The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.1989061497 941 1 1 -6 3 i 011 454 f 4/ AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE - June 14, 1989 5:00 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of May 24, 1989 minutes for Regular and Special Meeting II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. Final Development: Mountain Rescue 63Â® W. Main _ 4<\) P o--6/\ 5:45 B. 200 E. Main - Amendment to Final( 9-1144? V. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. Landmark Designatipn: Elks Building n /0,0 00 2 Â« - 2-1-0 S. Galena StD 40 ~ aN matuidosju,JJ -IEw,- 4,?Uk. tjAC'ekp. O/F 6:10 B. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing \ 612 W. Main U~ C /_,3 4.u(r-, 4=- 6:45 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring 7:00 VII. WORKSESSION Training Books Staff Report: CLG Grant Main Street Study Inventory Re-evaluation discussion 4-7 f NX- P .% /2 Il AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE June 14, 1989 5:00 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of May 24, 1989 minutes for Regular and Special Meeting II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. Final Development: Mountain Rescue 630 W. Main 5:45 B. 200 E. Main - Amendment to Final V. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. Landmark Designation: Elks Building 210 S. Galena St. 6:10 B. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing 612 W. Main 6:45 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring 7:00 VII. WORKSESSION Training Books Staff Report: CLG Grant Main Street Study Inventory Re-evaluation discussion 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development: 630 W. Main St., Mountain Rescue Date: June 14, 1989 LOCATION: 630 W. Main St., Lot M, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: "0" Office Zone, Main Street Historic District APPLICANT: Mountain Rescue, represented by Jane Ellen Hamilton APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for a two story addition to the c. 1960 600 sq. ft. panabode structure, to increase interior space for office and accident staging. The enlargement also includes an expanded garage for vehicle storage. No variations are being sought from the HPC. OTHER REQUIRED APPROVALS: The applicant has received P&Z approval from P&Z for a re-zoning to "PUB" (public) and for GMQS exemption for essential public facility, due to the enlargement on a non-conforming size lot (3,000 sq. ft.). The land is owned by the City of Aspen, therefore, approval is required for any development activity on this site. This approval has been granted through the City Manager's office, which was a condition of conceptual approval. PROJECT SUMMARY: As the application states, Mountain Rescue's space has been severely limited for many years in the existing structure. In order to provide the kind of service necessary for the Aspen/Roaring Fork area, an expansion is necessary. The decision was made to preserve the existing panabode structure for "budgetary and sentimental reasons". All new development is located to the rear of the parcel, requiring no exterior changes to the original panabode itself. The attempt is to perceive the small structure, which is appropriately scaled for the District, yet provide the service space necessary. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: Conceptual approval was granted for this project on May 10, 1989, with the following condition: 1. The applicant further study the detail of the eaves, finding the conceptual drawings too "heavy" in this area Additionally, exact materials must be represented at this . meeting to obtain Final Development approval. Staff finds Condition #1 has been met. The applicant will produce materials at the meeting. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Standard for Development Review are located in Section 7-601(D) of the Land Use Code. These were reviewed at Conceptual Development approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for the proposal, subject to the approval of the exact building materials to be presented at this meeting. memo.hpc.630wm.fd 2 1 Â¥ GARFIELD & HECHL P.C. ArrORNEYS AT LAW RONALD GARFIELD* TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT** VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. *** TELECOPIER 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ROBERT E. KENDIG (303) 925-3008 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. MeMAHON**** *also admitted to New York Bar â€¢â€¢also admitted to District of Columbia Bar May 25, 1989 * **als{, admitted to Nebraska and Texas Bar also admitted to Illinois Bar HAND DELIVERY MAY 2 6 0 . Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Mountain Rescue Cabin Expansion Dear Roxanne: Graeme Means has informed me that he has delivered to you a set of revised plans for the expansion of the Mountain Rescue cabin which show that the conditions of conceptual approval placed on the plans by the Historic Preservation Committee ("HPC") have been addressed. Those conditions are the redesign of the eaves and a resolution of the siding question demonstrating that the siding on the addition will be consistent with the existing pan abode. You may confirm with Alan Richman that there is no further approval required from the City of Aspen to proceed than that already received from Ron Mitchell as Assistant City Manager, and therefore we have met all of our conditions of conceptual approval. Thus, we are now requesting that we be placed on the HPC agenda for final development approval in a historic overlay district. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. 4 /7, h /., liA AL O W 1 P Oi. C i Vul/UK./ (,â€ž,,LA/U/L, Jand Ellen Hamilton U JEH/km CC: Graeme Means '01, f p 1 \29 ' Â£ 1 L -Ar N 9.A 2 0- 1 1/4-1,= 1 t - - I A 1 E } Â· t lt\ L NO TELL PI-ttll-te.2, RO'13 F.S ARIE. + IN lA -T-D MiATE-Ht SAILTI t-4 Gr hlE-\M ACCE TE) 15 E 1612-10 K REI) TO MIA TE H 69-1.1 1-1 NIC#- Â»/I Ll DONÂ«6. 1-Za [3>11- 13\IN TED Â»/DOD f: 91,4 ME-2 IF- Ii:-E- IZEÂ£. Tio BE- FAI N 1-ED 16 4- 1-4 6* CED,A F:2.~38=1 ik c.k kÂ»/r ve' V Grk.20'VEL APPLIELD VE-P.T-1CALL--7 LIDI KIEr -TZ:> e.pfi Fh.1 h.1 Te_D # * 6 2,ffÂ»VE-L- RÂ»/, (DR.. cliDArk 1-443 1112- - .STKIP lbÂ«IS-1-lk.ler Or-ARAGÂ¥-EL SIDINGF + Resic= 9// #5\4, 2,101#4- 4Â£3 FLIN E R. 152*. p- 25. 4 9/ i h.4 DO Â»v' TR. It--1 T-0 5 E BL.1 h.4 -rEID 1 * 4- R .\,v: fASCIA Tb !35 FY+INT-a D R.ED \ACC) OD N,97 RED ME TAL- FLA Z.kilkdoT To MAToe ROÂ© P 1 - .....2 , UN 1 g L 3 9 6 f In< 01 3 -1 2 I r 0 4- y f 1% 2 4) ? -k E Or P M , 7 - 0 Il -r tit i 1 1 -1 1-!-7-1-.1\ i \. . iÂ«J E Tr:-7.mt=20=119If132; J-m* 11 1 , !1 0 i 1 :7 - 21====1-3, l 1 1 11 IF \- -- [ ft ~ -TZ-=\ il /+; 11 r // 1 t. : -=_2*=;:= 41 --zz-- , 0-.-I ==,- - -- - -/ / 111 - 4. . , 1, 1 - 11 i / 11 / 1 - i i / 11 1 // 1 6.-- --- - -41 -9. 0 11,/... -- 'D'- .., - f- 1 1: 1 \C ' /. /8 1 6 1, 0 4 + I A H 9 1 IN[ 1 =i ~ k -4 N IN- C MARD,/19 Al A-hi 14- 10 1Ag.V IN \/.7 .bal 6 N .1 j li 1 1 L-- _ 'K. - 1 i ..7 -8 , 1 :1 1 L -4 7 /' _rE ' - , - - ' --4-.- b. *. 1 . i, i ItJ: Id W 7'ir.. 4 f i) | ' Â·1/ , 1 + \ 1- 01 ' , 0 f . di - ; - ,~-1- - 9) lÂ£.r= - 1 I. 1 Slf JA); i iLl 2 2?25/ 3 \ = =VOL-- iii 121 1 1 - 1 315&&1 1 1 1 .1 , I 1 1- 9 39<8&0 1 11-k] 1111 ]U- R Ct 4{ d <- 1231 IO m 4 el -- 1 1 I lilli 1 1 0 li i ; 1.,i:, r 1Â« 3 50~ 1 11 11 10' i ;1 1, I 1 1 1.-* .- ----- )22 L . 4 - 10.-0 -0 1- Its-141 - / 1,0 -191 -J 3 6 2-0 tfurl'n2 1 0 1,1 01 1 - Fild i ! ~W~ -2, i , -- .Â·0--- I L. 11 4- -1 11 1 !! !! ' ii i! 1 6111 i. 1! i ~ 1! 1 f 11 1 9 I i ' I Â¢ i,- 1: ~ - 5 A. 16 4/ An,/ 14 161+ i ,: .. t! i z, i; 1 1~ '; i. d j: It Â· 1 9 -1 1 1- 9-45 1 11 1 Â·Â· [f jr : . I .. I 41- ; 1 E-'Â«ST-1- 19-grâ‚¬'601-E l Q.Ii 1 , -9-11 1 I F i â€¢ l, I r. 171-LE . . .cr'.rÂ·-,-:.'02.-r 1 .....4. H - â€¢ .{ Lk-1. cza .9..SI .0 rl , 11=strt..cl- ~ ' i. 1 . :1 1 11 1 1 . i \ Â·Â·1 .. ' 1 .N / -lk h 2 2 7--- Â·1 , 34 f 4 3 Â· 5> w . 44 ./ > ' LE /\ \ L- # 1.1,/ R 20 - - ,~ 4 :1 1 , Â·:,r 1 1 i /0-,61 1 . j EXI:,TINGF PAKV-t,DeEL E><ISTINGr 4 Flk.,fiSN ~-RACE FE-I_JE>,/Al-/'27 - ADLITIO 44 Me AL R WAN * [ > S 101 h.1 6< ~01. , -4,4.3*79.- ~Ze U.SE !261.5-1-1 k'Gr 2 4.8 p,Kgrif~impel'.- l < RAFT1LKS, AL P E-K- 1 .â€¢r , ~ / 5-rkliC-TWRALS -SE-* .- 1. ~ Â·64-VE , blfu -r-1-+O FÂ». Gr ZE & 6-L [3 014 6,46 ----~----Â·---- 7 8 15 1 , RDS= 0 4 12 Â¢i r: I k i ~*,~'af:,t>')AM~Wfy'*WAEP#LEC%5~ 11Wt,41Â¢44,4:*:t.Ark'htâ‚¬~~'?flit: ~I.04':{3 *C~fry/, 17,"r-Â»1, . b , 1.t.EeTI 2, 8 1404> k .6 Â¥51*11 - 'Zi 1 1-+UN 01- PRO 1-1 60>/ 4 A 1 6 91 Gr- L 8 /4 5-rE.KI- Flb.51- t>tr*fOND--------~ h 2 - ... Â£ - 2 55 |S 71 h.1 er co NC S L-,6. 5 --- .-_* f - pAR) 8 15.Yal N D ;k 2.00, 1.1 SE-C1- lON A 1/+11= 11 B R.1 dc REED tle TA L R OOP rt> tlÂ».TO-+ - 67<161-1 1-Â·4 9 ON 5.*S FEAM E- Reor 559'Â·STat-1- CIT}417rle-Ha '51 lap FRot/1 GAVE kt X., /3 R. 511> 1-l u -rÂ».L P R-IP 1~4AS 1+1 k.1 ef- 3 . 1+1- lili . -1 4 8 844 MT ELD KEDw-<â‚¬, D 191,32 2 1/4 4 , - SOFFIT -- 1,6 f=Â·RA :-1 EL .,/,4 L-L- EAVE- 25:ECIT- lcD-Pl 1 !/11' + 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 200 E. Main St.-Amendment to Final Development Plans, FAR variation request Date: June 14, 1989 SUMMARY: Attached is the applicant's request for an FAR variation from the HPC in the amount of 155 feet for the new infill project next to Gracy's. Since the HPC approved the Final Development plans last fall, the applicant has requested a building permit, which requires a complete plan check by the Zoning Department. Bill Drueding discovered the project was over the allowable FAR due to the lightwells and numerous other small areas, amounting to some 155 feet. As you can see from the attachment, arriving at the exact calculations was not a simple task. Therefore, this memo and HPC's review shall deal with the compatibility of the FAR variation, and the intent of the code provision allowing HPC to grant such variation. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 7-601(D) (1) (a) states: "...For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements." It is important to note that this particular development parcel is unusual in that the vacant land on which the new structure will be constructed wad designated in the 1970's along with the other two Gracy's structures. Normally, new construction would not be allowed to take advantage of the variation benefits allowed a landmark. The HPC approved a variation for both a side yard set back minimum distance between buildings. NOW the applicant is seeking an FAR variation due to a complicated set of FAR calculations and interpretations. The HPC must determine whether the request meets the language in the Development Review Standard regarding compatibility in character with the historic landmark (Gracy's). The originally calculated 2,250 sq. ft. structure is a 75:1 build out, the maximum allowable on the site without Special Review, required through the P&Z. Special Review to allow a 1:1 build out is only allowable with deed restricted affordable housing on-site. The application meets this requirement anyway. One the one hand, we feel that the request to grant an FAR variation for this development stretches the intent of the code language, however, one the other hand, the applicant could have received approval for the additional FAR through P&Z during the GMQS Exemption review, last fall. They did not request the additional FAR at that time as they were unaware that the allowable had been exceeded due to the calculations. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider granting the variation based on the reasons above, or deny the application finding that other alternatives exist to reduce the FAR to the 75:1 allowable. Should the variation not be granted, the applicant may make application for Special Review before P&Z. Under the confusing circumstances, and due to the small amount of FAR requested for variation, staff feels that HPC may be justified in granting the variation, making the finding that such variation is more compatible with the historic landmark, unless other design alternatives may be agreed upon at this meeting. The smaller the scale of a new building, which is adjacent to a small cottage, the better in historic compatibly, we feel. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the request for FAR variation of an amount not to exceed 155 sq. ft., finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. memo.hpc.200em.4 2 To: Roxanne Eflin From: Wheeler Square Associates, Inc. Re: Request for variation in allowable FAR for 200 East Main. Date: June 7, 1989 Throughout the approval process for the project proposed at 200 E. Main, it has become clear that both the applicant, Wheeler Square Associates, Inc. (WSA) and the Historic Preservation Committee, (HPC) share common goals for the project, which include a design that is 1) compatible with the adjacent buildings and the surrounding neighborhood, 2) functional relative to its intended uses, and 3) aesthetically pleasing. In order to accomodate the issues of compatibility, function, and aesthetics, WSA requests that HPC grant a variation in allowable FAR in accordance with Section 7-601 (D)(1)(a) of the Code, which states: For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would ...exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In accordance with the dimensional requirements of the Office Zone, the project is allowed an FAR of .75:1, a total of 2,250 square feet. In addition, the Code allows for an increase to a maximum FAR of 1.0:1, for a total of 3,000 square feet, provided that 60% of the additional floor area is used as affordable housing. As the project includes affordable housing on-site, the request for additional FAR does not, in fact, violate the provisions of the Code. WSA requests that HPC grant a nominal increase of one hundred and fifty five (155) square feet of floor area for the project, resulting in an FAR of just .80:1. WSA is seeking a variation in FAR to resolve three specific areas of concern: 1) the allowable floor area on the first and second levels, 2) the amount Of basement wall that is allowable above grade, and 3) the lightwell area in the basement level. First, WSA requests a variation in FAR to allow for an additional fifty eight (58) square feet of floor area on the first and second levels of the Building. The Building was originally designed to meet the specifications of the allowable FAR of .75:1, containing a total of 2,250 square feet within the two levels above grade. Great care has been taken to design floor plans to maintain the allowable FAR and to work with the extcrior of the Building that was approved by the HPC. Upon completion of the working drawings, the Planning Department identified floor area in excess of the allowable 2,250. The excess of approximately sixty (60) square feet is primarily attributable to including the stairwell in the floor area count for both the first and second floors, essentially counting the stairwell area twice. The Building was designed based on an interpretation of the previous code and the accepted practice of counting the floor area of a stairwell only once within a project. WSA is requesting that HPC grant a variation of an increase of fifty eight (58) square feet in order to maintain the integrity of the exterior of the Building as it has been designed and approved as a result of the HPC review process to date. Second, WSA seeks a variation in FAR to allow the basement of the Building to be built slightly above the natural grade. Specifically, at the north end (the rear) of the Building, the top of the basement wall is approximately thirty (30) inches above grade (one (1) foot above the allowance of eighteen (18) inches). The portion of the basement wall in excess of eighteen inches tapers to zero at the midsection of the Building, as seen on the West elevation. (WSA originally intended to submit the project for approval of a commerical allotment through the Growth Management Quota System. As a result of the historic designation of the parcel, the project was exempt from GMQS review as an enlargement of an Historic Landmark. In the event the GMQS allotment had been awarded, the basement may have been exempt from FAR as a result of its use as Affordable Housing. Had this been the case, the basement would not have been raised as an issue involving FAR). In accordance with the calculations shown on Exhibit B, WSA requests a variation of an additional fifty (50) square feet of floor area in order to maintain compatibility with the adjacent structures, specifically Gracy's. As a result of the natural slope of the parcel to the north, the design of Gracy's Building is substantially the same as that of the proposed new Building. Without a variation, the Building will effectively be lowered approximately one foot, thereby altering the height relationship between the new Building and Gracy's. Throughout the HPC approval process, compatibility between the buildings has been the overriding concern. As both WSA and HPC feel that the final design has achieved the goal of compatibility, WSA requests the variation in order to retain the previously approved relationship between the new Building and Gracy's. Finally, WSA requests a variation in FAR in order tc allow for the lightwells in the basement. In response to the requirements for allowable area for lightwells, WSA has reduced the total area of the lightwells from a total of two hundred and ninety eight (298) square feet to two hundred and twenty six (226) square feet, primarily by reducing the depth of the wells. In accordance with the code regulations for calculating excavated area to be counted in floor area, as shown on Exhibit C, a variation of an additional forty seven (47) square feet of floor I 1 area would allow WSA to complete the project with the lightwells as previously approved during the final stage of the HPC review process, and since reduced in an effort to comply with zoning regulations. As on-site affordable housing is a requirement of the project, both WSA and HPC recognize that the units must function as well as possible and should not detract from the overall aesthetics of the building or its compatibility with its neighbors. In order to comply with the requirements of the Fire Marshall to provide adequate means of egress, and to allow for sufficient light to serve the affordable housing units, the project includes lightwells at various locations in both apartments. As redesigned, these light wells barely provide enough natural light to meet reasonable minimum standards for a residential environment. To reduce the lightwells further would seriously impair the liveability of the affordable housing units. In conclusion, WSA requests that HPC grant a variation of a nominal increase of a total of one hundred and fifty five (155) square feet, an FAR of .80:1, to resolve the issue of additional floor area on the first and second levels, to allow for additional basement wall above grade, and to allow for adequate lightwells to serve the affordable living units included in the project. WSA feels that the award of this variation Will ultimately result in a project that respects the integrity of the adjacent historic structure and complements the entire neighborhood, thereby achieving the common goals of WSA and the HPC. 200 EAST MAIN FAR ANALYSIS Prepared June 7, 1989 Summary Additional Floor Area: Levels 1 and 2 (Maximum) 58.00 See Exhibit A Basement Walls Above Grade 48.39 See Exhibit B C. .... Lightwells 46.55 See Exhibit C ---------- Total Additional Floor Area 152.94 200 EAST MAIN FAR ANALYSIS Prepared June 7, 1989 Exhibit A I. Additional Floor Area: Levels 1 and 2 Section Dimensions (ft) Area (sf) Floor 1 ------- ------- A 19.50 20.17 393.25 B 21.00 10.00 210.00 C 12.00 24.00 288.00 D 11.50 21.00 241.50 E 14.00 11.50 161.00 F 7.00 2.00 14.00 (porch > 3') --------- Subtotal 1,307.75 Floor 2 ------- ---i---- G 16.50 17.17 283.25 H 21.00 33.50 703.50 --------- Subtotal 986.75 Gl 4.50 3.00 13.50 Add Attic space --------- Subtotal 1,000.25 MAXIMUM Hl 1.50 1.00 1.50 Deduct Attic Space H2 1.50 4.25 6.38 Deduct Attic Space 0-------- Subtotal 992.38 Gl 13.50 Deduct Attic Space --------- 978.88 MINIMUM MAXIMUM: Floor 1 1,307.75 Floor 2 1,000.25 --------- Total 2,308.00 Allowance 2,250.00 --------- Overrage 58.00 MAXIMUM MINIMUM: Floor 1 1,307.75 Floor 2 978.88 --------- Total 2,286.63 Allowance 2,250.00 --------- Overrage 36.63 MINIMUM . 200 EAST MAIN FAR ANALYSIS Prepared June 7, 1989 Exhibit B II. Additional Floor Area: Basement Walls above Grade Perimeter Wall Measurements: Length Height Area (ft) (ft) (sf) --------- 182.79 9.00 1,645.11 Total 182.79 7.50 1,370.93 Less 18" allowance 50.75 Actual area below 18" allowance and above grade 50.75 / 1,370.93 3.70% Area above grade 96.30% Area below grade To determine the amount of additional floor area above grade, multiply the percentage of area above grade times the floor area of the first floor: 1,307.75 See Exhibit A x 3.70% ---------- 48.39 Additional floor area above grade below the 18" allowance 200 EAST MAIN FAR ANALYSIS Prepared June 7, 1989 Exhibit C III. Additional Floor Area: Lightwells Perimeter Wall Measurements: Length Height Area (ft) (ft) (sf) --------- 182.79 9.00 1,645.11 Total 182.79 7.50 1,370.93 Less 18" allowance 50.75 Actual area below 18" allowance and above grade 50.75 / 1,370.93 3.70% Area above grade 96.30% Area below grade 1,370.93 x 96.30% ---------- 1,320.21 Perimeter wall below grade x 10.00% Lightwell area allowance ---------- 132.02 Allowable lightwell area for project 226.06 Actual lightwells 132.02 Allowable lightwell area ---------- 94.04 Excess lightwell area In accordance with code regulations, to determine the amount of floor area allowance needed to accomodate the excess lightwell area, divide the area of the lightwells by the total area of the perimeter wall below grade. Multiply the percentage in excess of 10% by the floor area of the first floor and divide by 2. 226.06 / 1,320.21 17.12% 132.02 / 1,320.21 10.00% --------- 7.12% Excess percent of area x 1,307.75 See Exhibit A --------- 93.11 93.11 /2= 46.55 Additional floor area required to accomodate lightwells MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Landmark Designation: The Elks Building (Webber Block) 210 South Galena St. Date: June 14, 1989 LOCATION: 210 S. Galena St., Lots K, L, and M, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: The Elks Club #224, represented by Ed Irwin APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark De<signation for the 1891 Webber Block, now known as the Elks Building, located at 210 S. Galena. HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: Exceptional, eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places SUMMARY: The Elks Will be submitting an application for Significant Development in the near future, which will include a proposal for an exterior elevator shaft, similar to the Wheeler Opera House, and some minor exterior renovation work. The Elks Club will be relocating to the third floor; the remainder of the building's use will remain virtually the same. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing at P&Z level), then first and second reading (public hearing at Final reading) of the designation ordinance by Council. An application for GMQS Exemption is required to be submitted, which may be approved by the Planning Director (Ordinance #16, Series 1989). HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: The Standards for Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702(A) of the Land Use Code. Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the standards may be designated as a Historic Landmark. Staff finds that the application meets all six (6) Of the Landmark Designarion Standards. Standard A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event Of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The Webber Block was considered the third most important structure in value to be built in Aspen during the silver mining era. It was built for $40,000 by Henry Webber, who came to Aspen from the east as a shoe and boot merchant. As his business grew, so did his prominence in the community. Webber was also responsible for the construction of his home, Pioneer Park (400 W. Bleeker) and the Webber Building (now the Isis Theatre). 210 S. Galena was the location of many of Aspen's service-oriented businesses, including the 1892 Aspen National Bank, Allan's Drug Store, attorneys, engineers, etc. The Post Office was located here from 1926-1959. The Elks purchasec the building in 1912 for back taxes. Standard B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen Character. Response: The Elks Building has long been considefed one of Aspen's finest Victorian-era structures, massive in form and material, eclectic in design, and unique in detail. The Elks Building is a significantly distinct historic resource to Aspen's Commercial Core Historic District, and a visual landmark since its construction. Traditional Aspen materials (red brick and Peachblow sandstone) speak clearly to its heritage. Standard C. Architectural Importance. The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: While traditional in Victorian massing and form, this structure embodies unique eclectic details making it one of a kind! The prominent corner entrance, topped with a projecting turret and corner dome with balustrade, and the lunette arch centered at the west elevation parapet are elements which best illustrate the structure's unique style. The masonry craftsmanship is excellent; unique brick detailing (corbeling and "checkerboarding") appear between the upper floors at the predominant southwest corner. The cornice and parapet detailing are also significant details. The structure is a three-bay design, with a balanced fenestration pattern to enhance each bay and provide the upper floor rhythm. The storefront design is relatively unchanged, with the exception of the new windows recently installed for the main floor Esprit retail space. Standard D. Architectural Importance. The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: We find the historic Webber Block clearly meets 2 this Standard. The structure was designed by architect William Quayle, who also designed the Italinate Pitkin County Courthouse, two of Aspen's most significant historic resources. It is interesting to note that both interiors have also remained relatively unaltered in 100 years. Standard E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The Commercial Core Historic District's integrity consists of magnificent structures such as the Webber Block. Aspen's very image is founded on these irreplaceable historic resources. We find that the preservation of this building speaks to the heart and soul of our community, and are very encouraged with the pending renovation plans. Standard F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: Aspen's Commercial Core has a distinct character which is unmatched by most other resort communities. Galena Street contains eleven of Aspen's most significant historic resources; their preservation is essential to the character, image and vitality of our entire community. The Planning Office commends the applicant for seeking Landmark Designation, and encourages the sensitive and careful renovation of the structure to insure its preservation for decades to come. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend approval for Landmark Designation of 210 South Galena Street. memo.hpc.210sg 3 HAGMAN YAW MEMORANDUM ARCHITECTS LTD 210 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-2867 TO: Historical Preservation Committee FROMr Michael Doyle AP RE: Elks Building Renovation DATE: May 18, 1989 This memo will serve to introduce the Elks Building to the Committee and to ; explain why we feel it merits designation as a historical landmark. The Elks Building was completed in February 1891, and was then known as i the Webber block, after its owner, Henry Webber, who was to become mayor of Aspen. It was sold in 1892 to a group of investors which formed the Aspen National Bank. It was then known as the Bank Building until it was purchased for back taxes by the Elks in 1912. The Aspen Post Office was located in the current Espirit space from 1924 to 1959 and by virtue of its ~ central location was a very popular meeting place for locals. ' The Elks Building is of brick and Peachblow sandstone construction, designed by architect William Quayle, who was also the architect of the County Courthouse. When completed, the building was thought to be third in value in the city, behind the Wheeler Opera House anc' the Hotel Jerome. The exterior of the building has changed remarkably little as witnessed by the series of photographs attached. Because of the above mentioned, we feel the Elks Building complies with all of the "Review Standards: Application for Historic Designation", rill,<iill,4.- 1 >42 ..i I . 2 ..r yar tÂ»-4 Nt- - - --*W*& 55.2%'~Cly':li 0'y . 57194/-1/k. 1. L --- -3/Lar.- ... fy h 4. .. 1,2. -4- .-/ ZmÂ· -WZY V' j 3Â¥ 0 - :%42:/-/,:&Â£-il. .lf:-1*470*40,1~ 1 Ah.WayjAW#:bw &%.- 4-(*44,4,42/ 4,76//#FE&:Blrbf;fe:/74 .752< 72(,~426,I 47 i e 7/2 -4 --9 - . 1-71 4. 7/0 i - +PES-A~t--wIL M *iri . I. i l: ..t M &Â» 4 :4#3+112': >1 / . .. -,120,5rl.zip-1 Â·f = /.tfl '. ' "' ... 4--I h*:il 41, 14 / ~ tillÂ·./â€¢ 145' Â·Â·Â·:4Â·*'ST,...2:.1.F. 1.9 b - 4 2. 1% .* ' '. - % , f .4 '.. ) 1693 041 94 43f Uk I , 4-U P--ilt' C Â£4/.-V...L2$29:121 317310=1}gEr** . 1 6.v.. j , . 13?, -11 11,1-R~ rzEM 'f.31113 --.... 1Â·--:~ Â·2.. 9 1 - .Th' -.de I'lt?_ rj -1.-_11 23 CULTU --h - 1 1 -1 - L - I.El- Tall~--â€¢~FI-~22F~EBFAI-: ~ffÂ·~- --:-Â·;~ 4 -1. . '19'Im"r",r~--*---*-==----3.--1----*- .D- : 4,-/.,- 4 1 Tr . T 11Â», 1~3, â€¢m. n.,v1;lf-WI-ST1~<-1 142 33 .- 1 q .1 1 "=1 1. 16 r -, 1 2. 1 13-El:,4.U r 0 - --11/I/*-4 - - . .r bi-FRIZZJJFILTE-42: Zy&:Â·:022--22.2 - -1-Â· .. . --. -.-.: Â·:17*ff-JYRM--'v:~#..v#YXild:24,1FP:'4 1 7 Â· 2 30 5 , 446 911)i' IREV~ -7Â¢- Â£ 9 13 ~ 7 - 2141-2*Â¢4-11.;Â·44,:i*4Â®899-39EE"*1490 >4;on'/ MI~ 2 11.tNa.331 -3-*0-. = 1 , 0- V...,r==-:0~1 2 -I. U. - -2.9%.-2 -. Sll,2*,En caf'L*22:2-~~~_ -:. A r--1 9.7.7~2 k .. 7.i./.-.*. 24. J -Â»*f~Â»~~id/ic:.jir~~j~~~d50~~~~~~_ 4*1402702 .7,1 49 /i -6/0 , lit/.1 1.-9-313-3991"217= ge # :.,715Â·.6 *j IM ~ !9#p-.wmi N /1 trIE#]11-1 F + 23 >f--2. -4.-Â»f. f ...1 -.912:141 26.e .,â€ž7:, t?-' 9=z'x:21-- "~Â·3 -4--ilig&~ilijikÂ· 1<11, - , 14.1 44024 -I' 4/=z~~1-254.!! Â·,fi 1 00* ttz: c , =/////7/, ki.... geS -- - -- FWim *F -â€¢wi 9-1/1,0 rmi 9 6 --#4 - 0 1 /1. 0 .1 tt 11. 1 6 419 E 1 IAND USE APPLICATION FORM I. 4 1) Project Name (1.ove th & CQIÂ»6 -4 BO%.j plbl\ O ) Project IDcation 401> 9 , Q M -9.-*) A c LOT a. te- 84=061 â‚¬O (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning 4) Lot Size 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # GUiDE> v.1#te- , 6\14 Hu;4 92- O tcs 0-x ' Ce , - 4 17- 3%03 6) Representative' s Name, Address & Phone # C. / 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): A 011 1 1 Conditional Use _ Conceptual SPA - Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review - Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual rUD L/~kinor Historic Day: CtLUL:_ / 9 1 Stream Margin Final WD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation acndominiumization - Taxt/Map Amer*hent ets Allotment Lot Split/Ict Line (2433 meaptien Adjustment 8) Description of Ekisting UsesÂ· (amber ad type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; Ilmber of bedroans; any previous appruvals granted to the property). DEC=.es â‚¬Â»),0/ 9) Description of Development Application Cou) C'4296.-râ‚¬, 13Â¢Yn O U.3\ 1% el Ne~eff 10) Have you attached the following? Respanse to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application t ~ ~11: (41 1,1-2,0~11.01\ .0 1/ ''\ . 5 /1 " f 4' l. U..0 .1...A. 1-'& Lut=/t'-\ 90\21- 1 \D L./. Clog-'\ 9 E n t\-Lâ‚¬ /ul 4 6 1% 41 He Â·:\ N. t. L &.1 c-M --\YjÂ·it 0- 1 -9--_ 912 -\LE Y \'\C -4 15-> l_) 11 \ Uu tr: :6, 1-Â· 1 1 '1[ S 4-4 -X Val- 3 -01 13 i--/ '\< . ':- 72 - 4 \7\L L\\TLL N [x--*.-T f k.#17 , , .7. .IN \ \\14 C 1--9 1-N'L.>4. 24. u. 0Â»f 3- :-i. ov_ t '\.2 U hr.t-- 1% 11 --h I./fi C..44â€¢ Li< Y' Â·Â·11 4%1 C 4 3 44.....(:I f- - \ }VOi lk) fi CLAzi - \6 45 0-14 3,-1 12% V-- <5 lk.\.5<' F\1 - i R' 6 1.- - -1, ..' 7 i 9-, L 61Â«4 - i, b 9 .p h 1=. .-I1&t, , Acur> 33\14 t 10 -1 CA- \1 / 4 1- VYâ‚¬ u .('24 ,_14-- t. - Â«- \ - ..1 \ k 7 ta ../ 4 /%*MT %6829 // L - u*\ & 4 ... ..... . . â€¢, ....t . ..... ... e . Â£: : .. .. ... 1/ 7 1 . - I /2 .1 â‚¬Â£68 13 AblerÂ· 1 I / Adâ‚¬:85Â» 7- MALL .. .Â·C 1 + 1 . = . , .. 1 ./ . 1 - . â€¢ I.â€¢ - 1 . 6.1. .... I . I '....... ... .. I . .: :4_ . 0 2--74 i . LÂ· ' 9 *<lurl KG FELZE , I ' M><16~71 kla FE.NOM. 1 L -A .1 5, 6*lt:70*re) ) . 3-. 6Â¢'klbÂ»TE-- * *PEIC- C E.XleTILib 1+14kL 1 2 . .. . I 1 i 1- . ..-.' . ... . - 1 . . - U f .. 1 .. ./.- - 1 ' ' 1Â· 1-6141*AFE .,trTIMIDEIL E r MANTEIz- 10..HleH (IrM) 1214'0-rK> 6 1 .r . - - _ r .- Â· -:0 -- 0 . . 1 - . . I . .. .. ... . 1 1 -1 -1 I . . 4 . MALL 1 â€¢ 1 ... - .. - 1 --1 1 .- 1 1 0------ -0-- ----0- -----n- -----0----- -0- - --- -O-----6 UhilTER- 11 IiI [1 11 1.4 17 1 1 .1 tr -2~#UQU_lIT--- --- -- 2.2--1,10}411+Ne----_ - BtliteÂ» Frw 1-/NIPUT _ - ~ 9, A .81 47, , C.1,411- 11.,-bil 6. Moz IAW toll I 8 1 A til ~>j/LU-/17 Â»,ur- - MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 612 W. Main St., Public Hearing Date: June 14, 1989 LOCATION: 612 W. Main St., Lots 0 and P, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: "0", Office Zone; "H" Overlay, (Designated Landmark) APPLICANT: William W. Levin, represented by Rod Dyer, Architect HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the on- site relocation of the structure, excavation and new foundation, partial demolition, "L" shaped one-story addition to the rear, removal of asphalt siding and renovation of the structure. The applicant is also requesting approval to raise the structure some 30" above grade and screen the foundation with lattice. NO variations are being requested. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review Standards are located in Section 7- 601(D)(1) of the Land Use Code. Staff's comments follow. The review Guidelines may be found in Section VI. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS - RENOVATION AND RESTORATION, beginning on page 47. Standard 1. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels with then subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: We find the general application consistent with the Development Review Guidelines, and are pleased to see a renovation proposal for this small asphalt-clad cottage. The front porch is the significant historic detail, and its restoration will greatly enhance this cottage and the block. We strongly encourage all the small scale elements to be retained, preserved and respected. We support the renovation activity proposed, with the following exceptions: 1. Relocation on site: The applicants have met with Staff on a number of locations to discuss the possibilities of relocation the structure approximately 19' to the east, to center the structure on the parcel. Staff's initial concerns were in the potential disruption of the established pattern along this block of Main St., however, after further study, we feel the proposal does not significantly alter the character of the structure, the block or the District. The benefits for the relocation include the needed basement excavation, foundation installation, and relief from the adjacent structure. Also, the new addition Will become the "view room/dining room", the angle of which takes in Aspen Mountain much better. The new space Will be more livable if adjusted some to the east. We are requiring the standard Performance Guarantee Letter from the applicant for this excavation/relocation activity. 2. Raising the structure: We are not in support of the proposal to raise the structure 3' higher than its present (original) position and screen the foundation with lattice. The historic setting is appropriate for the structure, an established pattern throughout the Main Street Historic District and the West End. While we understand a new 6" (or so) foundation may be visible above grade, we are requesting this be covered with rusticated or rockfaced sandstone, or red brick, or site regarding to cover any exposed foundation material. Any historic or potential drainage problems will need to be addressed in another way. 3. Partial Demolition: Two small porch additions appear at the rear Of the structure. One appears to be the original back porch, since enclosed; the other appears to be somewhat newer, though quite old. The proposal involves the demolition of both of these attachments, which staff is concerned with. The Secretary of the Interior Standards state that all "changes which may have taken place in the course of time are 2 evidence of the history and development of the bui81ding... These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected." The HPC should consider if these attachments have "acquired significance in their own right" before approving the partial demolition activity. Staff feels that these two elements are the least visible, and that it is reasonable to remove them for the new addition. 4. New Addition: We find the scale of the new addition appropriate for the parcel and the District. We do not support its raised position, and therefore, the extensive new railing, spindles and stairs. We find that the proposed materials are compatible with the historic cottage. The landscaping proposed in the east side yard should provide adequate screening to a deck/patio area, once this is located at grade or slightly (6") above. Please refer to staff comments under "East elevation" regarding proposed windows. 5. East elevation: We find the number of changes proposed to the east elevation incompatible with the original integrity of the cottage. Each opening and element is new, including a large projecting bay window, greenhouse window, elevated porch with railing and spindles, lattice, etc. We do not support the proposal to raise the structure 3' higher than its original position, therefore requiring porch railing, spindles and stairs. We find the proposal does not respect the original fenestration, and are requesting a restudy of these elements. If a greenhouse window is approved, it should be incorporated into the new addition only. 6. Materials: It is necessary that all original materials be retained, preserved, and restored only when necessary. a. Original siding under the asphalt shall be rehydrated and painted with new clapboard "patching" only where absolutely necessary due to 3 dryrot or extreme deterioration b. All original windows shall be retained and preserved; sills to be restored onlv where necessary; all new windows shall be wood, double hung to match in size and scale the historic windows C. All porch elements (columns, tracery, brackets, etc.) shall be preserved d. Chimney exterior brick shall be preserved; new flue pipe and vent stacks shall be incorporated in existing chimney openings e. Original landscaping shall be retained, with the exceptions as noted in the application. It is recommended that all new "screening" shrubbery be historic in nature, i.e. lilacs f. Roof materials shall be wood shingle, stained dark Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development Response: The Main Street Historic District is undergoing many changes, including the change of use from residential to commercial, new infill, and multiple additions. We find the proposal strengthens the historic character of the District, and feel that it generally meets this review standard, with the exceptions stated in this memo. Standard 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that the cultural value of this structure is in its representative small-scale style, and highly visible location on Main Street in the Historic District. Any addition must be subordinate to the historic cottage, allowing its historic value to the community to read through. 4 . I We find that the proposal generally meets this Standard, with staff's recommendations incorporated into the design. Standard 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The preservation and restoration of the original cottage definitely enhances the historic integrity, which we enthusiastically support. We feel that generally the proposed one story addition will not necessarily detract from the architectural integrity of the original cottage, however, we feel that with the modifications to the proposal as stated in this memo, the project will in fact be more compatible architecturally to the designated stru=ture, while allowing the original cottage to retain its character and the new addition to read as such. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the proposal as submitted 2. Approve the proposal with the conditions as recommended by staff and discussed in this meeting 3. Table action to a date certain to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance from the HPC in a revised proposal. 4. Deny conceptual development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. A denial would constitute public hearing re-noticing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for the proposal at 612 West Main St. subject to the following conditions to be met at Final Development: 1. Representation of major building materials shall be presented 2. All original elements and materials shall be retained and preserved or restored if preservation techniques are found insufficient. 3. Asphalt siding shall be removed; original clapboard 5 siding shall be retained and preserved by rehydrating and painting. Any new clapboard "patching" shall be done to match existing, and Will be considered appropriate only when extreme deterioration or dryrot exists. 4. All original windows shall be retained and preserved. New windows shall be wood, double hung. Applicant shall incorporate staff's recommendations in any fenestration restudy. 5. Original chimneys shall be retained, exterior brick restored. 6. Exact major materials shall be presented at the Final Development review meeting 7. The application of new decorative cut shingles in the gable face shall be approved when found historically< accurate, though photo documentation or examination of "ghost markings". 8. Foundation/structural information submitted detailed protection methods for the original structure, with a Performance Guarantee letter, to be approved by Staff Attorney Fred Gannett. a.Â£/'6.t,,2._~ 4-3 rcffif-IL.. ,1 (1 ,-01-4-i c (,t~o--_. t / i ia<.,AL 4 1-Â¥ 0 14~ ec<'3&7Â£4 , ~ 43 / Ck j 's,c -~- ~~LAL#~<* /YE-~6'~yvt-Â·D 0 11 memo.hpc.612wm 6 DYER & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS May 19, 1989 Explanation of the proposed development of the William A. Levin Residence at 612 W. Main St., Aspen, Co., 81611. The proposed development consists of moving the existing residential structure 19 feet to the west of its present location and placing the structure on a new concrete foundation which would create a full basement under the house. Also proposed is to remove the shed roofed elements from the back of the existing house and add on a gable roofed expansion to create an "LIt shaped footprint. The house is to be raised 3 feet higher than its present position on the ground to create positive drainaqe away from the structure. The structure presently sits on dirt or flat rocks on the ground. The vernacular style house now has asphalt shingles over wood siding, asphalt impregnated roofing felts over wood shingles and a predominance of wood frame double hung windows with singleqlazing. There are a few more recently installed windows with aluminum frames or fixed glass stopped in with wood. The street facade, which is a gable end, hai a porch which is supported by 4 turned wood columns with some decorative wood brackets at the eave. The house gable contains some wood tracery at the ridge. Two nonfunctional brick chimneys protrude from the roof as well as a functrional galvanized steel chimney with galvanized rain cap. The present setback of the structure would be maintained in the proposed new building location. This is compatible with the setback of the other structures in the block. The spacing between structures on the block create a rhythm which the proposed new building location more comfortably fits than the building does in its present location. 415 E. Hyman Avenue Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-7149 MEMBER SOCIETY OF AMERICAN REGISTERED ARCHITECTS -2- The major landscape elements at the street are a large cottonwood near the curb and several large lilac bushes near the front porch. These shall all be left in place. Some bushes in the rear will be removed. New low level bushes shall be installed to mitigate the new uncovered porch on the East. The fence and shed on the alley shall be left as is except a portion of fence to be removed to access 3 new parking spaces off the alley. The roof configuration of the new addition shall be a gable type with slopes to match the existing roof. Small roof elements shall be on the new bay window and greenhouse window. These shall be very low slopes as is the existing porch roof. All roof surfaces shall have new composition heavy butt shingles to simulate the existing underlying wood shingles. The existing half glazed stile and rail entry door shall be retained. All other exterior doors shall be new half glazed stile and rail wood doors. The existing wood double hung windows shall be replaced with new wood double hung windows with insulating glass. All new windows shall be of a similar style. Original trim shall remain where possible. The front porch shall be retained and refurbished as needed. Additionally, a wood railing is to be added as well as wood lattice below the porch to screen the structure. The design of the new railing and lattice will imitate other railings and lattice in the neighborhood on buildings of the same era. The asphalt shingle siding shall be removed to expose existing lx4 wood siding underlying. This siding will be retained and painted on the existing structure and patched with new siding to match where neccessary. The new addition siding shall be the same configuration as the existing siding. The new trim shall match the existing trim. Fishscale shingles are to be installed nn the front facade gable in a manner similar to other residences in the neighborhood of the same era. -3- Colors have not been selected at this time. The owner has expressed the desire to use colors which would be appropriate for a house of the turn-of- century era. C. Â» +RI'V 5%â‚¬Avt,L, AL.4./7( 1 Â¢{Ci~~4 6. 1 a Â· 0 . 0,0, 3- A . 7 eLâ‚¬ *Â»40 ~ ~ peÂ»a ~ r-7Â£ / 1 d 6 & 1.2 , ...F:* /./-:/' .~ f. f :4N 1. C NEW 6â€¢â€¢â€¢006,1 ,.:Â·,Â·S , 31'.rÂ· t. fr ' ' 1./. ' I â€¢ Ci.'; 2''f ; >0~6:i = 1 1 4 1 'h 2> r FeÂ·â€¢42 TATD r.Â· ~ eel-e~c< -h It Â· -4*.44.11 ---i~%--Ii---- .-U+ 1 14.,-4..61*'PE./.1>4ZIP 1 2 ep,Â»CAL i ft w , 1,Â£ 4-, D 5 1 L,bÂ·lf **PRI-r--47TMI i ; 1 1 b 1 li ll i ;1: i.111 11 i .,1:1!JO:[1 + = 10 0 11 11'11'11'11 2 9 M It 1 11 li'11111~ 11 1 . /11/ 1':i'Â·il:.Â·ell~~./- 6 5 231 5. '1 4 42'1,3.- .. - Rzeut.2 -. - 9,493 > N.A.433 - - 57Â°Â· dprk 4%62 U A/1,1 ,6 Z 23 ,Â©Rfe Ack,P 4 < 12 p--1 3 ---3 414---1 -#-Ill- LÂ·-LI JILD 0 0 6. 4 f.,14 . .0 . 0 . . 0 I I 00 17 0 r o ~-3 C D - P :11 1Â» 341 u D f Lf / F-/ - 80+ 1 81 =E O V 61 --- = E - 423 - rge-1 Photo, 44 L< 0 1 ... 40 j#f 0 #7 444 al 2- 1 V\/EST MAIN STREET ALLEY FOUNDÂ· 6JAN 1981 REBAFEW/ PLASÂ· A. AD WOOD FENCE CONNER '. L.S. 9184 S 75' 09' i L E, .. 60.00 A , 1. --- 4 9 i <.. 1 i ./ / 1 1. N' / - 'A Ort_ N fHED / 11111.\ 14.10 ./ : J LOTS OSP 1. BLOCK 24 , â‚¬1 m O A WIRE-r L >,rE ~ Â£1 138.-1 ' . 1 2.15 / 4 -- ......5~.r-- .--1 ----r-1 1-4 5*â€¢ / lilli Ii'I . , 'i i it,/ / -25' 1", ''Â· ' / 3 1 /4, - 2// / :' 1 , 1 1,! ''./: , 1 ''' . ONE .'STORY'>0'2' 1 + 'I 1 /FRAME HOUSE / ./ 1 -44 . / 1 , //t, 1 3 y.11 : I / 01 1 ,... -P .' -S;} El 10 + 2 0 11 ' / /// 1 A e.? I - ,.,r 6.1 1 1 , ./11 1 / 1 ' 4 A . / :./'J .-1,O,1,1'ErÂ¢tlÂ·1'F, ~ ~ 1 I ./'.1 1 -' 415 '1, 10.1 . 01. 75' i '' I.Â»1 411 1 / I 9 - - 95 â€¢/ 22 75 ____11 1 1 027 I NG -1.- - 1 2 HOOF O H ' 1069 . 100.00 ...,% 0.20... \ 00/001 M â€ž6#,09 04 1 S 4 < 9 2 1> 3 1% 4 12 4 mi + 11 d ......k-,1 ,(.144\.14 2 -2 11 4 1 1 n 1 t-1 . % b L 7X 1 Â£ I 15:52ZI 4.===:CE@Gaui~ ..1 41 -2 1 22 *=11 1 4, fl H}947=z~ 91*-2- -i@ 1 Ind===*---1-=: /tl EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATION 1. 1 4 A-s/5Uj Â£<jl #44 2 q k 2 9 /7-11\\ // /7 4 31\ N f / bly F c.1~# 4 L *- iSO 24- -,--.- -51. rf--1---Ar Y t-1 - - I\-1 1 -A ,. .Â»9.. . - \ ..--L----1- 11 : PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOCATION 1 1 <20- v -v----,-1 3 -v v Â· a .9Â»R:~ \\2 4 li 51 : - . . .-v./.-r.-r- I~lir- v--v--r .. â€¢-v ..7 -1 1 - -% 11 NEPOL- *,gzr) - -2.,0911=3fALF-3 r--3, -1 I- 1 - i f - -, - 50 LITA ELEVATIOK E>(1571 â‚¬*3Â»~LFE- 1/4" 9 !'-67 4 - 4 00- .\ 0 0%,1 21'/r, - 9-N 11<31><9 - Poll'V/\31 El 194 -3 1 1 -- .....1 - 1 1 1 4 - 1 1 <224*L -. ---1 jip 3.'.1.: 1211(1 LK##U#* 544114,*ES Aff I HFAE6,1160 FolÂ» ..r'.'', + . 1 . 4.A 44111 r - -- -- ----------3 -1- --- LLII-- - -- --- -- - --/ - - --- Â· 1-11 ir-1 - r lif U-'I -Ild --- 7V - - -- --- - 1 -- 1 ~ 1*<1.98 44, HsfiALq- StÂ·11 AU-ES A,efÂ· 1X + Wa:PIP SI Dth[Â£1Â· _25-0_ ELEVATI 014 K E x 1 9 1 N e 4 -1 1 - 1.4 "-11 - 0 /, - -- - - ~ Il 4/f FEEP-:2:i'*- *i</ ..-7 - <*7----Â·-Â·~0-Â·- ~i' Ii}I~~~'iNYBEE~<7:5-/39*MFZFFF'F-Â·ii'i~*%i ~~/ -i: :::::::::::i:::::::::::::: . ~., ,.:I~Â» -;__.. ---_.Â»%%~i~jii~i~fi;~45*fE~f~~f~%~j~jjj~~jj~~~~Ii~~i~liii}{I~i~ ~i~i~~~i}}f}}~i~~ijit~itiijiiiiiiiii:~si:i 1 1 ~*0**immww~jififififififfia*MNiffiNEjiffj iff-fijijijifijibiffyÂ«%9*9*fiff / (/-1 ./h ---------% %4<1â‚¬IN, kEP :41 h N/cah'&0 ht BLA,Â» -- -- 1- - i. - 1101214 ELE-VATIOK EXIÂ«FIAB 66 Al- EL 1,04" , 1' -0 ' ' lit-LU 2, ' '' I'_r'-11 fo FEMâ€¢,1 4 + p64 UT I le.W Way[7 41 INLIABS /14 .yll-IT I T '4711'11~74~%4~ 15*1Â«~[I U>$,Afj,-6 -FAIN~[-Â·--~---,Â¢~4-1 I l i l l i 1'110l 15%65' --AiMAI121#~223&6494]~I~kdtti~ 1 1 2EMA114.-[*t'f -4.. 1 M . ----3----- *--i ITPI 1 ALL] 1.Â«1Â» Ef:lE~ '016Â» 'Pdhli 72[3-r ~,Ju.77/7-i__ 129 tl -4 iF=t~ - 7 * *Figt#tilt-thduEmin Â«11*itin Â« Juum.q 0 4 1 0 I, 15 1 . 1- 5 -_- -r-=1 -_ -&=-Â»:44 Xed 9 1 - ' -=/242%â‚¬i-'_~i' = -. Ik -4_ '*.-6- =04</ *,5==,a & W. 't. 1-1 I. 1 . . 11â€ž 1 1 - I b: , 1" W ~'5 1.19,liu I -UL 11 ii III 1 11 1 11 11 11 1 1 1 1 1.1 11 4-4 4-4 71 - LI I ,1 -4 4 -11 U.-4 4--41 1 4----4 1 1 1 SOUTH ELEVATION, 1/4" 1*-0" LJ ' 1 Illmilll111!11 h 1 1 J ./ PI~ Irl P TY Il 1 1 1i,;;il il, 2 1 , A- 1,i Lfurj- 1 1 7,6 - 9 1 -- 1 5 -L ----- -A -~-~$- . U 9 - - 1 11?I: 'IR.':114 0.6>61. 1 - + i i , i _d :./ ./:I .'/.~ /- 1 1, 0'' I I - 9- 44+ e- 1-1 1 1 1 1 +-______-_____-4-4----4-4----------3--------- ------- EAST ELEVATION 174= 160' 11 ------11 tt--- 1-Iti , r Â¥ 1 J f P NEW CoMFEEDITICN 4441 Nd,bE Izapp *--. - 4441*5'LEÂ» To k 1-[EAvi Wrr -rfee t -- ----ma- 42[00-I11 1~ ~ 16~0-0101--m5 1 L ba 1 i' 11 111 I h 11 ,11.... tle.1-1 k.*O WINCEÂ»5 | 1 | 1 1 -1-=41=41 1-k==IL-34.1 - 114 HINDOW WEL,1,Â·9 1 1 11 -4 -----4 - 142* 601Â·kfBTE f*'ll#cm'cal r-$ 1 4.- --------------- 4 WEST ELEVATION 1/4" 1'-0" i 1 . 91 :01 -I- I Pkel'1+19 Atuv/Ma 4, 1 r--1 .Se,FIN+Pe,~ 4.-- I-- - Lla 3 1 1 1 1 1 -------------------~~Ill NQRTH ELEVATION ' 1/4â€¢L 1'-0" -_~*11111 -1 Ilil[1111211,1-nii