The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19980923AGENDA ASPENIUSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 23, 1998 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , il -4- 5:00 I. Roll call and approval Of August 5, Sept; 3rd minutes Me & n'C- 0(~' 'Ddil II. PUBDIC COMMENTS III. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS IV. Disclohute ofihonflict ofinterest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS 5:10 A. 9201 W:Haliam St. , Off-Site Relodition, Public Hearing 4 - O 30 B. 7353W: Bleeke~%St 4 Conceptual,*Partial Demolition, On=Site 14644 04/9- Â·2 â‚¬ i I Relocation, Variances, Public Hearing continued Rom Sept. 9, 1997 6:15 C. 240 Lake Aven al, FAR bonus, Public Hearing 7:00 D. 510 E. Hyman - Elks Plaza 7:20 E. Adjourn PROJECT MONITORING ger Moyer 303 E. Main, Kuhn ISIS 514 N. First Susan Dodington 712 W. Francis 918 E. Cooper, Davis Meadows Trustee and Tennis townhomes 234 W. Francis 203 S. Galena, Gucci Melanie Roschko 516 E. Durant ISIS 706 W. Main Suzannah Reid 303 E. Main, Kuhn 702 W. Main, Pearson 218 N. Monarch, Zucker 414 N. First 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis Mary Hirsch Meadows, Trustee and Tennis townhomes 420 W. Francis Street 203 S. Galena, Gucci 920 W. Hallam Gilbert Sanchez 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis 414 N. First 303 E. Main 520 E. Hyman Jeffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis, Mullin 414 N. First 701 W. Main 101- 105 E. Hallam 920 W. Hallam aqi; 0 4-,t /9-Â·L-- 'di Friedland 420 W. Francis Street 712 W. Francis Street 514 N. First VIIDNCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TOFINAL: 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26, 1999 ' 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 13,1999 214 E. Bleeker Street (Greenwood), expires August 12, 1999 920 W. Hallam Street, expires August 12, 1999 0 0 EXHIBIT ~7~- ~94.3-9 0 MEMORANDUM 1-1 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission TIIRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deputy Directoruk~ FROM: Mitch Haas, Plannerll ~ RE: 920 West Hallam Street Off-Site Relocation and Partial Demolition of a shed. Parcel ID # 2735-123-03-003. DATE: September 23, 1998 SUMMARY: On August 26, 1998 the applicant received Final HPC approval (by a vote of 7-0) for their proposed Significant Development of the historic structure on Lot B, 920 West Hallam Street. Conceptual approval was granted on August 12, 1998, by a vote of 4-0. The applicant then received a 500 square foot FAR bonus on September 9, 1998, by a vote of 6-0. At Conceptual review, the applicant did not yet have a receiving site for the shed proposed for off-site relocation and the request was, thus, continued indefinitely. The shed was originally used as a concession stand at Aspen Mountain but was moved to its current location in the 1940s. The applicant has now procured a commitment from the Aspen Skiing Company to move the concession stand back to Aspen Mountain. Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the Partial Demolition as proposed, and approval of the Off-Site Relocation with conditions. APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, represented by Glenn Rappaport. LOCATION: The easterly 7,616 square feet (Lot B) of 920 West Hallam Street; 920 West Hallam Street is legally described as the east 1/2 ofLot M, all of Lots N, O and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium-Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. LOT SIZE: The fathering parcel contains a total area of 11,048 square feet (.25 acres). As a result of the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption, Lot A contains 3,432 square feet, and Lot B contains 7,616 square feet. ALLOWABLE FAR: The allowable FAR on Lot B ofthe 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split is 2,852 (2,352 plus a 500 square foot FAR. bonus). This leaves an allowable FAR of 1,850 square feet on Lot A. REVIEW PROCEDURE: This Off-Site Relocation requires a public hearing, but the Partial Demolition request does not. These reviews combine for a one-step process, and the HPC has final authority over these requests, provided City Council does not appeal their decision within 14 days. 1 STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.72.020(D). Standards for Review of Off-Site Relocation According to John Skiff, son of the former owner of the property, when the concession stand (shed) was moved to the site in the 1940s, it was initially placed further back on the property, closer to West Francis Street. In the 1950s, when that area was subdivided and sold, the Skiff s moved the shed a second time to where it now resides, closer to their house but within the alley right-of-way, and built a small shed-roofed addition for use of the structure as a chicken coop. Off-Site Relocation approval is requested to move the small shed structure to a site on Aspen Mountain. As part of the requested relocation, the shed-roofed addition to the original structure would be removed. No approval for off-site relocation requests shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all ofthe following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and Staff Response: The applicant explains that many options to try to reuse the shed on site have been explored, but none have proven workable. The driving force behind requesting off-site relocation is two-fold: first, the site development plans for the property utilize all of the available FAR. without room for the shed; and, second, if kept on site, the shed would be "lost" in the back of the property behind all the other building, thereby severely diminishing its presence and value to the community. In terms of making the shed a useful part of the overall site development plans, it is too small to be used as a garage stall, but too large to be accommodated on the site solely for storage purposes. Consideration has also been given to leaving the shed at the end of the alley as a neighborhood gardening/storage shed; however, maneuvering of vehicles and City snow plowing equipment in the area would be problematic under such a scenario. Perhaps more importantly, the shed is not original to this property and relocation to a site that is more closely related to the structure's history would seem like the most appropriate method of preserving its historic significance. Consequently, the applicant has determined, and staff concurs, that the best preservation method for the shed is to relocate it to a ski industry related site in town. The shed is not original to the subject property as it was once located at the base of the ski mountain where it served as a concession stand. The applicant proposes to move the concession stand/shed back to Aspen Mountain and, thus, reestablish its historic association with skiing in Aspen. However, accomplishing this will require that the shed, first, be temporarily moved to and stored at the Buttermilk Ski Area. The shed would then be moved to a location on the Aspen Mountain Ski Area by the end of July, 1999. Staff recommends a condition that the specific location on the Aspen Mountain Ski Area be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing 2 neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation; and Staff Response: As mentioned in response to the standard immediately above, the applicant has determined, and staff concurs, that the best preservation method for the shed is to relocate it to a ski industry related site in town. The applicant has found an appropriate alternative location for the building, as opposed to demolishing it. The shed is not original to the site or to the neighborhood, and the two significant structures on the site would be preserved as freestanding buildings with minor modifications, thereby strongly aiding the efforts to preserve the historic character of the property and its neighborhood. 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts Of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and Staff Response: The information required by this standard will be submitted by the applicant with their building permit application. 4. A relocation planshallbe submitted, including posting a bond or otherfinancialsecurity with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (ifrequired) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and Staff Response: The applicant will submit the relocation plan and financial security with their building permit application. The receiving site shall be required to be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Staff recommends that the bond be held until the shed has been permanently located. 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptable letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Staff Response: As mentioned above, the applicant intends to relocate the structure to a site which is relevant to the building's history (i.e., ski related). Staff finds the receiving site of Aspen Mountain to be compatible with the nature of the structure to be moved. The staff recommendation of approval shall be contingent upon receipt of a letter from the Skiing Company demonstrating a willingness and ability to receive the structure and locate it on their property. Section 26.72.020(C). Standards for Review of Partial Demolition Partial Demolition approval is requested to remove the shed-roofed addition to the concession stand structure. Section 26.72.020(C) states that "no approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are 3 met:" (Standards are provided in indented italics with staff responses immediately following). 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure or the structure does not contribute to the historic signifcance of the parcel; and Staff Response: The partial demolition is requested to remove a lean-to structure that is not original to the shed and is not historically significant. Its removal is necessary to restore the building to its original appearance. 1. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significantfeatures and additions. Staff Response: As explained above, the proposed partial demolition would remove only non-original elements of the structure and, therefore, limits the impacts on the historic significance of the building. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. 0 Staff Response: No new additions would be made to the structure. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the Partial Demolition and Off-Site Relocation requests with the following conditions applicable to the Off-Site Relocation: 1. With the submittal of a building permit application, a structural report shall be provided by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, a relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. The-retoeatien -plan shall allow for storing of the structure at the Buttermilk Ski Area thieugh-July-of- 1 999, provided the structure is moved to a speci:fie4egation-en-AspenÂ·Meuntain-en-ox beÂ£0~=Auges*4,=4999. The selection of a specific location for placement of the structure shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development pirector, and the financial security shall be held until such time as the structure has /' been finally and permanently located. 0 44 1-_ 4 0 3. 1". g~Erval *all be con..t of -ater-frfm the Skiing â‚¬0?ilpany demonsuacing-R wilfingnesk to receive the structhre*d locate it bIUME-Preperiy. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 920 West Hallam Street application for Partial Demolition and Off-Site Relocation of the shed once used as a ski area concession stand with the conditions recommended in the Community Development Department staff memo dated September 23, 1998." EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" - The applicant's submittal 0 0 5 -. .A.. 1 920 w. hallam September 9, 1998 City of Aspen Mitch Haas, Planner 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street Land Use Application Dear Mitch; With regard to the Off-site Relocation request for the project at 920 W. Hallam Street, attached is a letter from the Aspen Skiing Company committing to move the concession stand structure back to Aspen Mountain. As part of this relocation, a shed addition to the original structure will be removed. According to John Skiff, son of the former owner of the property, when the concession stand was moved to the site in the 1940's, it was initially placed back further on the property, nearer to West Francis Street. In the 1950's, when that area was subdivi(led and sold, the Skiffs moved the shed a second time, closer towards their house, and built the addition for chicken coop. The Off-site Relocation standards have been addressed previously in the 920 W. Hallam Street application. As an amendment to the Partial Demolition aspect of the application, we offer the following responses to the review standards. 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The area proposed to be removed is not original to the structure and is not historic construction. It must be removed in order to restore the building to its former appearance as a concession stand. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance ofthe structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The addition does not contribute to the historic significance of the structure. It obscures the original entry into the building and the sign board listing the items available at the concession stand. It also obscures the character of the original roof, which had large roof overhangs, presumably to protect people from the weather while they made purchases at the stand. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: No additions will be made to the building in place of what is being removed. - The relocation of this shed from this alley back to Aspen Mountain has been an important aspect of the 920 W. Hallam Street application. We are pleased that the Aspen Ski Company will once again use the structure and that the public will be able to enjoy it. Sincere~ZkÂ¢S' /._-/1- X~en Historic Cottages, LLC 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 D ; .' 2 i.; 2LO425 f D 'cf -2 36 14:23 NO. Uub r. UL 4 r=m A SPHN SKIING COMPANY tze=J 0 September 16,1998 Mitch Hass, Planner City ofAspon 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mitch: - When appropriate, Aspen Skiing Company will use the original Aspcn Mountain concession stand now located al 920 West Hallam. Our preference will be to use this building asa facility on Aspen Mountain. We did not include this in our list of fheilities for the recently adopted Aspen Mountain Master Plan and we will seek an administrative amendincutto permit this use. Webelieve that thisisause whichis quilc consistont wilh the history ofthe structure and its use can be permitted with a minorplan amendment. IfI can provide more infonnation, please call me. Sincerely, 0 - A- f P - 6/1 64d&9 764,%0 William G. Kane Vice Plpaident Planning ana Devempmeni a= .... 12. 0,4-Â· CO .612 970.923.1220 - Ar 970.923.48,3 EXHIBEZZ~ APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, represented by Glenn Rappaport 1-1 ~ 9-2-3-9 F LOCATION: 920 West Hallam ACTION: Partial Demolition and Off-Site Relocation Standards for Partial Demolition: Pursuant to Section 26.72.020(C)), no approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds all ofthefollowing standards are met: Standard 1: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration, or rehabilitation of the structure. Standard 2: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Standards for Review of Off-Site Relocation: No approval for an off-site relocation shall be granted unless HPC finds that aU of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptable letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. 1 EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Interim Community Development Direc FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ~' ~ RE: 735 W. Bleeker- Landmark Designation, Conceptual Review, Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation, Variances, Residential Design Review- Public Hearing (Continued from September 9, 1998) DATE: September 23, 1998 SIJMMARY: HPC has held a worksession on this property, made two site visits, and held conceptual reviewÂ·hearings on July 22 and August 12. At these meetings, the applicant was directed to revise the proposed project in order to retain more of the existing structure, physically detach the existing unit and new unit from each other, and maintain the current orientation of the existing house. A revised proposal has been submitted to address these points. The applicant requests landmark designation, conceptual review approval, partial demolition, and on-site relocation approval, as well as variances. Planning and Zoning Commission approval is also needed for the two detached houses on a 6,000 square foot lot, for two ADU's (one in the basement of each house), and for a waiver of one parking space. As part of the redesign of the proposal, the applicant has eliminated the need for a site coverage variance. However, setback variances which were not needed initially are required by the new design. A new notice was created for this meeting. The public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled for October 6th. APPLICANT: Drew Dolan, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. LOCATION: 735 W. Bleeker St., Lots A & B, Block 18, R-6 zone district. HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community: 1 rEl/\ do 1_3 A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. Response: This structure is a good example of housing built in Aspen in the late 1800's. It has a typical floor plan, gabled roof, a front porch which has been enclosed, and detailing which was common to these buildings. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: At one time, there were many miner's cabins in this neighborhood. There are several others located along West Bleeker Street, and several similar small houses along Main Street, behind the building. Staff believes that the preservation of these small houses is important to maintaining the character of the area. E. Communio; Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. It is located on a prominent corner at 7th and W. Bleeker (southeast corner) and is surrounded by several mature evergreen trees and a white picket fence. The structure exemplifies an earlier era of Aspen architecture, and is representative of miner's cottage vernacular. Staff finds that the structure is eligible for landmark status as it meets criteria B, D, and E. 2 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The applicant's initial proposal for this property was to demolish a large part of the existing building, move the house so that it would face South Seventh Street, and create 0 a duplex and two ADU's on the site. The HPC gave direction to revise the proposal and the applicant has responded to those comments. The project has been revised so that more of the existing house is retained, the house maintains its placement on Bleeker Street and is moved just slightly forward, a relatively small addition is made to the old house, and a new, completely detached unit is proposed behind it. Staff finds that the concept has improved significantly. The proposal for the historic house now includes retaining all of it except for an addition on the east side of the building. As stated at the last meeting and at the most recent site visit, staff believes that this addition was built before 1904 and appears on the Sanborne map (attached), although somewhat modified from its earlier appearance. As a policy, HPC has generally required that all additions to a historic building which are at least fifty years old are to be retained. Ifthis were required ofthe 735 W. Bleeker project, than the addition that would likely be requested would have to placed behind the historic building, probably eliminating the option to keep the two units detached from each other. For that reason, staff is willing to support removal of the current addition if what is constructed in its place is appropriate. The applicant shows a kitchen extension and single stall garage with a master bedroom suite above as the proposed addition. The resulting FAR for the house is 1,403 square feet (plus 0 a 250 square foot garage), so that the addition is approximately 655 square feet larger than the current building. The drawings reviewed at the August 12, 1998 meeting, along with 3 the minutes of that meeting are attached. At that time the direction recommended by staff was as follows: â€¢ Look at ways to lower or eliminate the second floor pop up on the old house. â€¢ Replace the windows at the porch on the front of the old house with a historically appropriate window. Eliminate the porch railing. â€¢ Look at varying materials on the new house. â€¢ Meet with the Parks Department regarding tree removal. â€¢ Staff is in support of the setback variance, partial demolition, and on-site relocation, and Ordinance 30 variances if the above issues are addressed. Revised drawings have been submitted to address these concerns. In regard to the historic house, the addition has been redesigned and simplified. The height of the addition has dropped by several feet. This has been accomplished in part by flattening the pitch of the roof on the new addition, which staff finds is not as compatible with the historic house as a more steeply pitched roof is, however the drop in height is significant and will preserve the appearance of the historic house particularly from the street front view. The windows in the new addition should be primarily double hung to match those in the original house. The applicant is proposing to reopen the front porch on the old house, which will be a significant improvement. The front windows have been changed from the last review to address the staff concern that a more historically appropriate double hung window be placed in this location, however, staff recommends that only one double hung, of a more tall and narrow proportion be installed per the photos of other historic houses that were supplied at the last meeting. The proposed new railing on the porch has been eliminated. A window should be added on the first floor, south elevation so that the garage area is more in character with the house. In terms of the new unit, staff found that the previous design was generally acceptable and recommended some variations in wall materials to tie the building in with the historic house better. The applicant has subsequently made a number of changes to the new house. A mix of materials are now shown as requested, however staff recommends against the choice of brick since it is not present on the old house, and also recommends against the large brick chimney mass on the street facing (Seventh Street) facade, since this is an element which is not compatible with the miner's cottage style. The new unit has increased in height, windows have been added which violate the "volume" standard of the "Residential Design Standards," the windows have all become multi-paned, a side porch has been removed and the front door no longer faces the street. Staff finds that all of these changes decrease the compatibility of the new house with the existing house. The applicant should be directed to revise the current design to meet these concerns or return to the previous design. Staff and the HPC have asked for information which shows the two units in comparison to each other, such as elevations or a model, but it has not been provided yet. Staff is concerned that although the buildings may appear architecturally compatible on paper, the 4 height of the new house must not overwhelm the historic home. The applicant has committed that a model will be provided for the September 23rd meeting. The site plan has improved greatly from the original proposal, which had the two buildings attached to each other. From the information provided on the survey, it appears that the large trees at the front of the property will be protected, but several trees which are interior to the site will be removed to make way for the new construction. The applicant should contact the Parks Department as soon as possible to begin discussing what their requirements will be. A sideyard setback variance is needed on the west side of the new house. Although the applicant is providing a five foot setback from the property line, which is the typical minimum requirement, a corner lot requires a setback of 6'8" from the property line. To meet the required distance between buildings, the new house has also been pushed back 5', requiring a rear yard setback variance of 5' and a combined front and rear setback variance of 5'. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: The character of the neighborhood is a mix of both mining cottages and large newer second homes with lots of glass. The applicant has revised this proposal so that the scale of the historic house is preserved and the project will be an appropriate and successful infill in the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: By maintaining the old house in its original orientation and very close to its original location, and by taking most of the mass that could be added to it and placing that in a detached home, the applicant is protecting the building as a representation of mining era housing. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff has previously suggested some ways that the applicant could restudy the character of the proposed addition in order to achieve an even greater preservation of the architectural character of the house. The applicant has responded by revising the design to lower the ridge height and simplify the design ofthe new addition. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. 5 Response: The applicant has reduced the area that is proposed to be demolished to an addition which appears to have been at least partly constructed before 1904. As described above, given the overall approach to the project, staff is in support of this partial demolition if the replacement construction is compatible with the house. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The area to be demolished is not original. It may have significance in that it is an old addition and all changes to the house which are more than fifty years old are thought to have some importance as evidence of how the house has changed over time. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is discussed in detail under the conceptual review standards. ON-SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the.best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: Staff believes that on-site relocation is probably the best approach if the intent is to excavate a basement. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Said report will be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The relocation plan and bond will be a condition of approval. 6 ORDINANCE 30 Previously, the applicant had shown a lightwell near the front of the historic house, which required a waiver from the Residential Design Standard related to lightwells. The lightwell has been relocated to the side of the house to eliminate the need for a variance, however staff has determined that no openings, for the lightwell or the stairwell will be allowed in this east sideyard setback area by the UBC. The applicant will need to address this issue as soon as possible. STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: Staff is in support of the project, and feels that the applicant and HPC are very close to an acceptable solution, but there are numerous issues which must be resolved prior to conceptual approval. The areas to be addressed are: l. HPC must find that the flattening ofthe roofpitch on the addition to the historic house is the appropriate solution to lowering the height ofthat addition. 2. The windows in the new addition should be primarily double hung to match those in the original house. A window should be added on the first floor, south elevation so that the garage area is more in character with the house. 3. Only one double hung window of a more tall and narrow proportion shall be installed at the front porch area ofthe old house. The front porch shall not have a railing. 4. Eliminate the use of brick on the new house since it is not present on the old house, and also eliminate the large brick chimney mass on the street facing (Seventh Street) facade, since this is an element which is not compatible with the miner's cottage style. 5. Restudy the new house to address the concerns discussed above; namely height, windows which violate the "volume" standard of the "Residential Design Standards," multi-pane windows, elimination of the side porch, and relocation of the front door away from the street. 6. Demonstrate with a model that the height of the new house will not overwhelm the historic home. 7. Contact the Parks Department as soon as possible to begin discussing what their requirements with regard to tree relocation or removal will be. 8. A west sideyard setback variance of 6'8, " a rear yard setback variance of 5' and a combined front and rear setback variance of 5' are appropriate assuming that HPC finds that the above issues have been sufficiently addressed. 9. Recommend landmark designation finding that the property meets criteria B, D, and E. 10. Address the UBC issue with the proposed lightwell and stairwell on the east side of the old house. 11. At building permit submittal, demonstrate that the structure is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting by submitting a structural report by a licensed engineer or a plan drawn by the housemover demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation and the protection methods that will be used for the relocation. 7 0 12. At building permit submittal, post a bond or letterof credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Exhibits 1. Staff memo dated September 23, 1998 2. Sanborne Map 3. Minutes ofAugust 12,1998 4. Revised application 5. Drawings of the old house and new house from the August 12, 1998 review 0 8 . *0*Na, . *&"AW./I.W.yrn"84/$#//#/#./01-~- . - --; I--- - - --I-- W. .. 01â€¢ 11. U. 1 - 73Â£.,Â·01.~9?Â¥.CM't/#Illip 1/ 1 'Â®1.â‚¬Â«12: 34.Â·33- A- i -- 1-, D ~ rl D* 1 '717 8 ..A 11 . 4- 1/ Al 84 726 7/2 m 3. EEKER 5uuja- 47/ar., 0 0 ke SO-Â« .34<-) 78 719 rT'5-1 /1 Z r/'TL / /1 t- IT-~--1 MIx 21)* .2=i: - 0 1 94 . 3 Z (0101 ' L- !4/ 11. 1. 4. C. D. E. F. G. 91. 9. "21 4 Z /X, 1 71 Ty V 1 - 1 11 18 6-ihed. */ o 1 gel 1}>4 Â£11 1 3,<E 3>< 341 R. S. K. L. M. M. o. R Q. R. S. 571 --E== /0 1 8 9,1 ~ D f -1- - ID. jR [fl L / D , r'7-7 , I ) 4 19 2, , 7. 4 1 810 7211 714Â· 72 <~~~~ IAIN @' 4 25~ t. 29 75 7ff . 101 - , 0--7 01 1 / l=-4 -71=r-7-7 ~ [LE / ., 111 1 D 0 10 - 0 9 D* D-77 D. D .1 -L- * 1 Â£3 MIL Il 'o U.1 -7- LUL -7.4 Tri.- - 81 / -1 .W - 0 - -lIZE 1.21 5. C.. F D. E. .4 6. 11, 1 1/1 - -9/,-<0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12. 1998 separate and be addressed and be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority of the board. The houses are not getting any larger floor area wise, those numbers are set. It should not be applied to final because there is a false alliance. You are saying that you approve ofthe concept ofthe project. There is not uniminitiy to come me back with. Roger stated that the HPC should not get hung up on an elevation of a building which you can't see unless you climb up on the bridge and look down. If this is not approved we do not get to look at it. Melanie said the bonus is for an exemplary project. NEW MOTION: Mary made the same motion but stated D. the 500 square foot bonus is to be dealt with atfinal; second by Melanie. All infavor, motion carried 4-0. Roger, Mary, Susan and Melanie voted. 735 W. BLEEKER -CONCEPTUAL Sworn in: Andrew Dolan Charles Cunniffe Rich Pancake Ryan Hoffman Michelle Dolan Amy Guthrie presented and relayed at the last meeting the HPC gave the applicant strong direction to revise the proposed project and retain more of the existing structure and to detach the two units and to maintain the current orientation of the house. The request is for landmark designation, conceptual, partial demolition and on-site relocation. The majority of the existing house is being retained except for a side addition which appears to be historic but it has been altered. The house will remain in its place on Bleeker Street and a new detached unit is proposed behind it. The project has improved substantially since the last meeting. Staff can support the removal of the addition although it appears to be somewhat historic it also 7 - - 64~do A- 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12. 1998 0 appears to be the appropriate place for an addition given that two detached units are being done and the applicant cannot add on directly behind the house. Staff would like the HPC to look at lowering or eliminating the second floor addition. Staff supports opening up the front porch that is currently enclosed; however, they should replace the windows on the front of the house so that they are more like historic windows. Staff is also in support of the variances and the on-site relocation and Ord. #30 variances. Charles Cunniffe relayed to the HPC that the second story element is pulled back half the distance of the house as indicated on the north elevation. The addition allows more compatibility to the neighbor because it has a higher element that reflects the higher house to the east. The addition adds a room with a view of Aspen Mountain to the owner. The owner agreed to eliminate the railing on the porch and restore the windows. Susan requested that the old materials be reused in the new porch. Charles stated that they willlook at using the materials but staff was against 0 using old materials in new construction because that confuses what is old and new. Members had concern with the North elevation back gable height. Charles indicated that they could reduce the height two feet. They would loose windows on the side elevation but could do a popout dormer. At the same time the door on the front would need a window above it to accommodate the view. Mary relayed that the proposed solution is more acceptable for the HPC than a looming addition. Other members supported the ridge being lowered before granting conceptual. Members requested a site plan showing the two houses in order to see the relationship between the two houses. All members supported landmark designation. The size of the siding and scale of the trim on the new portions should not emulate the historic portions. The Board requested a model for the next meeting. Amy relayed that the applicant requested clapboard siding on the new 0 building and possibly another material should be added. 8 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12. 1998 MOTION: Mary moved to table conceptual development and the public hearing on 735 W. Bleeker until Sept. 9, 1998; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. MUSIC TENT - REFERRAL COMMENTS Bruce Berger relayed that the timing of this meeting is not appropriate as it conflicts with performances in the tent. Cindy Biniskey, Chief operating officer for the Aspen Institute. The submission is in keeping with the original intent of the SPA and as well as in keeping with the spirit intent ofthe mission ofthe Meadows. Dick Osur, relayed that he is involved with the Historical Society and gives walking tours and talks about the wonderful historical buildings. All things new are not bad. Jerry Gretskey relayed that it is most important that the music tent go ahead as quickly as possible that it is going to be a terrific contribution to the music, to the audience and to the town and all our visitors that come in the summer. She also stated that she is a registered voter. Sworn in were: John Doremus, Jon Busch, Bill Frazier, Eric Calderon, Lynn Harrell, Glenn Rappaport, Les Holst, Bob Blaich, Martin Flugh, Paul Kanter, Tony Paepcke, Bill Stirling, Jim Curtis, Don Erdley, Ruth Leon, Robert Harth. Stan Clauson, Community Development director relayed that there is an ongoing roll for the HPC to advise on matters of aesthetics with respect to the tent replacement. A few guidelines were established by staff: 1)Any new material should be consistent with the original bpen historic character of the tent. 2)The design shall continue to support visual and acoustical access to performances from outdoor seating and burms. Stan stated it would be most helpful for this referral to deal with matters of the nature of the material and appropriateness of the material and the design. 9 RECEIVED ATTACHMENT 2 AUG 2 - 1998 DIMENSONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM AorÂ·ur, rÂ·,â€ž...4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Applicant PKEd iÂ»LAA Address: 73â‚¬- rfiAT BLEEKE< ST. Zcne district . 2-(P Lot size: . 60.021 X /001 Existing FAR: Lo $44.9 Allowable FAR: 3, 4Â¥o Prcoosed FAR: . - 3,DAD , Exiszing net leasable (c6mmercai) :3 1 (1 NA. - Proposed net leasable (commerdai): NA Existing % of site coverage: 2 261 Prccased % cf site coverage: 1ll* Existing % of open space: M.& Praccsec to OT coen soace: - . fIA Existing maximum Meight: PEncical tica: /4 6 3" Accescr/ cicc: A/71 - Prcocsed max. height: Pr:ncical ttdc: 22 '- 2" Accesscr, tide: #,4 P=cosed 3% cr demciiticn: 2 9 7. Existing number of bearccms: 2 P.=ccsed number of bedrcoms: _ G Â· ~ -- Existing an-site parking spaces: * 2 Cn-site parking spaces recuired: (O 0 Settacks Existing: Minimum required: Prcocsed: kcrr. 15 t- OA Frcrm ) a t- 00 3-:cm ]R'-(9. Rear: 31'-O" Rear: ./0'-o# Rear: /3'-0" = Comcined Cambined Camcined Frcnt/rear: 59'-0 0 Fromirear.30'-0. Promirear.25'-00 Side: /9 L 00 Side: 1'--60 Side: 4 '- o ' Sice: // '-o" SdE. /104 - On Side: /0 '- e w Combined Combined Combined Sides: 30'-670= S ides: /5 L *4 Sices: / 5 (.0 0 Existing nonconformities or encicachments: NA_ Vanaticrts requested: W. SIDEVA[* be-rp,ci< OF /'-87' ,' egat 52790Â£4- NxipellÂ£ oP 61-04' I --demat*6- 96,4/2,5-- of G LO. I 4/gÂ«'AC; 160- DBE MNLE . , 1 f (HPC has the abiiity to vary the following requirements: setbads, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of uo to 500 sql site coverage variance up to 26, height variations underthe cottage infill program, parking waiven for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC. and O zone districts) 0 4 fllt do A-Â·Â· 4 1 1 EXHIBIT-1- APPLICANT: Drew Dolan 1 -U_- 1 LOCATION: 735 W. BIeeker ACTION: Significant Development (Conceptual), Historic Landmark Designation, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Residential Design Review. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet aUjbur of the development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Standards of review for partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that aU of the following standards are met: (Note: "Partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel). Standard 1: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration, or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Standard 2: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. B. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. ON-SITE RELOCATION Standards for review of on-site relocation: No approval for an on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the following standards have been met: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation, and The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting of a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. . HISTORIC LANDMARK (STANDARDS FOR DESIGNATION) c Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H", Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community. Historical importance. Architectural importance. Neighborhood character. Designer. Community character. 1 1 3 m - - m -- - - -- --------- - -- - r IiiÂ·-I- - -- - - I - Â»14 -- -- - ------ _ - ILE| 443-11%341: ~ ~1 ~ -Â»th - 4 -- - I _11 - -- --- -- ------ -- 0/ *C 0 1 -DC -r 20 2 - 413%40 - lot -Il-I- ION - - ......... 1 ON 6- I - 1 - 0 ---- Iml H3 11 111 'fo .. 0 Z ' -- -0 33 - 32 4-ju 20-f-ZE Â»liff -ff_ - - AAr 1/ '., - | |||||f~Â©~ trifc=62<EfifbE I l'1111 lillik .4 --211=/----02----2-3-- - IkÂ»9 \ - - - lili 0 | *defiEiI~- z , .. 14Â©415 - la/.H 2- - E 1 I .- -2~- 1 - - - -77 / 141:4 1 1 , , UEâ„¢11-1â„¢Â«fi6-~ ... 8% 80 1..................~ 1, ng 0991 1 \\All k 1& 4/r Â¥. r 'm]J T#gi~&&-153E~ZE -f-1 H-1----- 6:4 F A A - A J \1 _rlt[E - - - 1 - - luz=J '46241%(/2 4 06 ------- 13]031 ./1 JO-7 0 1 -OC 1 /jo r JOZ 1 1 0 0 .-1 2 t- ------- - 1. .â€¢- 70 , /, ./fiELEE-1- ION , 101 ,\ 1%11 /*9490 6~~ Illt -- / .. O 4 93-* 0 ilk- - - -- - -- 0 -Trfl i i FT-[4 -16[f--144*ELEÂ«of 11'1 m r r ~ Auk m / Â»yoff- < O -1 0 Z - ---1 Z Al 0 /=11 4 (-0 h (14 1 DOLAN RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 2 8 P 735 WEST BLEEKER ST. 520 EAST HYMAN AVE. â€¢ SURE 301 0 ASPEN, CO 81611 â€¢ TELE: 970925-5590 â€¢ FAX: 97[*25-5076 a. ASPEN, COLORADO 220 E COLORADO AVE ' THLURIDE, CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 970728-3738 â€¢ FAX 970128-9567 METAL ROOFING (11)111 HORIZONrAL NOI1VA313 Hin09 039 i I. 2 @4 0 1 1 1 1 IL- 14 -1 11 11 }; 7/-AN t.qi, 1 ' ..... - 1 3 377 -5,M -- 1 4 Vju\%/ '' Elit ' .... -- - 1 ; 1.- . -- A ;E l. ,/ 1 1,/ - . I. I ."I , ..9,4 1 1 - * - 42â€ž. -- 0 I *-- aÂ®E~Il I i i tti ' r ! i i i . ; . + m \ .. p 1 1 1 1 UNIT 1 - UNIT 1 - PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 01 4 a ,lf-=. - il li Il 16 N Ila -~,C 'r-2.J . i, C.__ 1 ./ + â€¢r-.r=lu_. 1 - 1--2.16 -- Â»Im. DRAWING u r-1- =rt - - t ~ -~ 11 1 l il i 111111111 -- *---*-.--Il. *I .. --4.L..2 1 1 1 ! JOB NO. 9836 - 11,11111Illit]11[_ ... .. .- -- -- --- i } ~ ; DATE 73-98 1 1 SHEE NO. ~ UNIT 1 - UNIT 1 - PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION (636. 43 5>24 i U k Â£37 PROPOSED SOLITH ELEVATION . A3.1 ; Sl)31!HZ)MV 3331NNAE) S31MVHD 3DNFIC]!S33 NV-10<1 9Â£05 524(US:xÂ¥4 . 0655-5260Â£6 1111 . 119!2 03'Nid&V . 11}E al!!15 . 3AV NWIU; 15Â¥* OZE '15 Ma>!3318 1S3AA Uuvdu LUJ 'N:Id e 6 . - . 6 . . . ... 4 ' 2- " - 72 1 . 4 .... ----- , ./ I - *4 15â‚¬1 lili/Aw'11 -- - 40 :7 -- 9 . ... + m. .Ir. , . - --Ilp,jill -- .. -- 40 . 10.1 - --- "- 61 1 E. - ----7gt311--2-~~ ... - UNIT 2 - UNIT 2 - PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 01 4 8 ~ - / r. . -- - - :* ''Â©4 *4>3Â·02-Â·~it. â‚¬Â·'12 1... 7 . - - Itt ./.11 -- .2 .. I -: -4-Â·ki-iÂ·~~9:.t Â·1 -3 Rt F: Â· t': 1 ---- - --..... -1 -.. 1.1.2 -- -11.El -- 1 2--Zt)/12: 4:=32,22;'4-fi-4--- ...1. 1-2- * .99:-4 -0 -FOR -3Â·-4,~-69 i C- /0/fAll. 94 - ' -- -Ilt4~11Â» -Â· Â· - .7--\L-_1 ' - 112 -7,111*A,1 - a â‚¬ Imm=U Â·.*ill.0-2,102...07-1...0 ......1 -- : Ils,ovnli . , 122!2- - / - "14.Alv47 / -* C 11*i=ZI r- 1~.-_-11-00 - Â·Â» ~ fya- -4 -a,'fÂ·,Â·.Â·6 -*f-Â·F-i, 11:1 432: t. - :-r. t UNIT 2 - PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVA11ON UNIT 2 - PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION A3.2 . ..6. 141, 3 % ~~ - -/11W ./11 Ill . JAV (RIVIUIU J ] th.Â£ (JU~HA.) 1(JJ 14 J,ISY S1031IHZ*!V 33=liNNnE) SE11*IVHD 33N3aISBH Ny]OCI 9205-5 260Â£6 :XW . 0695-SZ6Â¢1Â£6 lAi . 10!$1 (Il'NUSÂ¥ . Ull? 31109 . 1!AV NVWUI 15'bl OZE US N X3310 153/n EL . . â€¢ I. . .'.1.*4-2.3#ftit.,66'rffirÂ« f . 1/ WEST BLEEKER STREET + - 4-14-ig=alv,~21..., Â·Â·t ~r - *-* /04-- .22/r/1 / 4 7.1 -Â·*2*.*4:*'U d./ LEGEND 'AND .NOTES r Â·*:%24/58*.. 9 Â·. SLANTED TExT geÂ«nES RECORD :*081â€¢TICN . . -*Â»-+ 4421Â»2..9 Cix 1- BEARINGS BASED ON nE CITY 1-UENTS ON THE SOUTH 51DE OF BLOCK 18. N. 7/09'lly.. IIITImEST BLOCK CORNER DETERMINED BY BEARING BEARINe :WERSECTION FRON THE SOUTHIEST BLOCK CORNER AM) THE NORTHEAST M 'wÂ¥ CORNER BOTH CITY EfUENrS I FOU~ SURVEY Motaa,ENr AS DESCRIBED -98 -D -- 90te FIELD TO RECORD 9184 FIELD TO RECORD - N 7~06'22'E 0,50198.0 -* ~S 4198'059 0.17; 97.7 O WOOD FENCE -- N 75*09'It 41 270.09' -* -- 1 I CITY MONUMENT GO. 02' -9 SNOW ON 9â€¢0*) AT T l,ZE OF SURVEY 3/90 a SURVEY CONTROL POINT 531Â·.0 4 1 . No RECORD INFORMATION FURNISHED TO SURVEYOR NOR RESEARCH PREFORIED 1 PEAK- S, 7 K \ 31% 114CE: b'An.,,4 MM64#~D UTILITY BOXES 116.91 17AFIR TYP. --0 ts.o k :IL , -0 6. 11- 9% O -'MOLE C /1 0,1 - m 1 III : 1 CONTOURS ADDED 4/91 \R_ENTRY 1 â‚¬ 1 T. 100 0 11 1 1/2 STORY HOLISE 21) "735 .1 . 18.8 '+/- ll_5/ 0 1 1 4 0 + 1- . - 0 $ ~ 1WATER METER . .: 2---3.<--2-1- 14.0 ~ PORCH ~ H rl OUGHT C 110 8,+'- 2 L _ ==11 5 - 1 9 12~3 . AREA <arph 6.000 S. F. 0/- 4 B /\ m \ f' SEP 04 1Vt i BUILDING # -\JC c n //11 \.2-"W 1 - 605 0 100 L PIPES - PARKING ..100.7 100.9-1 3 75'09'1 19 60.02 0 0 EDGE OF PAVEMENT -40' -+ . 1 ID Rtlâ€¢ 101.0 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY ALLEY BLOCK 1 8 OF LOTS A AND B. BLOCK 18. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN COLORADO. A 101 2 CERTIFICATION 1. 4010111 NOWORTH HEREBY CERT IFY THAT THIS StmVEY EAS PLOTTED FRI FIELD NOTES OF A SURVEY 1*ROE UOER My SUPERVISION. . DATED THIS-152_DAY OF.-N~--1091Â· ~,0~ PREPARED BY SleNED: ~ g'* /091# ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEER'S INC. ~. ~ 9947 1~=~, 0$ no JO~ HOWORTH P. L. 9. 8,47 p.0. 90*h;?EP TO CULOR- LAW YOU 1:,sr Cm.,Ii -, UOIL ACTIoN -SEÂ» 1-1 e# ImT w 71112 St..7 4144..4\ =,Das Aprâ€¢* mi, 1,-r 91,90,9 +4 910,=. 1,4 - biw. my ANY =r,- InED M- 44,2*#, ASPEN. COLO~AIN-81612 4. e r I Â¥1113 =*0 r- TEN 'E'.5 F... TIE DATE OF n, Car!,ICATION 10.L 33.0'*/- 49Â·E :00.00' 7TH STREET b, 1 1. LIED. LI~LE 4. 1- 6 li7=â€¢ 0 '' .Â· r . I. :.. .. / ' 4 / 11[ 11 14-3 ... , . 7 , . 1 I . .9. &.-' 4. f-M:EL - p> 3 If, 4 :3 ..4,8 . b I bl I 1 I Z Z EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 6 U LU 11: Z U 28 LEGEND : ~ D m. %+1 4 2*1~ EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO BE DEMOUSHED \ 1 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMNN ~ ,~ PORCH TO BE RE-OPENED -0 I 0 51 39 MO 1- U E 2- 2 3 E 3 EM 0 <&hl --- .~37 -7 Â»/.. â‚¬/ . DRAWING 4 - 3* 1 3 --1 9 . ... E=nile mennolls 43-1 - 4 ..22 = 4-0- h 83 'f JOB NO. 9836 4.- ... DATE 9-14-98 1 E- ~-~ 1 --hl l SHEET NO. EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTING EAST ELEVATION X2.1 SHEET OF 7-COM,K,fr OU.nf O.Re,n AC},TECM .Bl . 066,-SE60Â£6:1111 â€¢ 11910 00'NMV . 10Â£ allnS . Â·BAV NVWAH 16Â¥9 , 1 24026 3111â€¢ SE,19 00 90!HATIal . 3AV OGVNG!03 3 ./. LEGEND : lie WEST BLEEKER STREET 1:36+F, t g~â‚¬ A I EXIS[ING CONSTRUCTION TO BE DEMOUSHED 1ll ~ EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN .~ PORCH TO BE REOPENED 0 Â© 0 - 00 0 9 PRPERTY -DNE = Un 1- 1.J 1 '3 / f Ah Z' . 234 -,21= .2-* OV 6.4 3,If 9 CD VJ*<...#r . e U> JI- f~ 'COL.' , - 1 -:, Â·.3* FRONT SETBACK F=! / ,=En- r-1 -1.-/ - -/ I /' 5/[15 - lAI % _ - EXISTING LOCATION OF . HISTORIC STRUCTURE - 2 , UPET 1 Z PROPOSED LOCATION OF 9 U EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE 1 11 . L.--E~ 1 1 - - 03 w D 0 + -1 f . 1 1 7 n. f l _ Ci I I U >,8 .' F I' - I U BIN 1 - 1 E U 177 ' O - 1 , 1! -- -*=r /1 1 .==-- 9 E-2 * 3,3 1 ' 1 4 *13*22 I m %2 =F= 1- / .-- 1 b)/ A 1=11 f 1 REAR SETB#Cl~ SITE COVERAGE: Â¤ UNfr h 4297 SF GRWEL UNCT & U88 SF DRN Et(14 PARKING TOTA4 EA85 / 6002 -41% PROPERTY UNE FLOOR AREA RATIO: UNfr h 1.403 SF DRAWING UNIT b 1714 SF ALLEY BLOCK 18 BOSrm Ftoolt PUNS 707*, W SF PROPOSED STE PUN RE.,as .40 SE JOB NO. 9836 DATE 9-44-98 0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN EXISTING FLOOR PLAN SHEET NO. 'A" - 1'-O" . X2.2 SHEET OF . CCOF,mff C}WIS 0.Â»-11 NOInt, 1 . 0695-526026 1131 . Li912 00'NMV . 10Â£ RIJAS . 'MAÂ¥ N,4%Ut 158 Xvi . BELE-924026 :1131 . 51*18 0.3 '301Nf 1-rELL * dAV OUVEOU) 1 ~M~le~.g~~1~Ez 32)NHaISBM NÂ¥10(1 0 : DN Mm ill ,/ \\ / 1 \1 GARAGE $ 1.11. 2=2 // 04 \\\\ DINING 4--up JIZL LL> -, - 2 GARAGE 29 T bi~ \ r E r J 4 - L 3 4// ENTRY Q< ..4 BED #1 - = 13 11=2 3 E------- 1 U @8 POR LZE PORCH . LIVING =â€¢Â· UP . a LIU U UNIT 1 Z 44 W DINING ~ ~ Q (4 UVING LU 9g - e . 0 1- U - ENTRY Â«1' 3 1140:z' 1 / EN-rm po" 0 11 0 n 1 1 UNIT 2 DRAWING MAN LEVEL JOB NO. 9836 DATE 9-14-98 r PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN ~ SHEET NO. A2.1 74â€ž.1'-0â€ž 01 4 8 SHEET OF gcopm,Mr a,Ula an#1,2 Niâ€ž]IC,5 - ft/-1 9209-5260Â£6 DXW . 0695-â‚¬Z60Â£6 :mt . 11919 53AA SEZ Â£956-9W)Â£6 OXW . BELE--9Â¤0Â£6 inal . W.I.C MASTER BEDROOM 41> L 4 AM 0 BED *1 M. BATH ~ 14/IZZ- 4 CDC W.1.C UNIT 1 1- f DN 1 ./1 1. 1 ' 4 -L 49 MASTER BEDROOM TE- T i __fit 3 UNIT 2 DRAWING . *PE LEnil JOB NO. 9836 DATE 9-14-98 SHEET NO. PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLAN A2.2 'Al- r-o" SHEET OF r L )31IHZ)JIV 3:!JINNAD 53151VHZ) 3DNBCUSHM NVIOG LIGHT WELL. Up I ... ..... (4 - L : L *mI- - 5 - R - BED #2 3 Â· ADU 0% - 51@ 43 4 --2-2 ---- -- --= ABU 4 22 --- 2 2 8 N - EN' D U 11 - C (4 2 -- 111 ---f < 44 1 - Q< L--0 1 7 4 4 - /- Z LP ~ 88 MEDIA --204<-La LU c- up 9 U 1 W.I.Cl UN IT 1 I /1 I N 64 11 11 hATH f . 0 1 1 -7 1 P gg .C tu 01 Z MEDM Z *E BED#2 f 3 EM MECHANICAL. ~ a UNIT 2 DRAWING 10,51 18,8. JOB NO. 9836 DATE 9-14-98 SHEET NO. PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN A2.3 01 4 8 SHEET OF ECCÂ·plaQ,r Ou~E5 aRO.,F,NOÂ«lia5 9205-526026 . 0655-Â·SE60Â£6 :rill . 11911 00 'NldEV . toe 1111-6 . 'IAV NYWAH .ISM 16411 UGHT WELL , 1 . 11 9%34 1 849 , R 222 -- um- Â»Irs mm 00 01 --- 0 1 -0 C :-11 -0 g ff - EOZ I ga 10= 4- B lEi -~--I- -- - 1. ~ . 1m1 pm(i UffÂ« 2,2 252 * 25/ k 1031037 C Z Z 1 -1 -1 - -L 1 Of) 1 . 8 l t---+1 - -I 4 E- 00 9*2 M #Mm 288 *08 *%m 1 DOLAN RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 1 lol ihi-1 1/1 1 1 25 3 lilli 1 1.1 181 1 lai "19 - 735 WEST BLEEKER ST. 520 EAST HYMAN AVE ' SUITE 301 â€¢ ASPEN, CO 01611 â€¢ TELE: 970925.-5590 ' FAX: 970925-5076 ASPEN, COLORADO 220 E COLORADO AVE â€¢ TELLURIDE, CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 97002&-3738 â€¢ FAX: 970728-9567 NOUVA313 HlnOS 0380dOEId NO!1VAEI13 193M 03S ROPOSED EAST ELEVATION ROPO ED NORTH ELEVATION /RÂ»ZONTAL I 0 . I , h 0 a & 15 NE 3 i _ _r-7 1-- -- ---1 - -- - - -- - - - V -- --- - -- T 11,11-1,1 T ll - --- P irr*-fv-f-=- 9 -- W -------- rT-1-N ,r-Â· - - - - 37 Ill NU- - -- ---\\.2. - ----- - -- 1 1 -1--1--1- == D -- - - - . .. - -- /- -1 - -- -I --3 z Â¥ mz 01 7*7'~~~-1~7'frITVTÂ¢ 7 * -0 liA.N N' 1 ON Im 1 - - 1 0 Z ----%- -1 1 - -- I -- - -- I - - 11+903%53 --1 2-Ii - - - - 17 Ill \3<- -2. 3-2 -3 mEFRIER lot //7 29'11 /2/~95 -1 f /0 1 Iii - - 1 11- -- --- 14 1 1 ./Agi--3 - =- ----- 111}{11]Hltlli}11{IHHW[11111111- ----- t--- --- Ecto U 1 H [- 11 M H H = \*rnlit 4%923 IÂ¢M Â«4{-lf< m 1- 1 I '341 1 \41--211& 1.2\-z/Ely ....I -/1~ .~3$0[ - 9.11 -a IED 4- -- - 711 ~li =LLL 1 11 1 11 Tififffifff~ Â»Al 06 TI;T --- -- F -c-Iit' -- - 92 7 \Nl EE 'LE 0 1 -0 C - - . 1 -0 C , 11 T iz 7 zz r--r.- 1 OE ---- - LL 66=- / /,2 1 9/ 1 Fri ./9 -7 ON -14 /#-52 0) 1 .-r I mi .4}*Hm H Eli H H 1{111 /#41 - H P H 1 -fl E"l R~'~'|~~I ..0 1Â» J,Li f - F Ul-~H r-H L-I- ~ 11/114 - 01 rk~/ ELELEXCLEL 31322 11 m --- - 1 1 / 92 --_H- / /:2- 2 -- 1,5. =~~ r~- -~-~ ~ ~--- 4011 0 4-J Z m m 9. m. N DOLAN RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 735 WEST BLEEKER ST. 520 EAST HYMAN AVE' SUITE 301 â€¢ASPEN, CO 81611 * ULE: 970925-5590 â€¢FAX: 970925-5076 1 ASPEN, COLORADO 220 E COLORADO AVE. * TELLURIDE, CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 970728-3738 â€¢ FAX: 970728-9567 BRICK VENEER NOLLVA313 1S3M CIEISO< NOI1VA313 HlnOS a390dOEId $ /7-'.A MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Interim Community Development Director\,~_0/ e FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer 1 RE: 240 Lake Avenue- Final review and FAR bonus, Public Hearing DATE: September 23, 1998 SUMMARY: This house was built in 1957 and was designed by Herbert Bayer. Landmark designation has recently been approved. The applicant and HPC held three worksessions and at least two site visits to discuss an appropriate renovation of this structure, before the conceptual review. Conceptual approval, including partial demolition and variances took two meetings and was granted on April 8, 1998, with the conditions outlined in the attached minutes. Final approval is now requested, including an amendment to the FAR bonus. Although the applicant requested only 250 square feet at final, they have subsequently determined that the design approved requires the full 500 square foot bonus. This is because the site has a steep slope at the back which causes the allowed FAR to be reduced by 25%. The applicant miscalculated this reduction at the conceptual review. APPLICANT: Ronald Greenberg, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. LOCATION: 240 Lake Avenue, R-6 zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC 1 Ejn l\0 64 74 may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(ID(2). Response: The existing house is a one-story steel and concrete block building, which has subsequently been covered with stucco. It was designed by Herbert Bayer and is considered a good example of his work, which was influenced by the Bauhaus school of architecture. The original form of the house is intact, with the exception of a small addition on the east side ofthe building. Through the worksessions, HPC and the property owner explored different options to add onto the house without obscuring the original structure. Discussion centered ona scenario that added clerestory windows towards the rear of the building, placed a small addition on the west side and a larger addition on the east side of the house, and added a one story garage. While there was some discussion of making the garage two stories to accommodate the owner's program, it was decided that second floor space would be more appropriate further back on the site, incorporated into the east side addition. Staff finds that the applicant has made a thorough analysis of the characteristics of the existing building and created an addition which is appropriate to the style of architecture, while still allowing the historic building to retain its prominence on the site. The footprint of the original building does not change except for the additions on the east and west sides and the addition of a garage. The HPC agreed with these findings on April 8, 1998 and granted conceptual approval with the following conditions: 1. A variance of 2 feet on the west sideyard, 10 feet on the east sideyard, 27 feet on the combined sideyards, an FAR bonus of 250 square feet, and a site coverage variance of up to 5% to accommodate the proposed design, as well as a variance from the "garage" and "volume" standards of the "Residential Design Standards" is granted. 2. Look at stairway options for final (in terms of mullions which divide the glass). 3. Restudy moving the east side two story addition back more towards Hallam Lake. The applicant has provided a response to these conditions of approval. In terms of the windows in the stair tower, they have chosen a solution which divides the glass into fairly small modules, which they feel creates the best relationship with the historic house. At the April 8, 1998 meeting, HPC reviewed the architects' proposals to address this concern and indicated a preference for the original design, which is different from the approach the architects have chosen. Staff recommends that the original design, which had less mullions and seemed more sympathetic to the house, be the one chosen. The HPC had requested study of pushing the two story addition back on the property, out of concern for the neighbor's issues. The architect has instead cut the first 1'6" of the addition off (at the mudroom) to decrease the impacts in the area of the neighbor's 2 concerns. Staff finds this appropriate. Moving the addition back on the lot would cause problems in terms of the Hallam Lake Bluff review, which requires construction to respect ACES and set back from the top of the slope. As described above, the FAR bonus which was awarded was insufficient to allow the approved design. The building has not gotten any larger, in fact it has gotten slightly smaller due to the decrease in the size of the two story addition mentioned above. Staff finds that the FAR bonus was and still is warranted given the size of the lot and the excellence of the design. A few other changes from the conceptual design should be noted. The garage has been shortened in length by 2 feet. A revised site plan must be provided for the meeting which shows how the relationship between the house and garage has changed. Additionally, some minor modifications to internal plate heights have been made and as a result, the stair tower addition has increased in height by 1'8". The architect must explain the justification for this, as staff would prefer the stairtower to be as low in height in relation to the original house as possible. Finally, the architect has selected materials for the new construction. The Bayer house will have repairs to existing windows and a new application of stucco. The addition will be T&G siding with a gray stain. The stair tower will be steel and windows will be tinted gray. All other windows will be clad to match the existing. Staff finds that these materials will create a good distinction between the new and existing construction. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The surrounding neighborhood has numerous historic structures, and the idea of creating a Hallam Lake Historic District was at one time considered. The great majority of these structures have been remodeled as is proposed for this site. This modern building, and the one across the street are anomalies in the West End, which is primarily a neighborhood of Victorian homes. They are an important testament to the interest in modernism and the influence of architects such as Herbert Bayer on Aspen's renaissance in the 1940's. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the proposal is successful in preserving the property's historic significance and place in Aspen's history. 3 0 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The new additions are clearly additive to the original structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to final review â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant final approval with the following conditions: 0 1. Staff recommends that the original design for the stair tower, which had less mullions and seemed more sympathetic to the house, be the one chosen. 2. The height of the stair tower must be reduced to that originally approved unless the architect can give a justification for increased height which is acceptable to HPC. ( 3.3 The following variances have been granted at the conceptual review: 2 feet on the -*At yard, 10 feet on the east yard, 27 feet on the required combined sideyard setback, an FAR bonus of 250 square feet, a site coverage variance of up to 5% to accommodate the tesign as proposed, and variances from the "Residential Design Standards" related to *olume and garages. As an amendment to these variances, the FAR- bonus shall be increased to 500 square feet, in recognition of the size of the lot and the excellence of the design. 4. A revised site plan must be provided for the meeting which shows how the relationship between the house and garage has changed. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated September 23, 1998 B. Minutes of March 25, 1998 0 C. Minutes of April 8, 1998 4 f-~1771 County of Pitkin } It 913 9% I AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT }, ] TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION 0 State of Colorado } ~ SECTION 26.52.060 (E) I, Charles Cunniffe Architects , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet ofthe subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 8t'Way ofSeptembf 898 (which isil days prior to the public hearing date of Sept 24.1998 (6-22-98) 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously fromthe 8th day ofSeptember , 1998. (Must beposted foratleastten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph ofthe posted sign is attached hereto. C /19 fvVVVU *ature (Attach photograph here) 4 Signed before me this ' 0 3 day 5-pl' tr-â€¢ 6- ,1991by 3 A.50 0 6 Lort WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expirekly Commiwinn Aepirac August 10,2002 Notary Public ,~ N~~Pu~lies ~matur,~*'~ 4,4 ~ 1% O \,~A, 6 Â£1.,[U/u \ Nuy SEP 24 '98, 01: 41PM CHARLES CUNNIFFE P. 1 612.a Ng -le }v\Al LED #1 - A- 'c LTEMUS Â£ A PARTNERSHIP LUP ASPEN CENTER PCH ENVIRONMENTAL BLOCK FAMILY TRUST 44.3% INT 40 N 380 ST 100 PUPPY SMITH ST BLOCK QUALFD PERSONEL RES TRST 5 ,~CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 311 W NORTH ST ASPEN CO 01611 :01.MAN ROBERT TRUST CONOVER CA-THRINE M COTSEN 1085 TRUST LLOYS COTSEN T 2/0 CHARLES T BRANDT 1868 CONNECTICUTAVE NW STE 300 12100 WILSHIRE BLVD GTE 904 ~20 E MAIN ST STE 204 WASHINGTON DC 20009 LOS ANGELES CA 90025 ASPEN CO 81511 D W RINGSBY ENTERPRISES DUOE HARALD EPH HOLDINGS LF A PARTNERSHP PO BOX 134 137 CENTRAL AVE STE 1 FIC) BOX 7423 W PALM BEACH FL 38402-0134 SALINAS CA 93001 DENVER CO 80207 FIGGE THOMAS K FRISHMAN ANDREW J TRUST GATES CHARLES C & JUNE S C/O CARRAGE HOUSE PO SOX 465 @90 S BROADWAY ROBERTS AVE ASPEN 00 81 612 DENVER CO 80217 DAVENPORT IA 52803 CREEMBERS RONALD & JAN AS .17 TEN HERNANDEZ CEWL M LEWISJONATHAN & POSADA ROBERTO 44 MARYLAND PLAZA HERNANDEZ LORENE M LEWIS JONATHAN D REV TRUST UNDER ST LOUIS MO 68108 PO BOX 1045 4648 PONCE DE LEON BLVD *304 ASPEN CO 81812 1 ConALGABLES a.311462119 EWIS PETERS LEWIS PETER B LUBAR SHELDON m O BOX 5070 , POBOX 5070 LUBAM MARIANNE S , wLEVELAND OH 44-101 CLEVELAND OH 44101 3880 FIRST WISCONSIN CENTEA MILWAUKEE Wl 53202 LUNDY vicrrOR c MARSHALL RONNIE NICHOLSON JOHN J LUNDY ANSne B 320 LAKE AVE ADLER LOU REVOCABLE TRUST 201 LAKE AVE ASPEN CO 81 611 8911 W PIOO BLVD PHA ASPEN CO 81611 LOS ANGELES CA 90035 - NICOLA BETTY B UND 1/4 INT OAK LODGE LLC PERROS DIMITRi AND DIANE LUBCHENCO NANCY N AND C/C WJLUAM O HUNT 79 LOCUST RO 621 17rH ST #1215 Â· PO BOX 7981 WINNETKA IL 50093 DENVER CO 802Â£18 ASPEN CO 81812 RANDAU ELLEN MIBDUTON SCHERMER LLOYD G & BETTY A 1/2 INT SCHIFF DAVID T TRUSTEE OF E MIDDLETON RANDALL T SCHERMER GREGORY P & GRANT E 1/2 485 MADISON AVE 207'H FLR 300 JEFFERSON STE #350 210 LAKE AVE NEW YORK NY 1012 HOUSTON TX 77002 ASPEN CO 81611-1347 ...6 - dANGLE PARK WELTERS ANTHONY ZE]SLER KARL CITY OF ASPEN WELTERS BEATRICE WILKINGGN AS JT ZELSLER JOAN C 120 8 GALINA ST 919 SAIGON RO 3 . 426 N SECONO ST ~SPEN CO 81811 MO LEAN VA 22101 i' ASPEN CO 87 611 EZE EXHIBITUZZ- APPLICANT: Ronald Greenberg 199-39 y LOCATION: 240 Lake ACTION: Significant Development (Final) and FAR Bonus SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet aUfour of the development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with ' the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ 1 - Â·4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25.1998 0 Gilbert stepped down. Chief Deputy Clerk sworn in the following individuals: Charles Cunniffe Jennifer Cohen Janet Greenburg, owner Herb Klein Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer reviewed the affidavit and HPC has jurisdiction to proceed. (exhibit II). Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the HPC that there are several components to the application, they are asking for landmark designation, conceptual design review, partial demolition, variances and a variance from Ord. #30. Regarding the landmark designation the requirement is to meet two of the standards and this property meets four of the standards. It is a Herbert Bayer design and is a terrific example ofhis residential design and almost no modifications have been made to date. Stucco was applied over the concrete block. Staff recommends approval of landmark designation. 0 In regards to the house several worksessions and site visits have occurred. The proposal is to leave the house essentially intact with a small addition on the west side and a larger addition (two story areas) on the east side. A two car garage is proposed on Lake Ave. and they need a variance from Ord. #30 for that. The architect has done a lot of research on compatible styles. The two story area is in an appropriate location. The only concern is the clerestory window that pops up in the back of the building. Set back variances are requested and a FAR bonus. The setback variances are necessary because there are really no other location for an addition and it is the least impacted on the neighbors. Charles Cunniffe, architect relayed that they are making a minimal breezeway connection. The clerestory was at the request of the owner due to the height need. That area is their main living space and light and volume are needed. It basically keeps the same form but raises it slightly with a band of windows all across to keep the theme of the Bayer architecture. The plate height is 8' 1". The chair opened the public hearing. 0 3 02/l l\0 li E> ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 Herb Klein, attorney represented the neighbors to the east. They have one concern and it is the placement of new improvements within the setback. The proposed plan has a five foot setback. The Koatsen house is an old house that has been remodeled and in its current condition lies five feet off the property line. With the proposed plan there would only be a ten foot separation between the houses. The two story element creates a urban alley effect with the ten foot separation. There is a problem with snow and ice in that area right now and the windows and door on that side would look up to the two story element. In the spring there is water that drains in that area and aesthetically their views would be blocked. The code indicates that if a variance is granted the design has to be more compatible with the historic. landmark and the neighborhood. It maybe more compatible with the historic landmark it is definitely not more compatible with the neighborhood. This design places the burden on the neighbor. The owner feels there is room for compromise: Respect the minimum 10 foot setback. The existing conditions for the main house are 15 feet and they desire to keep that footage. If the applicant needs more square footage the west side should be taken into consideration. The two story element could be altered on the east side and have some of that square footage slide to the west where the stairway is. That would enable visual relief. Roger asked when the Koatsen house was remodeled was their a variance given and was the house moved over towards the alley or is the existing wall the historic wall that has been there since the 1800's? No one could respond to the question. Barbara Burger, neighbor sworn in. Barbara Berger, neighbor feels this would be a lovely addition to the neighborhood. Merle Ford, sworn in. She lives in a house at the Meadows and on the south side the design is similar to the Herbert Bayer design in which she is familiar with as she lives in a house designed by him. Lloyd Sherman, sworn in. He lives to the east on Hallam Lake. He complimented the HPC as a board. The final product due to the input of HPC was excellent and they were very happy the way their house turned out and the suggestions by the HPC members were great. The proposed plan looks great to him. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 0 Donna Thompson, sworn in. She is the caretaker of the house for twelve years at 230 Lake Ave. She believes the wall in question is original. The windows of 230 Lake Ave. as drawn are not in the proper position and they do look up to the proposed two story structure. All of the windows will face ' the two story structure and will have to be closed *at all times. Janet Greenburg relayed to the board that she tried to be very respectful to the nature of the Herbert Bayer design. They lived in the house a year before deciding on the design and at one point the courtyard was proposed as a big room. The existing ceiling height is low and her way of accomplishing the task of raising it is a clerestory that Herbert Bayer used. In response to the neighbors their house and garage is very close to the property line. They have been very careful to not impact them at all. They were careful to not impact the house, garden or anything that they use. She has never seen anyone come out of the side door. Their main views are in the back. She is surprised by the problem of the second story. The chair, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Charles Cunniffe responded that there are houses that are less than 10 feet 0 apart. He feels in order for the neighbor to get the garage in they had to have a side yard variance. He also stated the windows are as drawn on the adjacent house. Jennifer Cohen relayed that there is dense vegetation in the area that will be kept. Donna Thompson stated that the pictures are not clear and do not show the existing conditions of the neighbors house. Chairperson, Suzannah stated that the issue of the wall/windows will not be resolved tonight under the circumstances. The Board requested information regarding 230 Lake in regards to variances for that property. A site visit by HPC was requested to 240 Lake Ave. Commissioner Comments The majority of the HPC members agreed that the garage works and the location ofthe stair appropriate. A site visit for the variance is 0 recommended and a site visit for the location of the adjacent property 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 0 owindows. Clerestory windows, defer to the architects on the HPC. Majority comfortable with the design of the house. Some members disliked the garage facing the street and the long linear corridor. Concerns of the neighbors need addressed. Grant designation. Clerestory represented on the model is closer to what is acceptable as opposed to the drawings presented. Don't loose the horizontality ofthe roof. Concern ofthe height ofthe stair tower volume as it over powers the house, possibly adjust window portions or add a band. MOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and table conceptual review, partial demolition and landmark designation until April 8,1998; second by Melanie. All infavor, motion carried. Site visit scheduled at NOON, April 8, 1998. 930 KING STREET - CONCEPTUAL - LD - PH - Partial demolition - on-site relocation, variances 0 Amy Guthrie, planner informed the HPC that three i f the five standards have been met. It is a modest miners cottage of the Victorian era. There are three issues: relocation of the historic house on the site; where driveways should be placed for the two houses and the third compatibility concerns. Staff is generally in favor with the concept of the program. It is a great way - that the historic landmark lot split can benefit everyone. The previous approval was for a single family house. HPC needs to give solid feedback - on this project. A reduction in height was addressed. The FAR bonus was reduced. Staff recommends reversing the site plan so that the historic house remains on the corner site and this proposal places it on an interior lot and she feels it will be lost in the mass of the addition. In the proposed site plan ~ they shifted the house to the eastÂ· but it is in the drip line of the trees and Staff has not received formal comments from the parks department but typically that is not allowed. Staff recommends tabling and to restudy the architecture and address compatibility but the lot split and partial demolition and landmark requests are acceptable. 0 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8. 1998 0 Melanie asked who were the different applicants. Amy responded that when it first came in it was David and she and a partnership with Jake Vickery, and now it is David and she and a different partnership. It is a statemdnt so that you understand. You have already made a recommendation based on standards not on who was applying but there are different applicants and the project is going forward to city council. Mary stated she thought when Amy came in the last time that was a worksession. Amy stated they are still coming back to HPC and she is only referring to Landmark Designation and obviously David and she will not participate in it. Mary stated they understood that in the worksession but it wasn't in a regular meeting. Suzannah stated legally the applicants have changed. All members were clear. 240 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - PH - Gilbert stepped down. Three exhibits The following individuals were sworn in: Charles Cunniffe Gray Ringsby Jennifer Cohen Herb Klein Charles Cunniffe presented. The main issue is some objection by the 0 neighbor because of the blockage of the potential effect on some windows 2 L *ULL C 4 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8. 1998 0 next door. There was a site visit today and the HPC needs to decide if this design is a reasonable in order to preserve the integrity of the historic resource and how we added onto the historic resource in a sensitive way. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed that there is a protection for Hallam Lake in that no construction can move too close to the top of the bank. It states nothing can be built within 15 feet from the top of the slope. From the top of slope point there is a 445 degree angle that is projected up and you need to stay under that height. There are constraints as to where the addition is placed. Amy also indicated that she did research the adjacent building to see if a variance was ever granted and it was not. The house was built in 1980 and at that time only a five foot variance was required on each side and no combined setback. Now this property has more restringent requirements that are being asked to meet. Charles relayed that the only issue is the windows. There is no other way a on this property to reasonably build an area of the house that allows them to have the view of Aspen Mountain. The proposal minimizes the damages to trees. Susan inquired about a letter from Donna Thompson who states that the house will be demolished and it was confirmed by Cunniffe & Associates. Charles relayed that the only portion of the house being taken off is the shed. There is no demolition anticipated. Jennifer restudied the setback issue which was requested at the last meeting and the impacts are minimal. Charles addressed the height of the clerestory windows and they were lowered once. Herbert Bayer more often than not did clerestory windows. A banding has been incorporated on the drawings. The roof will be rebuilt. Amy asked about the divisions of the windows on the stairwell. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8. 1998 Jennifer relayed that three different options were given for the HPC to review, (included in packet). The owner is comfortable with any ofthe diagrams. The most important issue is that it is a glass grid. Herb Klein, attorney represented the Koatsen family stated there are in fact windows that the two story addition on the east side would be right across. It was determined at the site-visit that half the windows are across and half aren't from the large bedroom and there is also a spa right across from the two story element. When a variance is requested several standards have to be met. You have to find that the variation will result in a building that is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. He doesn't see how HPC could possibly find that it is more compatible with the neighborhood but granting the setback. You are going with a two story element within five feet from the property line. If the two story element were slid toward Hallam Lake and cleared the windows we would have less of a problem and it would not impact the neighbor as much. Another standard which says the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and at the last hearing it was pointed out that there aren't any other houses that would be separated by what is proposed here. This proposal is putting the burden on his clients. About retaining the integrity of the historic resource, the historic resource doesn't have a two story element so the integrity of the historic resource ~ doesn't require that they put a two story element anywhere on the building and especially on the east side. There is room on the west side to move the square footage over. If they want to deviate from the code requirements they need to do it in a way that doesn't adversely impact us. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Commissioners stated that the scheme presented is favorable. Possibly to address the neighbors concerns a portion of the two story could shift toward Hallam Lake. The simplified glazing and clear story element are appropriate. Melanie indicated that she would be more concerned with the one story solid element that is going to be in front of the neighbors window rather than the two story. The placement of the one story is appropriate and you 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8. 1998 cannot see it from the street but it does impact the neighbor. Right now they look at trees and when this is built they will look at the wall. Mary stated that she went to the site twice and she feels the design is sympathetic toward the historic property and enhances it and mhkes the house livable. The horizontal banding which was requested by HPC enhances the addition. Variances should be granted. Roger and the majority ofthe board liked option C on the stairway which is a simpler design. It is recommended that the applicant look at sliding the addition slightly to Hallam Lake. Suzannah stated that concentrating the addition into one area for the most part on this house is to the benefit of the historic house. In terms ofthe neighborhood that house is five feet from the property line and this proposal is five feet from the property line and it is consistent with the neighborhood. Moving the volume back on the two story element might benefit both parties and an incremental amount might do the trick. Charles Cunniffe relayed that the stairs are located in the center of the courtyard in order to maximums the openness of the court yard. There is a room on either side of the stair. If you shift the volume you loose one room. Suzannah relayed that the HPC is only talking about one foot. Jennifer relayed to the HPC that even moving it one foot will effect the window placements. Charles stated he will restudy that elevation and tweak the plans and then show HPC the best solution at the next meeting. MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval at 240 Lake Avenue with the following conditions: 1) Grant the following variances: 2 feet on the west yard, 10 feet on the east yard, 27 feet on the required combined side-yard setback, an FAR bonus of 250 sq. ft., a site coverage variance ofup to 5% to accommodate thedesign 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF April 8. 1998 as proposed, and variances from the "Residential Design Standards" related to volume and garages. 2) Recommend landmark designation to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. 3) HPC will look at stairivay options forfinal. 4) Restudy tweaking the east side two story back toward Hallam Lake. 5) HPC finds that in granting the variancesfirstly it is a new mass in which the HPC does not want ACES affected and the proposal ofthe new addition is compatible with the neighborhood and historic resource. Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 514 N. THIRD ST. - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Gilbert seated. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the HPC that this project involves making an addition between an existing historic house and an historic carriage house. It basically provides a living room and they are still well under the allowed FAR. Staff has concerns with the treatment of the paving that walks up to the entry of the house and the applicant needs to work with Engineering on the right-of-way. The site coverage has been granted and the volume penalty waived on the windows in the carriage house and partial demolition has been granted. Staff is also concerned about the proportions ofthe windows and door in the new addition. Gray Ringsby, architect for the project relayed that on the west elevation the windows proposed are similar to the existing windows. On the east there are large windows that look onto a brick fireplace. The windows would not effect the neighbors as they have no windows on the facade facing the proposed elevation. The same siding and color is proposed to blend in with the existing houses. Changing the siding would draw too much attention to the new element. The idea of the design is to blend in and let the details of the existing structure stand on its own. 6 1 - MEMORANDUM I. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS lil 520 E. HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO 81611 970/925-5590 970/925-5076 FAX ARCHrrECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS TO: HPC FROM: Jennifer DATE: September 14,1998 PROJECT: Greenberg JOB NO.: 9746 REGARDING: Final HPC Review NOTES: 1. BUILDING MATERIALS: All existing structure is currently stucco. This stucco shall be removed and replaced with new stucco. All existing aluminum windows shall be removed, refurbished and reinstalled. All existing direct set windows shall be removed, refurbished and reinstalled. All new construction shall be wood T&G siding, with grayish staining . The Stair Tower shall be steel, with grayish window tinting. All other new windows shall be aluminum clad wood to match existing. 2. FINALIZED DRAWINGS @ 1/4" = 1 '-0" SCALE See Attached 3. STATEMENT: In designing this addition we tried to be as sensitive as possible to the existing historic structure as possible. In this way we have left the North, South and West elevations predominantly the way they were. The only elevation that has any major change is the East elevation, which is the elevation which has already had the most alterations. The courtyard also has changes planned for it. The Uving room South wall will move out four feet and a Stair Tower will pop out into the courtyard, we are however keeping the courtyard and it's original use. 4. STATEMENT: This set of drawings has not changed much from the previous set shown to HPC, in fact we have decreased the total square footage. We have addressed these conditions set to our conceptual approval: a. Setbacks, FAR bonus and site coverage - A FAR bonus of only 250 S.F. was discussed at conceptual review due to miscalculation. For the project to proceed as designed, we need the full 500 S.F.. am,6â‚¬,01)01*49,@e-e,iemâ‚¬cr of tho citc covcragor b. Stairway options - HPC was to review at Final. We have studied the elevations and feel that the represented division is the best result in regards to the relation between the Stair Tower and the adjacent two story element and the existing geometry. c. Restudy moving East side two story element towards Hallam Lake. Due to Hallam Lake Bluff requirements, moving the entire two story element is not possible. We did however move the Southend of the two story element by reducing it's length, even though it was not required. BY: JC COPIES TO: CLC, file 411-E 412.=~Nr 1 3190 OSE APPI:ICXCIN ECEM Greenberg Residence 1) 2:oject mim 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 21 Tbject Iocaticm Lot 15, Block 103 Undi,=te street aldress. lot & blcck I=ber, legal Â·desc=iptic. 9Â·.re 0 agragciate) R6 3) iesÂ£mt Zaling 4) Ict Size . 14,220 SF ED ---~-'s Nam, Mlcess & 2=2 1 Ronald Greenberg 44 Maryland Plaza, .St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 361-7600 61 RMTPO<tttvels Nmer Address & 2Â¤2 + Charles Cunniffe Architects 520 East Hyman, Suite 301, Aspen.,CO 81611 (970) 925-5590 71 TY~e of *Elicrtial (please d=k.all tat aglly): C=Etinial Use - 7.,7-.(,~fQoal SEA - Ccrx=*1121 Eistaric Der. Special Reviar ---.* Firml SEA X Ftizzl- Fri Cr,4 r- I]29'- 8040 8.40.1 4 7-0 - C=:*:cal F[ID . - Mirx:r Histcric Dev. 1 Ste= ]5argin Firml E{ID Hist=rd c opmol -4+-4 ort *=Cain Viei Plarn Siifivisicm - 2_ Hist=Ec Designaticn (h+miTÂ·ril=Â·i Â·=Â·f-; rn 0--Im Fex#ThP JinE=lroe,It - GIN 111=t=2Â£ ~ Ict Split/Ict Lire ' Â· - (215 Exa,1-pticm AdjUStveot 8) rÂ»cf-#TE#rn cf E:cisting ukes (I=ber ' arxi type of existing st:mx:tnces; aEE~zi:oate sq. ft; I=ber of bed=c=; any gevia= aug:cvals gz:anted to the pm:pert?r) 0 2,894.0 SF, 4-bedroom, single story steel and concrete blockconstruction single-family residence. 9) Desc~ipticn of Develc:Immt APIi=tim Rehabilitation of existing structure including exterior restoration and interior ... modifications, hew, construction of a two-story addition, two car garage and connecting ,breezeway 10) Have Yal al-tp#bor:I tha following? Re'vrse to Att:adment 2, Mini== Si=issicm OCI.tects IhasE=se to Al=txh=It: 3, Specific: Shnissicn C:ct:~Its BA'EÂ¥â„¢se to Attxt=mt: 4, Relier Starxiards fcr Yair *pli=tic:Il. 0 1111111 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Ronald Greenberg Applicant Address: 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 - Kb Zcne district Lot size: 14,220 SF - minus 1,425.0 slope reduction = 12,795.5 SF E<jsting FAR: --7,894.0 SF Allowable FAR: 3,887.7 SF + 500 SF HPC bonus = 4,387.7 SF Prcoosed FAR: -4,379.8 SF Existing net leasable (commercat): NA Proposed net leasabie (commercal): NA Existing % of site coverage: 2 0% 44-64*pe-rod. . 6. â€¢ u,b - 99 CO/ Prcpcsed % of site ccverage: 2 8% -c:--clepe-red:--=-=315 - NA Existing % Of open space: Praccsect % of coen soace: NA Existing maximum heignI: Princical bidc: 9' 5" Acc:esc:rv tiac: Prceased max. height: Princical bidc: 24' Accesscrv bite: P'ceased % of demoliticn: 24% PERIMETER WALL Existing number of bedrcoms: 4 P=cased number of bedrcoms: 4 Existing on-site parKing spaces: 2 Crl-site parking spaces required:,-Â¥ 3. Setacks Existing: Minimum required: Prcocsed: Frcnr 60' FronT 10' Front: 18'garage/ 60' house Rear: 31' Rear: 10' Rear: 31' Comcinea Combined Cambir'led Frant/rears 91' Front/rean 30 ' Front/rear: 49' Side: 16' S ide: 15' Side: 13' Side: 0, Side: 151 Side: 5 Combined Combined Combined Sices: 16'- Sides: 45' S ides: 18' Existing nonconformities cr encrcachments: Minimum sideyard setback, combined slaeyara setbackÂ· Minimum sideyard setback, combined sideyard setback, Variations requested: FAR bonus, Ordinance 30 aaraae setback, volume standards site coverage. (HPC has the abiiity to vary the following requiremer@: setbacks, distance between buildings. FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft. site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations underthe cottage infill program, parking waivers for residendal uses in the R-6, R.15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) - 4*2 4 r NANTUCKEr PRESERVATION TRUST 14 FEDERAL STREEr /BOX 2999 NANTUCKET, MA 02584 TEL: 508-228-1387 FAX 508-228-1371 August 28,1998 Julie Ann Woods, A.I.C.P. Deputy Director, Community Development City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen CO 81611-1975 Dear Julie Ann: Thank you for introducing me to your community. I feel very honored to have been invited to participate in the excellently planned Historic Preservation symposium. Conclusive resolution of the identified issues will take some work and time to achieve, but I have no doubt that you have a committed team and the energy for success. Controversy is a part of the public design review process - there's no escape, when working with people and their homes. regulations, aesthetics, and finances. I admire the process you created to bring the factions together. Tom Baker was a great facilitator. Suzannah Reid is a study in diplomacy and knowledge, and Amy Guthrie's thoughtful presentations reflected her depth of care. Mayor John Bennett and City Manager Amy Margerum are fortunate to have all your leadership. You might consider writing an article or creating a workshop about the symposium for the National Trust for Historic Preservation's annual conference, so that other communities might benefit from your experience. I took a great many slides and photographs to remind of Aspen and to share with others, and will look forward to a future visit in the winter. A copy of my airfare from Nantucket to Aspen is enclosed for reimbursement. I am also sending you an article from Monday's Boston Globe, to let you know there are concerns out here as well. Please let me know how you are doing, and if I may assist you in any way. Yours truly, Patricia Butler Executive Director Enclosures :ti;,TWEr ;Â·'i '" B E' '' Y~'~fl~' &T ZWK-*f I.t, rfI Â·Â· f:|~ . r , F"Â· Â«': ~m,i,#:Prrilil;DARi ,i"f#1*i 4..; 'Â·:2*:bvi ' h. it~ 5.41 , ;Ai:,i. Â·y##kidi;l,ij '.*14iV*~ il .. 4 44.Al 43 ..11* '-1 49..J. '2:'A ' .Â·4 Ve,-,ilit~40,10 â‚¬t.' -t t i..17 1. f. lif , 1 t*: f :~-'ltr in-:i. ''~I '.,4 . f i>HoWebtiyets liendÂ¥*tink, Â®t plteserÂ¢int& i N,rkÂ·,iPvt.NÂ·.. .. 4 rd,I&.t * ' 8.0.,AÂ·.N:E' ", Â·0", '0~k4h4-Â·4*ru:~7,Â·, 2 'It's'4*elti#lly#*ewhous#,!t said: 7 ,hÂ£,5 : Â·.Â· ilyÂ»Â¢40Mdhi~ , .:'tifil { T,8054#ij4;~4AmjiliBIrÂ¢or 08#e,Nailt ; 1,1 1! !:/1,1, , 0[bORMETAF* 3 i i ' , -,. ' ..i. :4k*ticRET 1- The ~ i :. 4 , , , '~1~ noti' 11{#,ric PtÂ¥5Â£ry'liiM'#Ks like. Â· 4 *#1114Â¢Ae#*MOCOmmiSSion.K'i. ,.'i 'i f 1 K : h .1 ~ ~ 4' & 1.4 < ,~ 2, 2 h*~60 at lt}i) MiÂ¢n Sil i g {Â» Pkt galory'and,Ballng, f I' ' j,15 4 (Ii 5, inini.toiÂ·.61 4ae:*Wd,Â·0 '~.,:,ir~i,1~~2,~1~Jblkkt* 46.041 Â·~ ~1 19 11 , 4 4 k 14 2... A~ hometblid around 18(h), ide.'(thi~*Milion,kild'ao anithetÂ¥011*that: r , ! 4 f, Jlb ,< ~: * slowly'losilig, nall by Iiail, 1601Â¢4 3111*1***?'~~ , i rl, r,'lbhiehejA'thiki#liuld'B ilehhiMioriÂ¢;i,' 'i' ' tÂ»etl*by:renovation or'olitright.. t 42 1 ?M i' 6 tabriti ii, ; . 4 '4 'fi 'I " demolitioni }wbuledÂ·With,hi#toridÂ¥:iluet.- ; .. .1 Thenewowners of thebouse Ke.Â· ,Â·.on(JADe#hid.dmj~tlie)]Aland&:Ake}vahs:p ..' 6,9 renovatt#gthe jnside.and out,.tote; .. Jigj#*81;vÂ¢Jt,4*,#f,09%061#1140)Â§: 'I '# Atorellid:NitidU#A* kWilbtiti~i tliÂ¢f:- ~:~ ~'an 414@11!ig **~PaOIil#'t*hÂ¢} phy '2 ' i, 2 way it uaedÂ·tu look but With all thd i ' mna*fortunes for Dro-jetty in this 1, , hoo#Ate17J~adned&m~~A*J*jojri,1~~,I.2 ~~~1&~~~1~**h&*&~:06 4 Â·11.\1,1 9< 1 .4,4-7 LleT+ -1 ..7 -Â¥,Nfl:Â·-'. Â·: * ., 11 lili 191 92 :11Â¥9 1, 0 '* , #06,19'- 'teld, and Atimd 0[boAng, evdifth!46; ' ' V ir n?61144 F<66Â£912#11 bylbil:; prbi f-' ~Â· : i 1. Uttect Ai@*4*dieli4Â·4! - 17 tii .id#68*:24 iR,: i: bekÂ¢')%~i#44Â¢d.-r.11 ~ .7 . 751,9121..$91, '1,*f?NIi)PSES,Wit~i#b>-f .. . 4 t'i?.144''f,16*,1 ;, '1'i 2 ;P~ChÂ·Â·'1641.. Â· Â· 5-stÂ» E-G 6-A- r ~21\18 ie.1. lienovated identity for , ~, 4 4 Cave Cod .:Â«412 W and Islands i 6 5 1 * MA: : ~ I HOUSES r E Continued from Page Al 9 ' 1 + servationislit say, the architecture , that gives the Cape and the Islands i , 7 4 their di#tinetive appearance is disAp- 1 i ; peallng.. K., Paul Grover of Kihllii Grote#~t, Properties makes his Wving Belithi 1 real estitte on the Cape., Yet lid, 14 4 . 'R 't. . worried by the trend, Â·whjeli begpiti with waterfrobitt DiÂ·di,ditti *Â®1#fli Â· itwi. ~ moving inland. H L , 1 1 ' I' 'Â·4''r'42Â· "You have to be 8,iNIW that *Alll : landscape ign't No alteittl thi~t 9014 1 end up losing what attracted people i in the firitt plate," Grdvdr, said. . i Local hiatowe distriet* eommi@- ~ ~<~ ~~~Â·. 4' Nt ' :14 1 .1 '\':~1: 4*.2, rÂ·Â·,~ 4.fÂ· r .,111,4,111 11''Tri, 11 ->. , ' I ' C t./ . 1 A '7 1% 1.500:<Ula' STAFf *11 7 MARBWILSON sions hav@ beeti Net lip all ovet the 4klit. 1* *0114*(10Â¢0 15'tebl,0 911/ 11 I lili; I Cape and islandâ€¢ to protect thew * 11)'14414~, .- 1 3 Â¢1Â¢,1,3," t#*f*,pe#4 i . . ,. 1. j ,# , , il: ' ~ . ~ d ~~,Â£?4~41 di{*'&*~ - jÂ»#80*4414*Â¢*111' 4106*ey, I h Â· 4Â· 1 i. r....: + SÂ·'Â·f~ ' 4 4 1 Â·, 111, :distinetive look,but the Â¢0*iniladions i :.4,i~'-;*.,fip:i',;74Â·' 1/Rhr<.f ge. ), ..,; 1 ; 4.r* 4,1...... have limited control over interhal if'lirb#ident'?19 Â¥M#Nile#."Li*dil #1181{0 '. tat*te,hent abel#w,wh~,41* , who haa k nioved toanothor lot. T ., renovitions, and litaili t# thk hotihes ) Mas hived At*Â¥*Ithli *ak'* 46, wilen i ,?$,re, ThÂ¢110*ne#.ate much,bl#Rel, ati~ 1 That Vesiarve# the old houkie And al- that tire disappearing :ire outside ,&~~Qu~n~~y&~~a~~~i:fl* ~~'ivo#ma~y** tomM~hF~~~f~~1~-,~:*~ig* :j:â€ž their jurifliction. , â€ž "We weret?t so netivous a Aawk #truetufdttatidi' build,W nay. *0061; 'lnetg,alotta;Â¢b*41?li,000., fili /t 41 servatiolilats *ly.suelt Â·1110Â¥es disturb of the~ htÂ®tolie Di%641idli divl~it 'l Kkditilt i~~~#6*T'ir: -,1 1 ?youreail~~~~|4~~.h~~i ! t&:*:do~mt~~~aught inany yearn *gO," Bald~Fai Ahdetson, 6'- d f They;ended up,selling.the'pi,Apety ~ Â«The *1 . - 6f the' BArndt,ble *1010140 Comnited 1 Â¢*600-call 1104084, tiouse' 2(Jottott ~6111@4116 Â¥011,95Â¢t*.thA people'A alte,Woli on Natitueket-*in- ' ~*' *ioni.MA,e'te :idrwitih'{mAU beedti#* 4 **stoita. 01114#built- in 186,4:hi~., !11,811Â£Wli Nott:edi*bketite avi*'dr A . vqlve,4.; , , Max Berry,i a prominent 1,~lietÂ·Wijilboikilitii. 8~i Wij l{~~ ~~I ~iti~ toepitdi46}th,* C~6111 ' illid. iprel*;i ' -u Whdi<breeze:" j ..1431 11*ahli**lati0rnay whopurehased ' JaineB S, Gbilld, h hbtdrian 4110 f fh# nittioilal 1hi1*tithb,.,aoiiiaJitifil &2 0i~:pij~~~4-,de~'pre#s'4%-~00 rihohie'4107t iii 1890 hear tlie light- 6 lives lit Cotuit, Adid tile peoi,le j Yal When .44 68ehiii# tliht down 164 ; r,Idet' holilâ€¢4.iit#jiÂ· bd evell :ni,#E ini , house,WBrant tpoint. After deter- buying property on thd Cape, not*V thwn,of BiwililtibiBfiulmijat demblt :ptense thÂ¢stild#M~A,build#tkib#Â» il. mining041etekisting house Fptlid*not have h very difretent mindset thitii , 18}led it, Â· unt# (Gottid and ';btli~~0 1,nw in Â· Dth@60 4 t .dh meah# peepli be bittightili) 14 code, Betty,Nought. their predeeessord, kie eald the Bom; staijtied in and rali,ed enough mow<,huhk:18*18*0F11001#hiN#tolljhef ' pemilidsion'to tedr itrtioiva~.BI i '. ton Biahmins citn~e to ihe Cape to k, teâ€¢eue ft.. Â· ~ ~: ~ ~ 2: 4 iÂ·eno*ht# flidftindNihy *re?2 '4!ld 0 v Aluioitgh the-hoine li bUn alif - get away. They Wndtid lot*antÂ·46.K i . 11 mihis, Wii@rk,a loeal hiâ€¢fille tel#* dwitimd'b@WandÂ¢ 306: 1,11}Imneady*:Niere~riWit.4' Sdau'las. -pie homes and avoided 641tatioii; ro~ mdrIA was ret~ently-~ereated, liA ~- i itm*ht#hAilt#48,18~ja;il.ob ~~ i,ecehtly as ig80,06161 ~~3 hit'ed t,y - "Tliese new house#, Afteet thdf Deen particulabli. hard hit Gould : Main St-,ArÂ¢;46*Ging:Â»4:'and the toWit}iiidÂ· eoftMili164 1% conttibut- - value that was phid fotthe laim.*,1. 18*,It'â€¢ g*2*0'fubtf - ..iti08Â¢ :mothedmitioh. AlitiN#Koleh4thit x ed to tha,*td*-eh:WAeter of:the dould *d. "ff you paid*i~thtill,1â‚¬i,Â¢4 *#;#H 3%,%*1Â¥- :3#F; inr~tt%%Â£,~,:~~u,~~:RA,~,~&~dti;;1!4*11,~e~ji+Xibi, c Mr",=ff".,7",n IMN"'11 111':"Id. "Yon Ii:irr h, 1,2 c:u'eful that t.he : Imidsr:,re i>m'I st, Allerrd th:11. yott mid up Insing whnt alt.,Â·arl.ed penple in the first plnee," Grover sHirl. T,oral historic district conimis- Â· Â· GLOBE STAFF PHOTO/ MARK WILSON sions h:,vp been met tip all over die Architect Andrew Kotehen (left) eheek#,on the progred* 01 a Nal,itickkt house renovation with Al Conkey, Cape and Islands to protect their job supervisor fot Brothefs Constiletion. distinctive look, but Ihe commissions have liniited control over internal ty t,resittent A. La,Orence Lowell make a statement about who;they' who hatit moved to another'lot, i t'enovaUons, and many of the hot*s ,was saved several years ago when are. The homes are mueh bigger and > That preserves the old house and al- ' that are disappearing are outside community rjuthlge led a Cohnedti- :ltivishly Â®pointed. Iti hiany,fof tha i lows tlie dotistkietioti of a new; tiome their jurisdiction. eut collple to cancelplanstoraze the :homeA, Cottrin sitid, theidichen eabi: on the ,old home's lot, but some pre- "We weren't so nervous a #w structure and build a new house. nets alone e~,st $100,000. , 'i : ' t ' servationists sa3Â¢* such moves disturb years *go," said Pat Andenson, he).1 They ended up Nelling the proberty : ""Tlld reality-qf the,market is tilat the et*acteii,of Dil i,rea. 1, Â· 1Â·41: ' of the historic preservation diviston to a Cotlit neighbor. i you can do anything to the hou,se,? Oile teat'-do,Vh *hat eaught many , of the Barnstnble Historic Commis- The so-called Butgess Holise in i : Coiton Maid. "But you can't lik the i pebple's attention on Nimtueket iii- sion. "We're nervous how beemise Marstons Millit, bililt- in 1828,'had location. Yott e:ill'ter&826 a via#or a i volved. Millit. 8:erro4 ii promt*ent ' there's a building boom on." come to rpitomize the Cape lifestyle pr.evailing southwest bree>le.'0 Â«:it ' Washingtoit atiorney who purchased ' Jaines M. Gould, a hilttolian who in national inagazines, Gould Mairt. : On Nantucket, the prem,ure on a home built in 1890 near the light- i lives in Cottlit, said the peolite Yet when it became min down the older homes may be even niore in: 5 house DIV Brant Point. After. deterz 1 1 bitying property on the Cape tibw town of Barnstable almost demol: tehse these days. A buildingleap ii minitig the ekisting house pould:*di" i have i very different mindset than ished it, until Gould and others now in place, whieh hleahs people, c bebrotight lipto code, Baby dou#lit, i, . tlieit' pt'edeeek,sors. lie said the Il~s- stepi,ed ill and raised enougli motiey wantinlia newet hdhtÂ¢.11:190 to Mther .. permisbioh; to'tear it; doWAy Â·6,07#â€ž" , i ton Brahnling came to the Cape to to rescue it. . te,Zavittd ihe ofie th@.*AtetijiGitig:or Â· c ' AlthoukhÂ· thethainalibttbemi:8101 1 - get away. They tended tb Want sin- Hyannisi where a local historic . teot it down and Milld it nhw dnel: r ' nificantly altere#Jovitith@ yeâ€¢i,0,' tls. 1 pie homes and avoided 0Htentatipr. district was recently created, has ,p < Rtintivhtions. littethÂ¢i bild, Mt; 109 i recently asit)89.bonstilÂ®iblired by "These new houses reflect the been particularly hard hit, Gould Main; St. - arebe*iling more and I: the toWn hAd cohetijddl:*li~contribut- - value that was paid fol! the lani " said. "It's going so fast thete, i Di'eâ‚¬ 'more eommon. Andrew Koleheh; the ed to,:the. historli character of the I Gould said. "If you paid Â¢1 million ~r diet that within 1 fav years theid i tirehiteet, calls it a restoration. He , ~ area. 2.~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ r more for your property, yott doll't will:be Very few ilistotteat jitrliett*eÂ¢ ~ said the wol-k was de4uittew ndÂ¢* i , Â· Th(4 staff of Â£heÂ· HiJtorie DUrlet Â· 1 Â·'' i '.i f'Ur ~ want a modest little suilitneiÂ· sh*ek letttin Hyahnie." ; ' 3 't , 1 . ?ed' to BAVe a house 'thht *0'bethii .: ConiWit~lon Â®lit over.*heOlet';the on it." Jaek Cotton, Â·who ruhs WA 01Â¥1\ destroyed l,y tetmited and weather.1 houne should be saveÂ¢i,~61161*M#reh i 6 On a tnur of Cotuit, Ostervile, t04 estatd fil'ni Â·In Osterville/Â¢[stiâ‚¬ i "We have done' a Peally 06*jÂ®. 11997 thb.dommishloti ntimbers:yoted i and Marstons Mills, Gotild pointed mateR 80 pereent of the liateifililt tin trying to bring,the houd,bact# i to appi'ove Bet'19'h ddiholitioill~eli- ' ' out where house after houne l#d homes sold ih th13 area in the past he said. ~ Â· mit, lie nb# 18 wrappil*1*Â·Work oh been demolistidd to make *ay for two yeit,8 hitte bbell torn do*n and : Patricia Butlet; executivÂ¢t.direcd.A massive hothe bn thd Alt@t :~Cl.i : I mansions three to fout jtlines their leplaced With much bigger holnes. Aor of the Nant,teket Pres.evatio'n Aftot the vote, Ber*helped lund i size. At one waterfront site on 9ld Most of the torn-down homes cost . hlist, Bald I,he Mditi Street *nova- and beeaine president of:.the 'Nan- 2 Post jiond in Cotuit, it kingle Cdpe between $1 ihillion and $3 million, 2 ,.Â·tioil, bordets oh dmAMitioh.{ 'f:, i tilekethe5ervkition Truati<Whith'ap- i Cori coUage built in 1925 Was torh On a boat tour that circles Grand "There's nothing historic about itÂ· . pointed Butler 86 ita exectiliVe.diiÂ» down to make way for a big hound, a Island, home to the private Oyster. 1Â· how/' she haid. "Thita:hous,6; i think,: i,toti jititle; hid lieeh theÂ· witii<*ditia* pool house, and & combination ga- HalÂ·bore deyelopment, Cotton ex- f is really kind ot a totiehatone for pe66. : thr ot tlie Jilstoi'le bistriettldn**162 1 rage and gliest house. plained that thiny 6/ the: bldeft} pleron.isiand. Il selitia lii.*ery badv.sion At,the,tiltid 8fth@Â·1}61*ntedilion.* As a del,ate tÂ·ages over whether homes iret?t that Well built by to~ picture about what'@ happeÂ¥.ing to: and had supDorted 40#holitioh> She ' tile houses that are being demol- day's @taillarda. They don't have Â£ 6111 hbul~0." f ~Â· '.' 14 ' )1.1 J. :.... s , kity* thd deetetion and the.job off61Â· 1 ished really have historic value, the fouhdations and maity have very low. frbteardown lihbutie motethan weretihrelated..,3 'c:"{~liI:':' n /1 demolitions keep occurring. Yet not eeilings. lid bald it'li uptially for mote 50 years old on Nantticket:lt!4~irhâ€¢* 9 ~ Satifohi Post@i th@ :*BkistinUid. . all homes slnted fordemolition come expensive to rehovate them thmi to the approv:,1 of the Historid,bistrict ' minisditar at thdÂ¢86*ihitasion?Â·Whoj 44 2 1/ $ h . 5 Imder the wreeking hall. fealÂ· them down and rebuild. Commissbn. Some homeowners opposed .deniolition, hhid. 116145/00 A Cotuit waterfront hmne once But it's also clear that the new have satisfied thâ‚¬ commission by new house really stands out. "It kind led by for#161' H'Irvatd Universi- b*zir#rs wabt +Iidthhinr Folitlk the,K. -elling the e>idj,11(#1669* t,10,401*eofte lift?inmt; 111!01118Â·Â·mt'hy,%8 St,id ': ~ , Ff \ Â· 90.*A c fÂ»4 94 Â« Â«7Â»al 4 1 LO-7 4 1 9 6 \Â¢72.4 1 - V 1 l r ~ - V 1 - = LP. â€¢ 'b. . - 2.0 .. Dâ€¢Ad . 4.... . .0. I ..2 Gracy's is located in two Victorian miners' cottages. Photos by Frank Martin. God save the Victorians "Main Street is the climax of civilization." Owner Katherine Thalberg retained the tiny -Sinclair Lewis Victorian dwelling in the front and added onto the i cottage in the rear in order to achieve a full-size Main Street in Anytown, U.S.A., offers the visitor a structure for her business. glimpse of the town'S character, ambiance and people. Purists may consider the renovation a type of : Main Street is a community's welcoming mai. bastardization, but this building retains the Victorian Slowly but steadily Aspen's front doorstep is image yet allows for maximum use of property. eroding, molding to the contours of a rapidly changing The J.W. Atkinson residence (now the Sardy House. community. Victorians and miners' cabins still dot the Hotel) is another good use of a classic yet under- - facade but could become endangered species i f W. 1 careful planning is not implemented. At last count, on the stretch of Main Street i . from the Hickory House to The Hotel Jerome, six ~)/ Victorian-era dwellings were on the market. A -â€¢.4 Most of the nearly 100-year-old homes in 1 f question are looking a little worse for the wear. ' 9 1 , While the structures may not be of much . -- b. monetary worth, the prime property on which they sit isâ€¢of great value. And in the real world, economics usually win out. 2 u Profit vs. Value But if compromises are made. the flavor of ain Street can still be retained. , A good example of working with what's available can be seen in Explore Booksellers and Coffeehouse at 221 East Main. Explore Booksellers and Coffeehouse on Main Street. 294 2/37 y Victorians have suffered death by bulldozer. utilized structure, as is the Floradora Building which- .. - wanted to put his architectural office in the old house. now houses several offices. The addition would contain offices. - Last week architects representing the owners of Says Mathis, "HPC wanted us to do things my o small cottages in the 300 block of Main Street, partners felt were out of line. So we dropped the plan. ext to the Miners Building, appeared before the "The problem that we have to keep sight of ... is oric Preservation Committee with a proposed economic feasibility. The prices being ask*ed for the -- 1 gn. little Victorians are high. And people working with Sam and Heidi O'Leary Houston, who are in the them have to break even. There isn't enough sympathy rocess of rebuilding Elli's of Aspen, would like to from some HPC members, although some are habilkate the two cottages and join them with an sympathetic. ddition. The building would then likely be "With this attitude ... we will not see many I -- nsformed into retail and office space. Victorians being saved. The Historte Preservation Committee (HPC) was Anytown, U.S.A. rdedly optimistic about the Houstons' plan. Like it or not, more compromise may be necessary With this project and others, the HPC is grappling or the old houses will be forever lost as owners and 1, with just "what is a good renovation. developers must realize just what is economically Compromise or Lose feasible. In an effort to retain Aspen's landmark buildings, For isn't it better to face the economic reasons for .the committee is willing to compromise ... to an extent. the change, and work with them, rather than losing the in the past, HPC has not been willing to structures altogether - compromise ... and Victorians have been lost. Ifs the Victorian heritage thai sets this town apart Several years ago architect Fritz Benedict proposed from the Vails, Sun Valleys and Keystones. And isn't it . a design for the property immediately behind The Gap better to have a new structure looming behind an old (the former Bullock's). The design incorporated a little Victorian rather than have the original house ~~~brick house that had been owned by the Parsons completely obliterated: : family. Otherwise, Aspen's Main Street could indeed begin 1 The design was rejected, the plan abandoned, and to look like Anytown, U.S.A. the house torn down. A very large modern building r stands there now. Tbe Aspell Times, September 3, 1987 More recently, architect Stan Mathis proposed a Tbis article was jointly written by Mary Esbbaugh Hayes mid ilar plan for a small Victorian house located at the Madeleine Osberger. er of Hopkins and Spring. The design was toÂ· incorporate the old house (800 uare feet) into an addition (3,500 square feet). Mathis 295 f i V f 4 .., , 7-2,- I I 1 t'....l . : r-.- '4 ~ . r .:3 9Â£05-,MOLS :XÂ¥:I . 0655-960Â£6 '3111. t}919 03 'NLEV . tOE 311<19 . 14Â¥ NVWAH 1571 025 Â£946-9260/6 :*W . RELE-904026:3111 . 519 00'30!,m,21 .7,V OCM10103 1 OZZ 24.-4.-~ial I m i p: 1112.4 32Â»5 S1O31!HOM\. 3=IdINNAD S312!VHD >Â¥71 fi =4 f 0/) C 4 .4 z 3. 5 Q W 0 0 \ \ 01 0 /\ R/ Jrt \ . 9/ \ \ I 4// \ / 1 \ \ \ 6 / I . \ r 1.1 \ \ \ \ \AL 1 1 L_ _ 19 --- \r-- \ \ \ L 'iLI , ' 21. â‚¬\ , . 4,4,9 441, ; / V + 0- - 2IJ j 141 03 %42- 4, 4 JU) 6 Â£,4.... . 14,4 . +tz_f,fis.Â· ..: .- a. 1 Â· :Â«.v, . 5 1.lf.i,j ; 14%-r .- 1.43:~;~ a'~ . J Â·4.4,22AF4%193,)&~c.#6k.,fj# Â·' .Â·c '4Â· . " ' 17 . r', 1 2 1 &11,Â·:...1:54*..A! . 4, Â«, . '1.- 01 , :.: . . 1:44 - 4 f -- . e ... ILÂ«:91 Al= 0 4 ' 41-4 i 4 ~'..1: : f :'~7.-41~ /5 ' 0 4 2 m .- ,Â»:17 1, U ...21?,~ 1,1.,... 1 2&*.':65, I I~... ...fill. ..4 .- 0 . her %4914 * ' W :349.~5 ll 1 0. 4 0 , 14 * tE 1 4 -4 ....... 74@' .tâ€¢ '2 i.~~-Â·'Â·~t-~-4.detilt f .. 9 1.. f.:66/1 1% I .. : Rb,Â§Â¥.113 0- - 3- ~.&24* . :42 .7ii 1:46:Â£~i ...LA . f. ----- I i r' ..3 1 ('792 9 . - 1.Mt/'*.24 1 -Â· , t : 12'4:Â·, -1 - . 71.424.6 . 1 1. , 4 ..tw. . N. 9 11. . 0.-m -*' 4 0-0 74 1 ./ e - ...U 80 @ , .., e--4-- - 1 4 ' 1: 'YA 4I _ f . , 11, 2 ., 4 W . 1 . =1 t, N ' E, 1 . . -0.-'-%--./.- . . '06. I. i i + . I k .t ' if' 2 iw-------- ~. ; .L 4 .91 , 4 - . 1 . t / Â· - 'c~ Â· Â·, dirâ€¢ 49 4 ~ 11 1- 1 . 4 1 .11 414 71 , . I .F.,~0= . _ 11_1-.. 111 ,. .,. ..1,; 445/0 . 9 11 1 4 4 . ....: - ~ ~ :4?:- - ,-Ir#9*2221.liff.1 1 . 1 Â· t. ' . l. A,J I =f0~125#"M'P' I';a- 8 -- .. . . . .4 9 + 34"12 4 I *4'll * 4 - . '166 . 0. :. .. .....1. .. . 1,/1 I 2.'. 1.9 I ' ' '' r>' p<//;m â€¢t 1- . ./ Y . . . , 1 . 1,Â·2 F ..:.:.. 14: 1.6.:.,-' .,.,?1'e&gil>4 i + f 1,1 ' 6 A-1 5.-4 46 24 : F 9 ... 4%3- 4* , tte. â‚¬ r , , 1., - 1 1 1 ,- I. ~ 1~~ t. 01 r .. . 9. k . 85 0% 1 n. 8% 0, 13;2 h . 6 4 , ~A. .3 - le 1% 4-9 434' .8, 7 ' '4 ' Â· I.% ''I: /'.*. $ /4. 61.- , ..r 4 . .... i. 1. ~f,â‚¬Â¥41, & I gek e * SS '' A....: '~Â·I i Â·-'A-,4&1'1'e: 1. ,Â· r 41 , 3 84 4. 74 1 . 1 1..:-j . .19. . 'L'.. 1.: 4. 1 111...411* p 4 .' ~~ ' 1 ' G.â€¢A i , .Y . .. . + ; .1 Â·r F d - % 1..1. Â»2.ti'.51 :37; , L-- E - , . aa ... . .1 ),1 f .19-4 2 -\ 0 1 -'.. ~'.3,4 -i. "'':.'::>2:2$4,2~ i,N ' '.Â·. 4 3 Â¢\ ' .... p - ev .4 1, I ,.1 4,#h .Â·410Â·'t' ' V . .. '' ... ./. .~Â· 14 1 1 - r . . . 1. :1 "k ' Â· ~. ~ ,' 41. 2 1-11 2 4Â·!A; ' . . i L . I NK,29 â€¢t ..,i!~. 44, . ,.. t +Â·''v-1+*A'' I ' I r L. . . . . 4., I . . I Â¢ a 03Â· 141'' 0.,2 '*14/*,A 0 ': - 'r , Â· ..t:" Â· V ..5-r.: qi#44",ll'...2~42"= 2 t 44 . 94' . ~/4 .Â· ~fij-lof F....11+4~qi,41*04,~&~~ GREENBERG RESIDENCE CHARLES CUN IFFE ARCHITEC1Â§ d V + , f: :i.7~1~~ , .t 4.44; f. .... . 4 ..... 1 , 4 1. 5' .'j #3/Â¢?ht'~,Â· 04 x)'V A:,ittiÂ·, *, jiÂ·.lÂ·';~T li i~Oa<)03 : :' ... i . 1â‚¬ =M"*"wal.*mn.~00...t#*"0*,â€ž~1> 3,4. 49Â£'tit ~m...... 'ASPEN, COLORADO no E.COLORADO AVEâ€¢ Tell-ECD 81435 â€¢ 111*:9*26*36 0 FA149N71*16U', 46 ~G> ...2:.a . 223~ *%.2,Â·, , r. NUUVA=1 Id 157=I z./ .. 0 A Â® 0 04*Â« LU:.2.47..4% W-0 Â· 159 2,40 W-e 7.9 I: , â€¢tal- . 5Â·-1â€¢ ' 4-te' 37.C 4 0 ! i .1.,1 1 / i -1*-1 1 00 '.:. /Â·1'' ~ 7 I I. 1 T. ' 44 . . 6594, i,ZO) - - 44% 14 .. 1 . . I ./ 4 0, 4 -1 ' lili / 1. f r F Â· 7 0 ... 6' . .1 : rn .. t 0~r~ , . 1 i - 1 . - 4 11--11 11 t-211136221",1- . 4 --X-JOI .-, .._- ,_ _ _, 4-- - Â·Ii.li ) 1 I ra f.1 1 L*' U_-r -- 7---.63. 4 -4 1 , ., p rr~--Â·=Â·,Â·'~ .,r -"~' iM~ "~ ........ -~,f Ilal - - N Eli r -' â€¢ 0'h _i LI pri-1 1-1 ~ ) -- 1319 UEÂ£ 4.-1 * I r... -4 - 4 59 1. ~MA .1.f. t. L.1 1 * ; [la I CDC] 8 i'*4 \ arm / 41.4 , >,: -Ill-Jt \ 96,4 .-t 1 f . 1--- ----111. -WIL / , .1 9?1 <3 , 1-_ _ _31 r--- 7 . ' 111, 0' j..14 1 ...'' .: S :i 1- -, 1 . #~4:,F .41 ./ " 6.,tt:...i Al ~ ; S : 2 95 . A, 1 / 1. 1 + . 1.7 Ut I i t, : ; 4'I':v ').f~ 1 Â· 'ut. A..... ' lili.,9 . 1 < . . 1 1 EL-\ r.0...,4 .' -1 1 1 .11.--:. 1' Â·:0' t. f.<'-44Â»Â¥ ' p:'Â· 1:4.h PfÂ»1 '20 1,; q .4 -11 --- ~-- --_ n 6112140 f-1 ' ''~t . , 1 1 :,AE- 1. 21-1 - - -r- -r- -----1 2 i 71FTi'iri .- Â·-Â·Â·~~;Â· -Â· ~~-~1. ..f~*1-8 . + ~ 11' 11 1.)Â· Â· : I Y -, - --- r- ... 4 1:. r?;1-7,2)* 11.11 11 Â·''I~M I~' 11* f '1, . 4.4 4 Â»Â·a 1.... : A . 11.-9& (55*~g i â€¢ "L: ~06 :,I'Â·24 H.Â» ,:IiÂ·,1- \1 1 10 6-,_~ 11.2 11 I I li I , I I . 5' 9 2<5&5/j. 1,... ..1 4 4 - ~7~~ liu, -, i ;21,11~mift .70N+n-t:fl,-13 P===1 1 . - Â·-2-int-- ir i ~ Â· w.Â· - $ 4 :i '14 -- r-n '11 - I 1; iÂ· -J~[ i T 84 I #*Â· 5 Ull_..1-1 1} .i ---,1*= 11_ UL JL J . Ar , }r ~n , .,1 Fir r i R ./ f:.... 4 , __1 ' 3 -111 Ji_ L. J , ' 4 4 , AN ,Â° Â· , 14/ I .4. D ~ -1-Ir lf- iri ' 4 L. 1--fT,1-d-/12 1 N N li f ,. ..9 I '",Â·-:4-. t. 1 ..9 J . 1 ..1 , 1 % .84 ..0 1.1, , ' .'''I .~ . ' + I. ur .....1 --0 1 <. , A 3 " 4: ,. , , 5 1 -9 1 ' . I. Â·+Â· , 1944 0,4 , I ..et Â·Â· . 1 56.11 L 1 1. 7.. --4 -- Â¥,â€ž-m--4.-'*-:-91-7- -- ---Â«--+17 --9.4- ....I---- :431& : r.Â·-Â·-Â· Â·~ Â·Â· ..t Â· Â· ' I -A ,- 4 t ... j ./r. 1'. .... 1.., . . , ..> :h. '.. ..3 .4't,1 41, . 1 G C , D.. ~ 0,".41 .- 1, .ff'Qi,24:3 4 3. . . 1, 'tr J, t..thix L. . dilio#*41*(WASY .- '. ~W~ I ..p/LFLL . 1 Â¥?M\~ %1' i''i11% 4 ' Â·GREENBERG RESIDENCE ' CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 5*84.7 31 r R 11-2Â·j 4: r i '' 6 8 24.r. 1 , 1 1 -1 .. $,Df&,2.~ M * i 21 . 1, , . I . t. '. A. , 111 ... :r.-"ii 4 -# 744,2'n.Â·Â·; Â¥~'5;'~' Â·t: 0,..,T: LOY,)15, BLOCK 103 "i -' 'Â· ~ ' 'smeS *blim.â€¢ am,mâ€¢As,i,Lm Imâ€¢1,8,7466*00â€¢FA,&:mwMm W'' ial. 4.?49 %~ff':40-af "+ .U' '31 . ... D tm49*, wl ..â€¢r -- , Â· + . Â· 1 ' ASP#' 9)LORADO, 220 Â£ COLORADO AW. â€¢ TULLEX 00 SHU 0 lnE: 9747263738 ' fAL -720*Â§67 .. SÂ«503% v tty... ~ 0 0 G G '2* - A.,1 1. i .1 a -leg 8.-9 2â€¢-0 8 â‚¬ W-31 -tel#44- yi _+R*_ ,-59 4: ; 1;Â©FÂ¢*,40?, , . 47*-FilÂ·21 â‚¬3 1 6 0 1 1. 74*rgy t~ . ty.. G] , .4.'fi':-4,1 r 7 . .1 .1 .1 1 ; -14 '- P 1 1 . 1 4/ A ' - M I.+ r --11 - P F__76 -02 --I wr---I- -Ir- 0-"J D 11/ A - Â· U \ 1 J Â·Â· / \ r--- - 00 , ..1:Â¢., ...4 , 4 ..4 | . 0/, ~I.,it~ ~Til \ \\ Oi P I 9 f , A-1 Ii., A ..t \ 3 - --9 1 - --lf-- 6 1 . -1 1 [1 . 1 1 .1 4 4 1 \ <13>- r 01--4 -1-1 . -. 4/, 4 2 \ 4 11 @%9 , Gial,1 ...1 1 96-0 . . * . /0 A. f . u.' , 5, . r ./. RMR 411 %, , .1 2 .=%' kA,74. g 4 - 910 )& 4 : '00 7 2 1 14.. i \UE. f . 0 1 1 i , E h 2 ....fo - Â¢'Â· 17.-tÂ· 0 1 1 0 Ul, ' . - /11~ t. i j 1 1 0 4 4 4 . . I , . . i f , 1.4 Â·1. Â· Â· V i ' I 1- -23 J.; 1, / I ., + .,Il 1 4 ~,t 4 , -- 4 l 1 4 ~ i--! ~0~ 1 1 , - -6,1 1 1 .-1 . ic 1 -,-1 4 : . 1,4 - / . 1, t 1 .1 I 1 . 9 ... ..4 . ''' , , 81-9 19-r 121 1 r, . . ~ 1 it i.'..4 4. I. lig' .' . f 199 . 2413 . Ve . 41 56 - .'' < ' : I 5.-0 -, 1 . 1 . , ~' . ./ 0 - {m} ~ 0 1~.-ru..2 .'Ftliv;j * - 12il*# b. 't,11 â€¢ 1,r .. , .,3.>,p; , . Â·,p>ItÂ¥.0Fi''0~Â· '' 44 1. ./1. p :144 , '. I ' 37â€¢, b fS-~ :. .Â·~1, ri , , 1.,Â¥.14? .70 .Â·4Â·4'9 X 4 ..D.4,/ ' .. I f *>1*te..1* 11.Ff,E, -~ i: GREENBERG - RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 0101 /1 1 * 0 4 ... 0 . 1 , I. : i.*, jt u * :*Â·%2 il '44 49 11 9 I .... 9 1...22 LOT 15, BLOCK 103 520 EAST Im-4 AVE â€¢ StmE n ' ASFIN 00 11011 â€¢ TE!Â£O492HS@0 â€¢ FAD< sm,8-*076 ' ~ ~ 1 ASPEN, COLORADOÂ· /Â· 210 Â£00-00 AVE â€¢ TalumDE,00 8,05 â€¢ TEU: 9707:em â€¢ FA,00002-0 i.-,: y. . ./fÂ·Â·: J, r I 'rt fuX'.C 1:Â¥44 t r.' -- tÂ· 4 ' Ill. ... 44*e& ' Im] e e e 4: . ' C* . e . Â· Â· tr'!:ttYT: '' . . â€ž ..4 ,&:-Â· 441: 9 Â¥ 56'-0 ' I . r ry.,44 4,;,7. d , 1 . ... 11. Lai *61+ â‚¬#. .....__.,. __._ 'RL_- .:;.'~~,;Â·14'*3 0.54. . 1 .4 â€ž t. 298, .9 . .7 f..9 >r .:2!lm J .' Â· Ch,â€¢'tl '' 1 "4 A .....1 t .., , .20,4,1,45 Â· Â·Â·c f.i Â·. c.'11140 . . Â· Â· ,Ul'll'll --. ). Ill L,â€ž:, . .. 1 . 1 1.'.1 L . mz~..1 4 r .. D . I 1 .1.1 '... .C....142,#flu . I 4. 2.10.14 I .1 l 1 - - I .11 .9 -1, . 1 - r,. Â·~ * I I I 1 . I . . 2- 1. . NE . I i.., I. ' 1-- A Â· I -i . ,% . . A,4 - . I . , . .7. 'f t. 1Â¢. A. ' M ~ 0' W ..b h..2.04' 4 21 At' 0 r'- ... f 7 .4 " 4 Â¥ 'Â·44 .. I ,: . I ' : ' , , -*k . ' I ''-r~ 4,~ 1. 0~:i , ~ . 1 ' . . 1 tÂ·.. . 4;50â€¢1 - 1 â€¢ - -- -9.4%~â€¢15 . . 0 . â€¢ E 4 4... &3 . ! 46 -, ' ' ~71 j .Â· ' Â·4*W~ G.: I.+ i 0 ' ' ~ . 7 64~ 1 01. ,414 ' I I - -1 1 11.. I Â· .1 , - a . , 1 , " + 1. - e....Ell#,4,&~ / 1 . ... .. 1 , , , 7 . .1 - .. 1. . . 1. t . % - I. I Â· , a"MA 1 I . - ---I-- --- 1--I--- ---- 1 9 r- .. I ' -1 7,=... -; 1/.. ED 1 1---- . 17.. , , ... . L i ' , Â· :.40, :.~ . 1 1 Â·'.,41'Â· I '*' I-: 1'10. 3.4Â· , 'A . .... 1 . 1 4 4 0, rel 01 ..... f 4~1 â€¢: .- 1 2,3, f#: j " I I $ .; 1 , ... 1 . 9, 74 f â€¢ ' S Aâ€¢ 't Â· 1, . ' 7,9 , 5â‚¬ . 244 _ , 55.0 I 4 .2./4- p' 0 6 elÂ»1 4 4 f. Â® .. .. 6 - , 1 ., I . I ' I ~' .,' 0 1. , p ' I . , 6 r ./ 1. , , ' ' " '' C Â·' 1~{ '' ~'4 1 . I .. 4, C, ...1.1114,1 I . GREENBERG RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 2 P t.ti'Â·a . t 4, . .15, BLOCK 103 m EAST In?44# Abiâ€¢ RITE 301 ' AGiN 00 81011 â€¢ Tnt 97*3-5090 â€¢ FAX, 0*54076 4 47 5,-,1 , *r.'' 4 ' P : f t..ASPEN, COLORADO 220 E OOLORADO AVE. â€¢ TEUUmOt OD 81435 â€¢ laE: 9707*3730 â€¢ FA* 97(m#-9567 . . Â· ' 7.i,02 74,Â· A -'' Ze: 1- 4 4 0, ".:'/Â¢j.L e: i.14~ ict* i,W ....''titti<-i- +90,1 2, - . '' i Z.. 2 1.2. Itc:F./.4. f . 1 4 d 494 :..~: 84#u' ll _ - * 4 0 6 tas. 4/Il 1 j '27'60 . - - . . 4 ; 3.-I Â«. f U f 1 2 - f @014 = aL-u- -r_. , : ..'.(4~ is 9 4//1% 2 -1. - 4 mah . f i . ~117-~'-~Â· Ma~ 1 17 . ...21 1.1.1 / .--0../.lili..-1 1 1 1 2 00 7 9 1,Â· I Â· 1 - 4 ' 44Â·Â· 'irwqi 2 51 1 1 -1 C I ' -/4f~ ~,v~'*LkÂ·#2iM I f 0 / l i 4 14 1% 0 1 4 1 19 '1.4 ., t.ft. i '' , ..4 ' : ~' Â· 4.'&.3 , -kgt, .4. ' I i ..,....9.446<*27/2 4Â·-I. -6-49,t,3 i 1 t...1 ::je .11 ,~ ..fk.%.1~4 Â· 0 1 Â» I .r. . â€¢4: CE 1 Â·. . Â· kil' Â·11 e: ,Â· , Ah' . -, 0 7 ~611- 1.' It 4 ye -- - ~ .v - _' 39- 77 3 .- f - . 1 1 1 ., t *im~ 1 - -19 ill i, 1 2.-I. A . I 9 92 0-~ i I # 1 U . m --4 7 , = i. . .1 ~- 1 m A . 71 =-1 r 6 3 jqi ..,7 4:f'.'.. 7.t.1. g l Oi / 4 -- ' 4 ':f~*f t . 93* Â·. .hi ~ , 4 -- -4 ---Â· 44 4 '''./ 4 ' /- , 4 1 1 i 1 P ... " 1 1 . n., a. * D '.. 51 7 i i ... I -11 -4 1 2 - , '4.4, il If' 1 . 4 1 1 4 14 1 41 Â· ee - 2..' % .2 I . 7/ , FLD. . , S. 1, 0- 1-6. h . :. ... ' I. . - - fpe 1 -, -le 4 . .4. . u 6 + ' fox . . 1 / . 1 ~ ~L ~ 79 ... I. .. r ' ' 1 i. 43'41: 9 .:. . 1 .. d . . , .. , 4 ................ ./ .' .- G) ., -4 1 . . .. . 1 . :. t? , 4 m .' . P .-: .6 4 Â·, Â· 7 -IÂ·: #Airve MUI . 4.1 1 91'1 4 4 Â· , i, 1, '- Â· Â·Â·â€¢Â·94 Â·,4, . - . . 1 f 3/ 2/~1 9 ' v 1+ 6 I g. it . . ' , 47. 1 4 1-W . ~.....1.~ 419 - 1,1 - 4 4.-4 114 - . 1 .1 r. * 1 1 0.0 .1 l "S , .Â· -4 ... ' - M . 1 .4. :â€¢ .Â·, ... I'. t -' 3..?(~~i. .1.2 6 ;0Â·gÂ·- Â·Â· ,-- r - . "f .&4.Aft 4 ' I Â· '. ' I -- Â·' ./4. . %4. . â€ž-7---rÂ» : Â·';*"t'â€ž4 Â·t 4 Â· *r.. 1. .... -, . a Â¥4261,Â·'4 .D ,Â·Â· . le#f Â·Â·UL ' - h .. Â£ . . .... I . ~ ,.4 ri ..,â€¢ 4: 7.2' *4 4'MAt;'5, . 1 . , ~ 4Â·, '"i'??flt.Jetl>Â¥3.iw 4'. .1 1 -. ! C J Â· Â· ..ell../Al Â£. Â·' .. i Â·. R.F Â·,fip b'11 ....24&1 4 -+....4 - CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS - r~ ../.f .j?44 144 11:i? 1.Iill .... GREENBERG RESIDENCE I * %*Â·:i?Ilf~?3411; Â·23,4-.Â·.. " {:-~..tor.414 *LOCK.iciB 9064011-1 AVE.â€¢ Slm 30!â€¢ASFWCO 01Â§,PmE:9*Â»2~590â€¢),11:97*NHO,6 t .41 <fl T Lap , r -p '; 1 ' ' â‚¬m,6.1 0. ' A51'EN,~COLORADO , 220 i 001Â£*,DO AVE. Tall,Im]E. 00 0,433 . TEU: 4707Â»3730 4 FAÂ» 970*184567 . 03 j , , .,A f ./ pr. 1*-3 W . 1' I'lly<iM ~ , : rf:EBS:i 4 1 p :1:;er.... e 1 Â£ 24:lic#EX' . 4 ..: 1 ' 1, . 3.0.<Q. 'Â·. 5 i' 1':5.tsi-/AM -1. T - - . " r E '44#/~1' S 1, Â·' ~- 1.t~.19 ..44 t' " t. . 1 . 6 ..1... 11~,.9 1 I , , Â· aN:i . ' i,i 4.. 2.. L .L:..iFFi'ft , 4 -1 4{4' 'tr.1' ' ~." ~ 45'~'Â¥49 .->'4 :42*: 04 c .... Â· , 'i v.'4.1,0 1 *4 /7\ -0 'i, 9114 ~4 ~ 21 - 14 . / *1.L , Â· j.%.j . :'2 f. :1, V.,2-'Â·. U 174 . 1 2/ad-': â‚¬3 ,.. ,%Â·9:- .4 9. / â€ž-P- .- 1 , , 1 ..11 ; 49 4 1 , , . *te V 11 r 5 0 -- -- - --4 --i . -....... 9 t .1 0..9 .. f 443.. 1 AAI '' Af 1 1 0 ' I.: 2 - -- m 1 :0 1 12 . . 51 4 % ., 1 , .. 0- 4 . 1 r ?Me L - 1 4 , m h,./.*.:arâ‚¬*tÂ·, 6 -C . WAR 1 A '4 -1 .. + 01 b Â·Â·' I 'C 004 m.,-4 1 9/4/ 1 - -2- -Â· -4. 2 . 1.1, 1 .. 4Â· 7 .- 42Â¢1' ./ 11, I , r .: 1 j. 40: I ..../ I '06; Â· 1 ' - . .. * 4 , Pvktit,Â·,.., ,. f. 631â€ž -6 5. 90 * 0 0 6>1 Â· Â· ~' , 401-5 . 32â‚¬ w.r . 0 43 0 A . fr z, ..4 f Er -. r . 4 e r.9 U#* pÂ·FY'-' I AV I ' ------ -- .r.0--p-.---....".- 1 .1., 1, 1 . --' 1 . : 2/.Â· r...... I -- 0 -- -1.. 1 ' Â·Â· 1... W + , ..1 . i . t~ tl .lk ., , 1 Â· ~>..4 ./ Z a t. 91 i .4 *09 . 6 0.4.,..+. . Ul. P . \. .. 0.~m - . - . ... . , 4 '.Â·f 1 , d 0. 4 4 4 . 9 4Â· 4 ~@%*, ' 1 4 Â·- tÂ· '.2,9 / 1 , -t , 1 M r - - 1.-4 1, P i V 1 . . .../Mt.d ' 1 4'' - - 5 Â£1 , , 1... 1, I ' ' ' . -7-' :â€¢~â€¢ ......1/ .41 *4 ..4*.-{N } V , 1 -. . 7 , / 9/ I . . 41. I e *// tv. 4 1 11. C . 2*,31,9 .1 -' 1. -111.K-. 1 - 0 0 . 4 OyfÂ·'. I ' " pk ' M '2 :' '// '.-,I. 1 'tu .... 9 Â· Â· I I . . ~. . .11. Ill .; r,....9, Wyâ‚¬ 1 Â· I I J - 7. . 0 ,' 'Â·2Â·r,el .~.r" .: .: A t.0?+44-4,5.1 + ' - . . 1 I ,~' ~ 'Â·'. Â·Â·Â· 0 41' 1@... 14; 74,7 3,/ , 4 Â·Â· ' 4. 11, 7 , Â· - 4.Â¥:,8 5 '31 F. E, GREENBERG RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ~ ~~ k Â·I ...tiÂ· 7/ 1 1 *,3 'Â· I + *, Â· t. Â· i â€¢ '14.,63 ..0.,..4-ki..4 11Â· N & ./. ....;' t~ m wm 4** ma.â€¢-. 2.*n j =a= .,*LT ..*.*. i.;.5 :<4 W.7~ LOT 15, BLOCK 103 rt . t. 9 ASPEN, COLORADO 220 L COtâ„¢Â¥30 AVE â€¢ TE]11Â£,DE CO 81435 â€¢ Tal: 970726-37* â€¢ Mit: 97Mâ€ž-9561 1 I 4 .2 ,.4 . 1. . u-~,au.1...434,:4.1 u#Sm"-39Â«71 ~' A r t 1-0 .1 41 ..2 . E-r el . '~ -f~'t'i, i 2 .A. r 4 Â·â€¢â‚¬11: :. 4 Â· ' %1Q g ~ .~44~ Q~ 1 21:'44-t,,94~~A m t %* Am ' * - A BIT, ~EL; 1'.9.FÂ£*Ut<* ...t (03 14 ~2 f '~6 ~-2, 9.44)2:#~4. *P â€¢ 1'Â· * '1 r. i ~- ~f 1.> '~~Â· 61 4~â‚¬44ftiliQ .. 4 E .6 It,.la,# ...11,,4.,:4*40'-y / , . ....1,1....%96.1. 41;.4 21,22* : - :';%1 t. ' i'.15,(1 . e 0 0 t.Â·' ...........U 1 ': J. t Â·, 1,>.%11*28 Â· C. 1 ... ; m m 8 4 .11 4. 9 .4,.1-1.- E - NAN'.US 44Â·Â·-,3.- '. %2Â·.i g iT .,1 6 A 179.:1 4 Â· ' I 5 :1 ; 1 't:>WS;14*g dIR 7 2 11 9,41 -4 , 41 â€¢t' , # :./44.Â·/*e ~~fÂ¥:.' ;0;~(; .~Â·~44;' .~: 4 ~ ..~ '15~ ~P '~|' ETI ..:.Â·J ''Â·i<' i.f**I t -'~ ~â€¢ ~.~~ ~ ~~ ~4 22 :,Â·<'bl,';0* 5ff:> Â·, CMK,.r 4'~ 1 x ~Â· . . . 0 + 1 '%.1 1 . 1-- ------ *- - _.L h ' 42% & 1.. 1 .. 1; 11 , . ..i,Â»i.' Ai hhÂ·â€¢ 9.Ii -f :'. NF V 3.. : ti' 4 'T . 0 ... " t .1 $ . NN:.,~r,;,101 . +1 'fpc-.9,k . â€¢ - t 4-r, . .. ' Â· 7 . .i : / , 1.k ::4 1 Â· It: 44 . 1 .5.* . .., *iti'~'+~ 41 ~14 k s ..4 1 9 1 '. . - - 1 . 5, .. 9.>r. + . , :4:,I.itt 1 -U, 4@ ... D . , 1 . 4 41 11, 10 .1 1 P. i r.' . .., 61.1. r 1 , . - 31,1.5,1/f *4* 14 , r. , . ~h~â€¢ . -- 561; 31 9 - ., ./ I "fe :ul:,~i~ . .1 ' ./ .1, . . 1 1\\ 0 4-7..1 . 1 '" ,/:' .'., ~Â· . / . ..4 . 17.' .AL},fr.' 'h 0 . t, . , 2, 4Â·~ 1 ,Â·, ..h :,l.,2 z ' ,.... t: 1.411,. -, ir,-.: - 4 . - 1 . '. ....,A ..1...40?ia 4 . 1 : Â¢ . 'SK ..d,dilw'&.i DÂ¢(E, 4:~Â· , oll,4. ='6/1, fl,yf. G'*.5-,a. 1 1.. " - I. 4.. lit- 11 ~ . ''.. I:.Â· - ' '. 1. /i Â·,te~tifF' , 2 . d - 9 2.- : ... 1 , 4.. 1. - 46 . . . ... 1 r ' I. 4 1 1 - '.-/./--'.-1 , 5 4 ji" 1 1 ... . 0- - â€ž--- 1. I .Ct. 90 :. , '1. .:r. r.dSLily>.' 4 ' '; . '4 4, 1 J :AL I . .. t.'f, ..r.6. 1'. . , 1 ./- -- .. 1 Â· Mi 0. 1 - .--1-- ..0 . , -- - 11 â€¢ . '1.11'fel' 'cy .. '...4 '' ' f.'., . . . , . :11. N ' , b. . 1 '.r - . I . . '.Ill; 1 â‚¬Al j Â·' ' Â· ''21,15' Â·-1 S M A 4 ...;.- '' %1* i A :Â¥ t . 4 14 4 ..; 1 + 1 -1 04 + - 1 ... 4 /1 2 :8 4â€¢ 'a G G*gie~.. t:-A Â·.. B.~;â€¢Â«'5'd, 6.I %0: 'Mi. 2 4.,1. 0 m. h .1 - .0 1. ' i 2.L, f.6 4"11 . 4 . .4. '." 4 ; z .'d . " i P "' .VI~:*211/.4. J Â· ./:4&,1 ., 11'f (9111%81% Â· A.5*17 :7 , 4 I , , I ~/At .'414 44 4 11 1 rf] 31 2 1 GREENBERG RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ~=~ ~m~ ' 11 1.14.., 0 1 ... ' LOT 15, BLOCK 103 529 6451 HAIAN AVE ' am 301 â€¢ ASM,400 01611 â€¢ THE m,2,8190 â€¢ FAX: 97092S-60,6 r V J 't . ASPEN, COLORADO 120 E. 00(ORADO AVE â€¢ TEUUmDE. CO 01438 â€¢ TEU: 97092&-3738 ' FAX: 970720-9567 T,- 7 41 7.Â»- 2 .~.4 e â‚¬A I, i. ..Â· ~4': 1 ..32*-:4Â· 2 Â·~ Da<'.9,2, ~ :-1Â·Â·:': i~9229--1 . , ==ls/*#/646 - / itÂ·.~.,a~g~z./.616-K:'te--h:*.18=: -4. py#'Â·: ,*3 RmiUilimellitililijaiXEJ.liallilliallil,manimial"im#,111,1,1,_199~!39*16666.~15,66-61'.iiiijilillip'201ET'.D./.Bl'.Tr....=.,It=li#EW:agm,In - - I V li'HZ"fl ,Â·,1 - 0--Im 2 t /' , ' 7: 8/2/g"/Fia 21%/gal . - /Â·'.0.Â·%532%~Es, 0. . ~zn. r:. . . : . . .'- 12!- .,Fl ' W .Cl 111/i#~# - ER=ar.â€¢40Â·r .=m I I--Fi--illi-9--fill|-I-|=-Fl=|lill.kla~2222 4-Ne Â· - 11-M liNMM"%1122*t*Etlilimeti -1-===== -=-==-=lii.~aÂ£45#.8412Â§%$#2=17~,djunm!&,v 64#~~, !=2211-,mili~.-i:--'iÂ¥--1.-riA,Zi.t~-AU - wp. 9- / I , ...1- 1 Pls 4 - f~.1.:1, }19) *1|& - , , 1. I:* ,;m#&9464 ~'0% I Â· .' ..;r=zÂ£rl?FYÂ·Â·fil ---Â· Â·>' KEE~2I6*a, .,.~6.. . LE?ilii/ZZATE . .. . 4 . 1 * f i-04'41:f 1029Â·91@31 ~ It:i:*1*49%1 f.0~ li /4*211~~*231 39/r/Miw--8Â»f;u, et-,2.plai;-6*1 . ~ ~60*014 .......ilid.....6...~...............1- --- li%2.79452&F2 ag=Ut=261 ..... Â¥r, ..%.i ; i :2Â£0 - Â· 7./2 M *Ea - ' Â£520.-0~~ - ~: ~ Â·FIER.'...' apm*) , .WIN*,5 311 - =1=*teÂ·31 - - ./ ..4.E...I-V. -Hua-- .:1~2.2'....... i,1 ......ligM...it WE{ZIM -- gili- ilaill/Mimik. wilmiiiVal ... 0. 0 0 4 +303-691-0121 ROCKY MTN MASONRY IN 396 P01 SEP 22 '98 20:15 ~. 4<,04- M~#-- 7~Â£-6-17146 ~~-~~ ~ Post-ir Fax Note 7671 Date 4/Z Z. &86. 'L ('- AUM / ~* 410/917-747-' 402*.41-2144 *=. 440(41â€¢i- t--1~6 h.. 081*41-6rz.\ September 22, 1998 MASONRY 5- Co T - U.,I INS.1.0.. 9 mall ELKS RENOVATIONS Installation of Metal Plant Hangers to Historic Brick Wall Scott McHale, architect Â· Diane Travis, technical director Cottle Graybeal Yaw Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute 510 East Hyman Avenues Suite 21 1780 South Bellaire, Suite 402 Aspen, CO 81611 Denver, CO t0222 Phone: 970/925-2867 Phone: 303/691-2141 Fax: 970/925-3736 Fax: 303/691-0121 . Scott: I I Thanks for mailing me the drawings and the photographs of the historic wall in Aspen. From what I could Ace. the building next door was onginally built with fhce brick on the front fhcade and common brick on the return wall. Unfortunately, this , softer, lighter brick is now showing signs of age. A cursory feview ofthe material you sent leads me to believe that your planiers will not significantly damage this wall. The long vertical leg of the support brackets means thai most ofthe force exerted by the metal fasteners on the wall will be a vertical pull. This is athickmasomy walL Riscapable ofsupporting these small ~ J loads easily. I am a bit worried about the differential stresses which will be exerted on the brick when the metal fasteners shzink and swell with changes in temperature. MetaJ moves about three times as much as brick in response to heat and cold If the pressure between these two matenals is too great, you will begin to see hairline cracks in the brick at the bolt locations. Since the planters are removed every fall and reinstalled every spring, you have' aperfect excuse to closely inspect the wall twice a year. If you do note new cracks, the wall is telling you thai your installation was inadequate. Reinstall the hooks and brackets using through-wall bolts to minimize i ~ the stress on the wall. Install neoprene washers at the outside face of the'wall to hold the brackets away from the face ofthe wall and to keep water from being trapped behind them. The washers will also keep water from penetrating the wall at the bolt 1780 South Bellal/â€¢ locations. Although the installation described hdre is kinder to the wall, you do not need to redo Your work unless you sec cracks. 4 F.* SOS-Sol-giRl 4#11#11,484 8(844 ALL CS; +303-691-0121 ROCKY MTN MASONRY IN 396 P02 SEP 22 '98 20:16 .... ..CkÂ¥ Mountal,1 I believe this old wall is much more at risk ftom the condition ofthe mortarjoints MASON R Y than from the small penetrations made by your planters. Your photos clearly showed IN 8 Â¥Ilg T E some crumbling joints and a few bricks which have lost their protective skin. I am guessing that this is a masonry bearing wall. It is providing more than a wearher- resisting skin. The wall is holding up the floors and the roof. Ifyou lose this wall, you lose the building. You told me that the owner applied three coats of water repellent to the wall last spring. According to the Spec Data sheet you sent he used Okon-W-2, a siloxane- based penetrating, breathable water repellent Okon W-2 is an excellent product but no repellent is a substitute for good maintenance and craftsmanship. Section 7 ofthe information you sent infers that the warranty is only good if it is applied by a factory- authorized representative. It also states that a preapplication inspection is required for warranty work. Check with the owner of the building to see if these inspections were done. Take a photograph ofthe wall about four hours after a good, soaking rainstorm. Any dark patches in the wall will point to problem areas. These are spots where water is soaking into the wall instead ofrunning off A thorough study ofthe wet patches will usually lead you to the source ofwater intrusion. Seal out the water and the wall will be happy. Ifyou have any further questions, do not hesitate to call on us. Diane Travis Technical Director Rocky Mountain Masomy Institute 1'80 10â€¢11: Bellal:I 1.Suilte 402 .iWE-Gle"iiÂ¥ *303-691-2141| Fax :03,891-0121 AfF:laze qf BIA, NOMA. AIA al SPEC u Thin Spet:-Data snaet contorms to â€¢,ditorial style prescribed by The Coll'.trus:10,1 Sfiec:fications inat'tute. Th# manulneturer k ruitpons,tile for tecnnical ac- ':Urally. 1 Plof-M-11 Â·rT NA.ill :-,1.'7: r'. ATER 3 5722..3'.: Â·~i:.1-. the micro-enlt..i?kin co.miorent FRS 3:-6 harmiecs :0 412 :4.,i''oundinÂ·; penetrates rhe surf:,ce to set up .:l V~ iLLEf.: 6 E 'Â· l. E F.' *, ip K. Â·.D Â·9 d - 2 \1 ATER :Â·rut,rgition, noi,41:-imabie. 0, Â·.3- ;0Â·.t~ woter repellirm tr:-r:.ir in thia. sub REPR'.: E'Â·Â·Â· - 33 :LER'*~. OKOV. '34:or and -,re equat!'.' eahÂ·.Â· 6.-1 0-,plÂ·, surface 01* conc-ere and 710$,7,iry. 1.1,~ . 1-â€ž 1 These acrÂ·.-lic drqi.Its:cris 3!50 help ;i~ 1 h â€¢ 11.. 1 0 a. C I. 543[Â·eÂ·'91-it 2Â·-Â·!:Â·?uÂ·PLÂ°'. 5,667,ier) for PEFELLE>.7 52/,LERS 916Â·.+ 0â‚¬ ccnioiblate. me Lum:.câ‚¬ 50 duciproof $,1 ~ - 009!! 6:2 to j-:nip :71:Â·e o: ':c;~:irÂ· Â·acr.1 harden co~rete . 0.: s,towÂ·.arie -p~ gt//'r.ACES. component chen:cal[v reacts,.vith - 2. 4.1AXWFACTUKER .1.,1.-\\! FLUCCER' = A.! : :.en rer,crere .7,1d n-:as,r,rwÂ·, surfaces to f r ..... ron-:us :Orit:rere, n-,3Â·40nr.; 1:14 6[ucer? term lasting protect:00 .against Â·.water 56#'73{69 th.al Carr.ct ts Â·..2.3,â‚¬+J u:41< tntr:.i5ion. i he Ol:OK PLUCCER - Â·.-,Â·2.rivent.10:z31 !:ener.riltirg 4&re- feoâ‚¬Â·i- vi5cCsity Conl;''DHed .7~.stern N i spe- leÂ·:'c Â·seaiers. k..S :1.90 2Â·Â·Â·.:8!40: 35 23 cial blend oi a.:tvb:. eliscomeric P,,1 . ne: 70.3 : 2 3.'-J 3 - type.:eins. Whes firft .Applied, Undercoater for eiuj:'>mer.Â·35 aild Â·,v,en used ag a chaikbir,de'. OKON's A.mu:#ified resins appeal Cumpoiition and .flaterials: m:lkY :vhtie. The emuisitied resins F 3.PRODUCT DESCRIPTICP C.KON V.'ATER REPEL'. ELI 62.2.LERS COAIMC? (fi;52 40Â·gelneft and dry 3 Or ON V.'-1 \: :TER.REPELLE.,7 are i .iDeÂ·j:.! clend 91- ac-' 5.- Â·mkro- cler and color'e:5. The mirkt .i emulsioris and a s;i,or?.ne soiuti:.Â·n. appea:2:,ce of OK.ON \V- T aml SEA.LER is a 53'0 5oiidS sealer rormu- - lared :11 3 Â·.Â·.atâ€¢3r base le be used on 0 - re310:labl'. .:!ense or lighl concrete (..,AL ~; & c..l._7,4 i,- a ..'Lt l liÂ·-Â·Â·1Â·Vi-M,At<T and %230nrv Qu,rliC,9. sUCH 35 rÂ· frail-':n-p,!3;.-e' co.-urete.,-eÂ·?chr 9.5,@re E:rtuts:or., f.omeric Er.,t... -0 iart'jÂ·C&5 And illost 84* eric:. kON \'V-2 W.A,TER REPILLE>IT , \,.4 OP 0 & -1 ~ Sca.LER is 3 10"/0 30.idf. Water bn<ed U. - ..0-9 seller design,?d rof use ort normal ;â€ž4. A 5 - ... 3 .' 3-90 b ~Â·-,5.Â·' 8 5-8.7 8.3-3.7 - 41 concretâ‚¬ block and other moder.yel, porous iL:i,10?-3 54.lch :25 oid uâ‚¬ath- . 3.04 - 0.93 '.1.99 ered :3 f kk ant-j neavhy Ze#:ured 4 ' 1 ) C C +0'1'F 1 1 ~'OC SERCO. p 1 :TÂ·11 F. -1 9 - -1- 1 F.lh Point: 16ec 1 0,12 C. 1 00.C -Ar/: OKON PLUGGER ts a 20% 4.1 5 U golicis, heavy viscovity. water based '. - -:- . -'. preScale: formulated rot plugging \"51.7:14 Â£ re Â·\ST:M D 2196 4 4 312 -13 M Y 6 3 vâ‚¬f 7 porous masonoÂ·. srucco and -3 : m 1.0 Solid= 1'Â·a.jit. AST:; D i 333 3.U=.3 10.0=.5 310= 5 .2 i 1 concrerc block. p.:ch as tlutea block - __ -1 - and man, grades of light weight ' r 0 .. 11 9 8.45 ':il -, Poundi-uallor:. .ASTM D 1473 ~4 4.90 0.10 0 - 2 biock. Kilogran'line 4.34 - ~ Basic Use: Longer substrate liie Â·< i I. 1 with leg mair,[france is achieved UV ReM.itance: O.1.'v I or,0 :Â·,c.:.irS Ece!tent Excellent Excellent ~: by OKON W-l and OKON W-2 E : water based Bea.!ers. whic.h .c5: E.earhir:g: Â· ASTM I-} 1 61 2 -01 Yes Yes Yes ' a crylic micro Â·Â·emuls! On.Â· btlorare. technology. OKON sealers prevent Paintable: AS PA 0 3 359-93 5,5 YeS Ye5 | the damaging penetration of mois- ture and keep conctele and rria501'tr> . 1 Etee 5<<trile; Yes Yes Yes sur:aces clean and new looking, v..thout Ci~.in~ing the,r nutural Â·Â· OppFdrance. VOC Compliant: EPA 45(:.'384-019 rei 745 I - i ht, 'Ir:! iÂ·.15 hee-1 ur:ClÂ·C., 41 :r.diae *0Â·*:en:ei r:, bc:il .i:.2:.Â·eiF..Â·m I,u>' r 5 Â·,5 Ed.'ion .ina MA.5[.R. ~ 20 42Â·\2 : 9'18 8!inor, T>,c ri.Â·krÂ· ric Â·:5 ,..; :;:t; ni...,t...rÂ· :,01 :.tles in Ma.'.,7Â·,rm:.t 1 '):#5 Jii:lon a,Â·e fcÂ·'41"tâ‚¬':3 'CÂ· ir.â€¢: rÂ·::76:Â¢:s w:1 ..:Â·e, 4 :1.3.jTEL;.fCK.,t'AT 1 '14:i E,11110.1. TA c N<ON, Iii{.. I :A:r RI,pelle"i ROOFING AND WATERPROOFING 0 -4*/ libi 1 3 '3.3 - Â· Â· 2 - l.,A:.1,9 w-z :ricuid last no lor,Ver 1 than approxim,tely 30 mi.Â·J ,-1, ell,â€¢.i OKON W-1 and \Â·1'-2 may remain lonÂ·ger when uyin.y COVERAGE TABLE (Approx. Sq. F..i'Gal.: OKON PL UGGER. 4 [cub than 30 F (lef--., :v;nci chill, 39 9 672 -, TE :1 - 1 vÂ·.0 -2 1".1 C.hu- Limitations: \n margin.il weactle:. cold substrate. etc.. c.7. KON re,irtÂ· may not compietely coalesce. The CL..nr'C'!e 17;eck rerry:I Â·.Â·.Â·P,Ah, tredred qurface mal.' retain sonle or IrS milkv appearance, which will rior dis- Â®11; tace 0,1,2 : -Â·~'Â·,2.-Â·-Â·' .1.-: 441 4,;.; 1, Sh;..7 appear wirh warming temper.lture or time. By :he same token. when tem- Adobe peratures are above 100'-F 138Â©, a .50-- 5 light spray of water on the substrate, . 7. pf wr [c, me OKON application. is recommended to achieve prop*r pert- 150. etrationÂ·.ind coaleicing properties of the OKON Se:Jeri. burrace clear,ed Â·With ACH:i Â«utions musi be THORÂ·Â· 2399r . 130 OUCHLY rinsed immediatek, after - Zieaning to remOVe acid salts that Cont:rete po.Â· 6 .-41Â·2:ace Gr 3.-eait r p.."- 0,70 may break the emulsion. catising rrulkirle50 finittar to that createl by '- i. -- LO,1.,C.C. 2~41..'-'l'~.-6 .:...IC weather lit?licalions, .1.fter rin5ing, a test appllcat:on of OkON seater Brick mainen oid. cor:mon orused 100-200 100-2,00' should be mad.e betore proceeding with the ent:re job. Ir there is any % 9,:9-9 C0526. 23:2# pLI.C.CFR .Â·.Â·::r, g h;ine, 1:Â·lid:; conten: 11.1.Â· 20 rec:i:.Â·tÂ·Â·1 -O 0,0- Llit:it,on MtÂ·ct.:t 1 91:Â·r;ng milkir,e:.9 5,1 , 4,1:e. fre :iÂ¢5.Â·4.3 '4:,Ma i.Â·tÂ·*ti'tr:+ 610 Â¢Â·CroÂ·.2,4 3!:tore thâ‚¬ proDef pro.jur: Jr.i ,;,-,tÂ·:,w '..i the case Of anÂ·,Â· c:i the above men- coa f-0.95!câ‚¬. '..+.Â·. -Â· r.1.'Â·1:..74 2- C.71:3,.1 'OKON for 5,3eci:iC ft?'~Â·.:1-â€¢'2116:.'1'115 tioned conditions. call OKON or irs 1 , ..Iistrits'.!tor imrriediatel\' ter instrue- 00 be 111.>ed Â·.an Â·reÂ·Â·: p.a:rl.5 to .nasonnÂ· an:d St.ICÂ·:O 5#fraCâ‚¬f. 2 iS 2 tior.s or remedia! proced:.ires, 'li '1'-11 'C~Na :r,â€¢7 1 Br -. . ..,7 - ... '..1 '0. , e i::--. * fpecial brent of acrdc'elas:omeric -... ~:C, P~.9.cti,Â·e meafur2.5 are nf<i~-- m250nrv. Tb,9 9 rere.-ed :O af; rhe pores ind capiliarfe.5 :n the substrate C.Al,TiON. KEEP FROM FREEZÂ· transparent :r:.0,6 fc concrete and ..pe resins thar help fill atid '~plug' Sar,-Â· ror both trancporting and itoriftg fo KID>, PL l..' 5 COLC:2 scalar it md a.i:hout procluc:rÂ·g a 1-lea v sezled or Ok.Or water based Sellers. OKON sta: n wstâ‚¬Â·ni, coated appa:arance. OKON PLUG- r.1/in': (01 1 .,- ....i: sealers are not rec,)Â·nmended for VALÂ· p r .,-Â·.0._:,1 Â·: 2 -,ea'.Â·y dijry, SER proauces an ex:21!ent water exposure to hydrostatic water pres- high solids.. v. -ter b.:.sed repetient :heddingÂ·'water repejient treatment in . sure ar cascading vÂ·,atier fronl toors, beaker for 11$â‚¬. en ab cÂ·sncrere oloCK ,):leÂ· Of t\Â·:Â·0 flood Coar 021)1:Catierls, scuppers, etc. as :vell as Other porous cFr.cre re, depending or: :ht? st.,lis:Ai.O 00:'05(hÂ·. Grades: OR.ON #4 Vv'ATER REPELLENT SEALER is formulated for OKON PLUGGER applicatton to concrete or masonrv 5'graces. brick, gracco. plaster and COVER,AGE TABLE Approrimate Square Fâ‚¬el Per Gallon all arehitectural concrete surfaces. It 1 :' Car: may be used irBide or outude on SUBSTR'ATE . 4. -- . ... 2rd Coat op OP vertical or horizontal suriacef. OkON W-1 protects horizontal uir- LiBilt weight concre:te Block 60 100 faces such as side.valks. driveways, parking garagâ‚¬5, far'n ps, loadint Split jace core *ete Nock 4640 U,1.1 'C GOCKS. warenouse floors. etc.. from cnalking and dusting as well as the FluteÂ·d concam block '11,-04.Â· 00-120 dat-nag:ng cracking anti spalling - 1 torces Of freeze,th<w cycle< Lge 66:unri f3:9 Con:Cne ticÂ·':< 60-120 40-60 OKON SEAL & FINISH when a low gloss M desired. wiÂ·-i. ,Â·.aâ€ž.in â€ž t.Â·,iii. common .or uÂ·:Ail 80-1 oc OKON W-2 WATER REPELLEXT SEA!.ER is cie.:i.?ned for applicalion .btucco. he.)Â·. v :e..ture,3 -:,r hair ifne cracked 75- i Co ro moderatelv porous concrete Or OTHER CLEB ,+R.150nrv surfaces luch as norm:l ... concrete block, sand brick, adobe , Chall Dir<blÂ·- 10,1-OCC N/.4 porous natural or 5imi.ilared .. tÂ· -/ -Â· Â·Â· 5[Ofte. use LAON \%-2 over poroui Ref:Â· :C fut,tratÂ·'3 :vpes abcve surtaces prior to painting to relair, surrace texture. reduce quantity of Th.â€¢ a,-1,Â·.:'Â· .ir for â€¢:. --Â·.U:Â·,2 !~t)'10Â·cA< 6"1., !9!1 Â· Â·Â·.;-Â·1!ifi:,Ib' i.'ii :,1,(Â· ;he reficireri -- -1 - - ---- r -Â·ac. 4. TECHNICAL DAT.Â·\ INDUSTRY STANDARDS TEST REULTS JE 5T Ati 1 h.11( 1!.) 2 1 W. 2 02 4// Al,â€¢. ..,9 .irer -,!? 9 0, r...101+t AbT.V. C o Â· 4.,3 -.91,â€¢i..-6=-,Â·U 2.1 H:/'5.,F.,24Â·JC; 24 Hr./759:.:2400 >4,1 \ 26 Crit-'5Â·it.- 2 3 Â·40,1.2<,fr 2 0 10: Â·.4., tr *. 2.por fitÂ·:'t'.3 ++ :i'I 'tt, .171 .1.... 1:17.-'- :-: Mr.'73 1,34Â°Cl 24 Hf.,*'73'F.,u"c.1 24 41,,bil~f(:1Â·,c t.Â·Vitter Ren.Nfer:. Fede,al Spe,- 95'.1 1 1 Â¢C 969,9 1-:r ula:ed '.%.;,14., OÂ·Â·:Â· -n R.:itt, Fâ‚¬dcra; Spec r TPÂ·,3.-3 6'235 Pa.b t Â·A.Â·4 Pak: 7.1 2.16:. 5. INSTALLATION ailcv.ec m .r'. 09'3.-â‚¬ :Up CoatingT (11,5 remaining or. 04.+erhangs or hort- Preparater, It ,)71 Â· U! Auti.:485 '+14:h praluct Dc :-,of .gop or inier- zontal surreces prior :cÂ· crying. shculd tle I}'toroug :IÂ·. ciea:led or,d rupt the ooplicat. c.Â·t: in the middle When dry to the touch, O kON ff..9 0[ dunt, Cirt. e:riOÂ·rescatirÂ·e, of a crooÂ· Or, horizorital surfaces PLUCCER will be clear and color- 22'335â‚¬. oil. 12:C. H art .i:.iti !70:lraillin'g '4!pe Up Or brtish ort excesS .,eal-r ~ess. .After the first coer rus reached Cleaner ha:. been :.ised. cor.crete ar.d that does r.ot :xne':Â·ME :vithhi i 5 to its dr:. clear and colorie,:5 Frate a masonry mus: be illor,Â·.*,urklÂ·, rinÂ·Red 30 mirutei Of :42Â·I>'Icat:On. second coat of OKON PLL.'CGER cr ro fer-001Â·e exce- clearler and acid . OKON FLUCCER AR.!):ication: paint mav then be applied. Temper- sit!: reÂ·i.idue beb-Â·re applviri: Ok.ON Â·A'! 51.:rfaces Shr. iture and humidicv v.it: affect dry Se..,Br.. ciastemer:C Ca!)5, Cat.Iii.!ly c'enneÂ·j Ar.3-1 -4.7 t d:.-t effie- cirne. However. under normal and orher sea!.afl:s :riot:Id be :r, rescâ‚¬nce, Pease O:i. etc. IiÂ· 20 ac.d weather cenditions. 01<ON PLUG- tvpe cleaner hz: hee,1 wee:4 c.,4- GER should b dry enough (00 lop pirace whent?Â·per pos,iH! 9 beforip - :der appi;cation. (DKO>, seale,5, 9trate mugt be !?0,-0,1:h'Â·.Â·+ rinsed cort ikithin 2-4 hours. .!cliflg OKON PLL CCER, are Â·ir,t prior to the OKON Ptl.'CCER *Ii- When a second coat of OKON r i - --- =A, :ve.re, In:.rt.,Sion cation. 'DÂ·<CÂ·>. FL:.C:JER Is not FLLÂ·L,GtR is required, staguer the A.c,bier:15 caused ty poci- Â·,to-k- compar:,bie with aci35 and acid gaits. lao marks ard again apply a ilood marihip. Slructural crocks, bee- 5 0 -* app,03':08 of coat ct U:.0\' PLUCCER :. jing the Ii:rentinue the hole,5 erc., must be poi-ted up or .)r.UÂ· . t.,L....(-1(-c,i ir arter tee sezier same Soray technique a nd fpray calliked prior to the OVTÂ·% 30:3!ia- ily. drIE,i!Â·.0,-: ch.,grÂ·.Â·ea '".Â·. 1-;re'N ; eclu;oment emolosed in rhe first mar GO,1. A.ir and Sub:rrate remi:Â·e,atures Corditi,or, caused 3, :resâ‚¬ 91!:.3. application. The >econct coat WIll shc.old be 30Â°F 30'C; and -i,ing. OKON PLUCCER should +Dily be yield approximately t,vice the cover- The surt:ce to be treated :Ian be' 320|32 uGing low Cre:50:9 airiess aÂ·l. rate achieved with the first coat. - 1 SHghdy darng, but no obvious jigns sprov equipment. Tip size N verv For estim.sting ournose-3 figure 20- 01 wetness should exist. irnportant ard nu5: Se I?.f'ge erlough 40% more surface area t.vhen Â·scaling folit face or split face nuted block. ,Method of Application: The rc produce a true flood coat. perosilv of Suberares varies consid- Recommended minimum zip size kr erabltÂ·Â·Â· 1*1~'s maker it hishiÂ·i deÂ£.rubie a small 1.Â·'Z Rpm pump is 0.Â·325, and 6. AVAILABILITY AND COST to Conult(:t a :est application to ver- up to 0.035 for a 5 2,Â©rn cÂ·.r larger Availability: OKON WATER 9 5 P C; r Fl~., T â‚¬~ a f -- - irÂ·, the proper appiicalion rate, pump. A test appt,car:on is Â·'eli.tired 1.-â€¢ 6-6.-1 â€¢ â€¢ I.'I. ' .tie ace available â€¢ OKON W-1 and OKON W-2 to determine the proper application through a wide variety or paint and Application: OKON \'\'.1 and W-2 rate and number oi coat5 of OKON industrial distributors in the: United con best be applied using 10Â·4Â· Pres- PLL. CGER for maximum scaling per- States. sure alt*|e55 spray equiprnent and formance. OKON PLLCC:ER pro- Cost; Material COStS are available appropriate Spr.ay [il:,5. For OKON vides PO,itivâ‚¬ proof oi 9 roPET from local distributors and dealers or 1 f. W- 1 U 5 e 0.0 to-U. U. 0 in C M , TO r application technique bv its soiid by contacting the manufacturer. - OKON W-2 use 0.026-0.072 inch white appearance immed;ately upon spray tips. Hold spray rip approxi- application. Â· 7. WARRANTY mately 12-18 inches f.3U0-Â·430 mm) Apply a heavy flood coat oi OKON, Inc.*s liability shall be from the surrace starnng at the top. OKON Pll.:CCER establishing an .limited to refunding the amount paid W,ork down the Â·.vall with an over- c,Â·eriapping Â·i;:ray pet:Ern and Yake ior the products or !!Uppl,ying a Suffi- ' 10;014 horizontal sptay oat[ern. special co:e (c laturate mortar ;oin:i. cent amount oi the speciric CKON, '- special afe to satur=te riortar Allow th - -caler to run d,own the Inc . products necegary to remedy a ts allouing the Bealer to run Wal! r urn of 3-2 :Acnes j.,3- problem. OKON, INC. SHALL HAVE -4-:Â·. c rhe Â£â€¢,MI 1 millunlum ,-,r' 3-5 125 n,. ..0 the poÂ·r.: of contac:, NO OTHER UAB:LITY, INCI.l.JOING inches (75Â·125 n:m; rrom the point DO net Â·Â·...D Or iritnrfupt the applica- LIABIL!TY FOR INCIDENTAL, CON- of contact. Run Jer,rn should be :ion in ttit: inidÂ·:lie ef a drop. Strike SEQUENTIAL, OR RESULTANT p;,14Â·:d up in :1 4,~tut.? drOp and not off r.r.rell out ob, if)us ciripi â‚¬,r ;pud- D..\61.'ASES. WHETHER DUE TO 9 9 . BRE,-,CM (n: t. 'ArÂ·'Â·, ~ â€¢~i-rv FXPRESS 0. MAINTENANCE 10. FILING SYSTEMS OR 1,%,PLIED, OR NEGLIGENCE. Periodic reapplications ore rec- â€¢ C51' SPEC-SEARCH'" EXCEPT AS PROViDED HEREIN. OKON, INC. MAKES NO W'AR- cmmended for continued :on:Â·.rerm â€¢ IHS' SPEC-DATR 11 RAN TIES OR GUARA:NTEES, Protection iD Concrete and mair,nry . Sweet's General Build:ng :,nci, t .ESS OR &11!Â·'LiED, WHETHER surfaci?5. iDKON products shocie ec Re.Â·toution MERChANTASHITY, FiTNESS stored )bove .40'F,3'-'C; anrf :af_JST 07 I 30.'OKO Buylit~e .1384 . 2 PURPOSE. OR OTHERVÂ·.':SE, BE P R Ut cL i z: ) 2--,1 ,Â· 5. 4.4.1 ...l... 07180/OKP Burline 7587 r 9/0-7, 1 Â· E WITH RESPECT TO THE OKON. Contoct OKON Â®f. '*orÂ¢=-rhz: 21-Â·Â·i- . S.: Â·ret bource INC. PRODUCT'< - â€¢ 2- fICation, Or fOf Concer:1Â·5 -ecardin) 0.Â· i uu Buyline 3586 .. OK(.ON \\Â·'ATER REPE[ i ENT SEAL- 5: ir,?.bilil'/ 01 prod.C: â€¢ \ 5,15 4'.icrofichel'.15[DS ERS und,?r factory fl:netâ€¢.'Ised Japt,- ,-ation, can be warranted ro perforin 9. TECHNICAL SERVICES up to five year,. Contact OkON. Chemical and Â·Â·*.:friÂ· extertige k !ne.. 2udorized iot.-a; repre,*enrad'v'e , I 1 i .).- AJ . .... t. ~~i. .!.Â·,Ilcl~-6 â€¢i I. 1-â€¢1 ..t 1.1Â·.... i LÂ·, IIi.1,% . Â¢â€¢11â€¢.Â·,1,10' â€¢ ' â‚¬Â·': .1 I :'A ,{ 1 '* 0.-e:I Do N.- 1., p ,, OHON'. Inc.. LM .T.Â·. ot:cl. 63 her.:.i- 0, Â·~53#CROO 5 unci pril,?r 17Â·ar'rar,tv requrâ‚¬Â·i-tlenti. Clijarter-9. La:I h.:1.1:.0 -.), -di,l,1, , . I OKONÂ® OKON, Inc. 6000 West 13th .41Â·enue :Â·w,Dod CO 80214 { Pho:~ 503' 231-35:1 '800: 23:-056.5. FAX: (303) 23.2.35:3