HPC.lwdp.doc Page 1 4/24/2003 DI P mm 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 CJ LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING. LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 As for the rest of the north, the only section that may be historic is the part below the hipped roof. By pealing away some of the interior finishes we have found mostly new construction but also parts that seem to be older. The east wall when exposed shows modern framing. The north wall appears to have modern framing with older vertical planks connected to the top and bottom plates. The west wall is made of old planks with plasterboard and drywall on either side. The west wall seems to be lacldng any discernable structure. The east and west walls have been intemalized by additions to either side. The north wall is an exterior wall but it has a new window and new sidi:ng. Preserving the Historic Resource Our approach to preserving the historic quality of this house is three fold. First we propose to restore parts ofthe original miner's Victorian volume. We intend to remove portions ofthe modern additions on the west, which extend beyond the original structure's facades. This will also help to emphasize the original entrance on the south. On the east we will reconfigure the reversed shed roof to a regular shed roof, which will be more sympathetic to the original shapes. We will remove the modern bay window on the west and replace it with windows of more historic proportions. With the guidance of HPC we will remove the modern ginger bread detailing on the south porch. Second, although the additions to the north are at best compromised in their historic significance, they none the less represent a common practice of adding rooms with lower roof forms to the back of a main structure. We will leave the north additions as they are with the above exceptions and add a connector that overlaps only the west comer of the wall below the hipped roof. New Construction to the North The new addition we are proposing is located to the north for three reasons. First, the north side is furthest from the historically significant portions of the original structure. Second, the north side seems to have very little discemable original building remaining a:nd so by adding here we are minimizing contact with the historic structure. Third, the lot configuration is such that expansion is only possible to the north. Space Between Connected Buildings The new addition is conceived as a distinct building form not meant to compete with the original. The two will be separated by a minimal connector. Building Height This northern migration, it should be noted, is limited in that the "flat" of Oklahoma Flats ends right here on this side of the house. The new addition runs directly into the side of the steep embankment, which defines the Oklahoma Flats boundary. Since there is no more opportunity to expand horizontally the new addition rises vertically. Nohetheless the new addition measures 24 feet at its highest point. The original structure measures 9 inches higher. Scale The streets in Oklahoma Flats are narrow and residential. In fact, most of the new houses, which have replaced the smaller ones ofjust a few years ago, seem out of scale to the quaint streets, which remain. This is not the case with the Young Residence. This small Victorian on its new foundation is reminiscent 01.Project Description.HPC.lwdp.doc Page 2 4/24/2003 DI-P me 23400 Two Riv.ers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 EJ LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING, LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 of the demolished houses that use to populate Oklahoma Flats. The new addition is of similar scale and does not overpower the site or the street, particularly as it recedes into the hillside: Garage Included Parking on the street is nonexistent and to park openly on site appears sloppy and congested. To alleviate this condition the new addition is using the ground floor as a garage. There is no other access point for a garage on the site. To minimize the garage's impact on the street it is of small scale, it is set back from the historic building and a "porch" screens it in front. The look is more of a carriage. house than a modem day garage. Original Historic Use We think it is important that the original structure not only maintain its historic use but also its historic functions. To this end, the south side of the historic house is being revamped as the main entrance. The addition removes the west side stair and door, which had become the de facto way in. Of no less importance, the new structure does not replace the main internal functions of the original. Facing the street are the kitchen and stair hall, and the living room and dining room remain in their original location. The attic room remains as a bedroom. Work At Home The new addition has, as described above, a garage and above that a modest master bedroom. In front of the master bedroom, facing the street is a study where one call work at home. We think it is an important point that so many of the homes in Aspen are not lived in much of the year. However, the Young's are active participants in the community and Aspen is their home. This house with its additions is not large. and it is meant to represent a modest upgrade to today's lifestyles without sacrificing the beauty and scale ofthe town they love. A Little More Space Despite the restraint used in designing these additions we do request some help from the HPC for FAR considerations. Hindered somewhat in this respect by including the garage, the Young's need 500 square feet of bonus FAR to complete the project. The scale of each new room is modest a:nd in no way approaches anything close to "monster' status. The proposed project is meant to rehabilitate the historic building that the Young's are proud to own and anxious to preserve. Thank You, David Warner Dennis Young Andrea Young 01.Project Description.HPC.lwdp.doc Page 3. 4/24/2003 DI-P 67. 1 R. 1 J. A A< t. 61 ]REI'~0!4*1*iÂ·7'Â·~'14*F"Â»hip,i 1 8 â€ž4-015 4:lit ,/-1.1 1.iÂ·2414.-7 1, 44 1 9 1 R. 1 6: r d 1- IM burt 9 7.PAI,49>41*TO~,ir41-Â·~ .Â£4 1 1 <f< 3 -1 t. 413,1-211. 1.3319*M<VEd # I 111 4 CD 4 tr-6.1 1-I: di,-et~., 4[.7~4327;17.-4.1 1 4 00 K 8 j*44Â¢42404810410* Ati:â‚¬22:"Atili"y 82 YIAâ‚¬ 8 1\N;241 HER y.â€¢FURA'.4CE B 82 & 1Â£11.1 2.>:r--= t/6*,U',Â· ELIC N. O. 1111\ Ill 11 ea 616 614 612 610 608 606 604 Got 600 534 532 &30 528 6%6 524 2% 5210 5/8 5/6 514 51% 510 508 506 504 80% 500 377 .CH =====-- --============ = - -37 -th- p/295 - - - - = = = = = = = - k/ W.BLEEKER 4 0 (613) (6093 - 9 6/7 6/5 6(9 611 605' 607 605 fog 601 -0 :)17 0.11 na, ow 517 525 523 51' 58 9'>I 5(5 5/3 6(1 509 507 505- 503 SO/ 435 0 0 l -~47-37~ '413 0 ~ 40 < 4 , k 71 / + 7: 7-7 17--71 R L 72.1-5- XIÂ· w D I '1 P + 3 21] 4 -rl Z. 4 62 +2~ ~ U 0 -r-' 12 111 - ' 4 T-- |i )<*I l.'j I 1- 4 1 2.F -4 --lill jldl' i k. i 1/ x *ILLI 1 i IIi 88 61Â£f E . r- 4 LU Z /7. M < /7, ~ 8. C. a ~ 2 H ~ L -f- 3 01 --1 Ir---3 f * 41 | 0 4 51 -4-3?9 77 4 O CK. i 1 ' - 0.1 7/n|/ x 1211 , - b 24 30 lizl ' /.'*1 laiall r\/0 -61 ' c L.1 1/ x 1/ 13{1 E-3--i_j -21 Ha,&4 B % A ~ 0Â£ 1 13/9 %2 9 47 /2 3. & M p 14-2.32 /9. J. 4 4 / 3-1 7-71 4 4/0 - / 0 4 7-1 r-:- - 4Â« - / 0 [7-*1 N -- 1 0 02 2 _1 e 2 /-1 1 217; 2 ..4 1 4 1 3/ 1 _ 6 L_Â£ .7-71 . LL.-)0 1/,11 / 1 \ 'JIL--1 / K P z---e ~ ~ ~ elf- 1, 0 <..6'/*70 < J.firage E GE-a 12'SE,6 / 10 \- 2 34' a 9 6/6 6/4 6'/8 km *nq 606 004 60â‚¬600 534 6-32 530 62- 326 5?A 282 520 ma 516 314 5/2 5(02-~N,=6~& Poo,Eltzgoo , o.At 437 7 3}tripr = Ut L--It. 4"XÂ¥'a 47.2.. = - = ==-= 1./.Nlilt,~~-= = = - - - - = ~6 001 20% 00% 911 t, 2,11 Elf En %Â¥jfÂ·fitf~,tj~H'.,1,7//~~ 1 (4/65) 2 B.1. / BUILDING..,.INSPECTION DEPARTMENT [EFcIT'~OLORADO ADDRESS - GENERAL OF JOB Lot Z, Block 4 Oklahoma Flats 4Â·20--01- sek--I,u~ PERMIT ~ Â·. CONSTRUCTION WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES TME WORLp~ESCRIBED BELOW. CLASS OF WORK: NEW O ADDITION O ALTERATION Z REPAIRO MOVE 0 WRECI OWNER NAME Marvin Moriarity ADDRESS Aspen, Colorado. PHONE 925-2964 LICENSE LICENSE NAME (AS LICENSED) B y owne r CLASS ~ NUMBER .INSUI / 993> hzâ‚¬f2'Â·L BÂ«15"i'+7'**,EL - ADDRESS 1 ~~----, - - . P B.O.Nfl I ' SUPERVISOR FOR THIS JOB NAME' ~ 1*(r~gR-1 \N C_ Es .5, :5 W AG-;4*6/L DATE CERTII r LEGAL Â· E 1 DESCRIPTION LOT HO. - BLOCK NO. 4 -+--- ADDITION Oklahbrha Flats 7 1 1 SURVEY A Llc. ATTACHED O 214 (. lagNst~uustee~ be- moved ~ p_ BY None t NO. A R EA (S. F.) HEIGHT NO. 4\ TOTAL- OCCUPANCI/r AT GRADE 2700 (FEET) 21' STORIES .-- U N 1 TS--L-.-----* -* 1* 5.Ret* Res. DIV. 4 BASEMENT - FIN. 2' SINGLE ~] ATTACHED ~ TOTAL TrPE FIRE UNFIN. lit GARAGE 9 CONSTR. Wood DOUBLE CJ DETACHED ~ ROOMS ZONE ' DEPTH 1 1 FIRST SIZE SPACING SPAN AUTHORIZED BELOW / AGENCY BY DA GRADE 46 FLOOR BUILDING EXTERIOR ~ REVIEW ~ FOOTING ~ Â£~'6 - CEILING . SIZE O ZONING EXTERIOR CONC. El FDN. WALL A /'' ROOF PARKING THICKNESS 25 MAS'Y N 1 THICK rn CAESSONS m ROOFING PUBLIC HEALTH SLAB LJ & GR. BEAMS U MATERIAL MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE ENGINEERING 1 EXTERIOR THICKNESS IST FLR, 2ND FLR 3RD FLR. ! WALL STUD SIZE ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE i & SPACE IST FLR, 2ND FLR. 3RD FLR. REMARKS NOTES TO APPLICANT: FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925 - 73J6 FOR ALL .WORK DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR VALUATION COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER OF WOR K ~1,400.00 APPLIES. SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR. ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS, PLAN TOTAL FE SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK !5 STARTED. FILED T P <2 - c, /2 REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. DOUBLE CHECK CJ ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. ' FEE c] CASH 0 $14 .00 ~ THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFJSATE OF OCC~ANCY HAS HEEN ISSUED. ~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT p PERMIT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION,OR SUSPENSION F~p~OLATION OÂ¢' ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME, A SIGNATURE // ~/-1 OF -APPLICANT: ,. ~ | DATE PERMIT NO. LICENSE v RECEIPTS CLASS A:louN THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY ./........ 1 ./ WHENVALIDATED HERE /~. 9/17/6~ BA-170 m 1 1 - FOUNDATION CONTRACTOR Y 0 C; P 1 num- 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 m. LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING. LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 Young Addition HPC Conceptual Review FAR Bonus Allowable FAR = 2,241.60 site sqft{per survey} 2,195 + 607 (80%) {per R-30} Existing + Addition Total FAR= 2,739.63 = [409.20+1,116.63+ 1,213.80] HPC Bonus = 498.03 required to meet Zoning FAR Basement Level FAR = 409.20 = 0343) 1,193.01 Square Footage: gross = 1,193.01 = 1,100.46 {Victorian} + 92.55{addition} Wall Surface: gross = 1,089.85 = [2(48 + 28.75)] 7.1 {wall height} Wall Surface: exposed = 373.37 = [40 + 43.75 + 28.75 + 16.25)] 2.9 {wall height} Factor = .343 = 373.37 / 1,089.85 Main Level FAR = 1,116.63 = (.843) [15699.59 - 375] {garage bonus} Square Footage: gross = 1,699.59 = 1,048.25 {Victorian} + 651.34{addition} Wall Surface: gross = 2,039.09 = [1,317.22 + 721.87] Victorian =- 1,317.22 = [2(44) + 29.25 + 16.75)] 9.83 {wall height} Addition = 721.87 = [2(26) + 24 + 11.5)1 8.25 {wall height} Wall Surface: covered = 318.56 = [162.28 + 127.51 + 22.16 + 6.61] Factor = .843 = [1.0 - (318.56 / 2,039.09).1 Upper Level FAR = 1,213.80 = [(.972) 826.95] + 410.00 Square Footage: gross = 1,256.45 = 410.00 {Victorian} + 826.95 {addition} Wall Surface: Addition = 944.00 = [2(26 + 33)] 8.00 {wall height} Wall Surface: covered = 26.00 = [15 + 11] Factor {addition only} = .972 = [1.0 - (26.00 / 944.00)] 01.FAR.HPC.CR.lwdp.doc Page 1 4/22/2003 .m 23400 Two Rivers.Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING. LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 Young Addition 470 N. Spring St. Improvement Survey Lot Line Adjustment Existing Improvement Survey The current improvement survey included in your package was developed and used in a settlement agreement with the Young's and their neighbor, the Budingers that outlines a change in the property line. The change is an extended property parcel added in 2002 through adverse possession to the north, which increased the property's size and FAR, and.required a lot line adjustment. This line is identified on the LWDP site plan as "new property line from adverse possession". The survey does not include pending changes being proposed in this Conceptual Review packet, as identified on LWDP site plans. The pending design if approved will required a new lot line adjustment, adjusted as required for the new HPC approved addition. This adjustment is identified on the LWDP site plan, noted as "proposed property swap" (that maintains current lot size and FAR allowances). In addition an easement will be required to access the new addition, also identified on said site plan. Settlement Agreement with Neighbor In addition to the parcel agreement stated abgve the settlement also stipulates neighbor's approval towards future development that extends into said parcel. Owner's Intent The owner's goal is to get approval from HPC .first before obtaining a new lot line adjustment. This will allow the Young's to finalize the existing agreement with their neighbor, and thus obtain new approvals with the Planning Department to complete all necessary approvals for a Construction Permit. Lot Line Adjustment A new lot line adjustment is required to allow the development to legally manifest. Once HPC has approved the scope of the new development the neighbor will then review and approve the change. This will trigger a new lot line adjustment approval process with the City Planning Department. This process will work concurrently with the HPC's approval process. Ideally the client would like to finalize the lot line adjustment after HPC fi:nal review approval. Request The owner requests the HPC to proceed with their approval process by acknowledging the pending improvement survey and lot line adjustment. We would like this included in the Final Review's "Conditions of Approval" for the project. 01.Lot Line Adjustment.HPC CR.lwdp.doc Page 1 4/23/2003 - 0 5 ,;ji; GECf4< Abf,~t WILLOU U) 470 BY WAY O r 8 01 Z F W N. Spring OUD Â·FC.*t m -6 Acir~ ~DUCKL ~ Z HON'. GILLESPIE AVE N k.[012, No P RL -1 1% Ufff~ 4. 04 7 - 5 /9 27- TTI , , r m , It 11/ pa ' 8. HAROLD ROSS . NCIS T 0 Â£044/14@*52,6 -/00% 472 .L~, 9. COWENHOVEN CT 3/ 10+ LUKE SHORT CT 40 - Ar 12 9; 11. FREE SILVER CT . //,th a. 10' 12. WILLIAMS RANCH DR 11 13. E FRANCIS ST /194 + m 9 ed Brick dÂ·,p I rick Sc~1 1 1 / 1// -~yel f ~ ' 7/oc .<1 2. /1 '04// 1 . Mo.y'. O .. to *, ~ ' ' ' Rio Branoâ€¢ Dork ' 3 AWMILL C 0 0 E ~ '~ j~ D RE ~//4,# ~ W H PKIN ' - 452 'Â·Â·.: , 4. sAYsr 9.,14' a o .Ubraly . . 4 ",9..4 0 AVE o. E IN 37 .4,4 f 33 ~ 1/ 00 Â·Â· 6 9 / <C' Ha A *G 7-/Â«1/90 :pa .. 1. ROBINSON RD 2. ALPINE CT 0 A. 40 3. MAYFLOWER CT 2 4 9.429 4. CIRCUIT AVE E HOP Â·tgu - * 5. SKIMMING LANE KINS AVE 0 '44% :iaw & C ./ 0/// 1. 2 2 644 VE.... *a e E 19 44& / N T EAN /4 VE EC OPER VE A- 0 k < ; 1, 1 .1/f 4,41 It' BERT ST CO CO SNA m 4,7 7/2 //952 7- G oly Hole 0%.i flt. ex Pa ..:. '17 0 'l;lt, .r fr~D WATERS AV 11'llill'. . 4 r- ASPEN GROVE RD'./ 1,////fil 3 111/1 I 1 4; 0 ,/ffÂ« 4% LU Z L----J 0. \ = 4 74 74 . ED -0 -5 Pple WEST'VIEW DR ' ~ UTE ce f''t .49 . Rri,r nt CoAR ./44~1/399/ 9. >5 HWY 82 Â· Â©4 6. LACET COURT '1< 44 1.UTECOURT %555.~ Ii:/1... 7 0, . 14 kIBMOd 2; 03 SNEA flite ,Â· SMUGGLER MTN RD 301 93 H Nln Na SV DK EnTIBIT B 6 WpinaCE rAMCal v *acern<,1 1 4 4.-0.-1, I I ' I._*i...alill t\-c \\/t - . 4%1.-A -H* pat ir-2244 1-+-i--*7----4---1---4 EÂ¥~6:cr.: mt=i- -*â€¢ ,-1 3911.. / 1 BORYETORN CERATICATE 1 4 â€¢lirCE[Ir, 1,2 Irt, 1,4 ACCACeu te'11 4 i ;ur.tr 71*no.D CM OUT LITIM K A r'** Â¥,Fu:1100' ---- -~ ="*laj 4 , Ft#*51'Faidn MEi:Ero;It'15 1 EF. ffs**VILIT , 1 576:r:M :1' - 3 I. ,?11/ill"' 1 }tt lier tâ‚¬*TiFT Ut,TON~,clnl it,1 Ar,$.4. I mr*"d64- zin:=wwitrt:.71.:C#wil'Km nâ€¢,440'l ' H 1*t,u ' t... .1.r,-1.11 1 D.I & DU M.. I .. MAÂ¥*0111,/1/ U-- N - 501Â©/roJE'S CERrlriCÂ·,Tt, 1 1, Â»leS If I,coo~. 'tcrevi~ Crâ„¢Tlr Y B " 11110 "/,~CCUK'mA' Pln=15 A OUArr rOV'Â¤4*W M WC 01 14910 31 3%2 Ir T,t te,Â·C umY,Unt Dr'le-5Ng'//Ima La.it". -Â· . 14*1 an'Yi, b< :=r f:u:u &-' be '*D ~T.. ..., ..1... 1060*Itâ€žâ€¢ LOT z ZOCA ~ U... 1.04 Ememn 20.21 OlD b -4 007 /Q /T: 2#NJSAUL. & S.:viA Di-.VIS PITKIN COL - .00 D 0.00 SPRING STREET ~- 11/08/2002 02:572 474555 Page: 12 of 24 13=1880%=1 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The project requires a variance to a Residential Design Standards related to the garage. All residential development must comply with the following review standard or receive a variance based on a finding that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Standard: PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The \ment of the following parking, garages, and carport standard is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential uses, parking, garages, and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road if one exists. 2. For all residential uses that do not have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall be met: a. On the street facing fagade(s),the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. b. The front fagade of the garage or the frontmost supporting column of a carport shall be setback at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the frontmost wall of the house. Response: Standard 2b is the one in question. The garage has a 4'3" setback from the western wall of the house. Given the constraints of this property, and in order to build a garage that has the depth necessary to park a car, some relief from this standard is needed. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: â€¢ approve the application, â€¢ approve the application with conditions, 9 â€¢ disapprove the application, or â€¢ continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development approval (Conceptual) and Variances for 470 N. Spring Street as proposed with the following conditions: l. HPC grants the following variances: a 500 square foot floor area bonus, a front yard setback variance of up to 25 feet to accommodate the existing location of the house and the proposed location of the garage, a rear yard setback variance of up to 14' to accommodate a portion of the new addition, a north sideyard setback variance of 8'6," and a variance from the Residential Design Standards related to setting the garage back from the face of the house. 2. In order to warrant the FAR bonus, the applicant must undertake: â€¢ Removal of the canopy over the front stairs, and reworking of the railings in that area to bring them up to code in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic house. â€¢ Removal of the non-historic west side porch. â€¢ Removal of an inappropriate multi-paned storm window that obscures a historic double hung on the west. â€¢ Removal o f the skylight on the front roof plane. â€¢ Removal and revegetation of a parking space in front of the house. â€¢ Patching and removal ofvents on the east wall as described in the application. â€¢ Replacement of a non-historic door on the east fa~ade with one that is more architecturally approptiate. â€¢ Relocation of a satellite dish that has been placed on the roof of the Victorian to a much less visible location, preferably on the addition. â€¢ Relocation if possible, or at least painting a mushroom vent at the back of the Victorian. â€¢ Removal of the existing siding, which is not historic, and replacement with clapboards. This would dramatically improve the historic integrity of the house. â€¢ Restoration of windows that have been altered on the west and east walls of the house to their original size and location, based on framing evidence that will be exposed when re- siding. (Particularly on the west at the kitchen window bay and gable end, as well as the living room window on the east.) 3. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within-one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 4. The applicant shall be required to finalize all necessary lot line adjustments before any building permit will be issued for this development. 10 , \ 34.4 ....1.3.5 1.-:.Â·-:. 474555 mfte-:1 : i -- 1 ill lill i li - 111 - il - ilix Jill iliiti li illi Page: 13 of 24 fc} â€¢ 11/08/2002 02:572 SILVIA D VIS PITKIN COUN-1 Y CO R 121.00 0 0.00 ' h h I +3% 6 . 194%25 19 - Budinger Property r:Â·:Â· >pz,# .: -- - - Ck#--- i - 749 - '- $- - .t...1- A..EL--4-2% . 1 -1 AN 12 -/; 11=2>4----- ir-- -4-:Â·- --- -l:3-56'54'56ft L.,il- / t/- Â·G 4- i:Â· * 1 -1 - ~ ~FE,:-* -- â€ž- OU4<2-4*:OutEidAC)! 'r,Â·: f .., 605:*8361Â£ 0.501221- 05; --.f - * -- f~~:Paribl~~~~~- ,,i--u..3 -r-L-'~@Â©tÂ·*t.#4--LL= -- : ..11. FLANTER 7 1 roLl -6-1 I .14 -:1 ---74.-=~1 ---Â·i -,5-1..............1 Y6ung Property-..0 ~ ~ : . . 21 :5 - - -- ~GAS. 1 . 2 L. 4'2 / 2- I . I Â«-i:to-"'7 JI. / ./ â‚¬ oF: 24* 54--F-tibc'.4--42-4;ki. 4,-- / 1. 'r- -11 t / /2.-1 - ------14 -49Â¥:,=/--7 1. NQOSmirt:-/ 7 ksA 1.- 1 ". 0 -1 . 1 - -6 / 7 / - 41 l i //t -A 2[9 ---0 , a LOTÂ·2; B LOCK 4 1 - OKLAHOMA f - +J U 1, F -- -17- N 74~30'.go--w-Â· - 4ojoe_- 2 1 tuF- - Â·- I . 9 1 4 I ENCROACHMENT -1l j t.. ili J ~ S EASEMENT Ek. 340 Pt.298 CH1MNEY - 33.1 .FR.. 0 - ~55 .. r ./ . I. 7-4 - i t - 4 4 Â· e,t-34-=1 0 1 1 7 12: ty -*379 rn 5Â·7 .*V D A -CD N74Â°30'00"W 60@00 46~.â€žÂ¢..9 7 . Ni15Â°30",09"'ELk 82-8 - ...' 1~0-,/,F 1' 464,1 .m 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 1.IPKIN WARNER DES](iN & Pl.ANNINC;, I.LE m. Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 Young Addition 470 N. Spring St. Lot 2, Block 4 Oklahoma Flats Victorian Changes West Elevation 1) Kitchen window bay replaced with a pair of double hung windows (2-24"x36"). *See * 34 Q attached west elevation for proposed change. -'=-1-'94 >- .4 1 It :..1 . 44 ' li ,/31 r f- k I *Mt /~ 1 31 1 7 - 1% i.g. . ;i~ 2) Existing double hung window at stairs to remain. New 4 -14. storm window will replace existing as shown with historic r ' iy-1~ mullion pattern as outlined by HPC. r-7 L ~. i 'l / . 4 4 3) Northwest corner stair and porch . . element removed and replace with siding I .... that matches existing and new double hung window (24"x363 that matches kitchen . 4.9 windows. *See attached west elevation for * proposed change. ..... 01.Victorian changes.HPC.lwdp.doc Page 1 6/17/2003 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # Series of2003." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated December 17,2003 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application 11 "Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 470 N. Spring Street, Conceptual Review" Guidelines to consider for the addition: Secondary Structures 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. o Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Building Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that o f the primary building Â·also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 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. o A 1 -story connector is preferred. o The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. o The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 12 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. Driveways & Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. Guidelines to consider with regard to the FAR bonus: Windows 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Â¤ Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. Porches 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. o Use materials that appear similar to the original. o While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. 13 o Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. o When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. o The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. o The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. Architectural Details 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. o The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation ofthe building's heritage. o When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. Roofs 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. o Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed: o A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 14 .m 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 1.11)K IN WARNER DES[(iN & PLANNING. 1 1 C . . Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 South Elevation 1) Reestablish main roof eave line by lowering reconstructed porch roof. 2) Remove existing porch and reconstruct new porch with lower pitch and metal roof and historic detailing. - 3) Replace existing columns new columns that .-I match historic detailing. 4) Replace existing railing with new UBC compliant railing with historic detailing. 5) New wood skin detailing applied over concrete - e - v~ 4:t *: wall. 6) Remove existing skylight and patch roof to match existing. 7) Existing parking space replace with new landscaping. 8) 330 Lake Ave. porch detailing exemplary of the detailing presented below. Cl=E -, k a . 4 . - I : I Â·*f & ..... 27 2 , I , 111 t .. . -9-2- < - 44~m-,ALF /4. , ~ ~ ~ . - . k 1/7.t 4)90 6 4-Tf , 4-..it 1 7 - . t Â· ' 4 3 - 1 E, i '. 1 i Â·14 .r k.y . i, if ' . 4/.L 1. P~*4 / 1 L Â«bRES=SREX<= 1 - 11 -*- *1 --- * 1 1- -# ..mu ~LgiLI/# - I */ A. -4-- 1 '- 4 4 .. - 1 1 1 . 1 14 -L 4 .4 407 : t. 1 e 5 4 f .% $ aft aL- Â·Â·ind ' - .. /17. r - , 2441 ' ./. 91, '. 01.Victorian changes.HPC.lwdp.doc Page 2 6/17/2003 1 .m 23400 Two Rivers Rd. # 44 â€¢ P.O. Box2239 T 970 927-8473 1 11'KIN WARNER [)1Â·S[(iN & PI ANNING. LLC Basalt, Colorado 81621 F 970 927-8487 East Elevation 1) Dining room door replaced with new door. Detailed to minimize appearance. *See attached east elevation for A ' door detailing. 2) Light fixture to be relocated above door. *See A, 1 - attached east elevation for location. 3 ' 14 3) Existing windows remain as shown in photo. 4) Gas furnace box and flue removed and replaced with i -.6 a high-efficiency boiler. New vent path via north 64 foundation wall. . 7,/1 2 I 4 i I 4 . :* 0 M 5) Roof"hole" will be patch to match existing roof * 6) Dormer to be replaced with smaller scaled and lower dormer. *See attached east elevation. 49Â· 7) Living room windows replaced with new windows that match existing dining room windows. 3 444, >142 I *-44: *-- >i 8) Fireplace flue vent minimized. Roof"hole" patched to match existing. *ZA 4*3. 01.Victorian changes.HPC.lwdp.doc Page 3 6/17/2003 1 I 1///// 1 031 Bill 111 /1 1 2~ c) 9 */ n, 1 1 1 1 y -7 44 01 1 1 / i i / -01 / A'j M - - - _- --t '/ v/-/1 r I 1 1 ,/ ./ C f f.:*...''Y:, 'ya /4 /4/ 1 1 1, C; , 1,,~ / //1 1/1 // / f 1 1 Â«r-1 11 I Ill 1 1<. / / // /11/0 131< 1 31 11 $ i / /1 - b ~ ; ~ f 'j \ 1(-AE>H ' d ft. / C ADDIT>6N - IEXISTING -0 ./ / / 1 \ / VICTORIAN -~) / ./ 1 1/ 1 (1 =L / $ 4 -1 1 1 / /94 1 1 1 1 / 1 / A _119 1 1 1 9,\:.1 16' 1 , \# ' 1 , 11 $ 1 NJ 1 , 1 1/ \ I /8 . WEST STAIRS TO BE '1 1 REMOVED / / 1 01 /r----7 I / 11 111111111 >40 11.1111. 1 11 1 1 1 1 \f 1 1 f (/ 1 1 1 01 / EKIDTING ( EXISTING GUEST , / ~ pre'E & '\ 1 - PARKING - | ..1 1,1 p..1. 1 14( ., ~ TO DIE REMOVED ~ \/ / 23 \ 4Â» -1 1 - 1 / 14. SFRING STREET- YOU~DDITION - SITE FLAN ./GALE 1:10 - 551.86 eq ft ijt1:1;1i1j1!1;l;1ilI/1/;1, f EXIET\46- .Â·///ad/44/,/,/0.//, //~, - - - )--,42:1ill/lii/fille/j'///illi?f FROFERTY ilililil!111:lilil!/.11'1'i. LINE 1111'gli'jill'llillillilli' leifilliI'lil!'11{11/'111; ' ' 1[-1 M0w*izil.ki~ itillill!/i/ilili, Nililil.!1, ZERO LOT LINE : 5 03505 DEVELOFMENT Ne/l// '1,1 1111! FROFOSED - b 11111!11 LOT LINE - - EXISTING ililill'jil ADJUSTMENT VICTORIAN --) //Of~ 050 0./45 - - 1 3<6~ EXISTING n -1-1 1 "7777///// 'ljilil'lil FROFERTY u/ilÂ¢lf'!1 LINE .2111!111 1, 'il!1!1-li. .All'llilli . 9.11:lililif FROFOSED 'l j'ili /i///11/l/1!/i/f/f '!/f/! RI1i1:Iiitf:jiftl:t1 PROPERTY , Â· 7 ill /l 0~~<~f'~5~~f[ ''>41: /diliNLJ,Lij i///lill. SWAF WITH 1 0 WEST STAIRS TO BE REMOVED 4 / /-77 r /1(VA VAAk 1,1/ /, /,i / / / /, NEIGHDOK \ /0~~04*ped@â‚¬1%40*0 \ 551.86 51 ft '// /7 MA,1 , ty/'/ rf , th >'~F~>-ty 7 y 1 11 1[ It 1111 11 lILI. /Y A,/w/x/x/x/2/.c-,x/, 000Â»tf/*?rÂ»Â»rÂ«4 NEW FKOFEKTY LINE FROM ADVERSE .Li,*iâ€ž* . PrgED 93435%151Â«59Â« 9 7 Yexp/,19<67 72/7/ POSSESSION ., ~ ADJU STMENT.+345Â«..pf:54&Â©N007Â£7/2.// Ililtil'll'11111'11'Tki,j|f uNLANHUHANNAL, N. 5FRIfÂ·JO STREET ~ YOU~DDITION - BITE FLAN ..GALE 1.10 7/1 Al I k~fr im 1, 1, 5-3" , let,n 1 4 / 101.5 E JF 4 b ./ 1- 99 1-,1 8 [1-~fl fi--,~fl N 1 K 11 ~=4h====44.1 - 0 OFFICE GARAGE ----- jr ~ \\1 404 6 r--1 iE N V m Â« -\/trf'kir ILAID I IINU7 11 11 1 f: 7 1 1 VICTORIA.N 1/ - 1 1 r A MUD ROOM ... 7 ' E. 1.1 1 11 = 111 1 = 1 9 <t\\\>ti-----f- 99 100 11 1 1 *If L_11 " li 1 4-6 11 1 91111 3% 0 POWDER h.:3 - . 1 0 Lpt - ts) RWEEE R 1 Â» *j R E -1~ -- .li-Llil-4- .Er===~4~ill-9 ......... 0 -1-- -- Ot, mli , 4.-2 1/21 / Â£' -0 1'Â£ 4 1 -- U , i I'VI,Al Al 1 I\/El 21 Ak "l . L -,L- i L./ \Â£ I ar,157 ~ juni_- J/16'=1,-C)' 26 * 711" 9 0-1 . 1 / 9 1 r- ------1--1 111 11 4 l' IIi 'i 1 1, 111 -1 -\- 1 11 1 1.1 1 1,1 Ell 1 / 13 1111120 - 'I / IVI,AER-9 --J ~11 1 A 11 i% 1 IT Il DEDE.OOM =Ii 1 / 1 1 1 <i--- 1 11 1 " 1 \ =1 11 1 11 1 111 11 1 11= 11 1 M 11 1 - w OLOSE+ Z 1 / 1 3 + 11 !11 l 115 1 111 1 Â»- 77 11 1 14 f 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 94 1 1 1 6 1 1 r--F 1 013 4 /1 I 6 /991 C I - BATH ' 11 ki ' ID/11 9 1 i _1 1 0 v L I ~~ I - 1-\ - 1 1 0 '1/ 1 1 1 -// 1 1 ------- - ... R In .6 Il I ]08.5 1 4-t- 1 - 1 - 1 - /// 1 11 1 / liE ' 1 ' r -*-,2.7 L 1- 1 i OFFICE 1 ~ ~ Ill El ~ 1 1 <- M I 1-- L- 1 1 \41\ I) 1 2 I l 1 0 16 VI lili-1 - =41 1 4- 11 17-8 1/2" 0 80-3 1/2" 91 . 11 41 \ L- ROOF ABOVE ROOF OF ADDITION EXISTI!*3 VICTOKIAN 112252 1 N\/Ul PI Akl U 1 i L_ J \ - 1- 7 L i... 1 1_/ '1 N 1,-L = 1/14,1.-n/V; m .. f- --- V.- Kusnt* UMBUGA ne-' - - )7}ETÂ» i- 1 - /-44Â«Â·rÂ·Â· i ' jf ALI 673 Â¢1 , Â¥n PR IC i - zomp - ~ tili, , I ~~212221.~- - -Â·- \ 9 p/Ht /9 . / r - i ... . 1 --- -- Bil 2 4-2 1 1--- -. -.----*- ---- ---- - . .T /9 1.ifit , i .. 1 , I . 1 -- - ----- --- --- + -- - . H 11111 ' __--i_LEI[ t-- ---- 12===== 1 -11 4 . 1 - 1 1 r '! Flfh 1 1-1 11 11 L . ---- 4 1 1.1 //1 1 91 1 1 t"tur :Â·'Â·aÂ·Â·Â·Â·~0 "1 trt' '-r'., ' ' +14 W,tr , .)1Â£ ~ 1 2.977/00,â‚¬/5 #EW \Nial*#-- 11,1 1,1111 :i.'11 111'11111 111 111 98 REft.464 - - - r ' fill;: 1-1 #LIt /4OPERN 230'C- .04 y tw,u=W l 'It< _ f /r.jol I i 11, ic,i /6, t, t- 4 / /2 '-i;iA]l.~111;jub 1 li ];I.t~ ~ - j,.A1U14_ji .tij ~ .:, Â· Â·Â·.~ ~ 1 1 9. . : || ~|~ ~/.~||~A:.UT SPO<* ; 1.----m-----------------------W---a-1-1.---------------------------------------1 New 1 Connector I Non-Historic I Historic WEST ELEVATION ~i. SCALE: 3/16 "- 1' nli .. .BUSFNA O>den-uwa-Tee ty'ETAL .-2:tilfliati*&2 i ..F- . : Â·y-:g***p m3~2iE~E~~2m2~~m~~E~m- -i.~r~.t~*1 1.1 - - -- 4 'â‚¬â‚¬ , -AL:..15 NORTH ELEVATION - SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0" .. f *KusnNG- 6Â¢Wn-90Â·ATEP 4 7=.22==5-LIT:,--'%-/~r-F--#--=====C--1---=2----2==i=~=/ - i ry'â‚¬7-R c._ , #4-464%' -- ------- ---*.- -* I ...-I +- 1 - --.'------Il j . , 9 - 06;.w LE.D - -Â·~ 8*ATING- HIP BoAF te ./ '.<2".192*44J p NOTC,H - - mil. 20 19 - Â»4- 1 2 l --i c\4 4 . .1 ' - M â€ž 6 \ -"01 ~39â‚¬+CE 1, III 7 1 1 . ~'.9 .h 1 - 1.1 1 - 4 760 \ 1 11 B 11 :1 11 11 ': - -- 1 iiI 'i . T-.Eli r. a T --- - 4 -st 2 :4 - hÂ·- -- - --- -- 342121- - - r it JÂ». 1.1 , I / 0â‚¬676,2/2 i . 1PRv i 4Â· râ‚¬ MA'ED Â¢ --- - - - ,/ ir V Â· 1.. 24*8&2 y . _ .._--- - - 12#/74:'POW.â‚¬ y=LL\ --*-1-I-.--..$*-.1------*.*- ~- --.9-.1---.- . 1% 6 990\14 - .1 + '1 1.9.....i~.Â»r - â‚¬ 1 1 11 5 1 i i Historic Non-Historic tonnectot New EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16 " = 1'-9" 0-0 .. - *US7.11+ dÂ¢$42446Â·A TEQ 'Pena L 2-â„¢- Ihift,*/ Â· ~ *: Â·1- .U -1 1.7 7 ' I ' / . 2/ # 1 1 . I , r.Â·p 4!61 .. r f 1 â€¢ .t 4 - .. 4.1 :Z ... ...UG* b . '..IyÂ».. ..... ...6.- 0,973.* JSAF *' UTL?. 0. .1 - . r. /2,4// 1 4 : -*--1- 3 ,- 1 Z 4 E.-1- i - -s ~, - - - 4 .V -I -- I ./ &:Â· 2~DA: . v.*.'7. I ~'Â·C . - 1 1 '21 3 Lare/V , 0 N /+43/7, P i 31* = K *7 5==? L * .MI 4-1 1 g.fimmm t Itt Â£ C Â¢.*44.t i 9'Â·Â·Â·.111:,-u~ 93'/ I~ C Â·/W f W-Â·t 3 â‚¬4 - ~ I 1 -- - 4 4 SOUTH ELEVATION *A SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0" .. -:8dG!_44~ ~ 1.im-'RIV~* :/. ~e.