The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19920527~) < s Tor 343> DÂ» \ e 4,17 -bu 9*vfy 35 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE e May 27, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM I. Roll call and approval of April 8, 1992 minutes. II. Committee and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Public Hearing from 5-13 - 17 Queen Street. Minor j r - LÂ· T,U.>iÂ©UL Development and 9~tback v4riationf0L0p)00-uka LU 11-1~ cu,~.-42PCE '3 L bl-, cl u.. Dr k Â¢ U M- 5 Qt~ (AS'Â·mek'*3 x N 2 6, 4 Ll 52' YyZy~Lt- V. NEW BUSINESS 40 A: 414 E. Cooper, Minor Development, storefront renovation ~~rk<Stefan Kaelin) flotjer - 56 L- 0 41 5:50 - 401 E. Cooper, Minor Developmentj storefront renovation LLC Pitkin County Dry Goods)~15 - 4:u 4-- 6:00 '1 C. 413 E. Cooper, Minor Development, storefront renovation 6:10 Dâ‚¬01-03 E. <pin, Minor Development, roofa-y\).ov<_L- t2Â»V. Lob e- h.0 9 1.---81 4:1 A*,42(/ 6:25 E.65624 E. Hopkins, Conceptual Development, Public Hearing 3-~ ~ '~ ~-- or L Ixti F tb 4. a tb-Â£-- - 93 4 6/9 . U tet{' aÂ» - 6 06 6 - 1, ;-w-JU 7:30 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring * 4/ il _ (10 <, 9 L-l I 4 - B. Cantina replacement awnings C. Committee comments D. Review: Honor Awards Presentation/Preservation Forum 8:00 VII. Adjourn 0 . 1 04 7 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officerk Re: Minor Development and sideyard setback variation (public hearing, continued): 17 Queen St., outbuilding Date: May 27, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development and side yard setback approval necessary for the construction of wood (board and batten) 3'4" x 8'8" x 8'6" (high) outbuilding with corrugated metal sloped roof. APPLICANT: Henry and Lana Trettin, represented by Geoffrey Harris of Pellecchia-Olson Architects PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Action was tabled and the public hearing was continued to this meeting from May 13, in order to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the location and placement of the proposed outbuilding. Since that time, staff has received new information from the applicant (attached) for the HPC to consider when taking action. A copy of staff's review memo from that meeting is attached for reference. Staff's recommendation for approval has not changed since that time. Staff reminds the HPC that previous removals of outbuildings on this parcel are not grounds to deny this new proposal, which should be reviewed solely on its current merits and against the Development Review Standards and Design Guidelines. Staff finds the proposal meets both. We offer the alternative below which we also support should the application as proposed not be approved by the Board, especially in light of adjacent neighbor dispute. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives exist to relocate the outbuilding to another area on the parcel, and to lower the overall height some. Should the HPC find both of these alternatives more appropriate when considering the historic nature of the parcel, then approval could be granted subject to the applicant submitting a revised site plan and revised elevation for staff's approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Minor Development application for 17 Queen Street as proposed, and grant a side yard setback variation, finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. memo.hpc.17qs.md.3 m MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer ~k__ Re: Minor Development and sideyard setback variation (public hearing): 17 Queen St., outbuilding Date: May 13, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development and side yard setback approval necessary for the construction of wood (board and batten) 3'4" x 8'8" x 8'6" (high) outbuilding with corrugated metal sloped roof. APPLICANT: Henry and Lana Trettin, represented by Geoffrey Harris of Pellecchia-Olson Architects DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character 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 a 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, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: A small detached outbuilding/storage building is proposed on the parcel, which encroaches 3' into the sideyard setback. We find that a detached structure of this size and appearance is compatible to the landmark, and, further that we support setback variation, provided no significant vegetation is removed to accommodate the outbuilding. The site is tight in this area, and we find that the proposed shed's location is appropriate in that it provides visual relief between the cottage while being functional. (Note: We do find it unfortunate that the original (historic) outbuildings were not preserved for this use.) HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The neighborhood character with regard to on-site parking is eclectic, and staff finds that this proposal is not necessarily inconsistent with the neighborhood. HPC COMMENTS: 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the parcel. HPC COMMENTS: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: We find the architectural design of the outbuilding to be compatible with others of similar size on other parcels, and find that is does not diminish the architectural integrity of the main structure. HPC COMMENTS: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Minor Development application for 17 Queen Street as 2 proposed, and grant a side yard setback variation, finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Additional comments: memo.hpc.17qs.md.2 3 05/26/92 17:27 X 303 534 4114 PellecchiaÂ·Olson P.02 PELLECCHIA - OLSON ARCHITECTS May 24 1992 Mr. Bm Poas MAY 2 7 Aa Chairman, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee C/O Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Omce 130 South Galena St. Asper4 Colorado 81611 RE: The Miner's Cottage 17 Queen Street Aspen, Colorado , 8905.01 Dear Bill= It has been brought to our attention thal at the Historic Preservation Cammittee meeting of 13 May, 1992, both our client, Lana Trettin, and our firm were roundly criticized by an adjacent prepare owner and by members of the committee regarding the issue of parking on the site, an alleged lack of information to address the request for a setback variance for an outbuilding on the site, and the removal of a tree of disputed size and importance from the location of the off-street parking spate. We wish to make the following points both in rebuttal to what we feel was unfounded criticism ofour client and our firm and to clarify certain decisions made pertaining to the project. 1. Parking In the early stages of this project we proposed that no off-street parking for the Miller's Cottage be provided on the northeast end of the site but rather any spaces required be provided at the opposite end of the property. Le. off of Queen Street. During the HPC meeting of 28 January, 1991, it was determined thai: one off-street parking space be dedicated to the Miner's Cottage near the relocated building with additional parking within the King Sheet public right-of-way. Amotion was made, secoâ„¢led, and carried regarding this. We subsequently showed one off-street parking space to be located at the northeast corner of the property adjacent to an existing drive way and accessible from King Street; again, this was done in response to the EPC meeting of 23 January, 199L The construction documents were then submitted far a buibling permit which was granted sometime in March or early April We assume that with the required approval of the various city agencies necessary to grant a permit that the off-street parking issue has been satistied. As a footnote, there was, during construction, some thought given to moving the parking space from the King Street side to the Neal Avenue side. Roxanne Eflin was contacted for her feelings on this and after some consideration by both Ms. Eflin and our office it was determined to be an unsafe proposition because af the traffic on Neal Avenue, because of the proposed drive' 3 invipihility from Neal when heading toward town, and because of various other reasons. A Prokssional Corpofation 1442 Market Street Defher. Colorado 80202 303 53+4114 03/26/92 11:ZW A OW,3 D 6 9 9114 r e 11 elir, 1/Â·ul b uri 1.-& Mr. Bill Poss Chairman, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee May 26. 1992 Page 2 2. Lack of Site Information Pertaining to Prooosed Storage Shed As part of the Minor Development Application process on 10 March, 1992, our office issued to the Historic Preservation Committee, in care of Raxanne Eflin, three (8) sets of application information. Each set consisted of the appEcation form, a written description of the project, a vicinity map, and a partial site plan showing the cottage, the proposed shed Clighlighted in color) and Neal Avenue and King Street and their intersection; in other words, the north portion of the site. On 28 April, 1992, at the request of Roxanne Eflin, we issued ten (10) copies of a dimensioned and noted pricing drawing which showed elevations, materials, details, etc We find it hard to understand that this was not enough information to evaluate this proposal. However, assuming the committee needed more information, why was our oflice not notified given that the application was Eled on or about 16 March, 1992 - approximately a full two (2) months before the meeting? 3. Tree Removal In arder to provide the parking space required by the HPC, one six inch (69 diameter aspen had to be removed, as well as some low undergrowth. By looking at the enclosed color xeroxes taken from approximately,the same location at different times during construction one can see the tree which was removed. Throughout this process the owner and the contractor have exercised due diligence in protecting as much vegetation as possible on the property. In addition, the owner is about to begin extensive landscaping on this portion of the site. To first require the owner to provide parking in this area and then to cry foul when one mnall aspen is removed to provide this parking is inappropriate. 4. Adiacent Propertv Owner's Concerns From the outset of this project the owner and the contractor have made every effort to listen and, as much as possible, to accommodate the concerns of an aljacent property owner who now claims thal he was generally ignored. Below are four examples. a) When the drive and parking were about to be installed, a corner pin was disIodged. The neighbor insisted on an additional survey of the northeast corner of the property even though this had already been done. He also demanded that only one particular surveyor be employed to do this work The toniactor made these arrengements and the owner, rn*hm- thâ€¢n the neighbor, paid for this service. b) In providing the ofr-street parking, an irrigation ditch needed to be spanned. An adequately sized piece of culvert was delivered to the site for this purpose and installation was begun. The neighbor, upon seeing the culvert, claimed that it was not adequate. Furthermore, he demanded that the culvert which already ran below his drive have access for maintenance at both ends even though that meant the new culvert would need to be moved away from originally conceived location with one end on the property line. Again even though there was no reason to do so other than good will, the neighbor's demand was accommodated although this meant that access to the northwest end of the neighbor's culvert would be via our client's property. 05/26/92 17:29 2 303 534 4114 PellecchiaÂ·Olson P.04 Mr. Bill Poss Chairman. Aspen Historic Preservation Committee May 24 1992 Page 3 c) The neighbor claimed a wooden footbridge was removed form the site. If there ever was a footbridge there, it was removed prior to our client acquiring the property. We have no record of it in any site information, nor does it appear on the survey prepared by Banner Associates dated 8 March, 1989. Regardless, by whal right does this neighbor believe he can control what occurs on the Trettin's property? d) The neighbor also claimed that indiscriminate spreading of roadbase for the parking and drive somehow horribly disfigured the corner of the property. We believe a comparison of the enclosed xeroxes will answer this accusation. 5. The Overall Process Throughout this endeavor, the Trettins, Rudd Construction and Pellecchia Olson Architects have conaistently worked with the Historic Preservation Committee to ensure the success of the prqject from everyone's viewpoint We feel this commitment was acknowledged when, the evening before the 13 May meetina the Miner's Cottage received an award form the HPC. It was unfortunate that, as a result of other deadlines, no one from our office could attend the 13 May meeting to offer some response to the various allegations. We did. in fact contact Roxanne Eflin prior to the meeting to verify that our presence would not be necessary. Nonetheless, we find it surprising that in our stea4 no one from the HPC was willing to stand up and defend the level of effort and commitment brought to this project by Mrs. Trettin and Rudd Construction, Eis well as by Pellecehia Olson Architects, in response to these accusations. Please ensure that all members of the Historic Preservation Committee receive a copy of this letter. Thank you. Azeâ‚¬ b Geom,ey adH*rris PELLECC~ OLSON A~Cm'rEers, p.c. GRE:.ha enclosures Ce: All Committee Members, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Mr. and Mrs. Henry Trettin Rudd Construction, Inc. File: 8905.01 May 11, 1992 fl'Al / 1 Aspen Histoiic Preservation Committee City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, colorado 81611 Gentlemen: We would like to strongly object to the location proposed for the outbuilding on the Trettin property for the following reasons: 1. Â·A large cottonwood tree was uprooted (one foot diameter x approximately 50 feet tall) on city property which was specifically disallowed by the Historic Preservation Committee, a major monu- ment located within one foot of the tree to which the Trettin and Kappeli properties are tied was bent and buried with the 1954 BLM brass cap destroyed, and natural growth of service berry bushes was destroyed on Kappeli property, for the sole purpose of providing parking for the Trettin's car. Mrs. Trettin claimed this was the only place she was allowed to park. Contrary to that final approval was issued on a plat permitting only a wooden footbridge over the ditch for access in that location. Now, after all that destruction, that parking would be eliminated by putting a building on that spot. 2. The site for the outbuilding does not have a proper base for a building. A culvert was dropped into the ditch and road base hurriedly pushed on top in late December of 1991 to provide parking. 3. The outbuilding over the culvert in that location creates potential problems with maintenance of the ditch, i.e., foot traffic close to the bank deteriorating the bank and pushing debris into the water; the roof shedding snow, leaves, debris into the ditch, etc. It seems to us there is room for the outbuilding by placing it further west, parallel to the ditch. The brush and trees here would nicely conceal it. However, historically, the outbuildings for that "cot- tage" were located south and east of the main building. Also, before any further development takes place on the Trettin property, we would like to have the off-street parking issue settled and see the current "parking" area restored to the approved wooden footbridge as the current parking situation has created hazards and misuses there, i.e., they regularly exit King Street against the one-way traffic, company parks in front of the fire hydrant next to her parking, in front of two mail boxes there, or blocks the driveway on the Kappeli property. We will be attending the public hearing regarding the outbuilding on May 13 to present further detail. However if you have any questions in the meantime, please call Ernst or Lindaat 925-7117. Sincerely, '47 2 2 f : 63 7 4*< 1 B : 4 4 /1. t/Lf r- L L L / Ll<~ Ernst Kappeli PELLECCHIA OLSON ARCHITECTS March 10, 1992 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Miner's Cottage 17 Queen Street Aspen, Colorado Our Reference No. 8905.01 Description of Minor Redevelopment Within Historic Overlay District. We propose the addition of a storage shed for bicycles, skis, etc., within the Historic Overlay District located on a portion of the property at 17 Queen Street. This shed is to be located adjacent to the off street parking space entered from King Street, at the northeast corner of the above mentioned property. The proposed structure will be rectangular in form, approximately 3'-4" x 8'-8" x 8'-6" high, with a simple shed roof. Siding will be wood board and batten, profile and pattern to match the cottage. The roofing will be corrugated metal, also used on the cottage. Overall, the character Will be similar to other vernacular outbuildings within the neighborhood. The shed will continue a tradition of small, detached accessory buildings which occur frequently in the surrounding area. The placement within the setback is done to clearly create a break between the shed and the cottage, yet still place the shed where it is the most useful functionally. CÂ»-\ GBH:sha A Professional Corporation 1442 Market Street Denver, Colorado 80202 303 534-4114 . holt<-u=- tgre>WL 'bCOE. . 5,-0 1 \W..8......lilli......87.......9,7 ' 56 64 / tee T / 0 \L- 17 \1-4 / { \ \ f i I. f I , . / . .. k /1 1 t 4. t 1 43.- trt. L I ...41:3 .. 4 710... 1 e 4 I - U...: 1 4 tt- 9 1- I '14 - . 1. - - 4 -9, 1 --- - . , A Â·â€¢. irt --/ I ... 4 1 0-.av .4 . 2.4 '41 0.. - /- Â¥ â€¢â€¢.k- f - <7* TIZ~4 . r. 4 .. 1 A- 1 1 . 9/1 - t.-â‚¬ .0.2 . ST:Â»-RiÂ· - - - , /40% J '. 4. 1 1 .4.- I. .1 . 1 716 ..1 Â· b I - - i 1 . 1 ... I :79- --2 1 Â·4Â»4*4- ' 1 1 --0-7- 1 1 ~ .., 4, . '1,4Rfl'a-2 - * r - d : I -- / . 4 1, t' -. /// 1 , 4-~4*r .4 -9. *- ~ ~ - tfkkA=â‚¬.e, C.OtTA*E,_7Â· -i -9... 12 1 4 â‚¬ A ... r Â· . , - 1 . REO Z.;2 1 . 1 / . M I r | . . 't * : r it.,f,2.1,8 I L . E ..L-I. 54.-5, .4 - + - I :'-Â· ft:ffi.7Â·7 .273Â¥ I. 3 f . 63%.Â·)4 2 7 .Re. 2 -el.: / +to *at. - :ti~ 4 C L , / . *1 f K \ 1 t 1 \ I i?! 'R //1 \ \ j 1 N EN- AvEN UE fli . $ f 1 1 1 1 . r -*. 4- ot>e ... : it ~ L.. i- . Â·, W.U. C t./ -(/ 4 NeTS: ==rmZ.Z....Ill/'ll Â· J il I - CU-- -1---I--m-~ . &. 49Â»K, A.â€ž-0 .--, ..4 .,/.~U. r. tâ€¢,4' t..4 , _ Ae, 4//IN cot.04 ~*4â€¢44.- rÂ·â€¢-t,4 1 1 11, 6-01.C. voc>. Tuoe- %4/,4 ,-14%/ Cul-rN:.6 000/4 t --k coc.Â£AyÂ»i,4. *% -rla 6|1 : - , . 11 - / 1 t--- I.A.-<./.A . 110 1 J r 3,191*th ' -- J . . 11 11 1- 11; -1 . , . 'i ..11, 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 '/7 1 , 1 . 4 TAÂ©INT ZLE VAN 43 IN! 1 6 1 10 .1 3 1 k, \ !4 ---- --- 1 l I \ . e-P .0.*-7/4 6 1 4 B; f--f o... .t/ 32 p.- 41~000 CUÂ· 1-ck f--~5.729-- I .1 lid # b ; 2 4 . 1 .2 , ' V-7-~... -E-' efeâ€¢ . 1 .1 -2-3 4 2~ - .1 1 + W V- ' 1 1. eN /4 %/r> . f 12,2, ..rep Ic I......J....*) I . 1 1 . L :4.-4 :1 -2.4 C 4- - _ - s.~ev' CLA e'24*U- , lie Â¢=-â€¢-Â·~ Pitâ€¢4Â·k:k < > e*â€ž- - I.D.'51 5Â». f ------ U. 4 - 1 ~1 f ~ -4- 1- 1 f . ....... e.-r-'=./.2 - Â·%-2.-:â‚¬L :rÂ£ / 6 -GÂ·' Â·b-yÂ·>'~ - 1 I Fl - Â¢Â»- Â«4. i 23= 1 1 C.'Â·1'â‚¬% U . i i , en-* --1./- -- \Ii 1-1 ! 1 - :Â¢ 6' 19'!52 1'-00 'Â·. ~l -1.-Bâ€¢* C-st N I b Â·S~.7'. '54' 6-9 t<..,~4<Â£/7 . ....OULCÂ·ts// 51; ' 5. f ... ZO-dt ' 1 . oes. 9 t- 1 r.01â€¢ 1 i J Â· 0,-/,4.Â· \, 1 050$94 ' ' 1 4141 1 sueÂ· . . 4 1/1. , 6=OT ION FLAN \ 5.->c--2,1-CX. 09,11>=L-AlÂ·E- e.us,2 b At>// L M */SCJÂ» C,OTT/C<<S (TE 6 71* <305 0, PS'-sso-UN - O'-4.061 Â»â‚¬-CAITE.c.T-Â» , 331 11'â€¢*)1 2---111 --- , T 1[ J j[ -- 1J . Van.3.*611 - 36 TO DE KEWIOVEC) â‚¬ --1.- -1 \i 1 - .. --,1 1,6.-4...at.-,;= .--4 0 ah-al- 3-NI Â£3EUI E.12 OT CUM.2:' N, 1 \ +L kIEAL Ave.1 Ill Nb 4 - Exier 1,Â·10 649 MAIN \ / /)/ 4- j r \ 1442 Mark- ar- iÂ»-t Colo,-30 r-- 1 â€¢ 10302 \Zia FAX Om) 534-3124 1 -0 1 - A -fi~-~i-~i - _ 0 / i / / i\/ ' Theadom K Guy A-oc-. IC Structual Eall."r 31-49- f / 4 . C M- 11 - 1 â‚¬ 2 7922-2 Â«~~il i \ Altki "a MerEK ........... 4.0 91 - ' ~ 64 iiÂ·-Â· -- 4 L 17923'-6' 1 UFFEK EL 91< / 17 914'-9 32| LOWEK 1 4 0 A . ' '-1 - 1643' j 1.--7,- Ierl#6 --weeÂ·?'Â·. *38# /COVER. \ Â¥92322%93- ' .... 1.i~- ..EX}*Tz-'~~ , kIEK Â©LEÂ· -- \ .1 01 / 79761 9 Â·Â·:.~f~,- Tlkle \FIAE -- . 0 4-4 t r -~I-..2 4 9- HYOKANT \ .-4- P -- ~fE.2.--*.-- 61 -9 /<2 (ff- -- 14,3 10Â«. 1 4 92240 / UNDEKBEOUKIP FIEOM '51-0Â· Al NEW El-Â£6:9Â·10 Â®Elt>/ICE ff / /4, \ /1 Â¥1./, 1 / P 1 I 40. 010% Ileg-IGATIONÂ· PITCH 114 i i COKIC'U Ir ATTKJAW -10 BAIC*91 L- // 1. COUTI KIUE UNIPER<*CURC' i To HOUGG. / ' A.,Â«aNG \616â€¢UL . f / AE> 1Â·looP FOOTDIUC>DE RE; { 6%1Â®TIKe Ing.16,Â«TION PITCH 3-r-- ft \ / - , ,/tw'~ --bi -M / OP,4-ntâ‚¬Â£;r r,taht, ' ' ove:g. luk.A-rlo# DIÂ·row ~ 7 9/9-4==%4. I //f ' / . FICOVIDE DULVER:1' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer ~ Re: Minor Development: 414 E. Cooper (Stefan Kaelin) Date: May 27, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the storefront renovation. APPLICANT: Stefan Kaelin, represented by Raul Gawry, Architect ZONING: "CC" Commercial Core, "H" Historic Overlay District PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff has determined that the proposal is a Minor Development review by the HPC, as stated in Section 7- 601(E)(2)(d). We find that the proposed exterior changes are minor in their effect on the character of the existing structure. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character 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 a Historic Landmark... Response: The applicant wishes to redesign the storefront in order to recess the entire length of display windows at the depth of the existing entry door. This is due to an interior remodel, which is necessary to divide the first floor into two separate retail spaces. The proposed doors (two pair) are sliders, which match the main entry doors that currently exist. The structure is not historic, therefore, a contemporary storefront solution may be appropriate here, and in keeping with the building's design. Staff's primary concerns are found in the proposal's compatibility within the historic district, as reviewed below in Standard #2. HPC comments: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff is concerned that the recessed storefront may be out of character with the predominant storefront design found within the district, which is directly at facade edge. The benefits of a non-recessed storefront are both economic (readily viewed merchandise at pedestrian mall level) and architectural. The HPC encourages storefronts at facade (property line) edge, which helps stimulate an interaction between the pedestrian/shopper and the business (an historic precedent) . Perhaps a portion of the storefront could remain recessed (entrance doors), while the predominant display windows be at facade edge. Alternately, this storefront has the advantage of a south facing facade, which enables southern light to penetrate the recessed space. We ask the HPC to first consider the appropriateness in the recessed design, prior to the door review. We understand the applicant' s desire to retain the existing sliding door for economic purposes, and simply relocate it elsewhere on the storefront facade and install a second one to match. However, we find that the design of these doors, especially in pairs, is a contemporary approach not generally found in the district. Most doors open in a traditional way, not as horizontal sliders. Since the building is not historic, and is not adjacent to a landmark, the HPC may find these doors to be appropriate. Staff asks that the HPC carefully consider the appropriateness of this element, and find that it does or does not meet the Development Review Standards. HPC comments: 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: No historic landmarks are located on this or adjacent parcels. HPC comments: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: This structure is not a designated landmark. Staff's comments on architectural integrity are found in our response to Standard #2 (district compatibility) above. HPC comments: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 2 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with specific conditions of the HPC, to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table the Minor Development approval for the proposal at 401 E. Cooper, to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the door design and complete recess of the storefront. Should approval be granted, a Project Monitor should be assigned to this project as this meeting. memo.hpc.401ec.md 3 Raul Gawrys and Associates P.C. Ar,kittotcu,Â® ' Peatudg April 20, 1992 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Stefan Kaelin Remodel Cooper Street Aspen, Colorado This project consists of an interior remodel, and the installation of a new glass storefront system. This remodel will occur in the first floor retail space only. The existing store consists of 4496 S.F., and this will be divided into two separate shops of 2317 S.F.and 2179 S.F._. The total construction will be the construction of a divider wall, and modification of the mechanical and electrical systems to accommodate the spaces. Since this space will be divided into two separate shops, an additional entry door off the Mall will be required. The Owner plans to replace the existing storefront in its entirety with a new system which is similar to the existing. This new system will be relocated so the entire storefront will be in one plane across the entire width of the building front which reduces the present building square footage by 80 S.F.. The owner wishes to expedite the construction process and start demolition of interiors only,. Â· Construction documents are currently in progress and we would like to have a meeting with the proper authorities prior to submittal for required permits. Please call if you have any questions. . 1 S i ncer&1 y , Haul uawfyf, PresidenÂ¢U P.O. BOX 825 â€¢ BASALT, COLORADO 81621 â€¢ 303 927-4411 â€¢ FAX 303 927-4069 C . 1 59 r-Â»- 2-1 11 1 cli 1 I W i R I. S.J I n. 1 1 N \ 4 1 61 562*3.92 I 41 1 ~g2- ~ ~ ~--0 1 1 64 Iii 32 1 1 tU b it 5- Ill 1 - 111 + - 4 0 11 =I 11 1 Ul 47 7 11 1 1 3 Â«4 4 a OL . - 114 !1 L 1 / . n. . L & Â· .4 . 'UL ,,v.4,Â·,54.2, 'Â·94*. 1,1- #,' ~i~ 1r LAI ',:~'*'1-4-26144 .<,V --Â·'1- *, 4 Â· -,1 ' 'rt , ~ ~ 39% ftit,~0*,497{YNA-36*9 ;3ia,;gj~*t: /99,29%?ir,~3pÂ« UÂ·Â·,Â· Â· Â· .:, J, *a --- --- i 4 . kE . 85 f . 1 Â¢Â§%-41.:,>r~ P % .i, f..) 6-:'..r.....< i <~ Â·, ,: : 89.Â·p#Waed4-7.,Â·J't:. Â·2-*,i 1%".Â· "'r 4-kL4+41: dÂ·:,Â·,ti,. 4''Mi .,Â·' 6 r.â€ž . 1 r.464 .1 - 1 ? ~81 A t 8 i E- 1 1 . 416.- - I q ~.1 - - . 6 'al.........m".14.~.~~~~ â€¢ 14/.mill./.Imillew â€¢>44Â·.:i F.Â¢2~ 41 Â£ 2~352fT#<0- k-- --2::1 .9..5,-,.* -v,.-- . - --n-. .. ..-' . ..1- 4. 4 . 1 ...'.I , THEÂ·-MOST iRESPONSIVE AND DEPENDABLEN MeN RAQ: To zi , f tAMY 1 1 : - 01~ Horton Autom-atic* rrt.rt '8)~11tpl l . 7, *I . ~t#,1 . , 1 . 0* ..... ---- 1 ..... - 1.------- -% ...~2<ki:2 \LI 1.-~/!~~9.J F.., : i".*.0.- 4.7..2-0~*.9-- .Or'Yi''â€¢"f..~~5-33%B~~~8/42 ti~iff'MO. k t:ofÂ·. Â·ti.-=r..ibl:*.i,: : '3'f!:'.>'-~.~~~ -â€ž~.~'~ - ,- ' 91-1 #-Wk-eÂ«104- -wf~.,~Â£.~.M-FeEB =m . 3. - ....,=.;=..Wil . ne Â¥ -1 *.- U.:3-7.: 4 0.- r:7 - "- a d T., ~1~ F~~ if- k,-'b~<F~3 ~f.* p.....!4 - . - - -- ~Â£($1 4 - ./1 .-./ ril- r 2 \F- â€¢:T 7---- 4 .%- V ---- -7*. 2 1 2/ -=- 05* 1. 729: 1 -3 A K F#41.... : 7 1,4 6- A + w-444â€¢&4. 7,215= 1 4 - â€¢4*L~ 1)97>32~4~2*Â· ~44~ - 1 - -5- 4.1 .41 ' 4 I .IN~ 47., . t. 15- \ I * j 1 1 ..2. -9 - UL- . .J .J .4.._*Â·4111-W-17]331.,1.1..<.2. IIi-Wdzw"".'I"'Im""dmm#Mi""Ftl .k-- -,--,1.'....---2-,---..~.*'.-'1Â£=ig.~A.A,.,*wmezpx,ar~"i-*-p-â€ž;3 - r- 17 *1 4..9 -p*4~*5 kv**- 74< ~ ur Â» El # ~---24~211*r-~ 1 I . . ali.5,1 ~ r -*Ll-LAY P, 1'4.4114# (~Â·f,)~ - -(2 T*JEEITIFPÂ£. 4%, ~- *9.1*T, WALÂ¢4 ~ -r----$ b--111 1-IN,E,4 I./rl fo ZEÂ«1 14 t + E>*r, 89 *loo'.011 VT- C 8,141.) it':<i-Ii"F//-*44;'i-4.=I'. ir;4*33{4Â·my>~-: ' -I-/ 1 1 32 *21 HIEN lap Ioolfil 4Â£5*4443 ' ,~~41=44.MIK#*dwiwud*emUQUR*MOMAr:%#44,;~ 7/ =\1~1U _ke' I. . 1 41 <_=ft,1â€¢47 PIN. 1 -I-1- Â· -rt 11 (0 1 Alâ‚¬14 FLUMBIKka y ~ ~~-- INFILL FI.zeg. RLEÂ®~--t~-4 11 *Lu -14 I.1-_ ------_----____11 .. i I ./1 1 F. L Nal loller grl, ' A / 6 - mlove @I+T. 0,@TI Tioh14 1 1 7 Â¥4 ~ F, F. = 102>'-01| f .kER . 105'.82't - 61?R. loo'-4 - ~~ / 1 1 fl Extâ€¢31. 10 IUMAINL~ 1 *aer. wÂ·pu. Â· > ~ 06-TAI L 1011 ~A(141 -To F Et*1 4 a# v 12> 4 1 94,, FE I ~-- ALL *1471. 60 2,7 125 REÂ·MAIR -0 11 11 -4 M 120 ~ --__ AlÂ«r. RIALL 10 6 W Â·*TORE &-2 \ NEW Pe, OFfkql4 ~4Â«*EM k Ilill lillar.AgE %*1Â« 24/BA Irt 6'1Â»fu *Al-6 7 0. - AA Wn, 494 / ANF INFI],1- f LIL. *4146.a 6 14* 6%1 9 \ 1/ 46 Per, 1/,â€¢1 -rift ~~L<r~- 41.011 . *DMITIA,31'' -~ \11 3 1 <0 1 P tl .121 gÂ® 411 / A) l.o'ATI Â£44: 1-re# REVIWE. er. - *lowlat U I 1 3 -t-\ fill @3% 4 Â· 4: -- &. I ....... - , Â· . i ... I 'fr ..A,4-3' 4 . 't!, 1, 1-"f.h ..... --1.....6-I....../.-1 .................Il 11--- , -1- ) FFAME- 11 0 ---- U 3 - rn - - - - r--- | I ,~--- REMovE. B><ler. Ful LTÂ·- /1 -L - 11 i 1 -52 1 4 ------ ..--- --+ L __1 I 1-IF Fuao@ ';feTEM fh - 1% 144 1 . \357 1 + FIXED 'ANE'*4 | - lk; 1 I. ~ ~------ 96121\F'Â·f â‚¬DPAT PaÂ·t) 1,1/ 4 AVIFEL M 11 1 WI , 11 UlÂ«T. 41,1 F- 1& f-EVW'hi E.ster. FPJ@10 t ; I le#ANT FINErt -TYE -- > ' 4%44*44 5/ 1 9 % 11 1 %11 *117. 41,6â€ž ~- .1- -, - ///// ~ ~ ~ J 1;1 1 ~MEN Ff' = 86,01' Ill f (64*Â·r, *Ae 0,4 440Â£1 1 HEH (01489 -/ 1 6*ler. Â¥11.1-1, 21Â·16 ~ 1/- \ 11 1 Z 1! 1 I (Â£â‚¬.70 47644 1 : G.Helu.61Â£21, 1 1 2 ~ Â· 13*64*AWAY lit 1 1 / 1 10 -------- 4-1 26061 TY?1 44, / 1 - 001 11 184:411 /1 0 4 11 1 ' | E-6-FAI L 16 2-1 .L.---- -4 1 . Ve,Â»1-r FIRÂ£44 1 1 1"6 | Icilit 1 ~ "-100'-Â©11 1 2,3 1 4 50, FT, 1 DO :. : 11 4= f 01 - 1 4%*ier 9 16*H 4 -1 i 1 3 1- FF:=1001-011 1 iN 1 ... ....... - - - - - - P . REMB, a exleT. 1,|AL..l./ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ # liii 11 8% Li lit| 4 76-1*NT P.I -, 3 I I ./ r--pmE--~ ___ ___1 it | || li . 1 -e 1 1, 22 --r_ 2 -1_ r-*tz 2.1 FELOCATE B)(147. r- VeeleÂ·f AuFFIT PEMO ~ ' 1001.0611 1 144 1-9,1092 61,14>,10 PRE,*I'44 tzÂ¢I; 7 11- - '. l=l #22Nt 1 -rollar 4647 *LIffil ~ ~ 1* rEÂ·RANT f IHI#,0 -4 . 6-TEFAN KABLILI~ 4 , R.EHE>/E P 16,10,4 I 2/ ~:D~-7 H ~ 0~,[~-4~~~-Q~~ 1 AÂ®~ 1,1*TE LIHE6 -| EUILPIAL* ~ r r. 1.- t, i i=- I Â·r. 10'zl 1 Â£ I W-) ~~~J Il \ -14 *01* 1 i,-h' .... 4 11 112 -- 4.. - - - --1 2- --- --- - - -4 i I .1 -Â»lk<D LA < I--pgorap Â£.4 M C i i 6- - -- -- -fl Â®1-011 "116.6,1 m 11 11 0 . . 1 Fâ€ž Â»1 . a. - -1 * ~1 1,2-41 pjak#ki***Abtr.,2U,4.2.4*Â«AQ~.,~almast: upt: / ': Mit~ ../.0ie*re + .1 0 4. F , I ./ . I . 6Â», 1 1 11 ' :,f 4*A' t~J~, Â¢i. 4>29 -., ":u,b , .3 0.9 1 t.47*. .-4 â€¢A . # /#r,~-p-~u,z'tile~Â·0&*~ p**< *Â·-' .. I - 0,4 W- 04 8%-rt kIAL L IZE ; 2*1 I v# DIAHIC,FÂ°W- all= It-011 v OU f 4Â¢~MI f. 4,&. Â¢41Â»D ~ ,____ IN,701- 3,1,Aâ€¢64 ~ FLOOR PLAN HAropl exief LIAHTÂ« ANG â‚¬>PAL,INE, 3 -V- . ~842026% 43% 4 '20 10161,1- 31 -< -- -- --- 14. 6-, M i Â¢Fc,12- AJArL- 6 - - 2 4- f /1 7 WALL -1 E|Â¢-- Al*11146 U>/85 FIN-rED %24 - - TAINTED 41,1Â£ P< 472'EFFLAT M FA , 10 4,4 TL, 8'ME 4.,ML, fAF:6. / ~~- 4,4.rl-Â»FER. 0 -74% Â»tEl 840 ~ 10Â©WEL 914 F. Wr 1 1 . 1 1 X- 1/4 1 t---4'roftfÂ»11' PROE -ar-- Â·- 6 6Â» 1 / - - -.22.- Crih PLAN VETA IL - 2, . 1--T 4 1 7 NEW I *,0 -ri A @89 UP. Â» U 1,1"-OIl , 4 7 .2 6 i f 3 ~ to N 4 }5 8. 0 6"PER. AvE, 0 - r-3 9 1 - p==3 7-. - 2-?i- 2:8 - 1 -9 '71'64*OVE â‚¬cfflf OK| 4%*~49&1 coAT. CAIJUKIR# Ov NorE 140620~1___ - 014 4 *\R El==pl =1 -, .sall-ING, 4125FUB, \ 1 1-I 1 . 9 MALL %-7 1-u~ Â£ 1 ../.\11: r, b.a + 6-- p,LE OF 91,911 /71,Â¢2- ,~ bal ~ 801| â€žLvAMITV 'BAâ€¢66 - 4.4-rl-. 'TE A t F E 14, CO L.Â£3 FAPÂ© 1 ~- FEÂ»tipâ‚¬ 12Â£5 y R+lEg- MYONGÂ· caRT '~J "MITA- ..'Lr7L e '24"04 CAP A/t' LAM 140LPERÂ· TOP Igsued foll geTrl A pro, TÂ»qu7, (Foh fyEL Irl WAFT 4 ' dbÂ£11 13%.MD 'Flgl rr 4 0,4-Â·le , 0,3- %11&17W CT'\ 1 102 ELE.V. CP\ -E lot Ela>/ /Sh 1103 E L EV ry*noi ELEV rFÂ¥,101 ELEV 5 101 EL 8/, , 4.L/ \EL/ \4.1/ 410/ 49 411= 1 Loll -4- --- .- kIA+ItÂ¥AP EN 1 8*ANLE FAM' 13Â¥ 1-ENANT r- HEH â€¢SLIE,-F l.* / fo r*ToÂ·14 851-K '4 - . / %45 *LEOUIRED :--,@Tz)KE **Â»1*T ~ BLKA For- PUTilgE, t. -04Â· 1*4Â£,rrle:>,4 1,4 08 - - 10 j r- E.%14T, 4.1 e ~#t.12, 80161' WALL -> HER f IFE~U,LMe FEINIF. 4 ~ 34.~'4>UKID 0,(rT!5, -----f~\<1 1 < C GLEAIL,TEr'IT, /-- al@, 1#41.IL, 1*lf, 6,1>97.- --> .24 r I ..\ 1 IN'SUW ALAM -- > -2= - 0 A-i ahIC, WALk F L LI+Ht 14/ 42 4 PA > 1 /-34\21 2161 i lilli S 4487#01-p *1 p G;*ler. MALI. 1 1 1 PA+0 + FIE , . } 2 0 ,& 1 - - -2 54 1 ~ MAL-1- 6,WAI)15 -3 W:de 01 & a ZA-" 0, / -._- I / - 8614,1. Fâ€¢dhEP 1 A P Flag efer a M 1 1*rall EX er. Aim /1 00 -- .: f .9 â€¢-- 1 lt- - 92% M FICAL Â©el Â·. - - - ~ A- 7-)~ 71.aA . / , '. e . COhtLCAL-11*--41. t. i . el 73*11 L ANV 501 j DAA 1'-4' , e'_11' Ex 1Â«. MA-L G..pe -2 1 1 AUTorl*rio Pag- * 1 ALITORÂ»TIC- 17â€¢0Â£ ' 1 611,66 OF WALL L PX 1*T 6042-, 61.6 D 0 61,1-1Â» 1- , -71-011 , EEÂ·Aul,6,1- 8% 141 HALL 2Â¥*14 - / 2Â»1 6,2,Â·FE 0 /71 NALTY WALL gihE, bÂ¢r: ELEV /41 4013Â»1 E+TE@_1 012- El-EA/ATION 2340- 11-011 t/ 11/21= 1.-011 Vâ‚¬L// LÂ«L-/r 411 2"1'-011 - Copyright â€¢ Raul'mwrys â€¢ Architectut. Ploâ€ž. - 3 - - ....:= 20//*Ut. .2 3 - .4 ~. 1 /yi'Z=an / *6,92 .. --, a Lf 3 791,4 3131%136Â¥ -3 Â·3 glegg 143615 ...... . 1% ' - 1 1 I ..- -- 1- r El L_ ELJ -IUU-E] EU Ell-'Elt--1 01 I~El.L_i UL tr[E_El[ -AC D - f \I f ~.-- t f . // IfÂ· ' Â» 1 . 1 --- . 41 , .3 i J 4- - \ " - - 1 . - 7 1 A - - 11 Â·\711-T U \ - 7 - .,1., k " -~ 1.1Â£| - ~194'IA 24, 41 - Â«444 A il r . 1 1 '44-= .A\1 + .,4 - 1 \ *44 .. .1 ' ' . . 4~ . ..,teÂ» 1 .4 I .1 r - .- - \\ i . .- f Â¢ 3 11 -* f -- I j 01 â€¢'d I p./4~ ' h,r\ , 4 -__lfi-9.11 . / 11 . 7 1 I j h It .6 -0 / --I-t : ir,/1% ... -r 1 I li ./.11<LIT'll./ .1 ~ . 11 r. 4-2 -- I 61 7-3~~ i 15[94(NUMÂ«>6-UUE[ LI El-z I El[ 1Â¤IZE El:1\73.El \6 -37- i i , - ti 4 / 21 / - i - . 1 r Â·-- --17 . 1 1 ? 1 / '1.--/'0~1* 1 .5 -*QÂ«Ail-* 1 / s ..4/ks,mA~kj.talkE#7-932,a;w-,77.1 - rÂ·Â·Â·Â·L - , Â·<Li;~t,avÂ»:.$ a:~ 1 . 1 - I --*1194-gaqi f/5WL--:lu,~ #" .411"**1&*~04&32 5&5#giNS*'21. râ‚¬*Â·#4 yAMP##df'B il,ti~ / .. . 1 . r - 'a VI â€¢ IÂ· *I ' Â· :1 . # , 1. ./1 441*~-*. '444 *21.349J. -24.yt - .... # -4-*. *~1~~~,~.<~.2-~: 5:~11I~,.~x-**...~..*.~r;-4Â«4~.~f**9 7,~.--~<~.217<54.j- 1 - i 0 ~. *~Â£ 6 .S~A-&#4:b fi3;~ r Â·i An 1 # ~44 A - 1/.' 2.. < " 0Â·. .,Â· ,.... .-0 ~ 1 ' . 1- . / 1. 1 - 4 t il . Uh t, d_ _ , {16&&-62# - -:b-- - ---- 0 1 --*-.i - - i t - Ra: 2, 60, v v.: 4 f - 0 , Â·1 'tâ€¢ P.0 60,1325 ...2.12-Â·1 (.1. ..Â·..'0 .Di-621â€¢503 927-4411 4 - MALL ELEVATION , 3 41=1Loil 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i. 1 1 & . .... i. --- MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer~-Q- Re: Minor Development: 401 E. Cooper (Pitkin County Dry Goods) Date: May 27, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the storefront renovation. APPLICANT: Pitkin County Dry Goods, represented by Bill Poss and Associates. ZONING: "CC" Commercial Core, "H" Historic Overlay District PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff has determined that the proposal is a Minor Development review by the HPC, as stated in Section 7- 601 (E) (2) (d) . We find that the proposed exterior changes are minor in their effect on the character of the existing structure. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character 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 a Historic Landmark... Response: Staff finds that the proposal meets the standard. The storefront and new entry doors are designed to match the existing. Their proportions meet the Design Guidelines for the Commercial Core Historic District and are compatible with the structure. HPC comments: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the proposal meets this standard. HPC comments: 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not . detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: No historic landmarks are located on this or adjacent ~ parcels. We find this standard has been met. ./.. HPC comments: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: This structure is not a designated landmark, and we find that the standard has been met. The proportions and overall design of the renovated storefront are architecturally compatible with the building. HPC comments: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with specific conditions of the HPC, to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building AIIA permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Minor Development approval for the proposal at 401 E. Cooper, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. We recommend that a Project Monitor be assigned to this project at this meeting. memo.hpc.401ec.md . 2 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 May 15, 1992 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Officer Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: The following is in response to Attachment 2 of the Minor Historic Development Application Package. 1. See attached letter 2. Legal description: 401 East Cooper Aspen, Colorado 3. See attached Memorandum of Ownership 4. See attached Vicinity Map 5. Insomuch as the corner property fronts on two adjacent mails, this proposal intends to clip the corner of the structure and to add a door to the exterior. This proposed addition reflects the historic nature of the clipped corner and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The materials to be used are consistent with the existing materials and the existing overhang will remain unchanged. If there is any additional information you require, please contact me. Fes Rosenstein Project Manager Enclosures . h. . 0 - 2 2.1 ... 414:143 4.1 Â£, .' T ' th .4. 1,33'.P 'd 4.x i.Â·-Â·f-i., i. 1-3,%J .7. . 0 ..1 1.....S.,7 .V .1, , t:â€¢.' ; . I .7 $ i,mâ€¢Â· ... I I '. 11 1 C==1 1 t - GOLDEN ASPEN RED MOUNTAIN ' Â·~ L .1 - HORN SPORTS ONION PLAZA 1 0 1 . 7 . 1.-7 i i '11<111'll.111111111 COOPER STREET MALL .:tialitâ€¢i,i:,it,i, 6- water â€¢hiul!11.LI:,Ii':,Ii,isi:,ii,zaiji,I .. / ' L. . CD . WAGNER 65* Â·Z & .ovux**Tpfr /' ' Â· . --5 Â· 1 Â· 10 >9 PARK 1888898888& f E li 3 '~ 401 EJEOOP'ER'3221 ' PARK, PLACE RACHAEL GUIDO'S - - 90996Â«>90<> CONDOMINIUM COLLECTION SWISS INN , co N ,. . ,. 1 JU lib , III. - 1 1--, - ---1 1 . I Â· .phone gas t.v, elec ALLEY Â· ....... . . . Ill-*...Il- ---1-- . -------4 Ill III d 1 ill NORTH LU PARKING AREA EC 1- [IC 0 1% 1- 00 1! 0. . 11 11 1 - - 1 -jÂ· 11~ 23 1-1-1 1 1 -1 Eli 1121 1 1 Eli I 1 L ' 1,Â· ''â€¢I' ' ~'. 1 1; ie BUS STATION ' ' ! 1~i,ilâ€¢Lill, . DURANT AVENUE. Â· ~~ Â· 1 1, . U.Uward,2- .............. â€¢ 1 ,1. ar#*41[Mt W.flaâ€¢Wt 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 IssueÂ· 1, 1 1 ---9 1 1 d j-M . 1 1 1 , ELL--1-23_23Â«23_21_1 ELLILE-3 E----1 - , '~ 1__- , ~ .. 1 1 1 4 . 1 - . --- 9 - 1 --- L-1 -33===. L.-1 - 1 -1 49 --- - lilli 1 1 1 11, 1,1 11 1 .- ~NEW STOREFRONT - /71 NORTH ELEVATION NEW MATERIALS TO MATCH EXISTING 1/4* - 1'-0' 401 E. COOPER ST. - -fl---------- ASPEN,COLORADO L_.___021 . 1 - 21 441__f Â«10 L PROJECT - I ..4---- 111111.11 lilil RENOVATION - -- 9213.01 DESCRIPTION WiTOREFROdÂ¥ ELEVATIONS WEST ELEVATION ~ 1/40 - 1'-0' 1/40- 1-0" SHEET NO :i-Ld 6- 2Â£,-h-16-:.2 i 74/J-&.- Â©-BILL POSS & ASSOCIATES. P.C. ~ and associates 0009195- 65F' ~ and associates MA#"(a W.**1~- 605 EAST MAIN STREET 4 - ===== 0 0 0 0 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - TEL: (303) 925-4755 Issue: /14Â¢l# 34Â¢4 1 ~ 4,\%.1- - - â€ž111 7.-4 It- I y./. L g.0116,40 Gxle,1-1 46* 14Al-U ~ , 0 0 1 1 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 0 1 40%74 l 1 1 1 , 1~$ 4 ill -/1 lillil 1,111!k- 401 E-----T E. COOPER ST. 0 - 99 -0 1 1 1 9= ASPEN.COLORADO 1 1 L-__-4 11- |L , - 0 L rl 1 PROJECT RENOVATION 9213.01 DESCRIPTION MAIN FLOOR j 1/4. - 1-0. SHEETNO Â£5Â·, 0009132- 6:FI, ~ and associates ar#*41â€¢r" 04*â€¢49/ 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 0 0 0 0 0 TEL: (303) 925-4755 1 241 Issue '\99,0 4 44-i 1 Allilt 6/15~91 ------- --11- -- ---- ---t --' ---- [-t ---- -. --4-- ---P 11 i 1 1 ' 1 4.6, RIAL.L- 1 *0 0 1 1 IXI I j 9 . 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 --t--~1 11 11 1 1 -- I 1 1 : 1 , i 1 1 -1 a l 1~ 1 i 1 1 401 2= E. COOPER ST. E----7 1 1 1 ASPEN,COLORADO 1 1 1 1 1 1 9/ 1 AA L----4 r-- L. 1 . F I PROJECT RENOVATION 9213.01 DESCRIPTION MAIN FLOOR PROPOSED 1/40 - 1-0" SHEETNO MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer k Re: Minor Development: 413 E. Cooper (Park Place) Date: May 27, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the storefront renovation. APPLICANT: Continental Divide Company and Park Place Condo Association, represented by Bill Poss and Associates. ZONING: "CC" Commercial Core, "H" Historic Overlay District PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff has determined that the proposal is a Minor Development review by the HPC, as stated in Section 7- 601(E)(2)(d). We find that the proposed exterior changes are minor in their effect on the character of the existing structure. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character 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 a Historic Landmark... Response: Staff finds that the proposal meets the standard. The new storefront and entry door are designed to match the existing. Their proportions meet the Design Guidelines for the Commercial Core Historic District and are compatible with the structure. HPC comments: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the proposal meets this standard. HPC comments: 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. . Response: No historic landmarks are located on this or adjacent parcels. We find this standard has been met. HPC comments: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: This structure is not a designated landmark, and we find that the standard has been met. The proportions and overall design of the renovated storefront are architecturally compatible with the building. HPC comments: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with specific conditions of the HPC, to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Minor Development approval for the proposal at 413 E. Cooper, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. We recommend that a Project Monitor be assigned to this project at this meeting. memo.hpc.413ec.md 2 .1 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 April 22, 1992 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Officer Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: The following is a response to Attachment 2 of the Minor Historic Development Application Package. 1. See attached letter. 2. Legal description: PARK PLACE A CONDOMINIUM City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado 3. See attached Memorandum of Ownership. 4. See attached Vicinity Map. 5. This proposal intends to extend the existing store front, on the West, from 401 E. Cooper (Pitkin County Dry Goods) to the existing facade on the East, 419 E. Cooper (McDonough's). This would help eliminate the existing dark recessed entry and provide a more accessible and visually pleasing entry. This proposed addition reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, while maintaining harmony between the two adjacent stores. The materials to be used are consistent with the existing material and the existing overhang will remain unchanged. If there is any additional information you may require, please contact me. Sincerely, /1 A / 1- Leslaos~stein 493 - 1 . ~4: and Â£sociates *k4%Â¢11Â¢Â·~ >74.R Â·/FE CO tÂ·~I, . : 4 . rhi GOLDEN ASPEN RED MOUNTAIN - HORN SPORTS ONION PLAZA '. 1 '1 1 .- <7 : / 11 . : /;tlll1llll11,,1lt/1 COOPER STREET MALL 111,1,1,11,1,11:111 6" water .- / f WAGNER 4-'69Â·<:>~v,;Â·:..X PARK ..'.T. V .$.>fxxy -- Â·.Â·Â«Â·v,Â·'Â»X<>1< 1'.C.D.4, EA'.,>3Â·399<; RACIAAEL ' f 7,441Â·r.* Â· 12.7 r..2:kyÂ·, 6947- . COLLECTIOkl GUIDO'S 4.919/9344 SWISS INN 6242& 1 4888326 -- 1 : .phone gas t.v. elec. ALLEY .-. H + U.1 NORTH PARI<ING AREA Ill E - 1- Â·J 159 'fot 13,1 -- 2 mi L i BUS STATION _ i and associates DURANT AVENUE 41.18 014Â¢0414% ....,.......Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· 48" storm ......Â·Â·.Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· 12- sanitary 133H19.VN3149 I. , 4 -2, , T* rsÂ©Â»Â·-----ZIL-I----liz-Â·-.Â· ~ 1 .r- *&* 0 --t=*t* . i- 5.-0- . .4- 2 1 J :-eli* -- . .. - 4274@~Â· ---- 51 -64:4513-Â·IL; 'I-~2--~__-- Â· t-q _1 -'-=Li- 9 -- r-dâ‚¬â‚¬**~2~ZI-" -2-=4~Ln_zÂ«7--721.7533- -~. ~SEÂ¥"L-:-_r -,74.â‚¬d~Ia~t*SSâ„¢'fÂ¥ 1 - 7 --,-- 4.-:f#.,ix././.lf EXISTING STOREFRONT %4 90.~.. 7- 41 -2613=.6- I y.- trks#ko Â« N*22- 4421641- ~ he-Je--1 '--2--52Â»426 - 23 - NALf.4 1 Â·Â·- ----7.-:-2.32 2.14 3-7-Â·i'mÂ»-22â‚¬2 -Â« --12 --<3'*CR>r<>kic>N_v.- -2--- ~ -22~Â©64>~ -2 -9 . --~ /4.Ilp./0/.i" f/4/ .852*2 11 AGnlS , i NOI1VA313 .. HLION # -< .. A --1 - 14 .f '44 NOildIE10930 ------ - AÂ»Â·64.1 IDHI.|01 *1 -~ | - M'*18 e 1 Â· 00VB0100 'N3dSV / 7 --- bl' 1 j,laid G 1 1 13 . 30Vld >18Â¥d ~ / 9 - 103rOWd - - --- - - -- - - - - - - - -- -L-- T-- - - - - -\\ . I .' \ \.1 ./ t?1+32\C 3.dYÂ» 6?HUS|%3 1 - c 'A. N f ... \ 13 13 0 3 0 R M ! VIrÂ·13 31 (21- 1*cs.azor 9Mllfbt><3 9111Â®~ 83*1 M I Â¥IÂ»lb 01 - n -- 9*2*1 41" 3 /'=94\. . f.n â‚¬21- -XM-99 mi,4 --1 ic 1 -- I . V I - . --L. . --- . - -- W . . . - * $ r -4 .. I ~~ .,r ..' 0 0 0 l . 4. 1 1 - 0 . . .... .... 4 . â‚¬ , == I.-Ill.. 11.- .Ill-/1 ..6.-:d-l-I,--1 .1-=~1~..i~ ~~ -7- -'ter - I.---â€¢ -.d - 1 - 4- . .pr .1 1.- ..1.1-11 I.'Ii--1- Ill'=immmZ~ r h./, I .1 i 1 -%14"*9"499 ~ ~ 1 1 1 . ..".GE.SP- - =Ir - 'L ~ 1 11.. - 1 1 IM:'ll:& 1 .-Im-- -= ...J............... /11/1. 1./.A.. ~~~02~mi~ j~,pr~.i~N ~~E~~~ ~~ Â·. â€¢.Â·tf -Â·L' ~ -'~.1 a,P,t'. u.,cy#Tlt,R--9#C, ~Â»~~ /Wemef=-vâ€žWrGmgmMEMWV â€¢1.... M. ~~Ce!~~ 1= 4,1/4 7*bc. ..1 .7- .11.11 1 1 /.. 1 - 11 1.In..li -Fl--I-----I.--11----, 1 J b li Ij 11-10 j---, mim "In,Immull'mm"H Imli milmlmlin""'Imlmii~iiii,~ 110-m , . . sajetoosse pue ; MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee A From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer - Re: Minor Development: 303 E. Main St., new metal roof Date: May 27, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor development approval for the re- roofing of the National Register cottage at 303 E. Main. A standing seam metal roof in zinc gray is proposed. LOCATION: 303 E. Main St., described as Lot A and the East 1/2 of Lot B, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Niklaus G. Kuhn and Gertrud E. Kuhn, represented by architect Scott Lindenau. ZONING: CC (Commercial Core Historic District). This parcel is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Last year, the HPC denied an application to re-roof the cottage in all metal material, finding the proposal did not meet the Development Review Standards or the Guidelines for the historic district. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing (older) shingle roof is leaking, and the owner has sought the assistance of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. to investigate the structural aspects of installing a new metal roof. Their report letter is enclosed. The applicant's largest concern is in snow shedding, which is why they have re- applied to the HPC for approval to install the metal roof. STAFF SUMMARY: Staff understands the applicant's desire to re- roof this structure with a material proposed to be less maintenance intensive. We support the applicant's desire to maintain this important historic resource, and wish to work with him to find an acceptable solution to the problem. We do not, however, support the installation of an all-metal standing seam roof, and have stated our reasons why in response to the Development Review Standards. We defer to the HPC to work with the applicant to achieve the goal of eliminating a leaky roof in a compatible way. REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is . 4 in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a 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, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The Planning Office finds that the proposal is not compatible in character with the cottage. We recommend the use of wood shingles on all roof surfaces except flatter pitched areas, such as porch roofs. This cottage's historic roof material has been wood shingles, which predominates cottages of this style and era. We find that a ribbed metal roof substantially changes the character of the cottage, and is an inappropriate choice for new roof material. We find this standard has not been met. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that this standard has not been met. Metal is not the predominant material found on roofs in the district. This cottage is an important community asset, listed on the National Register and highly visible in its location on Main Street, and its contribution to the neighborhood's character is immeasurable. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of a designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The Planning Office finds that the proposal does not enhance the cultural value of the historic resource, which deserves closer attention to original material detail due to its historic integrity. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff finds that the proposal detracts from the architectural integrity of the structure. Wood shingles are an important, historic fabric for Aspen miners cottages. Shingles are a soft material that provide subtle texture and shading to pitched roofs, while enhancing the small architectural scale of the structure. We recommend that the applicant again study the use of wood shingles, or a combination of metal and wood, in order to meet the Development Review Standards. 2 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as proposed, finding that the Standards have been met. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be approved by the Project Monitor and staff. 3) Table action, to allow the applicant to restudy specific issues of the proposal. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny Minor Development application for 303 E. Main, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. We encourage the HPC and the applicant to work together to reach a consensus on an acceptable solution to re-roofing this National Register structure. REVIEW COMMENTS: memo.hpc.303.em.md 3 . MAY .5, 199 L Dear: 11BC (in care of Roxanne) Mr. and Mrs. Niklaus Kuhn who are owners of the Van Loon House at 303 East Main are proposing to remove the existing three layers of the roof, and replace it with a 4 inch plywood and a non-shiny metal roof. The color will match the 0.907 ColoR oF -7/f/1 1-< ov716 ~ No structural changes will be necessary, only the simple replacement or the roof, This project will also allow for removal of many unnecesary pounds off of the roof. Since the current owners bought the 303 East Main Victorian from Leana Van Iron in 1980, they have tried to keep the house in int original victorian charm. They have kept up the house by adding a iron fence, several new paint jobs, brick work, and renovation and preservation of the outhouse building. The owners have now decided to replace the old roof on the main house which has been patched for the last twenty years, anh has had problems of leakage into the house. The new metal roof would fit in nicely to the surrounding area expecially considering that the adjoining odthouse has a metal roof. Also many victorians have gone to a metal -roof due to th@- difficult and complicated roof lines. The roof side on the east is very steep, and this is the only area were snow would fall off on the new roof which would just go into the vacant yard. Examples of victorians which have gone to metal loofs include the remodled Francis :Whitaker.' House, the new remodled Log Cabin Restaurant, as well as many other victoriansÂ· These changes to the roofs of the Victorians have increased and anhanced their appearance. The main reason that the roof should be replaced is because the roof looks like it is about to fall down, and is leaking. Pictures of the roof have been 6nclosed to show you the exact shap& the roof is in at this time. By putting a new metal roof on the building, it will give the building a major boost as well as solving the leakage problam. I hope that you give this proposal A fair trial, and thank you for your time. SincerelY- A /AU ) U U 1/ u 14-J- ~L - p-10.-' Niklaus G. Kuhn P.O. Box 8016 Aspen, CO. 81612 41 NIKLAUS G. KUHN BOX 8016, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL 303 ~ 925-3142 METAL R oOp TOR r 3 03 F243>-7 f/r I /\0 67 2- l-i lIT 0 0 L OR 2 j/\0 C GRAY 0 O Ac Z X /9- 7>U /04 L /1, Â« 731 3/4070 -LOA R k I 74Â«/10;7/4- 7/ 67 6// / I A Ill. 1 1 ~ SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 4 0 (303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6727 Fax (303) 945-5948 CONSULT-/NG ENG/NEERS & SURVEYORS/ August 21,1991 -- Mr. Niklaus Kukn MAY 1 2 303 East Main Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Cursory Roof Inspection 303 East Main Street Dear Nick: Per your request, we have investigated the structural aspect of putting a new roof on your building at 303 East Main, Aspen. We understand that you wish to place plywood sheeting over the existing 2x4 rafters and 1/2 x6 nailing slats. You would then attache a felt insulation and, finally, metal roofing. I examined the roof structure with you August 21. We found the wood structural members to be sound. They roof is presently composed of wood shingles, a layer of tar paper and a layer of asphalt shingles. It is your desire that the new roof be of comparable weight of the existing roof so as to avoid any structural changes. While we can make certain assumptions about existing weight, we cannot verify those assumptions. However, it is our opinion that the use of 5/8" plywood sheeting, standard felt insulation and standard metal roofing should be of comparable weight as the existing. The primary advantage the new roof has over the old roof is that metal roofs shed snow almost immediately, thereby reducing overall loading. We hope this provides the information you need. You should be awarethatthe new roof does not appear to meet current Code requirements, but neither does the exiting roof appear to meet Code. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 0 14 Ron Thompson Planning Engineer RT:Ic/91127 ...... ImAL'"I ./.1 7 Z 0,1/3/.2 . =UNT.44.12 .- - .. .K >Ii. 22Â¢Â»~. ' -iâ‚¬,&-9-02*254&'%â‚¬:~4,-W *<p'.r.'*&%'*pi . ti' =~i. .0,Â·...,4./ fi *4054#AriltsÂ©4-'fIN~Â£ t..6.7 4.: 1042.->*24*123-9 .81/62 j... -21:14<644440&9â‚¬27-21*i... I .3 ..7 -. .r.. . â‚¬Â£459.17-3673~1Â·Â·4:... . Â· I . -- - Â£ ..4 : d - te~. 4' Â· :t 41 t. Â·.in. rh.,4,4,-14"% rÂ·.; .7.4 t. v[ Trf f:14-:f#''cix. 1,..0 . 16 04: *04/104Â» .. 44. I 14.A /) I ... 1 . 9 .. /.97 I . I s - 1;\' . 7 : LA'>;22*2' ..0-<.3 -:Â· li.-*Â· 0.-â€¢ i --: 0". Â·Â·'- 1.- .2:i~.~.$3 '72,9 4~~~~* ....Le.:/*Mit.- */ 9 ./51Uiras/&. R3332~i'F* -2.:~7-22- 4....; _ r . .f ' 'L'It . 14.,A,=F 4 . . '' 7>233,9. f'-: f f.,fl X.-741.,Of - '51' 4*9 6, : ,1 ; 1 I . 4..>* + - -- f , 13- 41 t.:x MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer KL. Re: Conceptual Development: 624 E. Hopkins (public hearing) Date: May 27, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the revised redevelopment plans for the parcel at 624 E. Hopkins. The parcel is not eligible for HP variations or incentives. LOCATION: 624 E. Hopkins, Lot Q and the West 1/2 of Lot R, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Joshua Saslove, represented by Bill Poss and Associates, as authorized by the current owners, Phil and Marian Altfeld ZONING: C-1. This parcel is not designated "H", nor located within a historic district. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Over two years ago, the HPC granted demolition and redevelopment approval for this parcel, which resulted in the removal of the Ellen Kuper cottage and the subsequent resale of the vacant parcel. A resolution granted three-year vested rights was adopted by the HPC at that time. The contract purchaser wishes to revise the redevelopment plans, which consisted of a three-story townhouse, finding that the design does not suit his needs. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The parcel is vacant, and is located between two non-historic commercial/multi-use structures. Three small scale cottages exist across the street. STAFF SUMMARY: Staff is generally pleased with the revisions to the original redevelopment plan, finding they meet the Standards. Since the immediate neighborhood' s historic fabric is eroded to the point of relatively little context remaining, reviewing this infill development was difficult two years ago, and will no doubt be a difficult task for the HPC today. No Design Guidelines exist for this type of townhouse development within a (C-1) commercial transition zone; therefore, only general urban design principals and the Development Review Standards may be applied. The architectural ques must be taken from the small cottages across the street, and from structures within adjacent blocks, particularly the City Hall/St. Mary's Church block, with its strong roof forms and substantial massing. A general principal of design quality must also be understood when addressing the appropriateness of this proposal, and understanding how C-1 buildings are used now and should be in the future. REVIEW PROCESS: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character 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 a 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, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: In this unique case, we are reviewing infill on a vacant parcel. Therefore, this Standard does not apply. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This is the important standard to apply when reviewing this proposal. The design quality of this infill building has the ability to strengthen the existing neighborhood character and perhaps set precedent, erode any quality that already exists, or be neutral in its statement to the street. It is important that a site visit occur to assist you in making your final decision. The architectural elements, setbacks, streetscape amenities, materials and roof forms that the applicant has woven into this proposal indicate the neighborhood context has been studied thoroughly. Staff supports the articulated two-story design approach, finding this to be an improvement over the original three story version. The strong roof forms and slate tile proposed relate to the historic fabric across the street and to City Hall one block west. We find the two-story massing and scale to be and appropriate height transition between buildings. We also find that elimination of the non-useable "open space" originally designed between the two buildings is appropriate. The open space is found appropriately between the sidewalk edge and the building's facade, which continues the green relief of the buildings to the street. We also agree with the alignment of this infill building, as it relates to both the KSNO and corner buildings. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of a designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or 2 adjacent parcels. Response: The Planning Office finds that the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the parcel or adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: This Standard does not apply in this case. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed, finding that the Standards have been met. 2). Approve the Conceptual Development application with conditions to be met at Final. 3) Table action, and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow the applicant to restudy specific issues of the proposal. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for 624 E. Hopkins, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. REVIEW COMMENTS: memo.hpc.303.em.md 3 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 May 1,1992 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Coordinator City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 624 East Hopkins Dear Roxanne: Joshua Saslove has entered into a contract to purchase the above referenced property from Philip Altfeld. As you are aware, Mr. Altfeld currently has HPC approval to construct a three story residence on the property. After reviewing the Altfeld drawings, Mr. Saslove asked us to make some significant changes to the approved design. Though he is prepared to build the approved design, Mr. Saslove feels the changes we are proposing make the project better for both him and the HPC. First I will briefly describe the changes, then I will address the new design in relation to the review standards set forth in the Land Use Code. The first major change occurs in the lowering of the structure from three to two stories. This allows for a smoother transition from the taller KSNO building to the shorter 632 East Hopkins building. In addition, the two story organization lowers the eave height and creates more of an opportunity to add interest with roof shapes. The second major change is an adjustment to the massing so that the building completely fills the space between the two existing buildings. We feel this is more in keeping with the transitional character of the neighborhood located between the dense commercial zone and the less dense office zone. With respect to how the revised design complies with the relevant review standards, we would like to make the following points: Standard A The development is consistent in character with designated historic landmarks. Response There are no historic landmarks either on the property or adjacent to it. However, there are two contributing structures across the street. Our design reflects the character of these structures by utilizing steep roof 9*/0.4.p.-: 1/.'18 *<26 .* .. 1 and associatesâ„¢.. Roxanne Eflin Page 2 pitches on the gable ends. In addition, the massing on the south elevation is stepped to create vertical element which enhances the relationship to the Victorian massing of the contributing structures. Finally, our design is held back from the front property line so that a front yard is created in keeping with the older residential structures in the area. Standard B The development is consistent in character with the surrounding neighborhood. Response With the exception of the contributing structures mentioned above, the neighborhood is dominated by a mixture of commercial and residential buildings two or more stories in height. In addition, most of these buildings run lot line to lot line along the street frontage. This is particularly true of the buildings adjacent to our parcel since both are on the property lines. We feel the best approach to remain compatible with the neighborhood is to develop a more transitional type of structure which goes all the way across the parcel. Our design utilizes parapeted gable end walls which are evident on older structures such a "The Armory" and newer buildings such as KSNO. In addition, the mansard portion of our roof is pitched to match both the Armory, KSNO and 632 East Hopkins. Standard C The development enhances or does not detract from historic landmarks. Response Again, there are no landmarks in the immediate neighborhood. However, it is our opinion that the development of one single family residence in this now vacant lot will not detract from the cultural value of the neighborhood. In fact, this development, with its addition of sidewalks and landscaping, may encourage pedestrian traffic and enhance the cultural value of the area. Standard D The proposed development enhances or does not diminish the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure. Response While there are no designated historic structures in the immediate neighborhood, we feel this revised design is, in fact, sensitive to the architectural integrity of the contributing structures. ~ anD associates INIA Roxanne Eflin Page 3 If you have any questions after reviewing this information and the attached drawings, please do not hesitate to call. Also, please schedule us for a work session on May 13 and a Public Hearing on May 27. Thank you. Sincerely. -4/4 Kim Weil Project Architect CC: Joshua Saslove Andy Hecht SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear, fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"x17'*, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x17" format. APPLICANT: Joshua Saslove ADDRESS: 624 East Hokpins ZONE DISTRICT: C-1 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 4,500 EXISTING FAR: N/A ALLOWABLE FAR: 2820 S.F. PROPOSED FAR: 2820 S.F. EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commer.): N/A PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commer.): N/A EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: N/A PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: N/A EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (commer.): N/A PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (commer.): 25% EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldg: N/A /Accessory Bldg: N/A PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldg: 32 FT + /- /Accessorv Blda: N/A PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: N/A EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: N/A PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: N/A N-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 4 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: N/A Front: 0 Front: 24 + /- Rear: N/A Rear: 0 Rear: 12 +/- Side: N/A Side: 0 Side: 0 Combined Combined Combined Frt/Rr: N/A Frnt/Rr: o Frnt/Rr: 36 + /- EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES/ N/A ENCROACHMENTS: N/A VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Onlvicharacter compatibility finding must be made bv HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Bldgs.: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Comb. Frt/Rr: _ Site coverage (Cottage Infill Only): 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 May 1, 1992 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Coordinator City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 624 East Hopkins Dear Roxanne: Joshua Saslove has entered into a contract to purchase the above referenced property from Philip Altfeld. As you are aware, Mr. Altfeld currently has HPC approval to construct a three story residence on the property. After reviewing the Altfeld drawings, Mr. Saslove asked us to make some significant changes to the approved design. Though he is prepared to build the approved design, Mr. Saslove feels the changes we are proposing make the project better for both him and the HPC. First I will briefly describe the changes, then I will address the new design in relation to the review standards set forth in the Land Use Code. The first major change occurs in the lowering of the structure from three to two stories. This allows for a smoother transition from the taller KSNO building to the shorter 632 East Hopkins building. In addition, the two story organization lowers the eave height and creates more of an opportunity to add interest with roof shapes. The second major change is an adjustment to the massing so that the building completely fills the space between the two existing buildings. We feel this is more in keeping with the transitional character of the neighborhood located between the dense commercial zone and the less dense office zone. With respect to how the revised design complies with the relevant review standards, we would like to make the following points: Standard A The development is consistent in character with designated historic landmarks. Response There are no historic landmarks either on the property or adjacent to it. However, there are two contributing structures across the street. Our design reflects the character of these structures by utilizing steep roof Roxanne Eflin Page 2 pitches on the gable ends. In addition, the massing on the south elevation is stepped to create vertical element which enhances the relationship to the Victorian massing of the contributing structures. Finally, our design is held back from the front property line so that a front yard is created in keeping with the older residential structures in the area. Standard B The development is consistent in character with the surrounding neighborhood. Response With the exception of the contributing structures mentioned above, the neighborhood is dominated by a mixture of commercial and residential buildings two or more stories in height. In addition, most of these buildings run lot line to lot line along the street frontage. This is particularly true of the buildings adjacent to our parcel since both are on the property lines. We feel the best approach to remain compatible with the neighborhood is to develop a more transitional type of structure which goes all the way across the parcel. Our design utilizes parapeted gable end walls which are evident on older structures such a "The Armory" and newer buildings such as KSNO. In addition, the mansard portion of our roof is pitched to match both the Armory, KSNO and 632 East Hopkins. Standard C The development enhances or does not detract from historic landmarks. Response Again, there are no landmarks in the immediate neighborhood. However, it is our opinion that the development of one single family residence in this now vacant lot will not detract from the cultural value of the neighborhood. In fact, this development, with its addition of sidewalks and landscaping, may encourage pedestrian traffic and enhance the cultural value of the area. Standard D The proposed development enhances or does not diminish the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure. Response While there are no designated historic structures in the immediate neighborhood, we feel this revised design is, in fact, sensitive to the architectural integrity of the contributing structures. ~ arG associates r Roxanne Eflin Page 3 If you have any questions after reviewing this information and the attached drawings, please do not hesitate to call. Also, please schedule us for a work session on May 13 and a Public Hearing on May 27. Thank you. Sincerely, 04 Kim Weil Project Architect CC: Joshua Saslove Andy Hecht SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear, fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"x17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x17" format. APPLICANT: Joshua Saslove ADDRESS: 624 East Hokpins ZONE DISTRICT: C-1 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 4,500 EXISTING FAR: N/A ALLOWABLE FAR: 2820 S.F. PROPOSED FAR: 2820 S.F. EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commer.): N/A PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commer.): N/A EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: N/A PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: N/A , EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (commer.): N/A PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (commer.): 25% EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldg: N/A /Accessory Bldg: N/A PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldg: 32 FT + /- /Accessorv Bldg: N/A PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: N/A EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: N/A PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: N/A N-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 4 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: N/A Front: 0 Front: 24 + /- Rear: N/A Rear: 0 Rear: 12 +/- Side: N/A Side: 0 Side: 0 Combined Combined Combined Frt/Rr: N/A Frnt/Rr: 0 Frnt/Rr: 36 + /- EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES/ N/A ENCROACHMENTS: N/A VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Only:character compatibility finding must be made bv HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Bldgs.: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Comb. Frt/Rr: __ Site coverage (Cottage Infill Only): . 1>-K727--/ 4, 0..t 1 t':-S'Â·Â¥:...~ 6. ' I // 4 + .f 1 1 14. 1 L er :'Ir- di-'1;:71--L:<i-Â·-2:jitip;H 6 .4 -444442 UN ! 1 11114 -- L. t ~ '- ' z .-t d ;F j--i -1 - 1 Iffil . I. i t- 1 - ---- - ~1 1 1+ li 1 11 1 1- 1 11 4 11 1 fil 1 1 1 It 11 1 11 11 l-P R 1 1 11 1 1 T 11 ' 11 1 H 41 In# 4 ~31 , ill bl,1 1 1 1 111 k- ' rtru-1--F 111 )1 11 1. [ 1.-d --f-- 1 - L._11 - Lf _ -1 - L --2 624 632 MASEENGr STUDY STREETSCAPE MAY 27, Iq42 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-O" . . :re..1 - / t.. 2:, 61Â«.4 z. .0 42 459.Â·Â·Y A.*Â¢119*12 . -1 =- 1.1:H-. - Im'll"mill/7.7/7/1....1 Ill ..1.111..11'IL 1111111.111|:16 ~I~L. 1. U VE. lillilliwill .... ...1110 mil ..... 1.1.1.1 1 1 111- 11 11 - 111 m - 1111â€¢111 mii 0 111111 1 11 1 h. 1 ... A. - ..2 0. ... D# (42-B 11()1)1\ 11\T~ 11 A #Lrii /k7 and 'Ssociales . -V . + --P J , I . ' '''- 4 -1 1 1. 1 ., , ..1 .. ' : 1.- ... .. .' I .. 1 . / , ~ 1 1//A . 4 1 Al] D I.N 24 1. I. '.1. .:.. 4'r L==21% 1 -1-N Â· .4RAM METAL 1 4/v 744! N - M.r'' : t : -1-..I...+I'll t. i , ' 4,62 -* I 1 , I . 7 t-~ IT- , , 0 - 1 41 1 ' - C'l F -'' 'Â«~24 1 1\ - k -3;6U-..!ACV'= 1~t>N'-rk .r , 9 / 5, 1 - 41 .- ! , r v -'- 15>r Icr r Fc I NGI (Tff 'dALD .. t .t-. ~ ' j v Ak--1 .*..Ar,EL ' Â·-a toÂ· ~ I . A - 'I) e . =;Oct<*Dre . 1 h / It ' ' -< -.1 Â· 1 7:09- 2, j. . 2 .1 -4- 33- 49 4<tL40:%=3~--- ---~titt-'~ETTPTVcj:i Â·Â·~ I. 64* =I427?14191fgt-JI/&14 . . / 11-11- .4 /2 3 11'ki.,8;4>Â».< 62.- g , V==VI E I#+ I t-~117"7 1 . -- Imp Â«1*T p. f: ' : ' 1 .. ciouTH E L E V 6 T 1 0 hi : 1 - Lic AL E 1 1 . 1 01-J:1.â€¢JI-1.lgy : 4164/ n.-.-*.0. . 1909 twoll w . A .1. 1.-.1 b 1 1-0Â·N. : -. 1 . 1 2 L ...2 1 -t.-EX -*~_irtl] 1[l 114, 0 1-34 1 ' ''17 Â®1: . vv il . i . 'r d ; ' ' ... -7 41 1 1 Â¥ H 6 I 1719 C .i . .1. 1, bo; 4 0 9 AN Â· ----- N... *--.La-A---J - 1 --i ---I -, -*'. . f . ../.... 1 - -4- /AU 1.- ... "~,L' IC:>. Â· - 1 EM][[Il-Â»r'-0/ - , - ./Cill 4-4 'r,-7- 7942>0 - i D '; 8 I~:. till ~9\ . 1-4 ~ r-lip. 8 tb| E-V~ 1 1 4 , 1 HI,A: :4,00&0- ~ . .21 -- 2<KNE +1 . 4-73/- j Â· t. , 1 , . . .T , 1 . 1 . '. . . . . 1â€¢ 1 . 1.1 . - - ... 0 . ..... 4 . I , , .-; 1-, . Â·- 3 ' 5,/: I. r#f ' .Â·~12',:'' . ,/Â·,i ' ' :.. + '.1 1, . ' 1 ..Â· . . 1 3 - 1 0.-Â·C , I . . 11 -I- '0 I XII . ./ I , 1 4. 5 16 ' -- Â¥ 7 41: f ..::Vt;..:A..,ti.' ... ..., 1,;1, ; ,. ''...,: ..1. N o:! 12>1.4-11-11 3~-~.' 1 .s Y 1 2 '. Â·3 -- ' 1 '..: ~ 0;~, .f-' tr,I~'...t,14'f l.?4..?j,!#fvt~tiL-3Â¢~~ff.~t-itfill~ 4'a '4= ;4 L; 0 ; =36'.* 2 :'~:FI:r,,1,3,:vewz*-934,*grit* ' 4% Â·Â· 4 . i .4 ...., Â·.f 7 .. 1 F f ''. 3 -Â·<* ~r -~ ~i~43:?><*0141>*r~%94:~3 <1 /1., 1 46 7 5.7 â€¢~S~j/> 4101'.â€¢ â€¢ *Al.A 1 1 q.-Pr , . 1 -1 . 1 . 1 1 . I - 1,4-â€¢Ar :. P,Â·11 'tÂ·Â·AtiÂ·:,? 9.-i'i~ lyÂ·f Â·4'k~~,0Â·-:- I ./ . I 'I. 1.''I I< -I. ' 1 . e ' if=? I. - RU1 92 +- . 1 14 4 T I 7-11- ~ ':r-Â·-Â·---- fl 0 11614'Nl:941:dfl 1 -- gÂ·:,:~ T FVB/*0114Â·1111%.Â·+4.1M1'204':.?,t Â· - -T 1 4- , 11. 4/,Â· -Â· 1 . .1 4 9 " , ~ : 4-,A...1,~r...:51- ' 1, -1 '1 K+ , TJ--1 -HIFT--~ " Â·- 4-- 1 , ....... ... .1 ''' -=i==11 . t.=dL=.1 t---1 N' Nitti====t= , I i. 11/LF:irT-11;F -.4-1//1-1-41.-r ~ 6 g . -ill[IliIEEKI ' J ~-1.-r--trlill-Fle--7- --1---1--7 1 V r, IÂ· I I 1 f Alty , , . . . 4 i I. ..,, 1 1 r 1 1 Â· =49:r 111 \ lillil ill r . - , ...' 'll' / 1. 1'/ I Â· : l.' _ L-- ' x. ~;1 4 5 - - --- - r.7,Â»U~ ':=354 St-7.1:421- 9 SCUL,Â· - .-.. 4 -- 1 f - // L 3 - --Il \ 1 \ , 1 r - .tr, 4- ..1 -2 -Ea:.4 - - . ..1~1.. . ... 24=zE==914 - . - :2=-1----1- - -_b-- U.-27. Â·.-Â· - -- -2-- 2.-==1 7- r -2.- 2 ..r . P -- ' -.- 1 314-~,96,4 1 G 9 -- 11 D e -1 \ .4 FTI/0. - -- -- --#/Â£. .<---ill ./. <+iX-/E-:...-1.- t=.-- 1 1 ~ ~'-- -- ~- '- -- 1 - .2-2 -- 1 CEâ‚¬~=EE-ki:Zil UL ~ ~... ~ =- -4.-461~ I 04-ze . .eg.4.-y ,. ..r.=--=_ , 4 . 1 - _Â·--1232-zyyirâ‚¬2'-2 1 7=---- r -=334&25269 k-Â·1Â« ,.U:_i- .:c--Â·= VE,751/6&4*224 li-9.7-.2.--0/453 -1EI~-. -ZZ-;4447'-Â·t- - - -â€¢ 11:'2Â·U=-73.I=-.2 . C._; -. -4/Â»*... : L.es*%2*,2/4221&:4.461*144-ir- r-- f + de~#pr~#,2 -..1-4FT: 1-43Rge r-.-7 ~''er-33~G*.fÂ¥14}4 :~Â·,..10744. - . -I .-- . l.z,6.4 - 1 I . â‚¬Â·Â· " 1>Tlnve-'~- 1-- 4 27~~42#&2*_ 7.-26622zt*Â»FULGk-167: -7.'A Â· 32- 7.-Ji~YliTI~-t~.3.-11 -r ./46.61uir- .4--u J., :Â·Â·Â·-Â» -6. i .*EMEIbl-*34.9-53-,ul,72 3:,:41-Trjd:7:.#&--.U~4.- :,&.0/&./%23/:9 *ji.Â·14.3.ff,=' aU*.1:U~ =r=.te=nt - L Â· Â£ ...i.. , 5323=~.-4-*ilifif~-zi-Ell#KE,2,=+.**ferfyi&~Fri~gr~.se*12.ifi;~39~ --4.2,1vY.-**31.<46-~:4.9.Q,7~~-IJLS-asiv-,V---r".22%7--1 -0-Â·--i-*62=4*-3.7.=rc,~Â·;' ~~-r pi,c*.2.3*462:.eiiÂ»,P.Till#,#rEI-127Â·172.2 - &0*eaffe~,54*.-34- "-- .-rf Larr ==.r,7.-.O- I.lr i..,-*-,:-w-L. ,-1 ---= r:JIT E~trn:*- 1 ..: 4..Â»pr..Crb,2*2~m,~.u#m:.'-351*' HIX INC. 275038 ' .,1 1 , r 1! 1 , . ..1 1 t..1.*1.1.i:iÂ·:irr.it-iti 1 ,- 9Â·='9ltÂ·f f j!?4. 09:. , 4Â·'h 1, I 41; .: 44.11 t.li6~46Â¢ift' 10:~: ':4:{11.i: :!t 'Â· , -' ~'./1~ 1/ , ..~'Â·. LI; 46 .ii:., ; 1 . e I ./ 1 - 1: -1-6 -5t I ~C, ~Jrd I~Â«*fj~'Â·i~,li;f ~~~ ~'Â·~~~'~~ ~~; ~ ~~ ' '.', ~i:'i I '~ ' , ~~e~ - ~ ..111 111 +N: , 1 Illill....:.&41'..u-. -7-r= 1 . 1 ".fir,51; ,*itJ I'.'.''â€ž' 4-,lk :1,.{'T'L......4. .12!11,1 /7, -- 1 -P .1 .,1 -14'' ..11 1 , :0 1 :' : 1 '' ' 1 -4 -k - 1 2 L lin., , ::~:: AN' - . 1 fij,R~O" .0:, trA.'LI'l'.1 1 ; m .1 1.11 --* 1 !r 1 Â· :lm.Vil:'. brir.t,1.11.4,31'un:: 5 931., 145~Tr,Â·I.3364*=cz Â·Rf,EW{'.~'lot,~4/ 2,4:t i.,--,li Â·LE..,. 1: ..11 2 4 , 41 , A ....1 1 -- 1,1, ; e , PU<4;14,1 1 ' nt,iNE-Â·ing*Q93,1:it.,Â·~.0:;1Â·6T:'H f.. ' ~'12 .1 jib IN k 1 + '4 : f :.; /11 n -1 .' T, Â·. , 1 '1 1 4 .1 .1 ' ~' ' 1 1 1 , ij'; 249:,'64 19},ii.1... 44.1,j 1 ., I , 4! 1,-F ,Â·lifiÂ·;:i ,t 4,4!(11 ~~ 11 ;14 ~ ''T . '. - 1 4 44*41 Mf 1. .'6 '- Â· St' . 4. - .. . , 4/1 t , ' Â· 1 F <1 1. li 1.2 11 . C -4, 1 ! 1 1 '' Nitt*24,].mJilt;4-~,-,;i:;:til ,-'Â·,'j~ t.Â·,~ JF.L, ~,~1,;~ ~. ~: ; 2 . , 1 It' M.7-+1 j j 4- *'-:I + '. ./" 'I.' d ''. '' L 1 . ' . 1 1. / . 1 1,11'V 'N 1 ' I i, -7.- '. .lk . , 1Â·1101" lt, 1 Pill 11... . 1 4 , , i , , ,;lÂ· 7- ,#1 t, ,/'li. . 1 g ' t- / f'' , '4 1 1 -- . If.:h>diff;;3.e<,3 .:.if,Eci, Z: ' " 1 ! 1 G, 1,I. 1 1 ; 14:tRK: (142,1813#3~.1 ~it- 94': -- , -~111>' 1 , 1 Â· Â· Â·. 1. 1 ..:jifti.k~JilfiliK,l:i/: ,t. 1:.:1 5't.>~'' Â·Â·' 1 / 1 ~~;'~Illi... 1, ' /*9*u/,ti,!MonÂ»AD'a,~Â·Â· 1,Â·~, 1 i, , 1: ~ ' ~~'' 1 , + 1 1. 1 1 'I , 4. . D " 1 I ' 11 ;1 ..1 . , 46.4 Blti':14.-Wi# 85:li ,Â·1 0.1. 3- 1- , 1~ . . , ; i , / . 1 1 1, ! 4 . IiI .11 1,!1:. i :3 19,11111**211 ~1 2:q 23:-:11. 1 1 1 4, , iIi . ., 1.41;1'! .Â· , : Ai. i ill ,'1Â·iii R01-i}{RE.#IMI(*4fGGi>. ,.c t.; 4, ; ~ 1 14â€¢ 84*MI %R 0 1 6 '2 9 Â¢ A 41- H Of'KÂ· 1 0% A\/ 3. . CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS ~. ~ * 01. 41!te 3 ? 6 ~ 2: , FÂ·Â· P. P B. v> EL C., r MIEN 7 r LAN . . ,~. .:. '~ -i ' / 11. 1. 1 ; l-1 4 Â·4 0?'Ul -6 g , 'r'- DO 1, 6% 4 k q * cc,LoÂ» Apo P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 * 11 2 2-1-) . . ~" /0 133-5 - Â·irhf .t:.4.-:C- ' ' ~ â€¢ -- -ZE.Â·~.:22. -,-4~i~~-:11,-4- '---g---'~-Â·h ', -67---1-4 6 =--4 ~~. :4 90Â·1 -] f ) cj M n.-co -4 k:).-- -0.... -~------73-:rz ~ ~7 9-- ~09- if ~-~ ~~~~f_i {I~Â·~~-I~-- fjj~~~~f If C.~IP ' G' ' ' 3,0 - r 06 :9 ON <r_ - . 04. ID 3-yb -1-cliN-f *.. -- ---- --. Â· AÂ· f ,--C ONI/AvejO 47YM-ial 9 ' 14 t,MI >14 ott - . --. ... - I ... h . - A *1 - - . - - v-<)~ - ,.-vn.-250 Â· . kÂ» AÂ« ..10-4 . Y - 7-Â· Y . hr-Â« - ' -47 . .-- -6. ./ 9 1 -- .: -1-1 .. 3--Â·.-:0' G 4.- *----/ ELIA.rt- 9 741 1 g !: 1 --0 //.[ .. 1 4.-11 - x - ti.'* 4 1 -. . -1 :T -- ,/- .. - '3=>Ha, 1913,4 1 1 -1'.t,iLÂ·ir,1 90 - -. ,/ . ~ LE . M -3 1 19,4 / ~rAY 1 11 - 01 Â»)9Â»- rv~-_< ~ 1 1 + *Â· - - * -7 . al 4 U.-1--2 -ZI 7 - ~4 - t~ --1 --I-- .1 . -- - Â·419Â» 331 - -' 1. 1 Z ,â‚¬-,Ute ..... f , 1 /2/11. F 7 r- . ' 2 J M 2-1 19- 1 -1 - - S -ul Â·2#-i t~~43*mI - __~ 1 ly-. il - 3- -1 - 11 - L 11 0 1 .1 P'- 1 0,4 - 1 4 ---1 7 K# 'C~l n -. - 7 LU (3 1-3 IC-=al - C N.144 17 -- 1 -; == XI -gol Mlq - 0 L . --- . 0.- .OGI,G.. A 17 1 : - - ,9 -: 4 Â£,4--- 1 1 -- m . ' I /*..1Â· --.â€¢â€¢-lin' _11 I .3 4.27..Wal=-'lli6 11 --'Â·-'Â·6- -Qi:Â·=E~]A- . - - --2-: E f -- --r ..0212 0,01- .-1-1);2-- -7--9-2---ZE -- 1 - C-4 m (A - - - AE .f Â·--- - ---2 -92 -- 1 I *.- I - _41 NO LI--,-In 2?C.di Â·-c:. - : -Â·-.31*--2*Â·.i~:2,Â·Â·~ t- VI 84~01 3.Gte,1.2-Â·- :F--li -1-2 Il, I-*~244 K;,-~ttirT-ttlfitel.-Llit--3 j~esie-_ti- i. 1 873' 1--b / 'Â·7.3*,-31-:Â·1914 :. ....S:-Â·Â»4-a-'t,JÂ·*fi ~--7 -r - -- - Â·* -- 7 ' -4-272Â·txy.i . 11_ , 1. ' 1141&2 L-LE- -- vt jo.-1-â‚¬_. 1Â·--1~I,4 4,Â·--.-?.i:'-*I:67-79.-Â»113$4_19.-Â»4 -6?klfiliTEER61 V. - 34%9%- R?4 :; I Cle.-22252 "72 - 1 -+4.1. -11Â®. ' -' - --__-~_--..- 1 ..:24:1'St/60503527 Lf-Â·27. I'-ff,;2%2~fâ‚¬ 161'-r-4,( Â¥ 2-.---0 grÂ·=. 1 *6'iÂ¥b.it/361'95~~*12:1*>~4W4262?St72&26 . C 24*33~7Â« !-1 . f ifi:;rea-2-~Fj~MAL(BE;44&~A~<~FY/*pik~&Fh3347~*#il~~~ .~~:r"~4~'~4~~MIE *.-*-.lee.. .-.,- . . .-- ...Â·-r>,t<.FURyZy U Â«rÂ·*5 : Tâ‚¬*to:IMMB ' ~ratbrOTTET/VT~=ACT' 5/-:~Tr l Â·teN.tt:zr-13--Im-t ' Â·-Â· /2.- _ ..._ M - ...I-,-Il.,9.W</.2 1 f Â· Â£ b +LKÂ·R't 1,11 3NOI-Id3131'21918 O(]~0101 'NOdSY 'DESE XO8 Od ,t, 1-Â·-- ---1:e.-62+ Ck: --Â»-::'=Â¥==:14-0 ..Â·_t,irt<*2272*0~.CX-.-1-- 1.:-31 --'Câ€¢= A--:K'=:~ 7:-7.-=ry:f..f.yÂ·_Â·~;y .-.---=-77 CA--*- f.-3 - t- I ' 7â‚¬2-yâ€¢w=t~:c~u~-, _. 1.9. L....1.-.7,3~'...4...3-1,=2:U.N.-~ t.<42Uil.Ct ~- 1 - - -.. .. ..4 0 -1-. - ,. . , 99 7--tr.. Â· -t_-'rÂ·:2-4-- i 3.~SI. 22.---r~:r= 7-2.-5'=i. . 2- 3.m- ..- 2.-1.rÂ·...ta-Â·===G.- 4 f.ol Nk: PLM--7. 1.- THIP-P_el P.--Â· = -:Â·Â·Â· 4-okxecE ' ! /Af-- Allowat 1- 11.7 M,1 1.-. A ~- E k 1 /0 Â·,Â·-:.-TZÂ·:17:Â·, Â· L-12*, -- .~r.J r. t== - 1.1 1 . 1 1/# I - ....1 4 ; ~ 1-1 1 --6. LAuut>tr_~-~j,Â·~-{Ine-j'- r EPIA , r.- 141 4 1 --1 / I - .C -- 1 " Â¥ - 1 L,MILS.2041.- !63\-4 LA + LI./ \1 -/ 11 - f - .... --7 - - Â· : 1 - A -- 1-7 â€¢ r 1 M-4 hl o tp U I LD! 11-cd 1-14 'A l<_1 - 1 .. I 1 1.1 - 1 y t -' gl f Â· 11 I %.9 - - a , - F. 0 - ' AJ -*+417-T---4<4L'oH P f C = .- -:.-:..ey.4,41-4.-r--y~4.--ly-4-t.~:r-Ag-I-Z@21'9:'~ A 'Â· -72--J-,A>b#L. -.:7.1.:L,2. U.''.ZI. 1 -rr--r '6 JIL'DINRU.Int.=- AUA##64,*-TJFLA--- 4--A--#ME#2-4 --â‚¬Â·A~@etâ‚¬411#M#*b.-Â·.c--Ti Lti--9**=1211 -2,2-t.hc-iltit-* -7= ---9.---r---- 2- '12 7.2 1. 2-2 -Â· I . ......#Il- Ip-9.: I'. -I .-- . ----: ....ill I.-... Ip.-' --I - -' ,n *I.- 4- â€¢-~h Â·/... Â· ~- . 4-r~:Â·4 - Â·.Â·-Â«_-i--'.- 2-Â·t:Ue.Dir ...d__ 9-.0-.FIN+~71- fÂ·:Â·---~-- .Â· .. ''L L :2 -7.~r.,-0.:Â·>~---u:iI-J -,/ .91-:~itÂ·~3Â·~-5Â·0~~-'rl6-fil~t-~ 4--< i ~ --F.--f:f . - - 3- - -t 40 7 5 f.-TY+ .u-- 7=.---/7==42=--7 ..' tr,Â·Um-;:~7:->.22-1 _.?..2EELEA .5.1...ti;*------ -7- 535---Â£5-J;-07- --9----2:JEEU_lil_<;31.-13.Â·-30_--- 9- 4.f~ *Me-Â·~.- -: :,t 9113Z -:a <.. "' .___ .EL-43%241592~I2' Â¥2~5-Z~irlip<.2,Timrsff,9/Gaggri:Pk)jMififiE/8/75/2-:/4Rvrep-AL, $-fer :7~-49Â·23-- 922~wzin--eÂ·-c.~31---TZE?U.,1-im-Ivirme.-ai.9.12Â·.2 4-121~ 2*09~*~4.-,4 2*.ri8~*4*Plti;~6~~*fillti~- Nwe,:2,71.:ic .af-,1. T- Airecriggirs#/2.Efilf..5,6/2/1.49~ . it-12~331Â·1.4 6,67,%-2-44#-N.Li;*f CodgÂ·il. 44:13.-6.1 9224<bTAaa#aursar. u. 27'/) i /9, aâ€ž ./ ..r, I Ji , ROGER WILLIAMS COLLEGE Bristol, Rhode Island 02809-2923 MAY - 7 392 (401) 253-1040, Ext. 3005, Fax (401) 254-0490 er for Historic Presenation March 21, 1992 ool of Architecture Dear Friend of Historic Preservation: It is my great pleasure to announce the thirteenth Architectural Conservation Summer School to be held at West Dean College, Chichester, England, July 17-24, 1992. The theme of this year's program is Rescue and Repair. The enclosed brochure outlines the program in detail. The West Dean Summer School is arranged annually for professionals and experienced amateurs engaged in Architectural Conservation. The key speakers represent the best the preservation movement has to offer. Participation in the program is deliberately kept small to allow maximum interaction among the participants. The inclusive fee (lectures, course papers, all entrances, and full room and board) is 957.63 pounds, sterling. To make it easier for Americans to enrol, payment can be made by Visa Card. As a two-time participant in the program and as a veteran of other preservation-oriented programs, I can testify to the unique value of the West Dean experience. I urge you to sincerely consider taking advantage of this opportunity. The Center for Historic Preservation of Roger Williams ~ College is proud to be an official patron of the West Dean Conservation Summer School. Located in the School of Architecture, The Center offers the B.S. Degree in Historic Preservation. The objective of this program is to provide students knowledge and understanding to equip them to deal with the complex issues involved in preserving our built and natural environments. It also addresses the philosophical and practical questions arising while seeking ways to insure the survival of our inheritance now, and into the future. For further information about the Center and its programs, contact its Director, Kevin Jordan, Ph. D., at the letterhead address. Ejincklâ‚¬*1 r ~// / /fiC,#, lu/~41 ltL' c.,e,Â·~ - Michael R. H. Swanson, Ph. D., Center For Historic Preservation Roger Williams College Roger Williams College is located in Bristol, Rhode Island, a town known for its historic role in American life. The College is located on the coast of Mount Hope Bay under the shadow of Mount Hope, within easy reach of Providence and Newport, and Boston, Massachusetts. 4 1/A 13.'.i.â€ž*,ef0'ZÂ· ~ â‚¬ 14\\ 4 , f , , 1 -11 . 14.1,11, I % , 1,1,/2,11 11.,1 ' ..."ta.L 1 4 0~ , '' 1 .' AL hi, - I ARCHI**rURAL CONSERVATION 17Â·24 JUrY SÂ·UÂ·MÂ·M F Â·R SÂ·CÂ·HÂ·OÂ·OÂ·L 1992 1 A :W t~ 0 2Â¢, q.*r r. " R â„¢/ tÂ»E GCUE & REPAIR 1- j 9% ,-t. - I . 3 'Mix. =&r, . 421 -/ 11 i " 6 1 ... tv,r, I & 4- 04- %42 11 . I''I#~Il j, 11 '' 1 I 1 1 ' I 1.1 4 /Â·212 , 11, 1 &1 0 1 i 4. 6 b, . r. 4 9.12 . 1.% ~ ~ , 1172<. 02 M .. , ': ' 5%>: Wk , â€¢~, 2 i 1. ~ ~ A L I. '*3 , g I :;Ar / , 4-3 ::#715â‚¬â‚¬~Â· '// 6, t ; 1 t;' .1 . 1- h . , 5, .'. i I - .. '4 -2, ,- - rt. 1 -1 - I 0 Â· . p.ri- â€ž , ' 41 2 1 tuar e h.*I * â€¢, Ir' I b% â‚¬ I - 1 2.1 - tiflut.u- --. " '- . .- - 2 -1 5, E i 'ji h *9, 5- - = - 1 1 =13 -T_Ji-T: if. 3 Â· 0 4 .1/.4491 I ~ * '*. - t 1 433 7 - e -71 E. 7-= r *v -t-EF + f 7:- - ,% 31.31 11 7 1 4.y 1- ...... w 44 1 . - - 4/ 11 -t b'J' 1 - . 1 1 , -i -Â·ew,Â·---t7737~Â»~~~t $ It '. 14-1 . ..4 - - 4.,<r'.---: f--Dt~fi-33*Â§(~ ..4 .-. 49if*Liftifill**iril*+0044.-._ . ~.p*29-176".p:.2-':65 .~93*Mi,>. ~~'- .. 1,1.., ,-~ .. .. 7 ?F , 1 1 * 144 Conservation of Historic Buildings at Risk .- I. f:ew '.4:59 ..,1 4 4 1 4.3 6 . Â· . d~ J- .94/. 4 *. 5 et ''Â·44 1 11 # 1 , 1 + . * ..: 1.4 %.,-02:.1<imi/7, Â¥câ‚¬ 4,-P# . + Â·tr, 9//~/' '-.~-~~ k ..29..2,3 ./ 2,2 49=2 2. 1Â¥'77 .,2,4 - A.. piA" . 4 An international residential conference -*mr - 6 - 21Â» *5,""'99 '173Â¢Â¥3 :48':' tobeheld atWESTDEAN COLLEGE i .. 3 /0/ C-kirl,actor Unrrlanrl I m * 1 :- ~ ~11'97*77-P'-~~* IpalacedndleaSiheii;itj-hM6~1~2 .ty.. i k; IntrodUction f' Colin Hatrick,J?rincipaiAI*ted"~.f, :itt, Il} Ilistoric Monudients and BuilditÂ«* 9 The West Dean Summer Schoolis DepartmentoftheEnvimnmentfor :h I L arranged annually for professionals Northern Ireland will talk abodi ~144, :LÂ· a .4 Â· ' , - and experienced amateurs engaged problems of conservation on.tlig'{ . 4 .1 9 in architectural conservation around front line. M e 91 4 5. the worldyand provides a short 21 ., 6,4 Ir. Nf '1% period of '.release from daily Cynthia Campbell, Consultant J(* , ~ 4 - pressures toconsidertheproblemsf~ Lecturer, Former Head of Public 1 Â· At Lt Jjk ofconserving historic buildings.4 9 Services, The Royal Pavilion, f Vi r + WIIA 1 The trainingprogramme is designed Brighton and Lecturer for the to provide a philosophical basis for N.A.D.F.A.S, will lead the visit to 4 1 , Â·'C this important work and deals with Brighton Pavilion on Wednesday = C.' A 21., policies and practice, based on 22nd July. applied research and first hand hy technical experience. There are Mansell Jagger, Chief Planning * p!2 opportunities for informal Officer to Canterbury City Council, discussion with tutors and will look at the application of the' speakers. Those inmid-careerwill planning powers availableinEngland tr benefit from time to reflect on andtheireffectiveness inachieving Â· personal practice and the latest emergency repair of buildings at Â· . techniques in fast-developing risk. /4 . . specialisms. 2.- 2 4.4 .%97?f.. t.,.. - -70-fi*, 9 I 4â‚¬7:*r : rr~ q ~ Guided ToliEs Key Speakers 1 4- ht .tth.p:-1 . - Â· f W: 9 0.9 A Â·Â·Â· >.:., :-Â·g,Z J. - ~DelegateswillbetakentoseeÂ¥bmb..... /17 1 Mar* experienced conservation ,.of the most exciting conserttibit'.Â·: spedalists in the United Kingdom -tvork taking place in the Utifedi' Â· ' Â· -and.Ireland willbe takingpartand Â· Â·cÂ·Kingdom, guided byexpertpii*tr shating their- wealtlrof.knowledge Â· ,1 -tons-ultants. The visits - includeÂ¥ 2 Ditegdta'leati6*forh'day out Â· I.Â·:Â·1,Â·34'..Â·Â·>,Â·iÂ·,-~ , Â· 'i:Â·1';... Â·dufingÂ· the week. of.â€ž.lectures,Â· ..*~ uhid& opportunity Â·to inst*t3a* seminars And duided*tours. Key: close quarterstheconsequabehf. h,.. speakers amongthem.will be: 9 -., :Â· .thefiredamageat}iamptonCÂ®Ai. CÂ· ir*ic.~~ ~'~ i 4f ..,'-'2.7:L' ~~4< Â·,Gi t-i/.9- Palace and see the metiÂ¢010*f- Jonathan Poston, Directorof the works of repair and restoration.. Â·;.;:) L. THETHIRrEENTHARCHITECIURAL CONSERVATION Historic CharlestonFoundation, will These works will be compared with f i. SUMMER SCHOOL recounthowthey have survived and the National Trust's operations after . d@~6~Â¢6~0~'Â·~:N~Â·Â·;,Â·â€¢Â·>h*,â€¢Â·44~Zih'-'*"â€¢-- 'Â· 'U '~;."~.~'Â·>Â·.,Â·-~**~.â‚¬3'~' ~Â·-Â·:Â·.ktl ~.,Â·*.--:rovercome Â·the Â·hurricane .damage Â·< : the * at Uppark,.bringing Qpt.~44 I. ANS './ r ~ ~ which seemedtohavedestroyed so dilemihas for the project:0"team - 464 many years of preservation work. . guiding its restoration. Finally, there will be a visit to the redently Michael Fishlock, Formerly completed works at Brighton Principal Architect, Royal Palaces Pavilion, where repairs and . ~, Â· Â· Group, Property Services Agency, restoration include decorative arts'Â·: Â· London and now Surveyor to the techniques supplementing ./- ~.,1.?iS.1 'ffÂ¢#1"ffa prdi-af#ltidi<* %f hisforic4'6**~# ~~. 4:~ ~:r~* t,09.1344; -74.pÂ·0rf#.4.4~4-Â·'1*ecÂ·.r.. buildings, our inheritance Â· * 11 remains vulnerable to unpredictable attack Illif &11*Lf' w + L. 1. 0,44Â· by"natural forces and neglect.Â·Mankind too ./4 "42- ~ is a.threat! - ./- .. -9 W 24:9- The 1992 West Dean Summer School will ~ i address these issues. International . . / 1 , ~ experts will describe their experiences of If #40, dealing with buildings which have been 'ltÂ·u u , critically affectedby disaster orneglect and i, â€¢ ) 119 will consider techniques of risk 1. '' Â·A --1 - 7.-, assessment, crisis management, damage . fi>*9*<17---- 2~.4'9. . 1;1Â·notat;nn on,1 oeeant;al rong;r r ~ - 1. - x I ,Â·*G ./ff '4?484/lk'P. I.K.'.,r 1 ',0/ .7':A+ Programme Venue The Summer Schoolis based at Fyiday 17th July Registration from 4pm onwards and Introductory evening West Dean College n Chichester located in an ea lecture. nineteenth century house built by James and Benjamin Wyatt. Saturday 18th July West Dean, its conservation and adaptation and the work of The building itself is one of the the College. Afterlunch, talks on buildings atrisk and English largest flint stone mansions in the policy, powers and practice followed in the evening by the country and is statutorily listed seventh Edward James Memorial Lecture, "Rescuing the for its special architectural and Mighty", bÂ·y Charles Brown. historic interest. Within the sumptuous and eccentric $ Sunday 19th July Anticipation and repair; hurricane, collapse and flood; interiors, excellent modern teaching facilities are at our insurance and paying for damage; a case study of Charleston, disposal. Bedrooms are South Carolina. comfortably furnished, catering is excellent and there is a Monday 20th July Visit to Hampton Court Palace fire damage repairs. The licensed bar. ~i completed apartments will be re-opened in July 1992. WestDeanisaresidentialcollege founded by the late Edward James and now run by a Tuesday 2lst July Post fire treatment; drying the building before repair. foundation that bears his name. f Introductory talk and visit to Uppark. It is devoted to the teaching of A fine quality craftsmanship, & Wednesday 22nd July Buildings at Risk. Avisit to Hove and Brighton, including a particularly forrestorationwork tour of Brighton Pavilion. in antique furniture, clocks and ceramics, conservationof metals %! and early manuscripts, 1 Thursday 23yd July Use and Abuse. Studies of vandalism and tourism damage. includes a musical instrum 2 Security against theft. workshop and a tapestry studio. t i te Thirty acres of landscaped li Friday 24th July Silent killers ofhistoricbuildings. Course Review Course ends gardens and woodland surround at 2pm. After lunch an optional visit to the Buildings at the the College, all set ina foldof the Weald and DownlandOpen AirMuseum, aplaceoflastresort. Sussex Downs. This is the beautiful setting for the annual 1 Architectural Conservation * Workshop Sessions Summer School. Workshop sessions will be held on Monday, Tuesday and li Wednesday evenings, where delegates will have the . opportunity to share their own experiences with fellow delegates and the committee. mi I d 'LF > A...% .Â·21 -'.'-':* , .....D C .9, W . r .9 Clh I 544; -: .9 .% . 7.. ;4 Â·~Â·t'v~itÂ·Gâ€ž ,~A Application Form ,~ Architectural Conservation Summer School 4 -4,47 4 17-24 July 1992 Delegate Fee: inclusive of accommodation (in twin bedded rooms) at West Â£815.00 + VAT @ 17.5% = Â£957.63 Â£957.63..................... Dean College, meals and light refreshments, attendance at conference sessions, conference documentation and visits. N.B. Single room supplement available on request. Please tick ~ : Day Delegate Fee There are a limited number of dayplaces available, for all dAys I would like to reserve a day place on .................. at a cost of ~ including lunch and light refreshments, (and transportation for Â£lm.00 + VAT@ 17.5% =Â£196.23 Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday). I/We enclose my/our'cheque in Â£,sterling. . f..iÂ·. .. payment for:...............:...................4........delegate/s* %(For credit card details see below) 9 -' net 1 . .. . . - ....: I - 1 Â·-.,6i- B :'Â·Â·f'~theques should becrossedand made payable to ICC .Â·.:.....: irÂ·- . - '-'~iVAT reg: no. 461 691829). Date 1 Signed .~dit Card,authprisation (ifyou wint to pay by VISA/ACCESS)1, r Please debitmy.card (1Wt@ 61 - Â· p ~TAddress of:cardholder ~~~~ Name of cardhoider ~ Â·~fÂ· f 4 1 . - 1 '1 -1 ............. Accourit number....................................................... *2<; 3:Expiry date of AM-:7 . .1 .- Â·Credit card bookings may be made by telephone on: 1 ' .- *il 071233 3766 (office hours only) -*...Â· Pleaseuse block capitals. Photocopied forms sliould ... 4 ' I.(A 1 2, ... Fax No :5 1.De used for a lohal app lea ions Be o e comple in . 4. e\NO **c-q*~irtiWMU}04282M)Plkation:forms please note thex'-Â·#,4* c ~ sÂ·*f40*uAk~Â¥*aaif,3&** ~Â·~-ti*tÂ·.; A..>.~%-t:--; t* il*Ce*twÂ·Â»7~30Â®1~*p- 4 - <conaitions ofbodkinkon this leaflet. > 0 -Special requt~ifiiaits*.*llietary) e.................... 4 ....Initials. '- Sig~iature Jf.84461deRfk....: ,~:~.-.~.~ ~....~..9..~1:U...{Â·:..~. 131-3~)- ddit' - 4 T C . fr f. ge : T , 1, 1 ... f.3-~ ~ Â·:*rename used. i.., 4Â£:4*alifications Signed.:.....; 6..: ... 6 ...t:'1.... -5.Date '972G '/- i ..â€že: 1 ' aPosition - Â· -1-7J Â· .?AÂ· I . .'.. 1. ..4..... 35?..:1 1 ~ . ' -Ofganisation.. '..... ' v, Pleasecomplete tliisform andretumit together withremittance to: ddress ..... 1 J: A Philippa Thompson ~ ~ ICC Meetings and Events ....... 15 Greycoat Place London SW].P 1SB 0 1/9.1 Tel: 071 233 3766 Fax: 071 233 2946 ..... ................Postcode INIant#/[INEYY,]MMillie[,>N@IM:lok'[402] ~ .Â·Â· ~ ''Â·Â· A rg - Per.7- 1 Al Tk ky /J ~23* f g*00~ r New Three Bears Inn is now. seeking tenants for October . by Jane Wilson When the nearly 100-year-old 17 Three Bears Inn building in Basalt is demolished May 15 to .''. make way for its brick Victorian- -- -- xl style replacement, only one thing will remain - the name. Z -- - a=UNEER,AMMN#WaR:' \ Â· ~~~ ; Â· ~0 ~Â· Owner Norm Clasen took % 15]#*HEE~- -2 4$â€¢ 0, D -7, :.... ,- I down the =rhree Bears Inn" sign 4 5 r-1 and placed it safely in storage. Â§* - 3 -38Â©~ , .f ....2 -1[ 1% 1 4:bak=:44-1,1 *44: He has owned the building for. 8*,0, 4 41 .â€¢ -5 - _ -2 $ 'A.~5~ ; ': CÂ»4% 96 . five years, and is just this year..~ 5371 .' - .ar _ ' EE \ek,4/' :9=94 ... ' 'r ~Â· 4â€¢32, ~'â€¢2â€¢NÂ¥' tÂ¥ finalizing plans to replace it and? ~i#3%Â·%11]I i.2 2 v. 1.0 I lease. out the new ret*illoffice . ' .tii Le ~~ space, which will ~e avitilable in October. - . -- - : 5% 12 4 1*.95 1 2 Â«A year after we bought it, wer,9 + ,were going to build, but the poli- -b 23 ., 1 'k : . 69: 2& 4 ticstin Basalt were changing," i 6:4- 4 :Clasenisaid. In the Â·three years , 3>F *Et r ithat followed, he saidâ€ž Â«we . .U - cracked a lot of new ground," - ' 1 including ironing out a new ordi- - 0 -4 nance in which developers can _ 'pay cash' in lieu of parking - / 22'91' ~ rcill/A requirements. . / The delay, Clasen believes, dias been a blessing in disguise. "This is the ideal time to build. Subcontractors are available, square feet ofretail space down- Bears and Bernard'sis a 10-foot- -Â· 1 interest rates are favorable, and stairs, and 1,890 square feet of wide public right of way that there is huge interest and omce space upstairs. Individual serves as a connection.to the Â· demand in Basalt space." tenant space can range from 250 busy Second Street above. This There is interest both from to 1,000 square feet. will be better lit and landscaped people who one time had 'We're not going to do a once the building is completed. businesses in Aspen who are restaurant," said Laura Clasen, Three Bears and Bernard's looking to relocate midvalley, Norm's wife and business part- are together improving the f and from new people moving ner. Â«We hope to see uses such as space in back, fashioning it into into the area, Clasen is finding. a bookstore, a travel agent, an a court yard. 'Eventually, Basalt will have Â·,accountant, lawyer or dentist. Clasen loves the relaxed a life of its own - with or with- We'd love.-a small secretarial atmosphere of Basalt, and hopes : out City Market," he said, refet-'' business upAkirs, and the build- that his addition will set a tone ring to Basales long battle with ing tenants could be its first con- - for future development and El Jebel over who would get the tract, for answering phones, remodels that keeps the turn-of- bigger, better grocery (El Jebel using the fax, etc." the-century scale and feel of the got it). town intact. The old Three Bears Inn was l'here's a lotofroom for small Architect for the new Three i built from a Sears & Roebuck business operators in Basalt," Bears Inn building is Raul kit,said Clasen, on a cedarbeam said Clasen, a-dding, Â«Basalt is Gawrys ofBasalt. He will also be foundatioh that is rotted. The desperate for services." He plans a tenant in the new building. -building is collapsing and has to to make price per square foot The design of the new Three , 5.come down - it couldn'$ be attractive, in comparison with Bears Inn is in the traditional ' -saved for renovation. what has been available in the Victorian style found in the town. Roaring Fork Valley, said The structure was once some Clasen said he has two pros- Ga wrys, with replication of type of office, or possibly switch- pective tenants to date; one details and precast concrete ing station, for the Midland rail- plans to open an old-fashioned ornamentation such as is found i road. Through the years, it has country store. on the Elks Building and in the j also been home to the post office, ~ The Three Bears Inn is Aspen Block in Aspen. 1 a grocery an.d several located between Cheffs and A well-known photographer, i restaurants. Bernard's restaurants on Mid- Clasen has resided in the valley Clasen has for lease 1,950 land Avenue. Between Three for 31 years. Frbm : SVEN ERIK ALSTROM AIA PHONE No. : 303 92341 ro f MAY 26 n TALK 6.F THEL 1 t1 94 X 70 2 TOWN 5 Rax *na, eft in j I ONLY IN BOULDER Trpln the campus area'at foth'and ; Penngylv,nIA, a houde 12 for *ale. And ?~ among the featureâ€¢ Usted on the For I Â· ; Sale sign is, "Weekend Riots<'..,. 1 m BICYCLE TALES c t>10 1:~Ess wondarâ€¢ If the three Boulder cops One ot our many ukoptical readers ~ 9*Â© 0950 patrolling lavt Saturday'g KInats. *oulpturi Chillinge at Boulder -140*,Eo~Qq'b~,~ites.actually werie' | t,ubstanee. thought und meaning" into thâ‚¬ campaigns. And what'doei, a .., i :polltical Ariencâ€¢ teacher tell U,5. Genalâ€¢ candidate Jo.la H.ath: "Don'L wear red..Il doeMn't look good on you.". . . H you haven't been over to marvel at the Apeolucular look ot 2 Boulder's new library, which k .': rapidly moving toward completion/ : , stop by and marvel Very impressive. m adt>likb / you heard how furious the rich and , > ... And speaking of our library, have Of al//7- ~ our library looks so much better than I famous are over In Aspen because their new library? Wa tme. Chrle f Power, who is the prqjecL manager < for Boulder'e library, notes,."How h: 925 8240 . people are probably used to the best nice that in a town like Aspen, where of everything, they use our new . library as some sort of benchmark of quality. This bit of news has all of us grinning from ear to ear."... i P.S. FY. '' : 2/ ' i Bouldeh Talmey-Drake Report has. found that 7S percent of Coloradans judge themselves to be environmentaliets. Pretty smug bunch, aren't we? Wonder how many of us really are.... Well, one caller doesn't think Mo Siegel, the Celestial Seasonings tea magnate, qualifies. Uhhli? We all know Mo is a champion among champions when it comes to i protecting the environment l'Then why," asks the caller," is this nice man having pesticides sprayed onto his yard?" The caller im right: Those spray warning flags have been aeen on his lawn. We're told, though. that Mo doesn't inhale.... IfyoG have interesting Udbits, comments or observations, send them 1 to Talk of the Town, Daily Cameras P.O. Box 591, Boulder, Colo. 80304 25 --.- In Elite Communities, fo : Pk-n,k apy â‚¬Â£~a- c=2 a Torrent of Teardowns By Philip Langdon Bocc Where land is scarce-and expensive- Fk.awl : AM 9 smaller houses are giving way to behemoths. Uu a,1 Mt atâ„¢-' bu,1- W-L o,d 9'4; 61 doAS Â»1#12. *LHAAÂ£ 64Mâ‚¬~Yl.L- / - a '0~1 UJ 14* 6.ult nUAALL i 4 0 + 4*. Â· A ffluent communities in some of -7 * aÂ·39#'FAD#%: 1-1 America's hottest real estate mar- ..79 2 er. 13.de,97. I .r kets have been watching with mixed , V . 4441, 1,6/ANÂ¢ .~ . .4 0 emotions for the past few years as small, 4-. + ~.; 4 A' L~ <N .,. X14 -t- 1. older houses are torn down to make way for buildings two or three times their size. Â· _ .. In Bellaire, Texas, for example, an en- :,7 + clave of 15,000 people surrounded by the , city of Houston, frame, postwar ranch 1 houses are being replaced by two-story - r brick Georgians. In Santa Monica, Cali- 8- fornia, whole blocks of one-story, Span- - ish-style bungalows have given way to .4 Z two-story dwellings with 20-foot-high - 39 - foyers. And in towns on Cape Cod, such as Chatham, Massachusetts, modest, ground-hugging summer cottages have , been replaced by year-round houses up to three stories tall. 2 ~ ./.2. The Chicago area has experienced , teardowns in some of its most desirable u - older suburbs, from Lake Bluff, Lake For- i est, and Winnetka along the North Shore to the lovely rail commuter town of Hins- Two houses in Bellaire, Texas: The one on the right is a replacement dale in the southwest, where 91 of the for a teardown that was similar to f he house on the left. community's approximately 5,000 houses were razed between April 1989 and july nomenon is. Teardowns are not new, of Benard, director of environmental ser- 1991. course. But until the 1980s, they were vices for Rancho Palos Verdes, Califor- The 'teardown" phenomenon is most limited for the most part to city neighbor- nia, says that in his city 'you can spend noticeable in communities with two char- hoods. Demolition and replacement of $500,000 to buy a 2,000-square-foot house acteristics: They're almost completely built suburban houses increased dramatically on a 13,000-square-foot lot. At a constrÂ·uction up, and they experienced a tremendous during the economic boom of the last cost of $100 a square foot, you can double jump in real estate prices in the 1980s. decade as many upper income households the size of the house for $200,000 more. Southern California is an extreme ex- became considerably wealthier. The de- Presumably the people who are paying a ample. Teardowns have become com- mand forpropertyin exclusive communities half-million dollars don't find that to be a monplace in Beverly Hills, where the rich pushed prices way up in some neighbor- strain." The owners obtain large master and famous have always done extrava- hoods, creating conditions that were ripe suites, expansive kitchens, gargantuan gant things. But teardown activity has for teardowns. closets, and other space-consuming fea- also arrived in customarily more conser- "If someone is paying $200,000 for a tures that have become popular in new vative places such as the Palos Verdes property, and the land itself is worth houses for the upper echelon. peninsula at the southwest tip of the Los about that much, they say, 'Why not tear Aesthetic problems often result. Mar- Angelesarea, where people now talk about down the house and build a new house?'," garet Fenn, chief planner for the Cape the 'mansionization" of the community. says Max Whitman, director of public Cod Commission, notesthat big new houses And in Pasadena, where the well-crafted, works and village engineer for Winnetka, may clash with the character of established frame "California bungalow" wasperfected Illinois, where each year for the past five areas and disrupt the landscape. And, in early in this century, owners and devel- years as many as 20 of the village's 4,000 rural areas like the Cape, they discharge opers have been replacing some of the dwellings have been razed for bigger new much more waste into septic systerrs, small old houses that are part of the city's houses. overburdening the environment. architectural legacy. Along with outright demolitions, many No one has compiled national statistics municipalities have seen a much larger How they're coping on teardowns, so there's no accurate as- number of major additions, in which a Municipalities vary widely in their ap- sessment of how widespread the phe- house may double or triple in size. Robert proach to teardowns and radical expan- 26 Planning October 1991 -"'0â‚¬--4 4# Â·u- ..*-- .4.*_ . - - -7/i- --7 . 41 31. ... .' .3 --: . 241#.~AN*~~~~*--1,t,~2#ko.i ji-iti~~j8~St,41Â£.1,i =*.4,- -I -1 sions. In Bellaire (whose desirability stems hyâ‚¬ . 1. De/: c partly from the existence of zoning, which . .- : - Â».04, -I =; C -- 6 1 neighboring Houston isonly now begin- - - . 47.-7-.:045: 24.7.*314Â· - g to develop), assistant city manager istopher Brady says, 'Thecity regards ' --731 -2 - ---~~~~" teardown and major expansion activ- . - , ,.0 ity] as desirable. There's been a dramatic .M .- - increase in assessed value." The city has created a one-stop development office to encourage builders to do business in J I . .. Bellaire, Brady adds. It has also attempted ' + â„¢ 2- -9- . to limit the disruption caused by new construction by enforcing requirements ---4 2 that contractors keep their work sites - Â· .24 clean and orderly. Peter Brosnan, planning director of Ar- , - - - Iington County, Virginia, says there has 1 been been some neighborhood opposition -9 . to the now-common practice of doubling the size of small existing houses in single- -- family areas in his suburban county outside i -1 Washington. There has also been criticism - of recent projects that involve replacing . affordable, 1940s- and 1950s-era garden . I - apartments with much more expensive townhouses. There's been little or no op- A new, 8,000-square-foot house in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, replaced a much smaller position, however, to local developers' one. ~Teardown" units there are three to four times larger than neighboring houses. practice of combining two or three large lots in predominantly multifamily areas a 35-foot height limit in our R-1 area," and replacing them with 15 to 20 town- says Webster. "The city council dropped r ses. it to 30 feet, then 28 feet." any communities rely on standard Other communities are enacting floor ' ./akÂ¥v.. nt, side, and rear setbacks to prevent area ratio (FAR) requirements, which limit new or enlarged houses from dominating the total habitable floor area to a designated the streetscape or interfering with their percentage of the lot. About three years 1 **~' P~~~er neighbors' light and views. Others use ago, for example, the village of Winnetka lot-coverage restrictions to preserve an began limiting the total floor area of a attractive landscape. Such restrictions may house on a small lot (under 9,076 square stipulate that the "footprint" of a house feet) to 42 percent of the entire lot area. and outbuildings not exceed a designated Hinsdale, Illinois, this summer was debating i 1 1 proportion of the lot. In addition, some whether to reduce its floor area ratios, i k. FUBILIC VIE, zoning codesprohibit driveways and other which two years ago were set at 45 per- PUBLIG USE SPAGE M paved areas from covering a substantial cent for the smallest lots (under 10,000 1 _ _RELATIONSHIP oF -- portion of the lot. square feet) and 40 percent for larger lots. Some restrictions are responses to a Unlike most municipalities, Hinsdale in- situation that is clearly getting out of cludes garages in its calculations of habit- hand. Officials in Santa Monica were sur- able floor area. - prised to find local people requesting per- Design restrictions are another approach. ~ mits to construct habitable basements- Santa Monica requires that upper stories rare in California-orsubterranean parking. be smaller than the ground floor, 'to reduce C HE]61{1; ref44 ANO Wor PEW Fdor ME16Hr- 'In one case someone excavated the whole the bulk of the building and produce C MNP INCONG,#TANf c WITH ACX/AGe,Ar bullâ€¢01896 lot,"says Kenyon Webster, Santa Monica's some articulation, so that someone doesn't 1 planning director. Out of concern for just build a box," according to Webster. stormwater runoffand other consequences There, 25 percent of any portion of the of intense deve]opment, Santa Monica building above 14 feet must be set back As,RmI now limits basements and underground an extra five feet from the street. Lake parking to the footprint of the building. Forest, Illinois, will not issue a demoli- ~ , IEN-In] 1[4110111 -m-3[rl 1 But setback and lot-coverage require- tion permit for houses on the city's east ts are no panacea. Prevented from side, near Lake Michigan, until the size :ding overmostofthelot, some builders and design of the replacement structure ABLAT/0/4â‚¬M IF or ply go up, adding second and even have won approval. Mor i~enTs _C L third floors in new buildings and renova- Demolition has long been an integral ~ tions. As a result, many communities are part of urban expansion. But for subur- - now focusing on height. 'We used to have banites who expect their surroundings to RantÂ·hn PAInâ€¢ Verile, Rnvir,inmenlnl SerVICe, 1 . -- . 1-=-- 4*532,4 Â£ I remain spacious and green indefinitely, it age such elements as large garages that in can bea shock to see their neighborhoods project from the front of the house and becoming dominated by big houses-es- wide drive- ways that intrude into the front pecially when property assessments go lawn. 4 -*.1. up. 'When a big house is built where there had been a small one, it makes the Effect on prices neighbors' houses look like shacks," says What's striking in all the talk about Ben Saag, who administers planning and downs is the scant attention given to the Â· zoning for Hinsdale. issue of affordability. Few people in the .1. -W. It was such concerns that prompted the towns experiencing teardowns even northwest Chicago suburb of Park Ridge mention the desirability of retaining small earlier this year to adopt a new design or medium-sized houses so that people of 4 I .. , review code. John Chapman, an architect modest means will have a choice of good -- who heads the Park Ridge appearance places to live. They seem to accept the .,9 - >C~L commission, says that before, a speculative fact that their communities will become builder would typically 'knock down an more exclusive than they already are. If 1,800-square-foot Chicago bungalow and present trends continue, people who fill put up a 3,500- to 4,000-square-foot house ordinary jobs in these communities will on a 50-foot lot. He'll put in a big concrete have to commute longer distances, at greater driveway with a two- or three-car garage, expense. with the rest of the house set back 20 feet "We are slowly but surely losing what- behind other houses on the block." ever modest-priced houses we had to be- N Randall Derifield, AICP, Park Ridge's gin with," says Charles Crook, AICP, di- director of community preservation and rector of planning and development for development, says proposals fornew houses Lake Forest. Historically, as much as a are now reviewed to determine whether quarter of tbe city's housing was inexpen- they will be in character with their sur- sive enough to be occupied by people roundings. The new regulations discour- who worked for wealthy estate owners. Today, Crook says, "modest-priced" means - In Park Ridge, Illinois, $150,000 to $200,000 houses, and they the city's wÂ·ban design now make up only a tenth of the city's guidelines specify that housing stock. new houses should be in Teardowns have doubtless elimi keepi,ig wit Ji adjacent some houses that needed improve 0 - ones, preserving the and it's understandable that many out- c existing relationship of ~ ~ public and private spaces cials are happy to see their communities ~Â¢2:*SIE~~ r Cle/7/. More rules: New being physically upgraded. Some news- 2 houses should be abow papers in teardown territory have prodded 4 the same height as nearby local governments to preserve a range of 1 /liuses and conform to housing. So far, they've had little response- | 1 To,LL;YOF E lier,a 1 HRIGHWAIN, -p theirscale and proportion and little willingness to tackle the huge 1 "0"PÂ·TY 11 6-- - PRIVATE 9 p,a , 5 (two drawings below. left/. increase in land values that is a major ~MCrS ma 265*EArnAL BUIN-LNES Corner houses should be cause of the teardown phenomenon. oriented to both adjacent -- - -- - - - -- - - streets. not just onettwo Philip Langdon is the author of AmericanHouses drawings below, right). and Urban Excellence. Copyright by the author. . .-7--3 1 - - ---7 Il /7 /l .===. lil i .- -~@iMET ~+- - ~---* 1 E-El IR-R-El@- SneleT ' U Coprit# UT @07, tiF ~ DI'72'1{ ATT4%?13sj'ze ,61 * Fi=-4 1 Ific=, A h==U- 1 1MST Ta BUIL PING ORIENTATIoN BUI L PING OPARATET\OR 1 -Ii.--Il- .1-- ' -1-0--Il- - "4.' rii-4 , 28 Flanning October 1991 PLANNING NEW S f El ornia Court Okays Gridlock Predicted for gridlock by 2010 even without additional Housing Impact Fees Delaware Highway development. The first project, approved in Febru- In an August decision, the ninth U.S. In approving three new shopping centers ary,was a 1.1-million-square-foot regional circuit court of appeals in San Francisco this year for congested Concord Pike in mall, Brandywine Town Center, to be upheld the constitutionality of the hous- northern Delaware, the New Castle County built on the site of the defunct Brandywine ing "linkage' fees imposed by the city of Council has drawn protests from grass Raceway. The same night, the council Sacramento on nonresidential develop- roots groups and from the governor's office. also approved Woodlawn Trustees' 160,000- ment. Sacramento requires commercial Two of the three approvals disregarded square- foot shopping center, to be located developers to contribute up to 95 cents a recommendations from the county plan- right across the road from the 20-year-old square foot for office development to the ning department, and in all three cases, Concord Mall. And in late July, the coun- city's low-income housing fund. the county officials rejected the recom- cil approved Brandywine Country Club, In upholding the city's ordinance, the mendations of the Council of Civic Orga- a 238,000-square-foot shopping center just court noted that its housing fees "[were] nizations of Brandywine Hundred, a local north of Talleyville. Still to come: a pro- enacted after careful study" and "[assess] community organization with an interest posed 400,000-square-foot expansion of only a small portion of a conservative in land use. Concord Mall. estimate of the cost of such housing," and The county council also ignored a 'Our perspective at the start of the that the fee structure 'bears a rational Delaware Department of Transportation review process was that development on relationship to the public cost closely as- study released in August 1990 that showed that property should not exceed the traffic sociated with such development." In a that Concord Pike, the five miles of U.S. impact of the residential use for which it dissenting opinion, one of the judges ac- Route 202 between Wilmington and the was zoned," says Bryan Shuler, county cused the city of using the fees to 'force Pennsylvania state line, is headed for planning director. *You could build com- commercial developers to underwrite so- cial policy." The Sacramento case, Commercial Coast lo coast on - -ders of Northern California vs. City of the National Register mento, is an important follow-up to (clockwise from toph The , - I I Tips Building in Austin, 987 ruling in Nollan vs. California Texas: a stretch of old , ~oastal Commission, in which the U.S. Route 66 in Arizona; San . Supreme Court noted that conditions im- Francisco's cable Car . -I -- posed on a development proposal must system; Quonset huts at ~ be directly related to the project's impact. Camp Endicot 1, Rhode Since then, "nexus" studies have become Island,Â· stone houses in < F established as a method of proving the Oley Township, Pennsyl- k relationship between a development project vania; the famous flying and the subject of the proposed fees (low- horse sign atop Dallas's income housing, child care centers, and Magnolia Building. so on). In the Sacramento case, the Pacific Legal Foundation-the same property rights-oriented law firm that won the Nollan case-argued that the city's "nexus" study did not prove a direct relationship. Although many different types of fees . f have beenimposed since the Nollan ruling, hdusing linkage fees remain rare. Accord- \t . ing to the Los Angeles-based Housing < ~~ , Trust Fund Project, only 13 U.S. cities ,< \ 1 , tr require nonresidential developers to pay .: \ -%.,1. --1-,- .1 for housing. Nine of those cities are in California, two in Massachusetts, and one f each in Florida and Washington. 1 Only a few days after the Sacramento t ruling, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley Â£ / f. ounced a wide-ranging housing program :\ 1 , included, among other things, a $6- 4 -square-foot linkage fee on office development. William Fulton Fulton is a contributing editor of Planning. 141,/ a- 1 1 k . . . Â® 0 144' d.k , 21-JEE LLEILI 1 4-L ~4 14-' - - i ,A - 4' i ~-E- 4-il -t 16- ~r-P ' 11--' ti- '1-i-iÂ·u! 4/ C<% I %h< A - t~~~|#,4.-ifi-Ill j.1 1 -- - I~---13Â· -- 17-i. 1.-iii 4 --a 4 +FÂ·- Â· 1 - .../4 .1 -i,/114 -- 13-1 --f=-1 i F -=31 di i It 1 4/ A ..t :t . ' - tif: - _ t-23 *-t 11 1- 1- 11 4 =d 1 1 1- 1 1- -- -- 1 1 t i 11 1 41 r 1- j i' 11/U 111 1 - d.-11 11-=- .=T' 1 -1. C 11- -- -71 40-1 ------ T ri 11 1 1 L-1 1 ~ 1 -- 1 1 1 1 :1 1 :li: -1 1 1; 1 i 11 1 1 1 ft. li -4----,----J.------------* --1 - - 1 1 1 0 U I I B-1- . -' -/ .---b. - ~ F=1 -1 7 ----7 r--- 1 2-1 L. m a li 1 .-- 1 1 11 -1--- --- 2-~Â«_flft-36 urm- mi 1 U [1 - â€ž,- - ]11 * 1 L] p' 1 1 -T[f P -4 NT-Tr. ... 9 -----r--'. 1 d , T -~EfÂ«- fr-r= - Â« 1 _ - r" 3 ll 600 Alpine Professional Building 620 <SNO 624 032 0 rb op /El 1 A (cy 01-1 1 DEDIC HEE \0 LMOU Ill Ai D 11 MASSUM@ SE[JEY MAY 27,1442 Scale: 1/8" = GO" STREETSCAPE I . 47.4 .|N ' *.g Â· Â·Â·. ,Â£31.'. . =F=- 1/4' - 1'-0' 1- 1 6 - .Jm-- I_ 1.- 1 .--- r :12-a==== _ A and associates .,1,/ ,. ... 0/ , =:::=i,1111111111111,:11111111111,111!11,1111-1111111111111111111111,111111111111111111-1Ii[111111111111111111111111111111111[11111-1~1111[11111]11 111111111111111111 mi:111111= -I,11111111111111111111111111111111111111111,1111-.1111â€¢111111111111111111~111111111111â€¢ =1111111111111111111111111111111=â€¢Illijillillimillijimill,â€¢ =111111,Ii:,Ii,Ii,Ii,In,â€žI:Ii:I. -Al.................A----I---ill"ll'll'll'll'll............................................~ . - -:'r==li~â€¢ t= mi 1= -@1 ~-.111 2-/ :==== --1=.11 1 11 1. - Ui.,~1-1-!Uj-M~---~~-~-- m~. -11'-*2 - E==------11-â€¢i-1 -- , 0 * ,. 0. .0 .. /\ \/ . .. , . IA- / ....D 881~==1-'-,AW m. . *fi--1.1-1 -11-1,~~Act~~i-i-:*il~=Im.~2'A~l . 420- .. , 2 1 l. 1 S 0, . . L---: .-- .#4' - . . . . 1 . . 1 - 4 -Al . A .. . . '. 1. 0 1 . . 0 -4 .. A . . Â·--1 n 33/Ir ar#*"&"Â£ f.49/ 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 Issue: 1. 1- - lfÂ«*Ef I. 1 'r,, 1 - ./... r'f I . , 4 - I ' . I . ' , I E Ii--frfILLL_01 f_--LILLI iÂ«LE--. '1 1 - , 4 , 1 1 , - , l , 1 . 4 I ..' . . 1 1 , , -- -< - E--1 iÂ»f n E -0-1 H r lit- F-I -- - .-- - E-avll I'' I'llii =- ~NEW STOREFRONT[ - 1 NORTH ELEVATION NEW MATERIALS TO MATCH EXÂ£STING ~_ ~ 401 E. COOPER ST. ASPEN,COLORADO -- - 0 2 1 -17 _ 7 - - -- - - -3/2/--- 7-~141 Â«Â«f~H~liÂ« -- PROJECT _ RENOVATION -U.~1_222--rnm~ ---- . ~tu, i j j l,i, 9213.01 1 ' DESCRIPTION WSTOREFRORN ELEVATIONS WEST ELEVATION I 1/40 - 1'-0" 1/4"- 1-0' SHEET NO. Â©-BILL POSS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 4 -14 - -~JI-WjW~-~~-i---~-~i:5E-I*m/ ...2.72- ~ and associates 600?91.- 4 ; and associates ar#kdurt W. 0/49/ 605 EAST MAIN STREET ~ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 TEL: (303) 925-4755 r . Issue: qf/4 90 , 16/0 4-1 -- --- -- -- U i --- - --- -7- --- - E- 11 01 17 - . 1Â£8 1 ~.~3~~ 12*MON@ Alâ‚¬146, 14Al-1- 1 1 1 1 0 n I 1-- 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 14 OFETH il j 01 -1 -1 Â»- --T 1 I 1 1 1 1 [2 f Eff-Â«Â»1-Of-2.- 1 1 I iIi 11 1 1 1 1-. 2 11 111 11,1 111 / , i i , , , . :* 0 . L 401 EX A /2 7 E----7 E. COOPER ST. 1 ~ ASPEN ,COLORADO 1 1 li 16___ CE 1 1 L----4 1 0 4% 7/ 1 1 1.-1.~ PROJECT RENOVATION 9213.01 DESCRIPTION BÂ©+E 61.. MAIN FLOOR <i -- - - -- - U:.# 1(.4 5 79,4, L 4-L,pro c.0.,-1. 1/40 - 1-0' FL- #-rt 0-- 7 - A.6 1, ' SHEETNO Â©-BILL POSS & ASSOCIATES, RC - ---- bil 9009*- AFL ; and associates 0â€¢Â®adâ€¢(t omoLÂ¥*t . . 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 0 0 0 0 0 TEL: (303) 925-4755 1/ L- Issue 6/ I Er el 1 N . 41.. 5 Ii' '1 '1 '1 . 1 1\ / #MIN@ Al*TI 467 WALL. 1 1 .tf-L_ 1 1 4, 1 1 0 0 1 1 1-- 1 1 1 En! 0 A 1 1 1 11 1 0 1 1 40%71-1 1 1 . , 1 i Ill 1%5 1 . 1- 1; 1-1 t< i 1 , 1 lili , 1 1 ' ,It, It'y-1 401 -7 E. COOPER ST. y== 1 1 ASPEN,COLORADO 1/1 ~ ____- 1 1 PROJECT RENOVATION 9213.01 DESCRIPTION MAIN FLOOR PROPOSED 1/4' - 1-0" SHEETNO.