The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19910529. 6 433 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE May 29, 1991 SPECIAL MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. FINAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS REVIEW: SPORTSTALKER- 01 r 6:00 II. FINAL DEVELOPÂ¤ENT: Pioneer Park, Lot 1 49 \41 L i \ - hle y. , C' 40- 7:00 Adjourned ~~.rl<?~ ._ a. A- ~DIi I j - l %4\ (Â·LLC Â« O 0 Â£ ~ Â¥ C L Q. e <Q A 4 4 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development conditions review: Sportstalker Building Date: May 29, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is seeking HPC's approval of the conditions which were made a part of the Final Motion for this project. Please refer to the applicant's letter attached for a summary and specific reference to the drawings. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: HPC's last review occurred on April 24, 1991, the HPC met with the applicant per the applicant's request to review and clarify the conditions that were made a part of the Final Development motion that was granted. DISCUSSION: It appears to staff that the restudy conditions have been met by the applicant. We ask the HPC to review the full 4 size set of drawings that each of you have been provided, to determine the completeness and consistency of the details, and whether the issues requiring restudy have been adequately represented. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC carefully review all the design details that have been submitted, and approve, approve with conditions, or deny these revisions. We recommend that if further study or amendments to the drawings are required, that they be specified clearly and that the applicant indicate their understanding of the requirement(s). memo.hpc.204sg.final.clar.2 I , C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects May 3, 1991 mÂ©[20Â¥121-\ Roxanne Eflin, Historic Planner ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 1 --*f 0 Hf-7952. '*yÂ».7-Â·4â€¢9!14!&..41.:.'.#.~fi RE: SPORTSTALKER BUILDING, 204 S. Galena -=---3 Dear Roxanne, Attached are detail revisions to our Final Application which include the following: A3 Storefront entrance revisions shown on Ground Floor Plan A4 Roof Plan Detail Revisions A8 West Elevation, detail revisions of storefront, center entrance, third floor windows A9 North Elevation, similar revisions to A8, door entrance revision A10 Detail revisions All Detail revisions A12 Detail revisions A13 Storefront detail materials, thickness, and detail development of design A14 Third floor windows have been revised and and additional details are shown. Siding revision and wood trim detailing is shown in greater detail. Storefront sill panels and panels above stroefront glass are shown in greater detail. At the May 22 meeting we will present the following: 1. Revisions to the 1 /8" model showing store- front recesses and accurate rooftop planes. 2. A new 1/4" partial model showing building detail in relief. 3. A colored elevation of the partial 3/4" elevations on A13 & A14 assembled together as a full height partial elevation. 4. A sample board of major materials These submittals reflect HPC conditions and recommendations made in meetings on 4/10/91 and 4/24/91. The owners program remains the same as our initial application. These revisions are in response to specific recommendations made at Final Approval on 4/10/91. Please advise us in writing of any further areas of interest prior to the next scheduled meeting. Sincerely,,1 AA; (9-T- Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen ,Colorado 81612/ (303) 925- 4576 . ,- A / MEMORANDUM 'To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development: Pioneer Park, Lot 1, Weaver Subdivision (442 W. Bleeker St.) Date: May 29, 1991, Special Meeting APPLICANT'S REQUEST: HPC's Final Development approval for Pioneer Park, Lot 1, Weaver Subdivision (442 W. Bleeker St.) including partial demolition, rear yard and sideyard setback variations, FAR variation, and demolition Of (non-historic) detached garage. It should be noted that the property (Lot 1) currently exceeds its maximum FAR and site coverage, and existing structures encroach into the rear and side (west) yard setbacks. The fence encroaches onto the public right-of-way. Increases in these non- conformities are proposed, requiring HPC variation approval. PROJECT MONITOR: Don Erdman LOCATION: 442 W. Bleeker St., Lot 1, Weaver Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 12 at Page 58, and Amended Plat for Weaver Subdivision recorded in Plat Book 20 at Page 1, Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT: Mary Weaver and John F. Weaver, represented by Lester M. Kaplan ZONING: R-6. "H", Historic Overlay (designated landmark). This parcel is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Please refer to Exhibits A and B, following page 15, in the applicant's Final Development proposal. ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE REHAB TAX CREDITS: The applicant should consider applying for the 20% state rehab tax credit allowed for the renovation of National Register and CLG Landmarked historic structures. Provided substantial demolition does not occur to the interior, this property would be considered eligible for the tax credit, with application review taking place through the HPC and staff. An application may be obtained at the Planning Office. Approval is required prior to the start of work. BACKGROUND and EXISTING CONDITIONS: "Pioneer Park", a local landmark listed on the National Register of Historic Places, was A - once the home of Honorable Henry Webber, mayor of Aspen who was ~--- -3 also responsible for the construction of the Elks Building (Webber Block), and another "Webber Block", housing the Isis Theatre today. In 1946, Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke purchased the property and owned it until 1964. The carriage house was converted to a dwelling unit, where Albert Schweitzer stayed during his only visit to the United States for the 1949 Goethe Convocation. It was renamed "Schweitzer Cottage". "Shorty" Pabst owned the property after the Paepcke's until 1969, when it was purchased by the current owners. The 1963 and 1965 additions added 632 sq. ft. to the rear of the main house. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On March 13, 1991, the HPC granted Conceptual Development approval for Pioneer Park, Lot 1, subject to 26 conditions to be met at Final. These conditions and the applicant's response have been detailed in their proposal, beginning on Page 7. Please compare the narrative closely to the plans. The Planning Office finds that the conditions of Conceptual have generally been met, however, we ask the HPC to carefully review these. Staff's concerns focus on the following conditions, but are not limited to these alone: Condition 11: Windows and storm windows. All original glass shall remain in place. The HPC shall consider the applicant's proposal to restore the early storm windows (exterior). Condition 12: Lintel design above windows on addition to the main house: The HPC shall consider whether a slight design change is appropriate here, even in light of the cumulative design alterations that indicate new VS. historic. The applicant argues in favor of a lintel design to match the original; staff voiced this concern at Conceptual and asks the HPC to reconsider this aspect. Condition 13: Basement level windows and lightwells: A major concern of staff, the number of new windows indicated in the plans are not compatible with the structure, and we strongly recommend their number and size be reduced. We are recommending this issue be restudied and resubmitted as a condition of Final approval. Perhaps less basement space should be made habitable by building code standards to force the design change of additional windows at garden level. Condition 18: Brick wall around pool area: Staff finds this feature as proposed to be incompatible, and continues to recommend an alternate solution. We understand their need for privacy, however, we feel that a more compatible fence design and landscape screening may accomplish this goal. 2 0 . Condition 19: Bond or financial security regarding excavation: The HPC shall clarify this issue for the applicant, per his request. The financial security shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney in an amount sufficient to warrant repair or replacement of the structure (or part thereof) due to failure caused by excavation and foundation work. This shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit, and will be made a part of the Final HPC approval. Condition 22: Preservation Plan - Additional clarification is required here, specifically regarding brick cleaning, replacement and mortar repair. Demolition of non-historic garage: Staff finds that the demolition of the non-historic, detached garage located on the outparcel north of the alley meets the criteria for "Exemption" from the demolition standards. We recommend that the HPC make this finding and allow the demolition to occur as the applicant proposes. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Final Development application and variations as proposed, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition standards have been met, and finding that the setback and FAR variations are more compatible in character with the historic landmark that would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. 2) Approve the Final Development application (as stated above in Alternative #1) with the conditions as detailed in staff's recommendation below, to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit 3) Table action to allow the applicant time to restudy specific areas of concern, and submit a revised application for HPC review. 4) Deny Final Development approval, finding that the Standards and conditions of Conceptual Development approval have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval and variations for Pioneer Park, 442 W. Bleeker St., (Lot 1, Weaver Subdivision), with the following findings: 3 . /*. 6 1) The Development Review and Partial Demolition standards have been met. 2) The demolition Of the non-historic detached garage meets the criteria for "Exemption" from the demolition standards. 03) The side yard and rear yard setback variations anÂ«gAR variation as proposed are more compatible with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. The Planning Office further recommends that the following conditions be made a part of the HPC's motion for Final Development approval, to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1) The bond or other financial security shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney in an amount sufficient to warrant repai.r or replacement of the structure (or part thereof) due to failure or damage caused by excavation and foundation work. 2) Clarification and HPC approval of brick cleaning (PSI), replacement and mortar repair 0 6/ 3) Restudy or 10.11Le.ireÂ·1 brick wall design around poole 7 .4 k 4) Restudy andf reduce the number and siz,e of the basement (garden level) .yindows 6 --2.-a.4/cÂ«div-,--4 ./ ..00-4.6 - /0,9/le.â‚¬ L Additional comments : f ' h / 1/ - memo.hpc.442wb.fd 4 . . 4 +24. : .. APPLICATION TO CITY OF ASPEN HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FOR FINAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING PIONEER PARK RESIDENCE 442 WEST BLEEKER STREET ASPEN, COLORADO THIS INFORMATION IS ACCOMPANIED BY DETAILED, ELEVATIONAL DRAWINGS, LANDSCAPE PLAN, SITE PLAN AND ENGINEERING ANALYSES, AND ADDRESSES ATTACHMENT 3b REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICATION. Submitted May 10, 1991 By: THE KAPLAN COMPANY 2Â¥ HPC FINAL APPLICATION Â» ' - Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park ATTACHMENT 3b Requires the Following: "A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and character of the neighborhood." (Item No. 3) RESPONSE A section of the applicant's February 5, 1991 submittal for conceptual review is entitled "The Proposal In Light of Standards For Rehabilitation Set Forth By the Secretary of the Interior." This section is herein repeated in its entirety as the applicant's response to the above-described, required statement. Certain modifications to design details put forth in this section are either explained in the applicant's response to Attachment 3b (Item 4) which follows this section or in the Final drawings. THE PROPOSAL IN LIGHT OF THE STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION SET FORTH BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR The Standards for Rehabilitation is a section of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects. As revised in 1990, the ten (10) Standards for Rehabilitation encompass and provide further elaboration to the review standards of the City of Aspen in Attachment 4 of its application package for "significant historic development.- Consequently, the applicant will discuss in this section the consistency of the proposal with the Secretary of Interior's ten -(10) Standards, which discussion shall be deemed sufficient in addressing the City's more general review standards. Rehabilitation is defined in The Standards for Rehabilitation as "the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural and cultural values." This definition is most appropriate for the project objectives and implementation elements of the Lot 1 Pioneer Park Subdivision proposal to HPC. Indeed, a reiteration of these objectives clearly demonstrates their consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's definition of rehabilitation: 1. To preserve and, in certain respects, to enhance the historic value of the property, both to subsequent owners and the Aspen community. 2. To restore the historic use of the property as a prominent and vital residential anchor in the West End. The historic character of the property shall be retained and preserved by returning its historic potential as a cultural, political and social gathering place incidental to its residential use. 3. To upgrade the aesthetic appearance and historic value of the property as an historic landmark and focal point in the West End. -1- . HPC'FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park 4. To accomplish such necessary repairs to the Main House, Carriage House and Addition and to introduce such required living spaces and modern amenities so as to help insure another 100 years of active, residential use for this property. The proposal, therefore, should not be confused with or evaluated in terms of a restoration of the existing structures, that is, a returning of the property to its original physical or architectural state, whatever that might have been. Rather, the more important aspects of renewal and revival are those relating to the prominence of this property within the West End of Aspen, its visual and long-term physical vitality and its potential as a cultural, political and social gathering place incidental to its residential use. Accordingly, this proposal is sensitive to function as well as form, to the return of a sense of place in addition to the integrity of historic design. The ten (10) Standards for Rehabilitation are prefaced with the qualifier that they are "to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility." Through a discussion of these Standards, in light of the design elements of the proposal, it should become evident that this project has been attentive to and is clearly consistent with their meaning and intent. The first and second Standards deal with a continuation of the historic purpose and character of the property. The property was developed in 1885 by Henry Webber as a conspicuous and familiar single-family focal point in Aspen's West End. Over the years, the stable, an out-building from the Main House, was converted into the existing Carriage House and an approximately 40-foot addition was built onto the east side of the Carriage House, nearly connecting with the Main House. This Addition has been put to many uses and has been through various remodelings. The history of the property includes a period of time near the turn of the century when the Addition was used commercially by a blacksmith, which may explain the now removed semi-circular pediment on the south-facing (street-facing) wall of the Addition as being the vestige of a former advertising sign. A photo of this pediment appears in The Aspen Storv, p. 72 and is reproduced in Exhibit A. The principal use of the property through its colorful history has been single-family. While the prominent character of the property has faded through insensitive add-ons to the Main House, deterioration and vandalism, the rehabilitation proposal strives to return and preserve the dignity of character and place that this property once enjoyed. Towards this end, there will be no removal of historic materials or alteration of the historically-characteristic features, the most dominant of these features being the wood-shingled mansard roof. The proposed rear addition, in order to be technically feasible, must remove the remaining portion of the original, north- facing, rear wall. The east-facing section of this wall, which completes the original northeast corner of the house, was removed for the kitchen addition in 1965. That addition, which removed a brick wall and replaced it with the current wood frame addition, insensitively covered up the original fascia under the roof. The proposed new addition shall not only return the use of brick with original -2- HPC FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park window fenestration to this northeast corner of the house, but will also re-expose the fascia, thereby contributing both to the integrity of the original appearance as well as to the experience of the addition as a separate design element. Of course, the dominant design element defining the original residence is the mansard roof. This roof line will not be altered, in that the only proposed addition to the Main House is on the north side (or the rear of the house) and is limited to one story. Consequently, the mansard roof will continue to visually differentiate between the original shape and footprint of the Main House and the rear addition. The limiting of the rear addition to one story and its proposed configuration are in furtherance of consistency with the Standards; however, such an approach restricts the amount of essential, additional living area, thereby necessitating the excavation of the basement for such space. Standards number three and four address the importance of recognizing the property as a physical record of its time, place and use, to introducing changes that create a false sense of historical development, and preserving changes that have acquired historic significance. The applicant believes that the combined west-side bedroom addition and basement stairway addition in 1963 and the kitchen addition in 1965 are unfortunate, have no historic significance other than physically documenting mistakes, and if not removed, would render as impossible any proper rehabilitation of the property. Similar instances of inappropriate changes and those of no historic significance are the off-centered and out-of-scale south-facing dormer window of the Carriage House, the three (3) plexiglass skylights and vent pipes atop the Addition to the Carriage House, the make-shift overhangs between the Main House and the Addition, the grape-stake fence around the pool, the improvised wooden stairs from the living room to the east patio, the aluminum roof cornice, and the wooden garage on the north side of the alley. These have all been documented through photos and drawings for the historic zealot and now should be removed to make way for a few more comprehensive and deliberate rehabilitation, one that can add another 100 years of function and vitality to the property and allow for adherence to the intent of the Secretary's Standards. The fifth Standard calls for the preservation of distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property. No such features are to be removed from any of the structures. To the contrary, the applicant proposes to repeat the original brick fenestration for the new addition to the Main House, while still differentiating this addition as distinct from the Main House. This is accomplished by insetting the addition's connecting points to the Main House, lowering its height to allow for uninterrupted fascia detail on the Main House, and not altering the original lines of the mansard roof. The applicant believes that the proposed metal roof cresting, while probably not the original pattern, is shown in a pattern typical of the period, and its existence was part of the original craftsmanship. Intended repairs to the house, such as to the iron fence, wooden window sills, and damaged brickwork are all proposed in the spirit of preserving examples of craftsmanship. -3- APC FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park The importance of exercising sensitivity during the repair of deteriorated historic features and the replacement of missing features is addressed in Standard number five. Due to extensive deferred maintenance on this property, repair work will be extreme, including the iron fence in front of the property, window sills, brickwork, stucco, roof shingles, gutters, fascia boards and brackets, the roof cornice, and other areas. Naturally, repairs will occur where possible, and any replaced features shall match the old. While the proposed roof cresting cannot be documented from photos, an 1890's drawing of the property obtained from the Aspen Historical Society, indicates decorative roof cresting (Exhibit B). Additionally, in a December 26, 1990 letter to the applicant from Elizabeth H. Paepke (Exhibit C), who with her husband owned and lived on the property from 1945 to 1964, Mrs. Paepke offers her valued opinion in writing: 1 always believed that there must have been some sort of iron work around the top (of the roof)." A pictorial review of resource books on Victorian homes of this period with mansard roofs indicates that metal roof cresting was a typical detail (Exhibit D). The decorative iron fence around the property further suggests the presence of other metal detailing, such as on the roof. Perhaps the strongest evidence for the original existence of roof cresting is from the proposal itself -- the inclusion of this design element appears quite natural and seems to complete a sense of proportion and balance which was previously absent from the exterior. Certainly no chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that could cause damage to historic materials shall be used, as Standard number seven cautions. The original brickwork is proposed to be re-painted; any deaning of the brick would be sensitive to the susceptibility to damage to both the sandbrick and grout. There are no known archaeological resources affected by the project, a concern of Standard eight. During excavation for a full basement, the removed dirt will be checked for any noteworthy artifacts. Standard number nine deals with exterior additions and alterations, the importance that these shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property and that these are differentiated from and in scale with the old. This is a particularly important Standard with regard to this project. The 1963 and 1965 additions to the Main House added 382 square feet; the proposed project intends to remove these additions and to replace that square footage plus an additional 362 square feet, all within a single, new addition to the rear of the Main House. This addition is most prominent from the east elevation, which is private property and, to a lesser degree, from the west elevation where it appears no longer than the existing addition and is partially concealed by a six foot fence on the west side of the pool area. This new addition cannot be feasibly constructed without the removal of a section of brick wall at the rear of the house. The historic, if not the structural integrity of this waii, was undermined with the 1965 kitchen addition, which involved the removal of the original east-facing brick wall section of this northeast corner. In no way could this remaining section of brick wall, located at an unnoticeable rear area of the house and detached from the original corner, be HPC FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park deemed to "characterize the property," and its removal is not in conflict with Standard number nine. Certainly, the roof overhangs between the addition to the Carriage House and the Main House, the plexiglass skylights atop this addition, the grape-stake fence, the make-shift stairway from the living room to the east patio, the expanded dormer window in the Carriage House and the existing garage -- all of which are proposed for removal -- are likewise not of historic materials that characterize the property. The project proposes the addition of several new dormer windows in the mansard roof: one centered to the north-facing rear of the house, one to form a pair with the replaced dormer on the south-facing side of the Carriage House, and another to be paired with the existing dormer on the north-facing (alley- facing) side of the Carriage House. Regarding the Carriage House, the net impact will be with the removal of an obviously inappropriate window and the introduction of paired dormers on the south and north elevations, where now only the west elevation is paired. These new dormers, including the north-facing one for the Main House, are proposed in similar size and architectural features as the dormer window repeated in the Main House and Carriage House. Any other approach would be architecturally incongruous and disruptive to the design integrity of the project. The applicant believes that these windows are vital to the function of new and remodeled interior spaces and are appropriate in terms of building massing and symmetry. The entire new addition is proposed in both a similar sand brick to the original, as well as similar brick fenestration, fascia and stucco base-border design. In light of the size of the addition, particularly along the east elevation, where it is 28 feet of the entire 65-foot side view, the use of any other material or in any other manner would result in a disjunctive and disintegrated sense of design unity. It should be noted that Standard nine states only that the new work shall be "differentiated" from the old, and this is successfully accomplished through the mansard roof-line which is unto itself the orchestrating element of what is old and what has been added. The use of brick for the addition and similar design detail as the original serves to create a balance between the old and the new, while the existing roof-line and its fascia detail assure an unmistakable distinction between the original lines and footprints of the Main House and what has been added. The date of the original completion of the Addition to the Carriage House is unknown. What is known is that this Addition has been remodeled numerous times, has been put to a variety of uses, including a blacksmith's shop, and in more recent times, has been used to compensate for the design and space deficiencies of the Main House. The cumulative visual impact of years of adaptive and readaptive use has been the destruction of early design detail and the introduction of discordant and otherwise historically inappropriate elements such as plexiglass bubble skylights, roof overhang corrections to the Main House, and vent pipes atop the roof. The project proposes to return the south (street- facing) facade to the best pictorial evidence available: the photo on page 72 of The Aspen Storv (Exhibit A). Exceptions to this alteration will be lowering the profile of the arch impediment and adding a brick chimney over the mechanical -5- . - H PO FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park room. The rehabilitation of this facade will occur in conjunction with extending the facade five feet to the south in order to adequately size it for its proposed conversion to a three car garage for the Main House. A 2.5 foot wide extension to the east end of the addition to the Carriage House allows the new garage to be connected to the addition of the Main House. In order to assure that the Carriage House is differentiated from its new garage, an inset will occur in the brick where they connect. An unavoidable consequence of excavating the basement for necessary living area is the introduction of window openings along limited sections of the three foot tall stucco base, which borders the Main House. This would not be the first time in the history of the house that windows from the basement appear. An approximately 2 x 3.5 ft. awning window in the existing basement area still remains, but has been covered from view by the bedroom addition in 1963. There are five (5) proposed window grouping locations, with each grouping measuring 8 ft. across with 2 ft. wide windows, and in no case does more than 2 ft. of the tops of these windows appear above grade. These window grouping locations are situated in areas essential to the utilization of the basement level, from the standpoint of light, ventilation and safety. A grouping of windows is proposed for each of the two basement level bedrooms, one each for the media and games rooms, and one at the mid-level landing of the back stairs descending to the basement. From the exterior, window groupings are noteworthily inconspicuous. The paired groupings of six (6) windows on the west elevation is totally concealed from public view by the west yard fence. Two other groupings are located on the north-facing alley side, with only one of these above grade. The fifth and last grouping of basement windows is at the rear of the Main House, facing east to Lot 2, and virtually unnoticeable from Bleeker Street. The east-facing group of windows is 65 ft. from the south properly line off Bleeker Street, located in a 4.5 ft. inset from the wall of the original Main House, and further concealed from public view by the stairway from the living room to the east patio and by patio landscaping. Basement level window wells are at grade, extend 3 to 4 ft. from the house, and are designed with a generous planting area in front to further conceal the line of basement windows. The interior walls of these wells are proposed in painted stucco to match the stucco base detailing which borders the Main House. The tenth and final Standard addresses the importance of not impairing the essential form and integrity of the historic property "if a new addition is removed in the future. This Standard has a hypothetical basis, that is "if" (emphasis added) removal in the future occurs, then a new addition should be able to be removed respecting the integrity of the historic property. In that the addition is one story, does not alter the roof-line of the original structure, and at all connecting points has an inset with the original structure, it is differentiated and can be removed from the historic property. -6- HPC FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park However, considering how integrally the living space created through this new addition works with the existing interior space, how deliberately this addition is balanced with the original architecture, how this addition along with the other rehabilitation elements are intended to give another 100 years of function and vitality to the property, and the complexity and expense of such an undertaking as removing this new addition (particularly in light of City regulations), it is inconceivable that the new addition, as proposed, would ever be removed. ATTACHMENT 3b Requires the Following: -A statement of how the Final Development Plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. RESPONSE What follows is an item-by-item response to each of the twenty-six (26) conditions discussed by the HPC on April 13, 1991. These condition items were revised at the meeting; only Items 12, 14, 18 and 26 are -Re-study" items. 1. Condition: "Revised application: address FAR, site coverage, height variation, demolition standards." Response: Revised FAR and site coverage analyses were submitted to the staff three days prior to the April 13, 1991 HPC Conceptual Review and presented to the HPC at that meeting. These have been further refined to reflect a proper accounting of the gazebo on Lot 2, which was made a required component of Lot 1 as a part of the 1986 condition to amend the Weaver Subdivision. The Final FAR and site coverage analyses appear in Exhibits A and B respectively. Although no employee housing requirement accompanies this project, the applicant has attempted to include a -cottage in-fill" unit on that portion of Lot 1 north of the alley. A March 20, 1991 letter to the Planning Director and an April 16th meeting with the Planning staff have not produced a solution to the technical problem of inadequate remaining site coverage for such a unit. Therefore, the applicant is withdrawing the proposed cottage unit from the project. An application for Demolition and Partial Demolition was included in the applicant's February 5, 1991 Application for Conceptual Review, pages 25 and 26. Inadvertently, page 25 was not received by the HPC and the application for demolition was presumed missing from the Application. These pages from the Application for Conceptual Review are herein included as Exhibit C. 2. Condition: "Detailed landscape plan, including all surface treatments, conservation and impact mitigation methods to be employed, treatment of gazebo and area around it: -7- HPC FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park Response: A detailed landscape plan addressing these areas is included as part of the Final HPC submission. 3. Condition: 'Encroachment license for fence be applied for prior to issuance of building permit. " Response: The applicant has agreed to this condition and seeks 1) an HPC recommendation to the appropriate reviewing body for the granting of this license and 2) clarification as to whether or not such license must be adually approved prior to issuance of building permit. 4. Condition: "Cottage: Reduce height, eliminate projecting bay window, re-orient front entrance door to facade-- Response: Cottage unit eliminated in Final HPC application. 5. Condition: "Parapet of Carriage House addition remains the same as existing." Response: Applicant has agreed that parapet shall be designed in light of the photo of the Carriage House addition appearing in The Aspen Storv, p. 72, John and Frankie O'Rear, published 1966 by A.S. Barnes and Co., Inc. Applicant will retain the height relationship between this parapet and the Carriage House roof. 6. Condition: *Cresting to be eliminated, unless historically documented: Response: Applicant has historically documented roof cresting on Main House through an old photograph, slides of which were shown at April 13, 1991 HPC meeting. A copy of this photograph is included as part of Final application. Although this photo substantiates roof cresting, it lacks adequate detail and clarity to allow an exact match of the original ironwork design. Exhibit D shows representative detail of new cresting. 7. Condition: Re-study/reduce bricked-in ventilation pipes." Response: The applicant proposes to provide a bricked-in enclosure, similar in appearance to a chimney, around the unattractive vent pipes atop the mechanical room in the Carriage House addition. Of course, this enclosure will be designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 8. Condition: -All original doors remain; replacement doors detailed in Final." Response: The only original" door is the double-door front entry, and this has been altered to include a framed piece of clear glass on the exterior over the etched glass for each door. The applicant intends to remove this wood molding in order to enhance the original appearance of these doors. Replacement doors have been detailed on the Final plan. -8- HPC FINAL APPLICATION , Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park 9. Condition: "Re-study/revise south elevation Carriage House door." Response: This has been done, and a revised door design is shown on the Final plan. 10. Condition: "Representative photos of all lighting fixtures at Final. Response: "Representative photos or drawings are in Exhibit E for the following exterior locations: a. Front entry post lamp with globe. b. Post light and globe for entry to Carriage House. c. Wall lights for front (south-facing) of Addition to Carriage House. d. Wall lights for rear (north-facing), garage door side of Addition to Carriage House. e. Wall lights for porch at northeast corner of new addition to Main House. f. Wall light for east side to patio. 11. Condition: "Original windows be retained; storms used only on interior. Epoxy repairs first; NPS Technical brief be researched for appropriate manner of window preservation; deteriorated sills identified in Final plans." Response: Existing windows are in poor condition, requiring re-glazing and extensive sill repair for every window. No sill appears to be deteriorated beyond the point of being repairable with epoxy. Remnants of a storm window/screen system exist, with storm windows and screen remaining over some windows. The applicant proposes to restore the storm window system which, if not original to the house, was a very early addition. The photo of the house in The Aspen Storv (pps. 72 - 73) not only shows the semi-circular parapet over the addition to the Carriage House (a feature which will be replaced) but also shows storm windows for the Main House (Exhibit F). The old-style hooks for these storm windows exist above each window. The surviving storm windows remaining on the house will serve as models for duplicating the design. The applicant believes that replacing this very early, if not original, design feature is not only an important design feature of the project, but also serves to recognize the energy- conservation consciousness of the property's early owners and to extend this into the present and future. Concern will no doubt be stated about covering "old glass" with storm windows. The applicant is not insensitive to this and has done an inventory of existing glass to determine the extent of existing "old glass." There is notably little original glass in the Main House. Of the fourteen (14) remaining, double-hung windows on the main level, the following glass conditions exist: Both Panes Replaced 2 One Pane Replace 5 Both Panes Old Glass (unbroken) 5 Both Panes Old Glass (one broken) 2 Main Floor 14 Windows -9- HPC FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park Therefore, a maximum of 5 out of 14 windows on the main floor will have old glass in both panes after broken glass is replaced. Conditions on the second level are similar: Both Panes Replaced 4 One Pane Replaced 3 Both Panes Old Glass (unbroken) 1 Both Panes Old Glass (one broken) 1 Second Level 9 Windows On the second level, a maximum of 1 window out of 9 has old glass in both panes. Once completed, the project will have thirty-two (32) above grade windows. For the sake of a maximum of 6 windows having both panes with old glass, it seems nonsensical to use concern for retaining the 'look" of old glass as an argument against the energy-conservation of storm windows and the documented early, if not original, use of storm windows on the Main House. 12. Condition: -Eliminate brick arched lintels from rear addition." (HPC "Re-study" item) Response: The applicant has re-studied the brick arched lintels over the windows in the rear addition and strongly believes that they serve the overall design integrity of the project. The arched, raised design is intended to match the existing lintel design for the original Main House and the early, east-facing bay addition. Any attempt to use lintel design as a way to differentiate the rear addition from the original Main House and the bay addition is not only unnecessary but would be architecturally inharmonious and discordant. In his February 5, 1991 Application for Conceptual Review, the applicant discusses at length the project proposal in light of the ten (10) standards for rehabilitation set forth by the Secretary of the Interior. These standards are extensively concerned with the importance of preventing insensitive add-ons, preserving the dignity of character of what is original, and differentiating the original from what is added. The applicant has attempted to justify project design in terms of its consistency with those standards, and at its April 13, 1991 meeting, the H PC voted unanimously that the Secretary of Interior's standards have been met. Altering the proposed brick lintel design for the rear addition is unnecessary in light of the already clear design distinction between the original Main House and the rear addition. As discussed in detail in the February 5, 1991 Application, this distinction is the cumulative effort of numerous design elements including the following: -10- HPC FINAL APPLICATION -. Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park a. A dominant design feature defining the original residence is the mansard roof. This roof will not be altered, in that the only proposed addition to the Main House is on the north side (or the rear of the house) and is limited to one story. Consequently, the mansard roof will visually differentiate between the original shape and footprint of the Main House and the new addition at the rear. b. The original fascia detail to the Main House has been partially covered-up by the 1963 and 1965 wood frame additions. In removing these insensitive additions and replacing them with a re-configured, new addition in brick, the original fascia to the Main house will again be exposed and run continuously around the house. This restored design detail will in itself serve to denote a clear differentiation from the original house and its new addition. c. The footprint for the new addition will be inset on both the east and west sides by approximately 1 foot 6 inches from the footprint of the original Main House. This will further distinguish the Main House from the addition. Therefore, any effort to use brick lintel design over the windows to the new addition as a means to distinguish the old from the new is an unnecessary gesture. More importantly, changing the lintel detail from the original creates a visual imbalance and disharmony along the east and west elevations by eliminating a unifying element and replacing it with a discordant one. The applicant strongly believes that repeating the original lintel design in the addition is in no way contrary to the importance of distinguishing the original house from the addition and would, to the contrary, undermine the need for some unity of design between the old and the new. 13. Condition: "Re-study/reduce/eliminate basement level windows and lightwells (lightwells placement as well). Response: The HPC did not make Item 13 a "Re-study" item at its April 13, 1991 conceptual review. The architect for the applicant, Sutherland/Fallin, Inc., presented a basement window analysis (Exhibit G) indicating that the minimum amount of window openings by code is 90 square feet and that the project was at 112 square feet, hardly an excessive amount. Several points regarding basement windows deserve repeating from the conceptual application, even though the windows as proposed were not an issue with the HPC: There are five (5) window grouping locations, with each grouping measuring approximately 8 feet wide and consisting of three (3) 2 foot wide windows. In no case does more than 2 feet of the tops of these windows appear above grade. Each window grouping is situated in an area essential to the utilization of the lower level from the standpoint of light, ventilation and safety. A grouping of windows is proprosed for each of the two lower level bedrooms, one each for the media and game room living areas, and one at the bottom level of the back stairs descending to the lower level. -11- HPC FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park From the exterior, window groupings are noteworthily inconspicuous. The paired groupings of six (6) windows on the west elevation is totally concealed from public view by the west yard fence. Two other groupings are located on the north-facing alley side, with only one of these above grade. The fifth and last grouping of lower level windows is at the rear, east-facing to Lot 2, and virtually unnoticeable from Bleeker Street. The east-facing grouping is 65 feet from the south property line off Bleeker Street, located in a 4.5 foot inset from the wall of the original Main House, and further concealed from public view by the stairway from the living room to the east patio and by patio landscaping. Of course, the three (3) window wells will be landscaped at grade, a design detail shown on the Final Landscape Plan element of this H PC Final submission. 14. Condition: "South elevation Carriage House dormer - restore to original central position Cone) (HPC "Re-study= item). Resoonse: The applicant proposes to remove the disfiguring, existing south- facing dormer, a most insensitive modem attempt to allow additional light to the top level of the Carriage House, and to replace it with two (2) dormers, identical in design and positioning to the existing two (2) west-facing dormers. Originally, there was only one, centrally-placed, south-facing dormer. The applicant has also proposed, with no concern to the staff or HPC, the addition of a second dormer at the north-facing side of the Carriage House. Replacing the existing over-sized south-facing dormer with a pair of dormers would create a symmetry of matching dormer arrangements on the south, west and north elevations. Additionally, in its own right, a dormer pair on the south elevation would place a dormer over the south-fadng Carriage House windows; this is the same relationship between dormers and windows as the west side of the Main House and, therefore, strikes a visual balance along the western viewing planes of the property. Obviously, the south dormer was enlarged to allow for additional light to the upper level of the Carriage House: the applicant believes that a pair of dormers, matching the existing west-facing pair, is a better solution. This has the additional benefit of placing one window in the second level bedroom and the other over the stair well. 15. Condition: "Representative sample of porch materials. Response: The existing front porch and stairs are in concrete and, although they do not appear to be original to the house, the design and material are architecturally compatible. These stairs and porch will be unavoidably destroyed in the course of stabilizing the house for lower level excavation and the new foundation. The applicant intends to replace the porch and stairs, as currently designed, in concrete. The rear porch at the northeast comer of the house and the east side entry will also be constructed in concrete. The west yard steps will be constructed in brick to match the new west patio surface. -12- HPC FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park 16. Condition: "Metal railing, east stoop be re-studied. Response: This railing is now proposed in wood. 17. Condition: "Clarification on break in materials on Carriage House and addition." Response: Shown on Final submission drawings. 18. Condition: "Eliminate brick/metal interior garden wall." (HPC "Re-study" item.) Response: A solid wall around the west yard pool area is necessary for privacy and safety. This garden wall has been re-designed from the conceptual design. The decorative metal atop the garden wall has been removed, and the wall is now all in brick and at a lower height than conceptually proposed (see Final submission drawings). This wall will be relocated approximately 3.5 feet to the south. 19. Condition: "Bond and detailed engineering report for excavation/structural work on Main House." Response: Applicant needs information regarding for what aspects of the project a bond would be required. An engineering report covering the stabilizing of the house, basement excavation and structural aspects is an element of Final submission. 20. Condition: "Demolition standards to be met. Response: Addressed in Exhibit C. Also note Code Amendment to Section 7- 602, approved First Reading April 8, 1991 (Ordinance 9-91) and scheduled for Second Reading May 13, 1991, which Amendment alters standards for demolition. 21. Condition: 'Partial demolition standards to be met: Response: Same as Item 20. 22. Condition: "Detailed preservation plan for historic materials and architectural features. Response: The Final drawings for the project indicate through copious notations, the plan to preserve and repair historic materials and architectural features. These plans are the definitive source of what is proposed. To supplement these plans and to assist with an understanding of proposed exterior changes, the following is a general list of the historic materials and architectural features addressed in the Final Plans: -13- HPC FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park Applicable to All Elevations 1. Windows: Repair sills with epoxy, sand, re-glaze, replace broken glass, remove extraneous hooks, remove tinting. 2. Brick: Power wash prior to painting, repair grout in limited number of locations to match original, replace broken and badly chipped brick as required using original brick. 3. Shingles: Replace missing and damaged shingles on mansard roof. 4. Stucco: Replace stucco border to Main House to match current height and texture. Repair stucco to match existing as required. 5. Wood Fascia: Restore to original condition. Fill cracks, repair brackets, sand, paint. 6. Roof Cornice: Remove aluminum and replace with wood molding to better approximate original detailing. 7. Roof Cresting: Add decorative roof cresting in Victorian detail and corresponding to proportions in documented photo. 8. Liahtina: Add wall mounted lanterns to all exterior door openings. Replace front lamp post. Add Cottage lamp post. (Exhibit E) 9. Iron Fence: Repair with new arrows, missing pieces and straighten. 10. Grage-Stake Fence: Replace with brick garden wall. Reference is herein made to the "Specific Description of Proposed Exterior Alterations" appearing in the applicant's February 15, 1991 Application for Conceptual Review.. 23. Condition: "Wrought iron fence repaired in place. Response: Agreed. 24. Condition: "Massing model for both Lots 1 and 2. Response: There is no intended project for Lot 2 at this time. A detailed model for the Lot 1 project, including the Lot 1 and Lot 2 sites, has been completed and presented to the HPC at its April 13th meeting. 25. Condition: "Exact material representation." Response: The addition is proposed in brick to be painted. The brick will be soft, unglazed to match original brick. The grout will also match original. Decorative roof cresting will be fabricated in iron. West patio will use brick paver with grout. -14- ... HPC FINAL APPLICATION Additions & Alterations to Pioneer Park 26. Condition: "Re-study stairs to rear porch." Response: The stairs to rear porch have been simplified on Final Plans. REQUESTED VARIANCES Variances Resulting From Existing Conditions 1. Reduction of rear yard setback for existing Addition to Carriage House, which is currently used for living and mechanical areas, from 5 feet to zero feet. This area is proposed for conversion into a three (3) car garage and a mechanical room. 2. Reduction of rear yard setback for existing Carriage House, which will continue under the proposed plan as residential, from 10 feet to zero feet. 3. Reduction of side yard setback for Carriage House from 15 feet to existing 3 feet 3 inches for the building and 1'-0" for the chimney. Variances Resultina From Proposed Additions 1. Reduction of rear yard setback for 3'-6 wide building extension to Addition to Carriage House (proposed garage) and rear entry roof from 5 feet to zero feet. This extension widens the new garage to facilitate its connection with the proposed new addition to the rear of the Main House. 2. Allow a 2'-2- reduction in side yard overall setback requirements from 47'-6" to 45'-4" due to 1'-0" west side property line setback of chimney. 3. Increase allowable fence height from 6'-0" to 7'-0" at fence piers as measured from the inside grade to accommodate design requirements of HPC. NOTE: This list of requested variances has not been reviewed by the City Zoning Officer and is, therefore, subject to change prior to the Final HPC consideration. The Weaver Family and Lester M. Kaplan, co-developers on the rehabilitation of the buildings on Lot 1 of *Pioneer Park," would like to express their appreciation to the city staff and HPC for their thoughtful review and support for this important project. -15- .... EXHIBIT A HPC FINAL APPLICATION Pioneer Park 442 W. Bleeker Street Aspen, Colorado SQUARE FOOTAGE ANALYSIS Existing F.A. R. Square Feet Main House - 1st Floor 1,936 Main House - 2nd Floor 1,290 Basement Main House 26 Carriage House - 1 st Floor 503 Carriage House - 2nd Floor 503 Addition to Carriage House 632 Roof Areas 96 Gazebo* 93 Total Existing F.A. R. 5,079 F.A. R. with Proposed Additions The removal of the living space in the Addition to the Carriage House by its partial conversion to a three car garage: (720) Sub total 4,359 Additions to F.A. R. â€¢ Study/Mud Room 272 Â· Dining Room 28 â€¢ Kitchen Entry 17 Â· Rear Entry 12 â€¢ New Basement (above grade as per City Code) 321 650 TOTAL NEW F.A.R. 5,009 5,079 Sq. Ft. Less 5,009 Sq. Feet = 70 Sq. Ft. Under Existing F.A. R. * Made part of Lot 1 by 1986 Conditions to Amend Weaver Subdivision. EXHIBIT B HPC FINAL APPLICATION Pioneer Park 442 W. Bleeker Street Aspen, Colorado SITE COVERAGE ANALYSIS Proposed Residence Square Feet Main House 1,936 Dining Corner 28 Study/Mud Room Addition 272 Deck above Basement 119 Kitchen Entry (from garage) 17 Pool Dressing Area 88 Garage 790 Carriage House 503 Gazebo 93 Total 3,846 Allowable Lot Size 17,603 sq. ft. 25.00% Less (12.000) 5,603 + 1,200 4.67% Total Percentage Allowable Site Coverage: 20.33% Total Allowable Square Footage Site Coverage: 20.33% x 17,603 sq. ft. = 3,579 sq. ft. Existing Site Coverage 4,188 sq. ft. * Proposed Site Coverage 3,846 sq. ft. Remaining (*unused") Site Coverage 342 sq. ft. * Includes gazebo made part of Lot 1 by 1986 Conditions to Amend Weaver Subdivison. EXHIBIT C HPA FINAL APPLICATION Pioneer Park 442 W. Bleeker Street Aspen, Colorado APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION In meeting with Roxanne Eflin, Aspen's historic planner, to review the conceptual plans and submission requirements for the Lot 1 Pioneer Park project, the applicant was handed and was told that Attachment 4b of "Review Standards: Application for partial Demolition" would need to be addressed as part of the applicant's H PC application for conceptual review of significant historical development. The five (5) areas of demolition in this rehabilitation project are the following: 1. Removal of the wood frame bedroom/stairway addition (completed in 1963) at the northwest corner and rear of the Main House. 2. Removal of the wood frame dining room addition (completed in 1965) at the northeast corner of the Main House. 3. Removal of the remaining portion of the original brick wall at the rear of the Main House. 4. Removal and reconstruction with original brick of the south facing wall of the addition to the Carriage House. 5. Removal of the existing wood frame garage north of the alley. There are other proposed alterations to the exterior involving the removal of existing features or the adding of dormer windows to the mansard roof, but the applicant does not consider these as demolition items. These include removal of the plexiglass skylights atop the addition to the Carriage House, eliminating make-shift roof overhangs between the Main House and the Addition, replacing the stairway to the east side patio, and changing the roof cornice from aluminum to wood. Standard number one states that demolition needs to be shown as being 'required" for rehabilitation of the structure. The applicant's statement of Problems Associated with Existing Structures (Section G), includes the following two problems: 1. Obsolete Floor Plan -- Floor plan contains extensive, dysfunctional design elements resulting from an indeterminable number of remodeling attempts over the last 50 years. Existing conditions include poor room arrangement, absence of I. essential spaces (i.e. dining room, family room), inadequate room sizes, antiquated bathrooms, and etc. 2. Inappropriate Exterior Alterations -- Additions to rear of Main House inadequately sized and undermine historic character. Window, doorway and roof line changes to front facade of Carriage House and Addition have created false sense of original design. Further reference is herein made to the applicant's Rehabilitation Objectives (Section H), the realization of which requires the addition to and rearranging of living space in the Main House, Evidence of the inadequacy of living space is the use of the Addition to the Carriage House for bedroom and office space associated with the Main House. In light of the project Objectives, the necessary new living spaces to the Main House, facilitated by the new addition, include a dining room, office, powder room, mud room, and secondary stairway to upper and lower levels. The new addition also promotes the reconfiguration of existing living spaces. Neither the 1963 nor the 1965 addition has relevance to the historic integrity of the Main House. The removal of each is a benefit to the historic character of the Main House, both by their elimination and also by the opportunity to construct a more suitable addition consistent with project Objectives. The demolition and reconstruction of the south wall of the addition to the Carriage House allows for the space to be converted to a three car garage connected to the Main House. Removing the existing garage (not historically-designated), clears this portion of Lot 1 for a deed-restricted cottage unit. The remaining portion of the original brick wall must be removed for the new addition. The architectural integrity of this wall has been undermined through the 1965 destruction of the east-facing brick wall which completed the northeast corner of the Main House. Replacing the 1963 and 1965 add-ons, the new addition will be in brick with similar windows, fascia, fenestration and base design as the original Main House, but differentiated by constructing it below the Main House fascia, by the existing mansard roof, and by insetting its connection to the Main House. ,, . 0 -1 4 . .., Â·,Cr, , , A *1#1 - ti{EyyÂ»,174.4 .. A 2â€¢.40*9633:7/ 4 rp. 974 41 1 :, 1%33*1 1*1.. f ' 41, 1 a\=&~394%24. l 'A -2 et. ir: h ./. ..... .... --- 11,4 iâ€¢â€¢10:'jyer 49'Â» 6 .1 h. 1. . , e':*'s...% . .. .:44<.*SY. '::tyi>;.:3Â·t ..#0411 12'i-,eâ€¢'â€¢' Â·,Â· Â· ir. A 2, Chlot. , 9 'it.t ..,-.2.L#+9,6 iit}4:'~~"' /'fi>;1,~~~~~~~~~ %3*34~i;I :'14'11?11~ 4 o.Â·- Â· ..:. ' r#J'*. 24998*~4'EAV:eE,ti/04&21/.es,;GArir.- ' 1*ht: '<Ann#.Nlitpgr: .44372*.fli:fÂ·.Â·.7 : :(Â·r:~ :Â·;'Â·5Â·'' ~ -'*.%~r,vittÂ«;2,*-627.9 tt,, piplj~~ ,Â· u.. 2#<cri*9#;&2'.4Nm.~\~S#K#,t.i,&-Â·,i,#:,:tâ€ž:*f N.A.4.144- - Â·Â·,Ah'~r/:7&0'Â·t/Â· ,;090?:4gtzfjgâ‚¬35 *./ & 4//i~/14'ir.'~2''S,47Â·Â·~149#47;< t.A ,.1<2Â· 41 : :* 1,4% ..4 -,0 (p, 4)44..~ , , 15,0 re' f 4 4, . . . . 4 1.1 1 . I ... - 1 EXHIBIT E 3 ~V-/ u hy- - WOf 29 1, FAL 1.-6 3 1 ,~ C =0 \\ 1 il Il i V J- 1 1 LAMFO -- -- 14ALL MOUNTED LIC,+47 eTEKNE>ERZO *16 25 - STEAMBEZS * 7 01-1 111 1 . LAMP FteT 11 STE214 6â‚¬26 -*: 2 30 - 7 _-_ ~ 2 7/4 * 11 i1,l 1 ~ 1 ! 11 1 1 1 b 42> PIONEEK PAR K . t r. - - _._-i --4-EATCKIâ‚¬)11 LIGHT-11â‚¬11 -EX+110 11- E- 6%/,42 11 m 1. I EXHIBIT F - 04+ i * 4. Ir. Â· .1~ .4 ,.i - z 2% :13*kit..,4 y.1-ZO .t ::pt Â·Â·:' ; .: 3.=,1-FS+~ . al- B.*~-M.t~~45.trb,yefa. . i *gc*,â€¢.4,1.*i;,:,w,# 0&174'82-<,764. ttÂ·Â·*.4 : . - :,1>.. 1,U, .4..6,41 + 1- 1 1r - 4 -0 -'-2_--'f: 9, -iq4f1fi-Â».308~.~ . illillillill:'ll"Jit-KET'#litild#64*ilm' 9/91Â£~I 1.- gillillhade9iliwiT,2/4/#Wa"fi/Affjh' =4 %- 1 1/:Iio",Ille'UNI'lijr'wililiwillilimirrefi-,5,6~21 I y - I - ..4.~2%K :~~ '" 11 -r:XiI. . I. ./. ..5- ./ - - /4 ' /....16.-Zlful/,CUL 'r -5. F --12420'717*T ~~.*,-8-,=,=4 el Â· ir] L_ J --- ....F).1.,3 331 Eff74~-/&.- i i.. I : & . -. s -,â€žh:L--4 . -9/ IC=",4591 I , i......- 1 - - , 1 A ED. /1.- '40 ..9 lt; 2 iwil :\- 324,ile!: t 1-2: 54--f= . .:SM - . 11 A t . Â· 1.. 1-. 2 1 1 4 b -- ' r. I. i. . .97 1 .U 1 1 - 1 4 - I 1/ 1 .. . 4 I . .. '.4. 1 , 4./ lili fi.1 1 4 . : i - .i ' 1 .. 0 1 --t til , - ;ili' ||lik. 414,Â·f Ii,Jit'Â·MIlÂ¢,Â· : -Â¢J, , 4 ..- . t -. - 73 :?t-2 Â· 3.- ~ ;rk:Y'.42~i'*.4Â·. r*f Â» Â·/3 6.s...#~t*-..' C. - 75.i.GÂ·~, EXHIBIT G - I ..~ E h March 14, 1991 Les Kaplan 201 Midland Avenue Aspen, Co 81611 RE: Project #90-13 Pioneer Park Lot 1 Dear Les, For your records we calculated the exterior demolition of the new construction as it relates to the existing structure. The ratio of new work to existing is 35% which is less than 50%, this means you are not required to provide an employee housing unit as set forth in Ordinance No 1. The window wells as designed are 112 sq. ft. the minimum amount we must put in according to code is 90 sq. ft. which means we designed 22 sq. ft. more than required. . Reauired As Drawn Amount Over LiahWent LiahUVent Light\/ent East Elevation 23 0 12 [D 29 [D 15 0] 6[D 3 ID West Elevation 45 [[1 23 ID 46 ID 23 ID 1[D 0[D North Elevation 22 [D 11 m 37 01 12 [C 15 [0 1.[C Total 90 [D 46 [D 112 [0 50 ID 22 ID 4 ID Sincerely, 4,- 2. 21 / r Bruce R. Sutherland, A. I.A. BRS:kmj SUTHERLAND.FALUN.ING. - Bruce Suikerland, President ' Richard Fallin. ~iee Presi{!ent ' Davd Panieo. Associate Arelmeeture & Planning 0 1280 Ute Avenue 0 As~en. Colorado 81611 0 303/925-Â·$252 o FAX 303/923-2639