The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19900228AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE February 28, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 4:30 WORKSESSION WITH COMMERCIAL CORE & LODGING COMMISSION STREETSCAPE GUIDELINES 5:00 I. Roll call II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 1 5:10 A. 6ho w. Bleeker - Wheeler Stallard Carriage House Addition - Final Development .4 Q) p '/p - 5:30 he E. Hyman - Reide' s City Bakery (tabled from June, 1989) itt I LT]-0 4 8 - ) 6:00 C. 2Qo E. Main - HPC review of Modifications 4 ff %0064 V. NEW BUSINESS 6:10 A. ~49 W. Main - Public Hearing - Conceptual DBA.elopment,4 4 2 5100 Â¢ D 4Â©U - F, Aj Â¥ Yn A.1- au' n ~ na 6:45 B. 4*~ E. Hyman, Gallerie fu Bois, awning proposal, Mihor Development U C 7:00 C. 5JQ E. Durant, Beth O'Donnell Gallery, awning proposal-Minor Developmento 90/- AlME O b I /1/0, F,<dr sT... /11 inor VI1. COMMUNICATIONS 7:15 Request from staff to hold STUDY SESSION, March 7, 5:00-6:30. Topic: Slide presentation of National Park Service "Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards" and Project Monitoring Staff update of House Bills 1033 and 1104 and Senate Bill 66. Project Monitoring/Special Projects update ADJOURN by 7:45 V\. / .- j MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Final Development Review - Wheeler-Stallard Carriage House addition, 620 W. Bleeker Date: February 28, 1990 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for the addition to the carriage house, and an FAR variation in the amount of 140.5 sq. ft. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On October 18, 1989, the HPC reviewed the proposal to add restrooms and storage space in the form of an addition to the Historical Society's Wheeler-Stallard Carriage House. The Committee found the design incompatible with the parcel, and unanimously voted to table action, allowing the applicant time to restudy the proposal. On December 13, 1989, the HPC granted Conceptual Development approval to the revised proposal, with the following conditions to be met at Final: 1. Exact materials shall be represented 2. Landscaping plans, including walkway materials, shall be submitted 3. The foundation base shall be clapboard, not stone veneer as proposed 4. Fenestration shall be restudied on ground floor, east elevation. Conceptual approval was also granted for the 140.5 sq. ft. FAR variation requested by the applicant. STAFF'S COMMENTS: The applicant's request for Final Development approval meets the conditions of Conceptual approval. The changes are discussed as follows: 1. The east elevation windows have been restudied. Two small cottage-style windows are proposed, to allow light into each of the two restroom spaces. A circular window is centered between the two. The upper floor gable includes a set of moderately-sized paneled doors (newly proposed), to egress to attic storage space. We find these changes reasonable, and will allow the HPC to make the decision on the round center window. 4 2. The stone foundation has been eliminated; clapboard continues to the ground. 3. A landscape plan has been included. Staff feels this should be carefully studied by the HPC. Staff understands that AHS Board member, Fran Davies, is working with landscape architect Julia Marshall, which we strongly recommend. The opportunity exists to create an interpreted, living history example of Victorian landscaping with appropriate gardens and surface treatments. We feel that the natural elements of this house museum can be greatly enhanced with the guidance of a professional skilled in traditional landscape treatments. The basic landscape plan developed by the architect provides a good foundation to study traffic patterns, surface treatments, handicapped access, garden space, signage and furniture treatments. Concrete trimmed with brick is proposed. This may be the most appropriate material in this case, only if it is used creatively with ample brick, tinted softly and finished in such a way to mask its hard, suburban character. The walkways are very linear, with the exception of the west side nearest the house. Victorian gardens near the end of the 19th century were generally not as rigid and defined as earlier English gardens. Therefore, we feel that a restudy of the walkways is appropriate, to create a "system" of gently curving surfaces. We feel this approach will provide a character variation from the linear nature of the Wheeler-Stallard House itself. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval, and an FAR variation of 140.5 sq. ft., for the addition to the Wheeler-Stallard Carriage House, with the following conditions to be approved by staff and the HPC project monitor: 1) The large pine located closest to the proposed additional shall be preserved; should a relocation become necessary, an explanation letter from a landscape architect shall be submitted to staff for consideration. 2) The applicant work closely with a professional landscape architect skilled in Victorian landscape treatments, to restudy the pathways and surface treatments, and fully develop the landscape plan. memo.hpc.620wb.fd 2 CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN SUITE 301, ASPEN CO. 81611 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. WHEELER STALLARD HOUSE PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE ADDITION At this point in time, we are submitting a final set of elevations and plans for the proposed addition to the Carriage House. Drawn to scale, the new elevations reflect our proposed addition. The South elevation reflects an exterior entrance to the bathrooms, as well as two storage room doors. On the east elevation we have proposed a window for each bathroom. The Historical Society requested a door to the attic space so that they could store the canopies used at garden parties. We have added this on the East elevation, mimicking the windows on the gable ends. An attic vent above these doors was added to meet building code ventilation requirements. Materials will match those on the existing Carriage House and the plan remains the same as that presented at the December 13, 1989 H.P.C. conceptual review. Since there is excavation already required under the addition, we are proposing additional unfinished basement space which, down the road, will be used to house future historical archives. This will not increase the requested F.A.R. extension of 140.5 sq. ft. which we have already requested and will not raise the addition any further above grade. The location of proposed walkways is shown on the site plan. These new walkways will be concrete, bordered by bricks. If the pine tree near the proposed addition is endangered, it will be moved several feet to the East to ensure its survival. CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 570 FAST HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN CO 81611 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A. LA STALLARD CARRIAGE HOUSE PROPOSED BATHROOM ADDITION Request for F.A.R. Variance R-6 Zoning District within which the Stallard House lies allows 6298.0 sq. ft. The existing square footage of the Carriage House & Main House as estimated from exterior dimensions = 6,026 sq. ft. Proposed F.A.R. with 412.5 sq. ft. addition = 6,438.5 sq. ft. Proposed = 6438.5 sq. ft. Allowed = 6298.0 sq. ft. Variance in Sq. Footage Requested = 140.5 sq. ft. ci~wp50\work\8613.FAR ..:.W L - - 172.,71/1 . rr Â· t=12â‚¬;43*1*=/4=02 *. I IJ 1 1 P 1. 111 -9- - f -1 0 -4 11 i. 72*418:92*Ree=- 11 ' Ill 4Lly-8. . i + 6.0 . r. --994--- - -- hum#XY =1 . o ur V.6 14 BASEMENT PLAN . /~ . 1. -. ...0. 11&: ,. G. 0. '' ...0. C . - Ill Ill-- Â·Â·000 J ur -' - . . m . t I g .% 1 r 15/1/Â¥. ..... 86'/ TALfQ./0*U.. -5-TZ~)~:AA- _1 . ... C. . 1 CK* '. ~ 5 360=2.-,>IPE~â€¢â€¢NA- ft~~~ . 1/ L J Vt -wi=25. 1 . r * , SW'.. ' 10#29P Â¥.0. . /?C 0 -12_) w. 4-4,. - I--T :4-- - i. 15%14-rl,44 -STACIAgO 0 4 444),AAE:Â·.HaBES. MU*â‚¬u,4,- --- 0 +F'-3 Â£*42?mefer b./---famTâ‚¬- 0 , -- - i #%*4Â¢21 1 q 304 .uf#=< . T . 3 4 4 - I .1 0 I- . I. I .1 I . rl i . 1 r. It- . 4-_ - &11-- -â€¢ 1 1. . )44- -0-7' / - L.' ~ 1.---1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN /014 ~.. L .;I~~~94,10 -FJYi# 00/ 06\ 12 0~p~\1 CSUNS.9-7.- 2-Â» ' -Rii.7 iii /rTT-Â¥7-1. . â€ž 2914*44 46*. \A /#/1033*23*3:24% ---L //7 / Arl#Ard 46~1 42 / \34 1nl<\34 5Ea>k 4444444\1 fijatrijailw,kii 114 1 0 r liwl*Â¥-97--6- . --' LAA-GeApt, -f- <- -OUPWTABEP:1125142-7. 12,4.larlkk=r - BUILPIAJÂ« , 1 11 1 1 r' ' NORTH ELEVATION le. 12 I li- 4- 191Â£. , ..EVENT-- - 6â€¢4 Â»141,0,0 \ MAÂ¥014 Exwr. ,~11(114,2 H Ul"El N - -Arng-_ - 5-eg,6+r- -- ---- -1 .h - -11_ 4=07 - f\*43 F - 11 , 1 1 - ;*79;W 1 - 00 m , 001 1 ~ _apleems-1.4.6481} ~ --3- 0,24-ARAPE> TKI-tplo Wor . /.-- -- - - t . % r . 4 --- - EAST ELEVATION A 4-ft 00.000000.00 00.00.00.00 - 00 WETELEMAIM)N F lifillfillilrllihi~ll~ A- - ft:ly 1%De,*2- __-*_ -_ .-- /,#.4444444tk \ - zz*11*UPE, 021+4 -Â£6'4 [Im:~imal L -ku *ect -ro - -MA1Z44 Dd'/4. - - -- -Belk!4 -fl 7- -LkÂ»aAÂ·-EÂ¥~.A. --KINISH-1 - 54%Act c=**N lify _2'1, Npw - ~' . ' ~ci*VEWiK*7: Ta l -l I Il- - - -lt SOUTH ELEVAT-IQN SL 00 0-1 11.3 j il;) tj.1., WL+ lk,< r O -rn R.~f, 9 4 L v 4 6 1 'll I . 0 i 4 ' 4, 4 , 1 1 3-717.- -- - T, f I 1 ",111 111!i.1 1 ! C - 1 "Potte L ~ jlf~~ 44 ..h >1 APPITIâ€¢N 1.â€¢ r=n .'L i 1 ...... .. 1 :11 1 11--11 . ....1/ â€žA... -- - . ' ... /4 4 6 2 -- 11 '1/4 I. fl. rn. 1 - f C I N '.F........1/ 1 - - ~4&-it _- 47-4 4.> Â» 0 0 ~. 46.-4 . 9 f, 0 4, . L..94Â·E,=. liLi : I - $4-1 'ATIi,"11'.N 11 ... 46 1 - i 1 -4. ~:11- 1 k ' .1,1.ALK, - 1- Â». c,NT"41.1 oIl ' C) i 4,PÂ¢,4,1,â€¢t 1â€¢ W. ' S -7 I.'IN.I.~ ,iN..All 4 1 il~Â·* 423.<w-Â·-9 gl-~ - IN::if=12, '12\\. 11 . 1,% ..T L :-- 47 . k ' -- ~UÂ». n A -1 ---A/4 -. - f --- 419 -t:20 ,/1\\ --9- r..... - 1â‚¬l\\\W,(2 3 ~1-'~/4~</11:93 4719 --I . 0>/ 3 1 - v trm..r = 1 â€¢ lv&-/ - ~ Â·A # H ...; '71\ ' t4 . u- 1-E_ 6 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Final Development approval (Continued from June 28, 1989): 413 E. Hyman Ave., Reide's City Bakery Date: February 28, 1990 APPLICANT: Lis G. Sorensen, represented by Welton Anderson APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for the proposal involving partial demolition,, the construction of a second floor dwelling unit, and repair and restoration of the facade. (Note: The structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as one of Aspen's last remaining examples of one-story commercial clapboard architecture.) PROJECT MONITOR: To be assigned at this meeting PROPOSAL'S HISTORY: Conceptual Development approval was granted for the proposal on May 24, 1989, subject to a number of conditions. On June 28, 1989, the HPC reviewed the project for Final Development approval. A copy of that memo is attached to refresh your memories! Due to the number of outstanding conditions to be resolved, the HPC voted to table action, with the following direction given to ' the applicant for further study and consideration: ..A./k. i 1. Save the first--509 of the building 2. Preserve as much of the original material as possible; submit alternatives/discoveries to staff (for approval). 3. The second floor addition shall be no higher than presented 4. Rooftop design study and foundation information shall be submitted 5. All roof drainage shall be handled internally 6. Proper shoring for both adjacent buildings. (The adjacent neighbor to the west has complained about the historic building "leaning" on hers.) 7. Material (for the addition) should be _94=2~ (The applicant is proposing clapboard.) STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant now wishes to finalize the issues that caused the HPC to table action, and receive Final - Development approval. The applicant has not amended any plans since last June. The HPC should consider whether the issues raised last June remain as valid today. PRIMARY CONCERNS: The principal concerns may be summarized as: (1) the amount Of partial demolition necessary for the construction of the second floor dwelling unit, (2) design of the rooftop addition, including location, site lines, and materials, and (3) maintenance and drainage issues. Concern #1 - Partial demolition: During previous meetings in review of this proposal, the HPC and staff struggled with general preservation issues, in this somewhat unique situation. The only visible element of the structure is the facade. The walls are deteriorating, and the roof is in need of repair to eliminate drainage problems onto the neighbor's roof. The challenge here is to reach consensus on what constitutes "the building", subsequently, the percentage or portion to be preserved. Only the facade is visible, however, the original building does exist, merely hidden. Our underlying preservation goals are not to just protect the facade, but consider the building as a whole. The building as it currently stands cannot structurally support a second floor addition. The applicant proposes to retain the front 22' of the structure, and demolish the remainder to allow for new construction to support the second floor (which begins 22' back from the facade). The HPC's directive was to preserve the first 50' Of the - structure, as this appears to be the entire original section. Previous discussions suggested a variety of methods to preserve the side walls, including a complete resin-protective coating inside and out, with a new structural system built just to the inside of the existing exterior walls. Staff has spent more time analyzing the need for this extensive a preservation treatment. Last December, State Historic Architect Lane Ittelson, reviewed the site with staff, and we had an opportunity to fully discuss the issues. Our general consensus may be summed up as follows: A. We (all) agree the facade is the primary, character defining feature of the structure. The reason the structure is listed on the National Register is due to the rarity of the storefront, which must be preserved. B. "Facades", however, are not listed on the National Register - "buildings" are. And, buildings are not just dhells; their interiors are important, as well. This building's historic integrity (from a National Register perspective) has already been impacted, due to the removal of the original interior, and the cinder block addition to the rear. It may be argued that new, 2 compatible construction to the rear 2/3rds Of the structure will not impact its integrity significantly. C. It is highly unlikely that the exterior walls may ever be exposed again, however, to do nothing to maintain them would lead to complete deterioration and failure, negatively impacting the facade. Staff feels that the proposal to preserve the front 22' of the original building, (side walls) is reasonable in this~ circumstance. We feel that in tandem with the proposed/ foundation repair and floor leveling, that a wood preservative treatment may be applied from the inside to form somewhat of a moisture barrier - all of which may prevent further deterioration. Roof top design concerns (2): Previously, the HPC and staff were concerned that the proposed addition was too visible from the mall and the Wheeler Opera House. HPC members expressed further concern about the potential glare the south elevation glass skylight treatment might have. Staff feels that these concerns have been effectively met by the applicant's study of the south elevation. Materials: The applicant is proposing clapboard, as opposed to stucco as previously discussed. The reason stucco was agreed upon was to treat the surface of the expansion differently from the historic portion, and to provide a material that might be a simple, subtle treatment. The addition is to be painted to blend into to adjacent Roaring Fork building. Clapboard may also achieve a similar soft effect. Either one maybe appropriate. Staff defers to the HPC for the final decision on material. Maintenance (3): The applicant has loosely addressed the issues of maintenance, foundation repair, floor leveling and shoring. Staff recommends that the HPC project monitor review this work closely when work begins, bringing to staff's attention (for appropriate action) any significant findings or changes as they occur. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval, as proposed, subject to the following conditions: 1. The HPC project monitor review maintenance and structural repair work closely when work begins, bringing to staff's attention (for appropriate action) any significant findings or changes as they occur. 2. The HPC shall determine the major building materials of the second floor addition. memo.hpc.413eh.fd.2 3 fit &*reAC Â£ ----1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Review: 413 E. Hyman Ave., Reide's City Bakery Building Date: ~ June 28, -1989 LOCATION: 413 E. Hyman Ave., on the Mall ZONING: CC - Commercial Core, Historic District, designated landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places APPLICANT: Lis G. Sorensen, represented by Welton Anderson HPC Monitor: none yet assigned, to be assigned at this meeting APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval from the HPC for construction of a partial second floor dwelling unit, and the repair and restoration of the facade. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: Conceptual Development approval was granted for the proposal on May 24, 1989, subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of the two-stage addition shall be reduced by at least 12 inches on the first stage and at least 24 inches on the second stage so that neither can be seen from a point directly opposite at the north edge of the mall with a view point of 5' 6" from the mall surface. 2. Partial demolition shall include as little destruction of the original portion of the structure as physically possible. 3. The glare producing aspect of the south elevation glazing shall be mitigated by changing the angle to vertical. 4. Building materials used in surfacing the addition shall be "quiet" and non-matching with the historic structure. The materials should be compatible but non- duplicative, and be different in appearance to the original structure. 5. Foundation/Structural information be submitted detailing protection methods for the original structure, with a Performance Guarantee letter to be approved by Staff Attorney Fred Gannett. 6. Story poles, both parallel to and perpendicular to the facade, shall be erected on or before May 30, 1989. Horizontal definition of the entire proposed addition is required. Further, staff discussed with HPC the need to obtain an opinion from State Preservation Architect, Lane Ittelson, on the project as a whole. Discussion also focused on the need for a massing model, which is generally required on projects like this. STAFF COMMENTS: We feel that the applicant has met most of the conditions of HPC's conceptual approval, however, we feel that the height reductions are still not adequate to meet the intent of Condition #1. Condition #1. We have voiced and written our concerns for the addition of a second story to this small, one-story National Register commercial structure in the last two meetings when this project was reviewed. Our concerns remain the same: if the structure is visible from within the historic district and perceived to be an addition to the structure, then the proposal is wrong for this building. We have requested guidance from State Preservation Architect Lane Ittelson, who has responded verbally. His concerns are identical to staff's, however, he feels that while roof top additions are generally not approved for tax credit certification, this project may be close with additional modifications. As with all National Register structures, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are used in review. Standards #1 and #9 are applicable, which state: "Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use the property for its originally intended purposes." "Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural materials, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment." Staff has photographed the story poles, which are visible from within the mall, and are primarily visible from directly in front of the Wheeler Opera House on the corner. 2 We feel that further study must be accomplished to scale back the addition further, so that its impact, or perceived impact, is much lessened. Condition #2: Partial Demolition: After a lengthy discussion about the proposed partial demolition with Lane Ittelson, we are recommending that all original materials remain, with a new structural system built inside the middle, historic portion of the structure. The committee, staff and the applicant have spent some time discussing the reasonableness of retaining original materials that are not seen, and staff has come to the conclusion that a " facadechtomy" is NOT historic preservation. We are, therefore, requiring that all original materials be retained, repaired and preserved. "Facades" are not listed on the National Register, buildings are. It is reasonable to expect this structure may be de-listed if 80% (or more) of the original building no longer exists. For that reason alone, Staff cannot support any proposal to further remove any original materials. The preservation of existing fabric will need to be worked into the renovation plan. Condition #3: This condition has not been met by the applicant, who states that studies indicate glare will not be a problem, and that awnings will be used in the summer months to cover the windows. The HPC should consider if the applicant's arguments meet this condition of conceptual approval. Condition #4: Materials: Originally the applicant proposed stucco, then decided upon clapboard after some discussion with staff. After discussing HPC's concerns and the pros and cons of look-alike materials vs. new, quiet materials with Lane Ittelson, we are recommending stucco, which can be painted neutral to match it surroundings and in essence, allow the addition to disappear and become disassociated even more with the historic resource. Condition #5: Foundation/Structural Information and Performance Guarantee: We have received a structural report from Enartech, Inc. (Charles Peterson) that discusses the foundation plan of action. It also states the existing structure is inadequate structurally to support a second floor, which we expected. (The building wasn't constructed originally to support a second floor.) We do not support the engineer's request to demo historic portions, and feel that other alternatives exist, such as constructing an independent support system just within the existing walls. We have not received the required Performance Guarantee letter, required as a part of this condition of approval. Final Development approval should not be approved until such 3 document is submitted to staff and approved by the city attorney. Condition #6. Story poles were constructed, which staff photographed to request feedback from State Preservation Architect Lane Ittelson. (See Staff's response above to Condition #1.) ALTERNATIVES: Alternative actions the HPC may take are: 1. Grant Final Development approval for the proposal as submitted 2. Deny Final Development approval, finding that the application does not meet all of the condition of the Conceptual approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny Final Development approval finding that the following conditions of Conceptual approval have not been met. A revised Final Development application may be submitted at any time which meets the conditions of the Conceptual approval. Condition #1: Height of the second floor addition has not been adequately reduced to meet the criteria. Staff has spent considerable time on the mall studying the proposed addition, and with the State Architect: we feel that further reductions are necessary to mitigate perceived visual impacts to the historic structure. Condition #2: The demolition plan proposed leaves only a facade to "preserve". We cannot support this proposal, and strongly recommend that the HPC require the preservation of original materials, and clarify specifically this condition of Conceptual approval in motion form at this meeting. Condition #3: The applicant has not met this condition of the Conceptual Approval. HPC should consider his arguments and restate this condition accordingly. Condition #4: After further study, we agree with the applicant's first approach to materials: stucco, painted to blend in with the surrounding structures. The current proposal is for clapboard, which does not meet HPC's condition of Conceptual approval. Condition #5: Structural information has been submitted, however, the Performance Guarantee letter, requiring City Staff Attorney approval has not. This shall be submitted to staff and approved prior to a Final Development approval being granted. memo.hpc.413eh.fd 4 Ar 4* reRCe 0% , HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE 1~ ~ Minutes of June 28, 1989 x Charlie: It would be appropriate to have the fence on the old -0 property line. 000000 -=...0- ~- 413 E. HYMAN, REIDE' S CITY BAKERY 1 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner presented the over- view of the project as attached in records (memo dated June 28, 1989). Roxanne: Conceptual Development was approved subject to conditions. Upon our review we have found that a number of the conditions have not been met and we are recommending denial. The motion was made that if the roof top addition could not be seen from directly across the street at a view point of 5'6" high that it would be appropriate. I stated at that time that it was not appropriate as it was still seen at an angle from the mall. The state architect agrees that it is visible and it does need to be reduced in height and pulled back considerably in order to be approved for a tax project. Condition #2 The demolition plan only leaves a facade to preserve and that is not historic preservation. Condition #3 was the rear glass, that it not be slanted and the final application does not address that. Condition #4 was on materials and we are recommending stucco which was the applicants first selection. Condition #5 was the performance guarantee which needs to be submitted. I had talked to Georgeann Waggaman and her concern was that any addition put on any part of the original historic building she would not approve. The state architect has concerns with an addition to a one story commercial building and the visual perceptions of that. Bill Poss stated that he is not opposed to a second floor addition but he feels it needs to be stepped back and reduced in height. APPLICANT RESPONSE Mrs. Angie Griffith, owner of property on 411 E. Hyman. When the roof was originally put on it was a gabled roof and then later on a roof was put on to catch water etc. and it leaked over onto our roof and we kept replacing roofs due to leaks and drainage. I don't want any other roof problems and that building is attached to my building. They called it a temporary roof. Charlie: Where does your roof drain. Angie: To the back of the building. Welton Anderson, architect: We intend to have the drainage to the center into a dry well. 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 28, 1989 Welton: condition #1 was that the addition not be visible from directly across the mall and it was reduced a foot and is not visible. It may be visible from the Wheeler or Popcorn wagon but ti e westerly portion of the mall was not considered by the Committee at that time td be important for two reasons: When you get to the west you begin to disassociate the story poles from what is happening down below. It becomes difficult to tell which penthouse is on what building. The second is the possibility of development to the west, adjacent structure. I feel this condition has been met. Discussion of view planes. Charlie: The first 50 feet are original on the structure. If the addition is going to be behind the old building and still ' stair step up it probably will remain visible from down the street. Welton: We have reduced the second step up by two feet to lessen the impact from the west. Welton: Condition #2 The west and east walls are exposed to air and moisture and are 3 inches from the adjacent property. We could dismantle the walls and dig new foundations and reassemble ~ the walls and treat them with a finish. That will allow us to get at the 3 inch space between the buildings and repair the siding. Roxanne: My concern is if it is disassembled will it ever go back up. Charlie: It's a tough call. You are going to tear off a roof and probably will not go back to a gabled roof due to drainage and you will probably find no studs under the walls and will have to replace half the clapboard. Then you have to bear the expense = of putting the walls back together and cladding them, put a gabled roof on and a flat roof over top of it. Welton: Possibly leave the facade and replace everything from there back. Charles: It was built as a facade with an enclosure behind it. Welton: Our first proposal was to leave the first 21 feet as it is and with new construction address the problem. Charlie: The applicant wants to have the second addition forward. We have to decide where the addition should go. 5 t,SIU HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 28, 1989 Charles: From a construction point of view it makes sense to replace everything behind the facade. The building code will require that there be a 1 hr. party wall at the property line so you will not see anything. Joe: What does the Dept. of Interior Standards address. Welton: They talk about significant historical, architectural or c: 1tural materials. These walls have not been significant since 1949. Roxanne: You also have-to consider that facades are not listed on the national register. We need to try and save the original materials. Nick: We should be concerned about preserving the facade in the front. The addition should not be visible from anywhere. Joe: I would like to see as much of the original structure preserved. Charles: A good comprcmise would be to keep as much as possible of the original front and change everything behind it. Do a site review when it is opened up and then do a final determination. Charlie: My feeling is we have 50 feet of an old building that we should try to save and the addition should go on behind it and if the hardship becomes too critical after an inspection then we should consider whether or not it should be demolished. Welton: Condition #3 was glare on the window and that it be reduced. Applicant presented the Board with the sunis angles duzing the year and it was determined that there would be no glare during the skiing season. Welton: On condition #4 we will be glad to use stucco. Condition #5 We will provide a letter that meets the approval of the City Attorney in form and content. Condition #6 has been met. Nick: The consensus is that we just don' t want to ha' e a facade and preserve as much as the building as we can. Charles made the motion to table 413 E. Hyman. Charlie -s-~MYfm- All approved. Conditions and direction for applicant: 1. Save the original building, first 50 feet. 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 28, 1989 2. Save as much of the original materials as possible and bring any discoveries to staff. 3. No problem with the addition as it is as long as it isn't any higher than presently shown. 0 fil Review final solution of the roof and foundation. 5. All roof drainage to be dealt internally. ; 6. Proper shoring for both adjacent buildings. 7. Stucco for material. Nick: I don't have a problem with the height or the addition. Ro>:anne: Redesigning of the addition is appropriate. LANDMARK DESIGNATION 0 E. BLEEKER STREET MOTION: Joe made the tion that we recommend landmark designation for 100 E. Bleeke . Charles second. All approved. 706 E. MA STREET Roxanne: This building is rate #1 and it will become the 100th | designated structure. Joe stepped down. MOTION: Nick made the motion o recommend landmark designation for 706 E. Main Street. Charlie cond. All approved. 432 W. FRAN S STREET Charles stepped down. Roxanne: After recalculat'on the applicant needs a 4 inch variation on the rear yard se ack. Donnelley Erdman has already reviewed it. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant the 4 inch variation on the rear yard setback of 432 W. F ncis Street. Charlie second. All approved. RFTA ENCHES Charles was reseated. Roxanne: What RFTA is presentin i not appropriate and we need to have a joint meeting with C C, HPC and RFTA. The benches will be placed in the Main Stre Historic District. 7 -1-L 6 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 200 E. Main - Modifications to Final Development Plan Date: February 28, 1990 Staff will present the changes that have taken place on-site since the HPC granted Final Development approval. Project Monitor Joe Krabacher, and Bill Poss, have reviewed the project on site. A meeting held with the applicant, architect, contractor, developer, staff, HPC and the Building Department revealed a number of window changes have taken place without prior approval. The HPC is being asked to take action at this meeting on the modifications that have been incorporated by either 1) approving the changes, or 2) requiring that the applicant comply with the fenestration plan as previously approved. ' 91 4 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 430 W. Main.- Public Hearing Date: February 28, 1990 LOCATION: 430 W. Main St., Lots K, L, and M, Block 37, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Glenn A. Beck, represented by Theodore L. Mularz, architect APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for exterior renovation to the following elements of the historic landmark: Front Porch removal and historic reconstruction East elevation side porch and handicapped entrance Rear Porch removal and reconstruction Roofing Landscaping / sidewalk ZONING: "0" Office, Main Street Historic Overlay district, Designated Landmark EXISTING CONDITIONS: No increase in FAR is proposed. No variations are requested. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code, and are reviewed below (staff's comments follow): 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: Planning staff finds that the proposal generally meets this standard. We are recommending further study be done on sidewalk/landscaping treatments, and porch details (See staff's response to Standard #4), for Final Development review. We also are recommending a detailed description of the number and location of windows slated for replacement rather than repair. 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. 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: We find that the cultural value of the structure will be enhanced with the removal of the existing porch entry and the addition of a more historically appropriate porch. The preservation and maintenance of the entire building also enhances its cultural value. 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: A standard rule in historic preservation is "do not add decorative elements that cannot be documented". Guideline VI.I - Porches (page 57) states this clearly. Staff does not support the level of detail proposed for the front porch, for two reasons: a) The porch design cannot be documented b) The details were copied, or closely borrowed, from a neighboring porch located in the next block. We have found no documentation that this porch is original, and it appears to be not be. Therefore, while its form might serve as a basis for the Beck porch, its detail cannot. The architectural integrity of this structure is found in its simplistic, vernacular form. We are recommending a restudy of a simpler porch to compliment this vernacular character, possibly smaller by one foot on either end. The existing air lock/front porch appears to be a later addition, and seems somewhat out of character. However, its flared roof form mimics somewhat the flare of the small east elevation projecting bay. No historic documentation has been found to determine the size and detailing of the porch. We find that the minor changes in roof form dealing with porches does not negatively impact the character of the structure. Summary: We would like to commend the applicant on the spirit of the proposal, and the applicant itself. Staff supports the direction the applicant is taking in this basic renovation 2 proposal. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: -__- 1 - Approve the Conceptual Development as submitted. - 2. Approve the Conceptual Development with conditions, to be met at Final Development review, such as: a) Restudy the front porch for simplification b) Restudy of the sidewalk, landscaping and handicapped entrance tissues 6 44 11 d) Submit information on exact materials and details on window restoration and replacement 3. Table action to a date specific, to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance form the HPC is a revised proposal. 4. Deny Conceptual Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for 430 E. Main, with the conditions as stated in Alternative #2 above. memo.hpc.430wm 3 Â¢4 79= .=Â¢= HPC REV IEW * ./ ILâ€¢~............... Â£.....r,Â£3 .2 :.Ell- . ' - 1 t'*W' tls J 4 . U <41Â· ---1- 4 e.â‚¬2 - ---------- =mt j ... J J J .... . 196%: - - Â· - - - - - ' ' ~ ' j j .# 51.21111- . A --- : 314* tkit.. 'Â¢Â¥91% â€¢M .. ' - ' 1 C A .r 1 - . 4 . 17% Â¥ ...4.' MIl . C. 19 . 2, 1 -7 ........ .:'h :21-44. .... ..... I . It..310 ' ,./ l;r,i. 1 -1 e. , .. I I .4 lit - , f va, I â‚¬. 413 - ... t>. - 34 beck residence /office 430 west main street, aspen, colorado -444,..4 1 ~ 9* 'fil..4 4 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) PROJECT NAME: Beck Residence/Office 2) PROJECT LOCATION:_ 430 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots K,L,M, Block 37, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado 3) PRESENT ZONING: "O' Office 4) LOT SIZE: 90'X100' 5) APPLICANT'S NAME ADDRESS & PHONE #: Glenn A. Beck, P.O. Box 1102, Victorville, California 92392, Tel. 619 245-3477 6) REPRESENTATIVE'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE #: Theodore L. Mularz, FAIA, Architect, P.O. Box 166, Aspen, Colorado 81612 7) TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD >< Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condominiumization Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line GMQS Exemption Adjustment 8) DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING USES (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq.ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). The existing structure encloses 2,168 square feet (gross square footage) which includes a 161 sq.ft. enclosed rear porch. It is a two storey frame structure with Living/Dining Room, 2 Kitchens, 5 small bedrooms, two full baths, and enclosed front and rear porches. 9) DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: It is intended to replace the front porch, which was not a part of the original house, with an open porch in character with the house and more reflective of house porches built at the time of original construction. In addition, a handicapped ramp must be added, as required by code for an office occupancy, a side porch, added for access to the second floor will be removed and the stair upgraded internally to meet code, the front entrance on the east side will be reopened, and the rear porch rebuilt as shown in the drawings accompanying this application. 10) THE FOLLOWING ARE ATTACHED: X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for this Application - January 18, 1990 BECK RES IDENCE/OFFICE 430 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO REVIEW STANDARDS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Beck Residence was recently dedicated by its owner, Glenn A. Beck, to be designated by the City of Aspen as a historic structure worthy of preservation. Mr. Beck, a native of Aspen, spent his childhood days growing up in this house. It is Mr. Becks intention to upgrade the structure both internally and externally and change its use to that of an office building as shown in the Design Development Documents which accompany this application. The specific areas of exterior development which have been addressed are as follow: 1. Remove the existing shingle roof, which has deteriorated, leaks, and lacks adequate insulation, and replace it with a new shingle roof. 2. Remove the existing enclosed front porch, which evidence shows was not constructed as a part of the original structure, and to replace it with an open porch similar in detail to the porch constructed on the house located at 333 West Main Street which is a part of the original structure. (See photos of both houses in Appendix to this report.) The Beck house front facade is similar to that of the 333 West Main Street house, located only one block away, and the porch details will be compatible. 3. Re-open the closed east side entrance door (which faces south) adding a ranw for handicapped access as required by code for office occupancy. The original door opening was closed and replaced with a window. 4. In the recent past a separate entrance was created on the east side for access to the second floor. A small porch and steps were constructed and a door added which opened onto the second floor stair at the stair winders creating a hazardous situation. The porch and exterior steps, which are unattractive, will be rernoved and a small enclosure for a revised and safer interior second floor stair added. (See drawings) 5. The rear porch, probably added to the house after its original construction is in extremely poor repair and will be reconstructed in the same footprint and configuration. When built, the house roof was extended down over the porch creating a very low headroom on the porch. In the reconfigured porch the roof will be constructed independent of the house roof and more reflective of porch roofs at the time this house was constructed. 6. Repair and/or replace windows so they are operative for ventilation. 7. The interior will be reconfigured as shown in the plans. Although a historic structure, the interior doors, trim, and detail are very simple and plain. Allis presently painted. The trim lacks the kind of craftsmanship found in other more elaborate houses of the period. BUILDING MATERIALS Existing exterior building materials will be restored where possible, however, where existing materials are found to be deteriorated beyond restoration they will be replaced with like materials, ie.: wood trim and bevel siding. EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT Of the proposed minor development perhaps the most significant is the removal and replacement of I the existing covered front porch. However, removing the existing porch and replacing it with one much more in character with the period will be a marked improvement to the house. Other minimal modifications will have only positive impact on the house, its appearance, and historic value. As a result, the Review Standards can all receive positive responses, ie.: a) The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with developrnent on adjacent parcels. b) The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. c) The proposed development enhances the cultural value of the designated historic structure located on the parcel d) The proposed development enhances the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure. Consequently, the proposed development is in keeping with the HPC guidelines adopted by the City of AMpen. Submitted by, ~ 2702.6- Theodore L. Mularz, FAIA TLM:t Beck Review Standards Page 2 <"----t~Z-~~7--*~~--~------ 0~~~ i 9 -.........../....I--t: 5:./9-66---*-5- 04 - 4 -7 ., A L Â£542 #4, â‚¬ C , 1.1 1 3, N. .1- 4. - . J. . "> odIEW A r-, a,21 --- - ./1 ./49 -I - 7.- - 5%Â£t -4. 77 ' . 771%4. . 43* 17, ...: I - t" 4 . T ... I -r . .4, -- 1420. --g -- ' Â£ 5-/21.2...-.... 526* < 27 i .11,"6/FF//6241 .1 ,p 52 ,%..al' , Lt& Â·39: Aer-El+FRANCE - 0501< - ----------------- --------~ - 0. 1 .1- - h. . 11 i .. /1 44,11. -8. .,1 'w.'111-7.' ..11& .1 '11' 9, . U.X h L I . < ALL/.C L NA.-u.. A A 'â€¢t./.'â€¢'i . â€¢ P-446Â·-Lul-LuLL-Â·--LULLL,LUL'v--LuLLCLi- Â· ~ ,~ cuLULLULÂ»UUU-ULLLÂ·vuLL/LAILL**LL~-4-~.~- A . . 1 . - 1-1 -- 1 filigililit -/'; 11", 3*-I....+:./. ./.7//:.<12<talillammir- 2 1 I ... 5-. K .......#+ P~r,-- - 29.~h,it.i~:j: . tc 66*&4{ A=.:=p-ravv- ,â€¢40 .:-Ar>4. ~: U. 42%*-Â·41.4 ' , - N ,Â« / ~-i*41;Â»2 a~/274'r â€¢b ./...../i,/- I#.- 41#4-1- MiACADIE â‚¬0 1*<LK FE)1231-1 - EpEÂ£31< i - . -- --, .. â€¢ ~L - , ..../-./.--,-- I#------ -- - -e -22=Jur ...1.... ==24:- 3.3 . 3/".1.----FLE,73:lirl-/--'" -4 - 479.2.9 I.---,g -Lizb-. 655.1 . ..4 - -, ....-t -f/Ser-Â·..70'.-I.-2 ' _ .4 :14&%=7:Alfj ~.V - > r I - . -I..........L - . .... -Ill ...I- I. . 4 I 6- - N t..el.Â· Â·1."WI'./4/ 4.44,2 .4.:-2-/-/7---16: t.Â·*4901Â§~'- 4-/.t-r//1.'..............3 -/ r--3/fig...&&--#-4-2..., . â€¢ Â· . 11% ~' 4 I M7r--.rt Â¥' -97% . r -7. .t~ --,- Â·42,--u: 0/-3- 4#Â·Â· 07.Â· c & ' x â‚¬=22 - . - t.\' 4\ *U- 1 -t * u 't.2- a.. - 7 '<4â€¢ 4 i .. 9, 7 111 _* . 'fOR ~l<7 eÂ¥ .- Nt . . ' 93*2*R,jilial/tif~.4/1/E -. f .7 1 . r.% 1,4/ ... 1 - _.9 t m. ..14* - . Â· Â·Â·tc,tes#List<42*tilâ‚¬1*ft{ t:Xix:44/25? - ./ ....- - 9.v *.'AwkwlÂ·C~ ~D 02 :' ' - - - - -Â·""-'a,**L~ZF.F<*Q:T+Ja~:~#~0 e.9Â»fi-Â·- 40.....&: ..-ES)ilifiv' frip/L,5-*3I v.0. 0- ...94~~44 . 0 b'*fiI rÂ·/rf Â£-4 1Â¥4,?Spy, I , , . It.7, .*4 4 Â·fR,2--- 96 b Â·'14 :.76*.I .. .,7 0 14. 4 / +Gr Â· 4,- '44 -S f.4. r' ,- 1 ~ L J 1 4 4 p. .*..ic .2Â· . 5 . ..... 9 4 4 11. . Hill,1.11â€ž*Il, t 4 -0 e..f-1 -- . --' - A I-. ..â€¢-E - p.% . $ #ridy--'- h r- N , . . ' -â€¢ F-Â¥21~ I -4 t.rÂ· . ,- 1-I- - 1- . ..t< H . ---- 4. .- , -r : ..6 .- . --- e rle#-1- FDKO-1 633 W. 1.*414 Â«1-. /, *. 4. 1 . - 4 #tr=bÂ· Â· 4 401 - ' .... in. D e X. 6. I - V.9..r.,1. ... . . Â·'trli 1 <4 2 /14 : iÂ· Â·'. -I: Â· ' I . ..4/..:.-:*./.'.'* .4. *' *Â·~ I t. + E i _ - 4%-A, , Ii)~, 'tÂ·* 4 I 53 . 1 5 M.IMME.E.E........ X.22,_?, e-: k -03 9 1.* & , 4 - - -pe -'. /M PIQPN-1- Â·FEBE.1-1 32,314. MAIN er 4 . .j, .4'4 ~p. A:..(. c 4Â·j-3:: râ€¢ --/ r I . S Â£3Â·V 1 .-3' 10Â· W-- Â·7' 3 / t 3.,te i D . ,~*y< i : A .: .r.f*17' dc. ./Â»4 ~-3-â€ž:.F.21-'DU 2..44.'- 1.-2... t ..1 , 1 f r A. 27-. 714- Â· : i Â·N>64-2 8.4-47, , ,tiL 4 924 2 2: Ex - 5- 0.,.,..w-Â· Â·Â·.h,3Â¥A44*-0â€ž t r 144 4 - A i Â·-4 21:1'Xy:-Â·,u, 4. 1.te"'4. : Immillmm lum mm m mmi.. .... 1 2 t .5 , -r 24* I ./4/r -- :Fi<~HT fZpt= H 533 kl. MAIN â‚¬5-E . .... j-R45.ff" ......1 4 - 4.vt-' Â· â€¢ d. . i.i . ~ - 3.f. fk:VÂ£2\9*1/al.*.:../A&:iÂ·...:. i 11/11111// I. '*.. hz.v*%3Rr $41 6,24'55 : :bi:i ,1,IIlilllI -4-Ali: --4;,i. /44. '.-:. :. ~ 0 A t*........ b ..4 - 'Â·9 4-â€¢ 4 25: v. '1: -- A.-:,4.v: -.#24 u *.1. . Â·Â· E i. m - .1 1 , h e 1 -Id ' I i I 1- 'r#' *Â·3.--6/Â£ 4 . r Â·Â·Â·9-4- ~224:!A 'Zi~'; .- 14,2,2~1 1 - I - .1 6 2-/ - 6 I FNAIT FZPKE,1-1 Vel-Al L 350 N. MAI N *T 0.-t â‚¬ .. THEODORE L. MULARZ & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE PLANNING $@%0640% 9 February 1990 BECK RESIDENCE â€¢ OFFICE / 430 WEST MAIN ST. ASPEN, COLO. HPC SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THE FOLLOWING ARE RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY MS. ROXANNE EFLIN IN A LETTER DATED JANUARY 30, 1990 1. What is the existing FAR/square footage? Interior house area, including the first floor rear porch is 1,915 square feet. (Please see Sheet X1.2) Lot area is 9,000 square feet. Present FAR = 1915/9000 = 0.21:1. Included in the square footage is total floor area on the second floor where in some places the ceiling slopes to perimeter walls which are as short as 3'-6". Consequently the 0.21:1 FAR ratio is excessive and certainly cannot be exceeded since spaces where ceiling heights are less than 5'-6" are normally considered sub-standard. 2. Is any enlargement in FAR/net leasable taking place? No enlargement of FAR/net leasable area is taking place at this time but remains a consideration for the future as new construction on the same parcel, as allowed by zoning. 3. Is the "shingle" roofing material wood? The present shingle roofing material is wood and will be replaced with new #1 red cedar shingles to retain the same texture and character. Insulation will be added to upgrade the roof to current standards as closely as possible. 4. Are you requesting any variations from the HPC, such as parking or setbacks? No variations are being requested from HPC related to parking, setbacks, or any other requirements that we am aware of. P.O. BOX 166 ASPEN,COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-3365 Beck Residence / Office Page 2. HPC Supplemental Information 9 February 1990 5. From what historic source have you based the design of the proposed porch? Have your researched the Historical Archives for historic photos of this house? Ms. Christie Kienast has performed a very thorough investigation of the existence of photos of this house, especially as related to the front porch. (Please see letter from Kienast, attached.) The porch proposed will be built as closely as possible in detail to match the porch, on a similar existing facade, of the house located at 333 West Main Street. The condition of materials of the 333 West Main house, as well as the details, indicate this porch was built at the same time as the original structure. (Please see photos submitted with the application.) 6. What changes in landscape are taking place? Does the "concrete sidewalk" indicated on the site plan already exist? Minimal changes are being made to landscape. The sidewalks shown on the site plan do exist from the city sidewalk to the existing porch steps and on the west side of the house. (Please compare "Site Plan" with "Survey" sheet #Xl.1) Some or all of the existing walks may be replaced if further inspection finds them defective or hazardous. To be added is a sidewalk around the southeast corner of the house from the main entrance walk to the old closed east entrance which will be opened. Several overgrown lilac bushes will be relocated to allow this entrance to be used once again. 7. What preservation vs. restoration activities are proposed, and for what elements of the exterior? The roof shingles will be replaced as noted and the house repainted. Any rotted siding and trim will be replaced with matching pieces. Should wood windows be found to be rotted they too will need to be replaced with new ones identical in size and character to the original. Other than normal "maintenance" work such as this no other preservation or restoration work in anticipated. The house is in relatively good repair. Beck Residence / Office Page 3. HPC Supplemencal Information 9 February 1990 8. Is any excavation anticipated for foundation/structural work? No excavation is anticipated unless, per my conversation with Ms. Eflin, Mr. Beck decides to relocate the house to the corner lot where it will have greater prominence and visibility. At this writing such a decision has not been made for consideration. Submitted by, Theodore L. Mularz, FAIA TLM:t ~D-ll'~rA -2, E-Vâ„¢rn,?~-0 , lrty-, -yâ‚¬Â¥- O U Nfl .Â¥-73** ,e, *Y=TroW ' CA 014-1 -Â¥D - 019--3 53 -n- UN~7 -ne n-Â»96 5VrÂ¥30-*i) --0 1% *Un-t:Dxtu .9-0 ng-* 4..,n-Â·r,Â·~9Â¥Â¥-rxj F-n-,3 0.4 -03.5..0 -5-Â¥-3.-CHY \-en/- -Bj- 773 . \.n= a -Â»3% 5727 7--s**)71 Â» 3(47 -Â»ju --YQ (JF,.5-9 -Â»-j h .-ror vrn-->Â¥-a -36. --yÂ¢6-na x v)_t \cpu ' 06 prn, : 9034 %91 , ..<A 8.-4- , -7>5-&.".& (3V'DED) 0 ...N-3 ~/O ~,7-nÂ·Â·Â·*00-,.*L_A CO-Â© ~-Â·,-A nfs- O>-13-3-t 8-u PEDFO) a.9-Â»1 U Â¢0 -Â©1 -anÂ»Q N -VE -6-) , 9 -a invil 0 6 61 ' 9 4.' â„¢J-Â¥-Lh C:\ 2. 4 R "57; 1. 'a,/1 2-19 097 INY-lel U Col =L 1 SE Icl Â·i 1Â«1 & f ' T '1â€¢ a: *4 4 -1 !Â¥L 003 ~2 Od hA EM Q eul 4 3-1 1 11-NE 11 1 g ..4~i A fn liNgo -,--, .5-1=*1/ .... I ./ . ,/....Â»Ill.VIL......... 1 ~ 1 Nuuâ€¢*$ --~ - ' 11-r< E A,Cl.1-c:;232&1 i L _494 i o.i i Â·p,i 1.1 . th. r 0 11 11 0- Ne)'74 Â»NUet>* f 1~ - N CLL 3PÂ«Le MaN -17=3~M-111,4=-- 'hcuz}- /: t b 11 li It hl I 1 / 1 1 EDIN.:GO -31 2.Di-=6=40 - - *-#TH-Â·- D--.==-...& 54 -3.454 , 11- ,-..rÂ·.Â·-,1~ 1-4~-Â·i~-Â· Â· in-2... , .....7--..:.Â¥ ./,1 1 - .Â·i... - 5 r i'Â·*-2-7 -6 -inrâ‚¬;Â·20'W. Â·Â·Aw 1 11 2 -- 1,1 IJ r HO blocl , ATTIC U 1â€¢: C:*14-31 :#Mme/tkILL:i.Aq:I*bwi:Skir 5 --9 IA#:*:94-9Â«.-:**fi*:,d,144#"14/*44'185%44aifM . -'-_<Er U= 1 .) 14====7 TO I LE Lf/O kl G Et - STONAZ, 5 ~ 9-A Fes =b. i 1 V b I C--3 4-7 11 3. IF / 1/ 21 12------ OFFICE. OFFICE ----71 1 1 11 \ AT-ric lu 11 ATTIC oFFICE ATTI. C , | t-- ~*bt&e -e,qtrÂ· '-WALL -LEGE.K.1 D 1 .1 1 Â»dÂ«-1 kb WALL TO REMAI A 11 . \141 /1 11 N s\W fERÂ«\.dALL 41 wo, arljo 9< Rocr Z:EL.O.4 2 ----- 125Hovs. 2-x~trr- Â¥14*Z-, DE COKID FLOOR PLAN! SCALE 1/4 u ., I '-O' LENTFT,3 1 Â·576'0'fills - --- i 40 i j- f Xf J 1 1 KI I 1 1 11 ji 1 1 ---- 1 -20 &4(5-------- kitr \ frr 1 ne 1 IN /1 1 1 c 1 1 = 1 4 ix ) c~ -1 - 1 1 4?L .. 1 1 1Â»1"I" 1 trru I 'l~ / Pt A \\ /2# l------1 4 S - - _ -1 10 ,-L - t-- 3 - f 1. I. 0 11 - 2 3-r- 6475*09'11"W - 90, CD --- -4 . er S ID EWALIC '' , jÂ·'23:92-,4'-f :3 1-Â·.* Â·44.,kÂ·.~ 4.:Â¥,1.&4#2*~.~.~p~~-~=~*3 2,~.f~d,~ff--~%.4.~~.dfi#-~,4.-~.Â»jic#Â»fi~-tÂ·f*.25.~~.~~4~~ - -Ii-* I--0 - ,. . , STREET M>i./'t . S L Ch 4, f 1 - i ' a Â»Â·l I Â»l 41 1 - >01 V :9 /LL - - 1 /*te =:juind '4*2-_2_..- 1, ~ 4, ~ *4%Â·k...41 41.6 -E-KItT 4, I _-&,2m,st,~83*â„¢3*&*agmet t 4 4/' teoor EN27-*id NE 2314 -023 411 - --- rest V f 1 ... 4- r ., 1 /. / I An- 1 f 4 ------- - ~ --62,0-3 - 821 *%24-2 -- - - ~2- 1 37936 - .1.1---4/ - - ---- ---- W - 0----r- -- &.1 - -- -- - --- 1 'Nt, I -& I --- - - --1-- ---- :IL 1 --- - _ _ 1/- 4 beemi-iz , 7-L--4 ---Er----7--2' -141- -r -- - ......1..... ---- -- ---. ------- ---1 -1.---4 ------- 1 1 -1 J-z.tEEl 7==---0.-f--.--d12{ Til~.. ~ 111 â‚¬/Dti f k -- 1( 1 Y Y 1--1.'FJ~~/r K IlL. 7-/4 12- â‚¬ 21 r 3 -1.1.-plf t.,9 - -il , < AAKIDI CAP MÂ»IF N-lTD 1*d L TD 1 Ex I tyr Â«TAIR TO : ?..1 Jt>W tel~1-T-K-r /DE REMOVED ' 4.39, Rit -, E--AS-r ELEVATION 2441= 1'01 ..~.241 ,-111.. '1 I INC.1393 .fi..Â·::' ~ :: ~ r. 1111 Irl. 61Â¢1 , â€¢24 t~b.t 1 11.1/' 44 i.lif :i j, I .F.. it.:t ' 1*, 4, ~r.7 ., >Lf F71 UÂ® ~ i }T- I n// 1-1, fe P // 1 i f A'' 4\~ /57 41% '~ IAYFAIi#N','- -:- ' 1' - .--- Â».feâ€ž6- ill Th13 1 4--7---W-------/ - -77-- - Rd , __ _. i 1 l NAMRÂ·RootÂ»644Â»613 =-- -- - {-1 -- 3.22 ---- ------IM-)Ii----1---IS.--I - . .A I 11- . -191Â·11-1- rlÂ° -- ---- --- - ----------- --- ---- --r--1 /11.11 - _ - . -- -- 1 Ell LA.11 _ 5- X L-Â·Â·442 1 2,2 32- 94 - r Â»4. _1-4 It'L .Â»91 7 - FW Â»f 7- r u-.r-2-19<199L51,60-AN 1-4 1/4 'DUA OVE ST ELEVATION 44' . #toi -4 *: h:59 44 141- 4 '41. / - 11-6 44 /7 I 12> 90, 11 1 L L l L h. I ~<ULLT.Â»>1Â«11- U 19 /1., /34 -2-121= 47(.ILl [dhol /9 -222=-L=- HH[3 BBE~ ..7-4.-FR~ 1,1 r ~El'l 771(7 1 ... 1 r 1 611.11 1.1 1( r C i 'r I (TrG,j ---Â· /1~ 4+F I C l.11[1111(1(11. g I 2-fill. ---,2â‚¬==yEr-2-eoe~ae~*~1 Ki-2-(7/711\11 4, 1 1 2 1.& 0 ---- 1 .-- ' 1- Li \ 1 1.11 ill\ Â¢1 4Â£3(t------==~ adz 1 11/.0 Incs**Px-Il --1-9-m=7â€¢ E/-- . a ER. . Â». I) -2---U------7-LE-2- ----2- If 1 *jir %11 . 3 4 -- 11 1 [pt;- .. - "11 263 ifEEEJ I _,4 ---1 -.. ".i. --- ---1 . 1 11 2-- - -- s- 1==-=Â·=11 0 --- 424\1 _1L -cr-23) f 022 it ! 'tky, t -(1 / f . 1-34 i ,Â·ti, SOUTH E LEVATION i f 1.5/1, c 1/41 -15 011 - 49, i 1.449., 1 -I '0 1.1.11 1- 14 14 1 1 7 ' I 'firit, . ,1 1 lilililli 11 U n. 1 / 1,&19 1 &11 , Alf . 1<.3 / \\\ 11 1,--- Czz@ '0332 , Ap /111110 , 14. 4- ~ 1 -1 ~ 1111111 J / 11.m lillil + Â¢ 2 1111!111 - IHEE--1 jillilli 8- 1 h'111, . 111,11,1 1 lt'iti'I IpÂ£320-1 1 -4-<115 nou : 144'1'll IL.....1 '-brdrk 1000 111111,11 -- C Fi A _ - Â¥140-1, 1200-1 11|111,1 16,-1 1,1 , 1 ' /21 11 11 --7 J 15~44 j r--*-Ii lilIL-t iALul.L -r - -T ' U lEi 11 11 1-4 4.11 - 0 -1-1 -ill-' 21 0 -2 Iii!dpi lili 1 11- 1 MI (0 4 L ~ r-~-- L 1% 1 -- I V 13 9 1 11 11-r[~1Â» FIr- 3%1 ./ . , 7 *TY ' 0 2 !2 Of $ 1'.:, bÂ¢~ 01 e J :I - %11 - -Un 3â€¢.I Cle; 0Â«1 11-1 8 1 1.5 Ditf: 1 7 0 04 M ie rl *ew ' ' t.... .. ' 44 â€¢ 1 ~.__L Jj, m. 7 -rr -7- '. 4 ili 9 r===:=:i Ij' f 11 111 III I fli }! 1 1 -1 0 - 1\ A -11 *j i~! i ! 4 14 f lillit,1 i 1-=.-- 1 1- !1,1 tz=g litiltlti - 18114.111 -L-===31~ 1~~1~1 > 1 LU 44 - ' liilliial 1 a /111,~Illit ~ i. (CÂ» 1 1114'6 4 Al-_t. LU 5 1 lili lilli 1-1. 4' 111!Ir h 1 1 'ti i fll: i 1.1- 11 t 1,Â·rT - A CY. ~11* 1. 23- 1 N J 7 I ==231--- 11-r~r Fr ll h il v il U-10- fu d 11 L dlll_JU, ~ - 2\ 22 ,1 J 0 61 - 1 < (K \.F 01 R J I.: 511 1 3 Ir I-r 01 W 2 29 7% 1- LL T ile M 11] 04- O 1 * 1-02 11 1 - 17 1 *~~PA#10~3=9â‚¬yoar-ty.,--1-y* %444**IU#WU& :3,>2:?FFil{:R#*AM##BEÂ«.4:50 Â£ Ev=T Â·*JAÂ·.;7.- 7 4#*fpfi - +45*/ 142 tr 946.- 1. -h 1 1 - --Â»6- 3 -r,loRN 209Â·i 3 7509'11 'E I 0 9000 t FÂ« < 041 3 I 1 1 < < >CÂ® SUALL GOTTONWOOD.5 1 1~ 1 1 0 1 4 PA RK/NG ) r------7 ~ | 3 11 1 1< 1 1 1 1 2/0/4 C C . 3 :ha ~1 1 EAVE 2 1 EL 05 4 ! ~ 1|NU 11 -----se# 6 2 tr)>11-I 1 . 11 0 1 1 22.7 Â¥ 9 r -0 L lili r U ~ 1 - ----- -- ------ --- - th 1*0 Â©TOFÂ« *9 WOOD -FRAME - \ HOGS)5 \ / 1 ~ t 44 2- / i \ // N-1 1 \ I \ / =1 / 1 / / EX {8 + \ \ // 14 Â·Â·1 .v' R k r E ' : 21 \ / 1 0 4 EL I 19.4 I -ELÂ· T. 1 / L A C 3 1 \ 4 / I j) 42 4 9 k 1.- 1/ \ B j \\=.2 3 2 4 7 2- r 1,U L 41 1 L. 1 K A o Il â‚¬ 07 J . Q! 0 9 2 li C _i , ~ g -0 41 U-' LILI , 2 2 1. ' 4 x 2. !2 E! 20.5 / 4-~ 4 0 10 / (, 0 e ~ 246*00Â¢UCE u I/ \ tr (10.0 u / 14 5 V . 9 Â»tj///////7 X < Y'EM I*LIJc<, < N r 1 5 L M I W k tu e . tUNO + U 1 k ' r CITY knONUMENT 1 21311.14 N75'09 'I I " 4/ . 90.00 (01 87 FRDM 8 AL. CAP) 6 4 A Â· I & A CONCRETE SIDEWALK 13 0 DTTEET LAÂ»Â·Ir -.â€¢Xâ€¢/.fi â€¢Â¥ MAIN -1!Ptlj . 3 3All ,Q 0 1 A L L 1 6 1 1 11 1 t r- 7 n m - ' 1 6 7 - 4 Â·< -0.Â».TÂ·tr- 0 Bxf Â»,4.6Â·,sn 5-9944 .q". 1''Wl" 884 1015HW. 1 \V-15" 08-YEK . 7- =14 U t-- -1.4 . 1 \. Li WA5PÂ¢El< CAOSET CHIMNET'-1 (B .r CLe. HT. â‚¬ INr WALL= -1'-10 1- t - -: 4 CLOGRT ~CLOSET ' 0 KETR. ,~ -- -- - 4 imILM - ipz - - Â· 4 -,Â·4 4'-Oâ€¢ 21'-094*.1 11-09,] 11.1. . 1 'IT Â¥,-114" 294Â«9 - .' 11'-6/ 41 5EDRD0M -4 -9,2 KITCHEN |00| 111-1. .154'4 0 / i g 1 Â·JK 4 1 1 . TD 0*foSAL - â€¢ i 1166 + '7 1 J fi 1,1 11 I - Dj 1# 11 119:fh>Fw Pic 7 3 4. 1 i. 41 7.. 1 6 - 1 GU-f. \ A ./ A 1 + MATH ,54>- 0 -1-*,00 all. 1 -1 0 0 - bodle . D It 11 A (1 ~ le-8-2 12 1 - e - ............rir'... :BEPROOM /4-, LIVI 6/ OININe lil'. P 1 2 .---- -0.- 111-'V. r. / 19-6' 1~ it.0'4" 1'-SK .Â£14 " .d@k ,. 11-0141 25 0... 7,44Â· . It. ) f '. / E-4 - 1 -rED-~._ ENT ler , -- . . 04 0 .- . . T-----'4~~IÂ·. â€ž~Â· 1. 4 . 24~*_:Â·/ f fit: - 1.44444 4.i*...4 -404 Â®ft/*-~:44'flk- :fib)*{f+:-4krtÂ®Â· -~~~4ffÂ«#*7.Â¢.{iftâ‚¬:A# | 8,-3 .CE IL~ -- FORL H 1 - - 1666 /4/ 'Al .//_111# --.1---.---~- ------ -- ----1------ -- -- ------ ---- ------- 1 E-- ------ -- - - - - - --------1- . -- ---- M.6-1- -- f.,t, !! -- - --1 _-_--_ =m=*9 --1- =.11= 2/ ...111 ITI;' dpi --- -- - --- ------ -- --- miwou,MIT kl~ - ' mimm, w - '414' 4,4 - .1 - . - - - - -.-- - 6-7-12 2-11 i 'li ~ 1 Aa UAL FHOTO ---- .5 5 993~,6-9641%-, 4.12 4--6 L ELL L L lell , 11 1 ?1: k ---I- 9 J -- ------------2 - . --3-k --~C u .A H A PEP TO ORWINAL 4TONI5 FOUNDATION HÂ¢.Uit- - , AtÂ»EP -To oFÂ·l#INAL- 1 4515____- I EAVT ELEVATION 4 EFS ANC ENTRY 900'L APPED TO OKJANAL HOU'iE 74 1 0- $/ i,4 1 P'1X iNC.10248 4, '4,- nu~ r.Â¥14. 1 1 Â· 3id' 1 --- -- 34 - t. I; fil -- iÂ¢. ].., -------------------- ta 1 Â¢ 4 , i 1 \NE 44 4 // \ 41<hil&+351672 +E--- 79-397.-3 Al /1.---S#T-------1-Ti- ~i ll.lft>ldl-~~LTLELL~l l~l<ll\,t le~~N~N- - ---- - -- - -- --- --~---1- .K, , 4 ki; Â·94 I /J144%244*tttltuttktffi~<444-Â«li ~ ~2 ' 1 ILLL l L L LiLI .uuLLL l.:Ll,LLL Ll Lilli Ll L Ulll- Ll-All L L littlt-l~L~~~~~L~.~jll.1 L LL L -EMELEE-321'-, 1- + FIXEpAAes . c hi. . i \ .1 - Cli~ i ../.,1 1 1 4. ,.11 g--1-----1- -2.-zl 'Â·3Eft'At â‚¬%#4~-~~--L- ---Â·.-4 -' -- I-. . %.- 0 1 4- 4( 7. .D < 1 1.-I-=r 7- ~ 7-44 1--14 Â¥ X )1--~.>-I I h< 3--i I 7 14 7 1 T 9.Nd 5TEF6 i'Â»11 + RE-AN foK.OW L r.,Flt i 11?1 WEST ELEVATION 1.44 4.. 11/OIl 4.11 4.Â£Â· t 1%#EM=Â£/:*I id! . --- L. 1 .1/ I U '' â‚¬/2/Â£11/DI~ki j t: h. i iii;*&1*0 '. 4Â· , ! a tit tmal 25%7 It; ' t. - -- ~lf:*Unri~- ** ~ 1 MIC*WrbridREHPIJ . ' , - 1.04-9163,4 Â·4231. FAFM. ' ! 0.'IM /2-11 -1 Z 1 2-L--t - - - ------ - - - - I , i.1 Nmff , FI+33-2.- 071 4-E -2 -2 9 1?4 â‚¬E--3.-.--.fifujbf--.-Ulfâ‚¬~9295.3~99~26 -3 ~-- 2-- I 2-- ------------- --- -22 JI + - - --lfÂ·- t~ i}Ii-1~ r-2-1 --z--r-----3-=-3- z--z-ui Qi--0-=z-_Ir-_-4 -_ --_ 2-- z __ _ '' 4: k 4 21--1---22-7---.-_741 -921 2 -------------- I 0 *OUTH ELEVATION 44 Â»441-22-~44* 1949--tfir--332-1<--4-1 2233581-tolif : FiA. li.. U - __ 1 -- -- -- ---- --- -I- -- ---------- --- --=&IL=IL 1-INF OF OKIFINAU Houoâ‚¬ 000* MKT Â·1- Toor 46 F - ilj, - -- | FNE|7 GLASS ' FORCH 4 - - ;;* a L.Ill =~n=-1==e- -- - i- -IL ~--- F -f {Â» APOED NAL Hol.4 --3 , Mi -- | -4TONE 41-FFS .}!i, - I |11'q ,1, | | 1 . WEAK FOF-64 APPEP -ro okieINAL HOUDE .94 9 i . 1109 NORTH ELEVAJION NOTE ' 1% Eli.EvATIONS DRAWN FION . F :22 HORIZONTAL f 1131-D MW,UKE.MENTO :.4 44= 11/0. ANC F HOTO&â‚¬A 14+9 I re. MA# It.*40 Â·.1't 1 / 6 R â€¢ i' f E...0, 4 , 1 > 1 i:!1 /5. ic:t , 1 r 1, 11 1 314; , â€¢#M Â·JÂ·l h ...â€¢:Â·, -1Â· ~42*ar ' ~1614,341'414.... 1 j. .:,til.t}dtona e *; / : ; Â·1~it!:21;El 316 *Ihft , .*90) F , r 13 ' ny:r 92 La-ol ~4021 WOOD 6HINGLE6 1461 42-02919_-*EÂ« p .=-=--- cr,Â«9 - ...1--a=]DEd|000[1 --1-7---Zindpe ---2 nIZ.2-7 -_-IUU-- - Â£Â·-2-=-*92 ----2U300"000"--uzz--11 - - - - (2 - -6- - - .77/1 --11[3[Jull[JLE-111- '.'...---2--=--~----------i-------- 4%Â· 2 -324__33.22~\\ 1 --- i=13 2-* - 2 - -- - - - LE-UU-132-UE O :13: ,Â·:; 4_1112Â«0___ Â»*31 6- --i --- I,11'~f. I':IM -----I-----~-IM --- 71 4: WINDOW REPLACES OK'Â£21 NAL Ublet Â·PAPlc i 0EVEL 391*19 14 - Ixe 44' To WEATHBR FIXEl) 41455 964'59 Â· J - 4,4 *~ 9-rEFÂ·5, rotHÂ¢ - - '~ ENTRY AD PED Â® -- OKIAINAL 1-10068 ~ X4 - - + 22-f-+- - V. 1.. .UF' "ItÂ· 1 CONC STEFS lip4 ..ElÂ¢QNI Jokal._429.W_*..913Â·14?1-NAL.. HO.l,!ili- 1 .*QUIHELEATIO.N 49 4% 1.-O" J 0/ G '44 , ' .. CHIMNEY | CE I | 6-9 @WA->.3'-10'/4 ATf IC - r 1 + CL Gle.@WALE= 54-e'/2 p==~ 1(3-El. | AFF| 4''Dn 'MnarÂ·. .1'0';' 0----4 -CUL+P -4=42 - - -1<1 -re H E hi EATH~ : ' -Tia==k> -O , Â« Al#*- . 1 - 11 ./ 1 r 9,!1Â» A. POWN N 01 41 ..76 ATT \r loC 1'-rr..9111- .pon 4'-4160' 9V 1''o' 1 1,11Â£ 3 -1 L.oserl -ct.G @WALÂ·L=1'-0'3 , 4 40;1 , ..77 - -141 i W//-12 / ~ N Affici,im;%1 91 2-~~ , _ _ _ C. 11761- 6 41Â·Â·0Â· j, 14#.. - 1'.0/ 1 . - - --,- PEOROOM ~1----4- erpgoow' L 1 1 11'-1 '4" . / 01- 6 '4 p ./ Sdi f :v,~ 1!'0" l.~'~12' ATTIC 0 -Ekâ‚¬.MI - 4 :441 to741!41 -16--- ... --41 + 9,10" 11* 2Â·6' 6'.10" 10/ 1 908-ASE LIVI INg ROOM , ATTI 6 ~-f'-i'/4" DEIL.~ 97&,at G w,q. a'-7': 9 1 4 '. 194" . I. AL 61.- eli -- - - -- 4 6'. 4 â€¢ IS'-24 f I ~Â· 4 -!I 4FCOND FLOOR FLAN 94" 511 11' 011 023 VE MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Minor Development: Awning - 407 E. Hyman (Hyman Ave. Mall) - Galerie du Bois Date: February 28, 1990 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for a new awning (60" wide, 30" high, retractable) at the stair entry (ground level) to Galerie du Bois on the Mall. The awning will be burgundy canvas, with white letters, and drop valance. DISCUSSION: The Historic Development Guideline pertaining to awnings states (Page 25 - E. Storefronts, 6): "Consider using awnings or canopies to provide color and depth to the facade. On many storefronts and upper story windows awnings are appropriate. These awnings should match the shape and width of the opening it is covering. They should not obscure important details. The awnings should also be aligned with other awnings on a building. Canopies are appropriate only on the ground level and should match the width of the storefront. Awnings or canopies made of aluminum, fiberglass and other rigid materials are not encouraged. Awnings that do not serve as useful sheltering from sun, rain or show are not encouraged. Response: We find that this proposal meets the Guideline. The awning is a retractable door canopy, designed to fit within the opening, and requires no encroachment license. Further, we find that the Development Review Standards have been met with this proposal. Awnings similar in character do exist on the mall. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Minor Development application for 407 E. Hyman. memo.hpc.407eh /\ 1 1 7 1 1 .. ..1.=ul i I . lual i I=-1 1 f . A w .A l V<) - ....,6-1:-.all---4.2,6'*41,&Â£a-. . 1 -#---* --- :pat-'e!â€žer-=9 -i~Q-5-,40(4-abs,41,1,$.v O.00 AJo' 7 I .., - 4. 1 4 -4- , .7, 4 . 410 -1 â‚¬ t{3444 .14. unvas .Products Carpany Galerie duBois 88 25 Road Joy Summerfield rand Junction, Colorado 407 East Hyman an Dykstra Aspen, Colorado -242-1453 1-925-5525 Retractable Door Canopy -. T O,<litka /20 6 04 - hinge 8" Valance M 60* ,| Frame constructed of 5/8" x 1 3/4" x.060 extruded al. tube hinged at wall. Attached to the building with 5/16" steel lag screws ( 6 total ) Fabric to be Burgundy with white trim and 6" letters. Fabric to be acyrlic awning material 9.25 oz. V, r) L~- Lt J. / \-LI 3 9 ' Â· nt ,Â» .â‚¬'CED..4 s r; ,-0 4 326 %1 /1 >- j 1 3 , { ff L-h- i '51 9 &14 aÂ· \13 '16. i \01 -- 4 73 al - -- 1 1, LE: 23 222<ek CL ! h , . f'.P ltv.' 1/.- 1 C LÂ»J i to P N g A 5 00 ., 3-- 5\0-â€ž. 1 C- 2 ..~-*. - v Â¥ 1/ao-90 /0 MAom }t n.1 (!oneâ€¢.r4 As Â©tont. 47 4 8/4-1 A-r 407 e-*,AL...-J 30944"4.- -5 u t... I P.,6 :s - 72, A......TAW v HCO 'uâ€¢-fo ba. 44*t 4.L, 4,".730}6 Â£ S,ne.-01- dz..1322. I 1 ?hf V. a MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Minor Development: Awning - 520 E. Durant St., Ajax Mountain Building Date: February 28, 1990 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for a new awning (21' long, 36" wide, 45" extension) at the Beth O'Donnell Gallery, second floor, Ajax Mountain Building. The awning will be navy blue with gold lettering, and is hinged to lie flat against the building. This style matches the remaining awnings on the building. DISCUSSION: The Historic Development Guideline pertaining to awnings states (Page 25 - E. Storefronts, 6): "Consider using awnings or canopies to provide color and depth to the facade. On many storefronts and upper story windows awnings are appropriate. These awnings should match the shape and width of the opening it is covering. They should not obscure important details. The awnings should also be aligned with other awnings on a building. Canopies are appropriate only on the ground level and should match the width of the storefront. Awnings or canopies made of aluminum, fiberglass and other rigid materials are not encouraged. Awnings that do not serve as useful sheltering from sun, rain or show are not encouraged. Response: Numerous awnings of this style and color exist on the Ajax Mountain Building. We find that while the Guideline has been somewhat disregarded for awnings on this building, the proposal is consistent with existing awning style and placement. For discussion purposes, the HPC may wish to consider the following: 1. The awning is for the purpose of signage only. No protection of people or storefront is being served. 2. The proposed awning is very large, spanning the length of the arcade facade, not necessarily the width of the openings. This would become the largest single awning on the building, which may be appropriate. However, an alternative is to break up the single span into three smaller sections, similar to the Polo Shop and others. We find that the Development Review Standards have generally been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the awning proposal for the Beth O'Donnell Gallery at 520 E. Durant. (The HPC may consider an alternative of breaking the single span awning into three smaller sections.) memo.hpc.520ed 2 qu 9)19 -- F ' I . Â¥Fiemli t- ./1 - - 1. . i 9 -. 191 . . . 4 6411 1014 -- .44,== ' 15 3.1 4 . Canvas Products Company Beth O'Donnell Gallery 588 25 Road Grand Jct. Co. 81505 520 East Durant 303-242-1453 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1-925-9007 Tan Dykstra (3) - 3 1 1 0 ~Ance 1 2 I. Â·Â«lfu 1 -8-0 - 6* Le-46/c -1\ 4 -1/~L - Frame: ps" x 1%" Galvanized steel tube. 16 gauge- welded hinged to collapse flat against bldg. Fabric: 1%"x 16" 0 front bar lt"x 14" 0 rafter (2) 4" x 2 3/4" tapcon (2) V x 2 3/4" tapcon screws 24" o.c- 1 ~-- screws ( 1 3/4" min. embed ) 1 3/4" min. embedment r 16" x 16" 0 brace ~ 1#"xlls" 0 wall tube 1 4" x 1 4" x 1/8" angle clip 1 1 each side 2. 1 1/8" x 2" strap hinge F-- 114" x 14" O tube brace 4 -Â£\- Y 2 24" o.c. %" fast pin ---i/ 4 - V x 2 V hinge pin Detail (1) Detail (2) Detail (3) Sl I i '. 6, C. il el- ' 5, -te P A n 2 3 -2 0 C As + 0Â£4 w : //. -/f 4 t i -, 1 , , 1 . .1 1 I 1\14/v~/ Â«. i i Â· f i' 1 1 i I : i E .19 j i t !- i 1 . V V W / U 4/0/ A 6 Le In; 0,4 : i.- .- i I 1 2--} 1 3 V i A ~ C - L. â‚¬ ~ , 2. L N-- ,Â£â‚¬1-9-h /4, 0 45,9,0 4 j Id, . ~t,G FO..,e-Gr \8, 66 C. â‚¬OPEUP<C Ajax Mountain Associates, Ltd., C/O Stephen J. Marcus Post Office Box 1709 Aspen, CO. 81612 (303) 925-7615 February 1, 1990 Canvas Products Co. 588 25 Road Grand Junction, CO. 81505 Attention: Tom Dykstra Dear Tom: This letter will serve as notice that Ajax Mountain Associates approves the awning for the Beth O'Donnell Gallery. Navy Blue Fabric, Gold Lettering. Very truly yours, ~J7~ MOUNTAIDLASSOCIATES \9< C A By Paula Brodin Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Commercial Core & Lodging Commission RE: Sanitation District DATE: February 21, 1990 The Sanitation District is proposing to begin replacing old sewer lines on Galena Street in approximately the next five years. They intend to redo the lines one block at a time each year. Because of the intense physical and economical disruption such construction inflicts on the community, we recommend that the Engineering Department be instructed to address the problem. The goal should be to minimize disruption during high seasons and develop an alternative to excavation. Construction projects and street closures interfere with Aspen's business and the enjoyment of the City by it's citizens. Therefore in an effort to become more sensitive to these problems and wishes of the community that Council consider Neighborhood Impact Reviews. kj s CC: Bob Gish cc: Bill Efting aspeK 1 CC: Sanitation District CC: Neighborhood Advisory Committee tt PC : 1%72:1 1 ' I . I - PABLâ€¢BMEZZ'ra@-1 PBOCCOUBE .?-ulpas Rl@30 0>~)4009(+Rrio,J) Nere gre. sorne motione you rvii~ 10+ Vreke, Aow -10 4 44. 1 4 4. 96 Â·Â·Â· 9+ 3 Slanve A~i~-~&~~3~41~1~#A~~ . make' 41, gnÂ£; wk,+ 4-0 e,ped- of 4& rulls. MAY YOU PO YOu HEED 16 rT CAN IT BE *AT Volt CAN Tr BE To 00 TAns: 100 SAY -DIES: -ret SPEN'AAL , Sccoppy PEBATABLE? AMENCED? IS NUPED? PECOPS,VENED? INT â‚¬AP-u M 7 ADJOURN MEETING , u I ,Â·noÂ« 4634' WE edjourn" Fo YES '40 80 ~AJop-11-9 NO CALL AN INTERMISSION \' I ry,ove 4692 we recess -For...u po YES 110 YES ,ANOP-\1-9 pO COMPLAIN ABOUT HEAT. 0 ~ riSeÂ· +0 2 ques,tion of priviile:96 4 VES No NO Po NO VOTE. NO (,5'u ally) NOISE, ETC. TEMPORARILY SUSPEND CON- --- SIDERATION OF AN ISSUE 4 move +0 table -tle motion " I No 965 PO 30 1*NOMW !40 No(i) END DEBATE AND AMENDMENTS I move -the previous Ruestionn No YES Po No Â¥3 POSTPONE DISCUSSION FOR " I rrove +0 postpone. 468 discuision Until.. 3 No YEs yEs YE,6 pÂ»JOR#Ty YES A CERTAIN TIME GIVE CLOSER STUDY 91 move -10 refkr Â®e. rretter to corne;+Ne" No yes 966 YES AN 02-11'Y yESQ OF SOMETHING AMEND A MOTION 'i I rrove -ID 3rnend 41,6 mat,on by... * No yES yEs Â® YES PNOwl--Ti Yes INTRODUCE BUSINESS U 1 rnove 00 YES YES YES MAJOR-,1-Y YES THE MOTIONS LISTEP ABOVE Ape 1,4 opLOE#L of P,4CCOUJCAL.- . BELOW THEFLE. 19 fo 00*PUL - - - PROTEST BREACH OF Ul rist 40 3 point of order. H WES No NO NO No vare @ 50 RULES OR CONDUCT VOTE ON A RULING OF 0| gppea| 40,1 4|ta ckgid; decision' 989 yes WES lao YES THE CHAIR SUSPEND RULES :I,ove -6 5*end -16 rules 50 +UK ,." [ YES pO 80 2/4 ,)0 TEMPORARILY MA)0~,1-ry~ AVOID CONSIDERING AN -" 1 018ect- 40 cons;cle,91-Ion of -16;5 Motion" il YES No No No 26 @ - S IMPROPER MATTER VERIFY A VOICE VOTE BY * 1 CaN -For 3 division or ViviS,Ort. NO // YES 240 140 No No vOTEÂ· HAVING MEMBERS STAND p O 4 YES NO MO NO 40 REQUEST INFORMATION roint of in@rrnation NO VO-EE- TAKE UP A MATTER 0 I move -1-0 -1-ske -frorn 48, 4-3612....'~ No YEs No No AANOMW !40 PREVIOUSLY TABLED RECONSIDER A B I n,0,6 -to reconsider -4 vote on..." NES YES No MAJOBITY Mo HASTY ACTION Â® Only if fares: Â® Unless vote . Â® Unless the (3) Only if (* Except (Â© A majority @ A 2/3 vote in Â® Only if motion the main to be reconsidered on question committee has the moâ€¢ion to in doubtful vote in negative negative needed question or is debatable. is not yet already taken be amended cases. ~ needed to reverse to prevent motion was j taken. up the subject. is debatable. ruling of chair. consideration not, in fact, 8 of main motion. considered.