The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.198806144 AGENDA -/ I HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE June 14, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. First Floor Council Chambers City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes-April 26th and May 24, 1988 r III. Committee Member and Staff comments IV. Public Comments V. Monitoring Projects VI. FOR INFORMATION ONLY - NO ACTION Presentation on the Marolt Barn/Ranching Museum site 1 l Mark Fowler, Board member, Aspen Historical Society 4,1// VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Final Development Review: 334 W. Hallam Ave. (Chaikovska/Peters residence)AÂ¢ râ‚¬ 0 0 Â£211 B. Final Development Review: 113 E. Hopkins Ave. (Bucher residence) A PeOou68 C. Final Development Review: 212 W. Hopkins Ave. - (Smithgall residence)Ar'frtat)613 D. Final Development Review: 516 E. Hyman Ave. Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Mouse House) (\ Â¢ Â¢ 0 0 -0 4 8 FOR YOUR INFORMATION (MEMOS) Project Monitoring Rehab Tax Cred Workshop, June 16 Preservation Law Update re: HPC autority Note: No public hearings at this meeting. t.' i HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 300 W. MAIN ...........2 ASPEN FIRE DISTRICT OFFICE EXTERIOR .......9 MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ASPEN COMMUNITY CHURCH ....9 PRESERVATION AWARDS ..........11 2 r 12 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall April 26, 1988 2:30 p.m. MOTION: Augie made the motion to elect Charles as chairman in the absence of Bill Poss. Charlie second. Motion carries. Meeting was called to order by Charles Cunniffe with Charlie Knight, Augie Reno, Joe Krabacher present. Bill Poss, Zoe Compton, Patricia O'Bryan, Nick Pasquarella and Georgeann Waggaman were excused. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public: I thought the HPC manual was going to be a working manual in addition to what it is so that a person could pick it up and find out if they had a historic zoned piece of ground and how the numbering system works etc. Rather than having a numbering system a better way would be to say that the particular structure has to be reviewed or it doesn't have to be reviewed. If you think a structure is remotely historical that structure should come before you. Trying to decide what number it is at the early stage has pitfalls in it. The pitfalls are very obvious as in the case of Amato's. It seems to me that the determination of whether a structure is historical or not should come down to two very significant things: one is the fact that architecturally an architect should determine whether or not this house architecturally is a significant structure. The building should be looked at by another group of professionals (engineers) or people who go into the building and really look at the building meticulously and determine whether or not it is a sound structure. Charles: The intention at the time was to not create situations like you are talking about but rather to look at structures to see if they did indeed qualify in that scoring approach; if they had quality architecture; if they contributed to the neighborhood etc. Steve: We had the inventory from 1980 that identified all the historic structures out there and the evaluation system created the 1-5 scoring. That was a way to try and figure out what is the relative merit of the inventory and City Council made a compromise to say lets only go to the high scores that would be subject to demolition review. Charlie: The board has discussed whether we should address the west end as another district then it would fall into a review. , HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Charles: Under new business I'll open the public hearing on 212 W. Hopkins and 222 E. Hallam and table them to the May 10th meeting. MOTION: Joe made the motion to continue the public hearing until the May 10, 1988 meeting on 212 W. Hopkins and 222 E. Hallam. Charlie second. Motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 300 W. MAIN Charles: This is a conceptual development review public hearing for 300 W. Main St. Scott and Caroline McDonald and Welton Anderson will present. Welton: Plan A featured an elevation on the south similar to this and there was also Plan C that had a full two story with a high roof. There was discussion as to whether plan A or C was the better. All the members didn't think the flat roof was appropriate on the alley side. I met with the McDonalds and we came up with something between A and C. A was a two story with a flat roof and C was a two story with a pitched roof. I suggested that we go with 1 3/4 story structure. We have a gable that comes up about 2 1/2 feet higher than the existing roof but it is a tight gable. That allows for an eave line that goes around the west side of the building where it is up against the carriage house and along the alley side where the roof starts to slope in from the wall at about 5 ft. and with dormers set into that roof that are actually bedrooms. The west elevation does feature a low eave line and a pitched roof. The treatment with - the larger dormer or eave coming out of a sloping roof is my preference. My reason for that is it keeps some separation of this space away from the existing structure so that the roof of the addition is set back several feet behind the plane of this roof and thus reinforces that this is not as important as it is stepped back. The light requirement for the bathroom would be accommodated by the sky light. I think you will agree that the applicant has done a remarkable amount of work. Charlie: I noticed that some of the details have changed in terms of the window treatments and I assume the McDonalds have a certain window in mind. Are they double hung or fixed. Scott: Double hung on the two side by sides on the west elevation and double hung on the south elevation. On the south elevation there would be one door in the center and double hung window on each side. Welton: My role in this is to get the mass of the addition established and improved and get input as far as fenestration detail etc. 2 I. HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Roxanne: On March 8th HPC passed a motion to extend the period during which the applicant could meet the conditions of conceptual approval by one month to April 12 with direction to the applicant to study and present revised plans on six different issues: fenestration, pitched roof types, breaking up the massing, eliminate the west elevation staircase, shake or shingle roof and to restudy the southwest corner in particular the second story porch and massing. The applicant returned on April 12th at our last meeting with three alternative plans with the fourth plan brought to the meeting which was very similar to alternative A. After extensive review of the three plans that were submitted at that time the Planning Office recommended to the HPC that they withdraw and deny conceptual approval for the reason that the applicant did not meet the conditions of conceptual and extension approvals. At that meeting of April 12th HPC voted to extend the period of time for conceptual approval by two weeks to today. The applicant has presented some new plans addressing most of the Committees concerns with major changes that we need to point out. The footprint has been extended 6.5 feet east due to the accommodation of the two car garage, that is new. Scott: I think it is 4.5 feet. Roxanne: The height of the proposed pitched roof has increased by 1 ft. 9 inches. Welton said 2 1/2 ft. which is most visible on the west and north elevations. This new plan attempts to address the flat vs. pitched roof issue that HPC has had with the project. Staff feels that the plan as presented offers a good transition between the original log structure and the Elisha Carriage house. The minimal height increase has allowed the use of gabled dormers along the alleyside. Very minor changes are presented for the southwest corner which HPC has stressed as an area of concern. The little cut and paste second floor change is specifically different but the other plan that was presented is very much the same as we have always seen. The further study of this elevation has not, in our opinion produced the desired results the Committee is seeking. Staff feels the "shed dormer" is, in fact, more of a sloped roof covered balcony, and feels further study should be required from the applicant on that elevation. The expanse of this covered balcony is not in keeping with the style of the original log house or with the character of the Main Street Historic District. As the applicant continues to point out, this elevation of the addition is considerably recessed from both the street and the original log cabin and they feel the negative impact of the shed roof/balcony approach is minimal. The footprint of this elevation has not been moved back to the north, a desired result as previously discussed by HPC. In staff's memo of 4-12-88 concerns were discussed regarding the width of the shed dormers on both the south and the east elevations and the applicant has not presented amended plans 3 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 reflecting a shrinking of these, however, Scott did balance out the windows on one elevation so that they were more symmetrical. Fenestration has been continually discussed by HPC and staff feels that the applicant has only addressed some of the concerns. I think the question still lies: are the windows "true divided", are they compatible with the original log cabin. Staff calls this to HPC's attention with recommendation that if window trim is deemed appropriate, that it be narrow and extremely simplified. Window trim is presented on the additions. The north elevation dormers: The 2nd story north elevation consists of small peaked cross dormers protruding from the pitched roof. Staff feels the applicant has presented a good plan with the exception of the zig-zag approach to the gabled dormers. Further study should be made of how the dormers may better fit in relation to the upper floor. We suggest that the form of dormers on other historic residential houses in Aspen be studied to arrive at a dormer detailing more appropriate in scale and roofline effect. Roofing materials: In staff's opinion roofing materials are a very important issue of this project primarily due to the fact that the entire new roof will call attention to the new addition, especially now that a pitch and dormers are proposed. HPC's request was for the applicant to consider shingle or shake roofing materials, and Staff feels this direction is even more critical now. The applicant continues to present pro-panel metal roof. Siding materials: The applicant prefers to use 5/4" custom milled channel lap of native timber. Staff feels very strongly that due to the design of the addition and its effects on the original log cabin, that half logs or full logs may be a better approach. Actual material representation - should be made at Final. The south elevation second floor "Option A", that is the cut and paste addition reflects a gable end with many windows and a door opening onto the balcony. It is "busy" and does not, in staff's opinion, adequately address the option of the gable end at this elevation. If the shed roof dormer/balcony were modified as suggested in previous HPC meetings, staff could support the design for that elevation. The second egress and handicapped access: The building and fire codes may require a second means of egress and handicap access to the restaurant, necessitating exterior changes. Requirements have not yet been finalized and any alternatives will be presented at final development review. The recommendation from the Planning Office is this: We are very encouraged with the plans that have been presented and we feel the areas of concern are being met for the most part. We recommend that HPC table conceptual approval to the next meeting of May 10th and direct the applicant to further study the issues of fenestration, shed dormers on both the east and south elevations, gabled dormers on the north elevation and roofing and siding materials. We recommend that HPC give staff direction to prepare a resolution granting conceptual development approval for your consideration 4 K 4 1 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 at the May 10, 1988 meeting. In that resolution we will incorporate the concerns that you will be discussing today and must be addressed at final development review. Charles: I'll open the public hearing. Augie: I'd prefer the dormer scheme but I think there is too much going on within the dormer itself. I think we need to look at fenestration but conceptually I don't have any problem with where you have located windows and the overall proportions of the windows don't bother me and we need to look at the windows to see if they are true divided lights. I don't have a problem with the siding as long as the profile of the siding is the same as the existing timbers as far as dimension and height. I don't have a problem with the metal roof but would like to see the material before approving it. We haven't seen a floor plan so we can't respond to the handicapped access. The lift up dormer on the east side bothers me, the proportions seem a little too big. Welton: We looked at taking that gable that you see on the south elevation and running that ridge to the alley and repeating the same motif. Joe: I agree with Augie also in reference to the gable. We should study the windows. The skylight would depend on what kind of roof we have and if it could blend in. I have no problem with the north elevation. The location of the windows is fine but we should look at the detail as it seems a little too busy. I would also like to see the roofing materials and siding materials so that it is consistent with the log cabin. Half or whole logs are appropriate as long as the look is similar to the cabin. Charles: It is important for us to see floor plans in order to properly access what we are looking at. We need to know if what we are approving is workable. Welton: I drew up floor plans. Charles: I'm not sure if pro-panel is an appropriate metal roof for that situation on Main St. I like the design of option A with the dormer on the southwest corner as it is a vast improvement over what we have seen before. It is very important that the windows be true divided windows so that they are compatible with the existing building. The scale of the window particularly on the dormer may want to be reduced a little bit. Floor plans and elevations that relate to the floor plans would be important in order to grant conceptual approval. Charlie: Can you give us information on the access and egress of the ramp. 5 1 j HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Scott: Caroline talked to the fire marshal and we have to have an exit with a 20 ft. ramp. The ramp would come out of the house. Charlie: So we would see it on the north and east elevation. Will the restaurant equipment be hidden. Scott: Yes, all of it will be hidden in the attic space above the kitchen. Welton: Basically it is a mechanical pit which is a full 1/2 story. Charlie: The native material is not a log but siding. Scott: It is almost timber and is very thick and will be milled so that it has the same spacing as the logs. It is channel lap. Charlie: The whole presentation has vastly been improved. The north elevation is fine and I like the south elevation with the dormer and the window treatment with the small trim and the smaller divided lights and the idea of a triangular window. I don't see a problem with the true divided light double hung on r the first floor that we see in the west and south elevations. It is nice to have differentiation to the new building over the old. I still have a problem with the french doors dividing in half. Metal roofs have been on log cabins and I don't feel that is inappropriate. Depending on the color it would be appropriate setting among the pine trees. The skylight is a contemporary - feature but is hidden behind the trees and I don't think it will become objective. There is the necessity to have as much light in the living area as possible. Could the handicap ramp be on the addition. Scott: The fire marshal won't allow us to go through the kitchen and even if there was the possibility of going through the garage the code won't allow it. Roxanne: In summary the Committee mentioned that the metal roof would be acceptable depending on the material and color. It appears that the consensus is that the south elevation is vastly improved and that the dormer approach is more appropriate but needs further study particularly the "busy" fenestration. The siding materials are acceptable as long as they are close to the depth of the logs. Further study needs to be made fenestration wise with regard to true divided light, possibly adding more mullions or a blend between the old and new. The Committees consensus is that the dormer on the east is still too wide and should be shortened possibly less centered but not carried through the whole width of that particular elevation. 6 t HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Charles: A motion might be entertained here to continue this until the following meeting. Steve: You could table actual action but to get things rolling so it doesn't take two more meetings have a resolution with direction. Welton: We can accommodate all the comments that were made and actually come up with one set of elevations with a floor plan. I would ask that you take stronger action then just tabling it perhaps approve the plans as presented with the conditions as outlined in the minutes. The major point architecturally I think is how to treat the east and south portions of the addition whether it is the shed dormer or the gable dormer. Charles: We already have a consensus that the gable end dormer is preferred over the shed dormer, option A. Welton: Other members said that the shed dormer wasn't so bad if it was reduced and didn't go the full width. Joe: I don't have a problem with the shed dormer given the fact that it is recessed back. Augie: On the siding what is important is the height of the siding and the joint size is equal or close to being equal to the existing structure. Scott: I'll take the average and divide it up. Charles: We can make progress by moving this to the meeting of May 10th and add the summary and the recommendations that were made today to be presented as one package. Scott: Until I get conceptual I can"t do the drawings to submit for building. Charlie: I would agree with that as there are at least three elevations that we are talking about changing. MOTION: Augie made the motion that HPC table conceptual approval to the next meeting May 10, 1988 and direct the applicant to further study the issues with option A with the dormers on the south and either the dormer or a reduced shed dormer on the east looking at the following items: window and door fenestration, siding is OK as presented but the height of the siding and the joint should come close to matching the 7 . HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 existing, the roofing as presented in the metal roof is OK but before approval is given we need to look at the actual material. The new window trim needs to be studied and along with this the chosen complete submission package including a floor plan, site plan, roof plan and exterior elevations. The roof plan can be the site plan as long as they show both. We want to see the complete package of what is going to happen. I also recommend that HPC give the staff direction to prepare a resolution granting conceptual development for consideration of the May 10, 1988 meeting. In that resolution you include everything that is in my motion. The siding, roofing and window trim are to be studied at Final. Charlie second the motion. Joe: I think we also should look at the general fenestration. Roxanne: That is in the motion. Steve: My opinion is that when you get into selection of materials it is really a Final Development Review detail and it is best to let that ride. Roxanne: You can add that at the end of motion. Charlie: Having not had seen this before on the site plan we are now dealing with parking and redefining of the streetscape and that is not in our packet for consideration. I think it should be made as part of this. You have parking along the side and back. Charles: As part of the submittal package the site plan that you are representing should be part of that conceptual approval. Welton: The Eng. Dept. doesn't allow for curb cuts that go the entire length of the block. The McDonalds were showing that in case somebody in the City wanted it. All the required parking with P&Z reduction etc. is accommodated on the alley accessed entirely from the alley so that there will be a streetscape and not parking. Caroline: The Eng. Dept. is recommending to put the curb parking in. Charlie: The HPC will probably say #1. we don't want to alter the trees or alter the effect the streetscape has to an historic building. This is something I would think would have to be approved by us. Caroline: P&Z has parking. 8 1 HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Charles: In the interest of keeping this going the applicant has to understand the concerns here and this would be one of themâ€¢ Steve: There is a little overlapping authority here. P&Z is reviewing the conditional use impacts. You may be interested in site design issues. I think it is good to defer as much as is appropriate because P&Z is also sensitive to the trees. Charles: I'll close the public hearing. MOTION: All those in favor of the motion. All approved. Motion carries. ASPEN FIRE DISTRICT OFFICE EXTERIOR Steve: The primary concern is the brick being painted. Bob Walker: The addition between the fire house and the thrift shop is the office. The only item that was left up to discussion was the color of the block. The district from the beginning wanted the block the same color as the thrift shop which is painted gray. The Fire Dept. has no intention of repainting the fire barn. My original intention was to keep the same detailing as the Thrift Shop and the HPC did not want to do that because they were trying to show visually that the Fire Dept. addition and the Thrift Shop were not connected. I suggested a compromise: we tried to look at getting an intricate colored block but due to the small order we couldn't do it and it was expensive. It wasn't a great idea of putting a third color on another facade. I would like to paint the concrete block the same color as the thrift block and on the window detail to use two colors, a deep burgundy and a darker red, satin enamel. The reds would pick up a little color of the Fire barn and a little bit of the red in the building next door. The Fire District would like to go along with this also. Charles: This sounds like a fine approach. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the treatment and materials that are presented for the Fire District Office. Augie second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ASPEN COMMUNITY CHURCH Graeme Means: Our intention is to restore the building not change it in any way. We want to restore similar materials to the old. The shingles on the roof of the bell tower and the side walls of the bell tower we intend to remove and replace with new cedar shingles. The louvers are deteriorating and we will have 9 I I HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 to replace them. The area around the roof and the curved dormer and flat sections have always leaked. Our intention is to put new copper on this section. Some of the shingles are in good shape and we intend to leave those. The soffit will be repainted red and the louvers will be repainted the same color. The roof we would like to add color to the shingles to make it more historically accurate and also the shingles would last longer. My preference is charcoal color. The shingles that are there are the original shingles and over 100 years old. Charlie: If you are going to change the shingles I would think you would change all the lower shingles on the wall of the tower. Graeme: That's what we intended to do. We also have a new little entry way on the west side that has a cedar shingled roof and we would like to paint that so it would fit in with everything. Roxanne: The shingles will be dipped so to cover both sides. If they shrink the underside will be the same color. Charlie: The side addition has beautiful lines to it and I want to compliment you on the job and good workmanship. Roxanne: I had to talked to Graeme as to how much of the original fabric can be restored. Can you actually restore and integrate in with the new particularly because this is a national registered building. Because of the economics and the continual hardship of the maintenance and since it is a church probably this is the recommended way to go. Augie: I think you have done a nice job with the building not only on the outside but on the inside also. Since the roof is going to be the black and since the main portion of the roof is in the gray etc. have you looked into microzinc or other metal roofs that might tend to blend a little better or is that not a concern. Roxanne: Your concern is the copper. Augie: Yes, as the copper will weather to a dirty dull brown. Graeme: If we ever get the money we are going to redo the main roof. Also most of the copper is not visible. Charles: The copper will be reflective for awhile. Augie: You could put a chemical on the copper. 10 , HPC.MINUTES. April 26, 1988 Roxanne: I talked to the state architect and he recommended that we not do that as it will patina in about a year on its own and it is not visible. Charles: This is on the south side and the sun will hit it. You may want to consider a lead zinc alloy. Charles: We could approve the way it looks now with a recommendation that lead zinc alloy be looked into. Graeme: I will look into it. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to approve the plans for reroofing and residing the upper portion of the bell tower at the Aspen Community Church along with reroofing the south gable in copper or an appropriate metal material and allow it to weather naturally. Joe second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. PRESERVATION AWARDS Roxanne: Last night Council approved $250 for the plaques. Nominated are 131 E. Hallam, 332 W. Main F. M. Taylor, The Wheeler Stallard House, Aspen Community Church, Wheeler Opera House, Hotel Jerome, Pitkin County Court House. MOTION: Charles made the motion to accept all seven nominations for the historic preservation awards. Charlie second the motion. Motion carries. Adjourned Kathleen J. Strickland 11 , 1 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 MINOR DEVELOPMENT-SCULPTURE GARDEN 411 E. HOPKINS . . .4 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 212 W. HOPKINS .....6 CONCEPTUAL & FINAL-513 W. BLEEKER .......8 FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-300 W. MAIN .............12 MINOR DEVELOPMENT-220 W. MAIN .......14 MINOR DEVELOPMENT-ROARING FORK BLDG.415 E. HYMAN ...15 EXPLORE BOOKSTORE-AWNING . . . . . . . . . 18 20 , HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall May 24, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Charles Cunniffe, Charlie Knight, Augie Reno, Zoe Compton and Joe Krabacher present. Patricia O'Bryan was excused. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Bill Poss made the motion to approve the minutes of May 10, 1988 with corrections. All approved. Joe: I would suggest that everybody reads what they said at the particular meeting and possibly somebody could be delegated to read the critical information which is the motions or resolutions. Augie: If you weren't in attendance at the next meeting, if you were only checking what you said personally that means that those items could be left uncorrected. Nick: My feeling is that Kathy puts the minutes together and when we come back to the next meeting and we approve the minutes those minutes then stand. Up until they are approved then that is the time to make corrections or an argument. If you don't make a meeting when the minutes are approved that is passe. Georgeann: I find it difficult to just read what I've said. You've got to at least glance at the whole thing in order to get a sense of it. Joe: I'm concerned about the conditions of approval such as McDonalds and the Amato project. Bill: We need to get a format down. We will all continue to read the minutes and give comments or corrections. If we all read the minutes that will lessen the chance of something being left out. Augie: I question whether we need the warranty deed, title commitments etc. in our packets. Bill: Roxanne will you please edit the packets. Bill: We have eight members present. We need seven and one of the alternates is welcome to stay but only seven can vote. One of the alternates will not be able to vote. Augie: I have a 3:30 potential meeting. HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Bill: We will seat Joe as the seventh member to vote. Charles: In the last issue of the Aspen Times a comment was made on the Amato house. It was quoted that it was an HPC comment but it was a comment by the Planning Staff. Roxanne: I talked to Madelyn and I am not sure what action the Times will take, possibly a follow up story. Madelyn: Richard from Charles Cunniffe's office tried to convince me that this was completely untrue that the Planning Office had tried to stop demolition and the HPC never wanted to see that demolished which I know isn't true because I sat through these meetings for three years. The misunderstanding came from an old memo that said the HPC had though that it was out of scale for the neighborhood and obviously at the last meeting it was decided that the new design looked better. Madelyn: Shouldn't Charles have left the room when that was discussed. Bill: In the ordinance it is a conflict of interest and says specifically that you have to leave the room. Madelyn: Guss Wilmerding will take my place while I am on vacation. PUBLIC COMMENT Gary Reed, Aspen Awning Co.: I would like to be put on the agenda regarding the design proposal of an awning for the Explorer Bookseller if at all possible. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to add Gary Reed to the end of the agenda if time. Nick second. All approved except Charlie Knight. Motion carries. MONITORING PROJECTS Augie: Porch is up at the Barnett House. The roof line goes up at the end and is probably a matter of miscalculations and construction of it. As I remember the discussions by Welton to ask for the additional porch the reason they wanted to do that was to carry the line of the roof and in order to carry that line out they had to push the building out to the west. They pushed the building out to the west but it is not a straight line and kind of goes up and around the corner. It is a poor job in my opinion and is probably worth looking at. 2 4 1 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Bill: The person monitoring the project should notify the contractor or architect and have them come back and demonstrate to us. Nick: All the new equipment is up on the roof of Elli's and in my opinion it does not exceed what is already there and it is acceptable. Nick: On your building, Bill, next to the bank, 520 E. Hyman there are two pieces of equipment on the roof and I don't know if they got approval or not. Bill Drueding: Mechanical equipment on the roof will come through without requiring your #1 building permit. If I don't get a chance to review it, it just gets a mechanical permit so some things get by me that go on roofs. Bill: Roxanne will you direct Staff to write a letter to the owners of the building that the mechanical equipment did not come up for approval at 520 E. Hyman before the HPC. I don't think they were aware that they had to come before us for review. Nick: I thought it was offensive at least looking to the north. Bill Drueding: Is that a restaurant mechanical equipment. Bill: Yes. Bill Drueding: When a building is designed we don't know for sure what use is going to go in that building; a restaurant is completed and the building is final then the mechanical contractor comes in and pulls a mechanical permit to put a piece of mechanical equipment on the roof and this is not reviewed by me as part of the zoning approval. It is just a mechanical permit so those things do slip by. Roxanne: O'Leary's is a good example as they had an application. Bill: Staff would handle that as a minor development review. Roxanne: You might contact Jim Wilson and let him know that anything in the zone needs to be approved through the Planning Office. Roxanne: I am concerned about the tree leaning on the Bucher residence on 113 E. Hopkins. Charles: Who do I talk to about that tree. 3 ' HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Roxanne: After the meeting we need to review that issue and he hasn't come before us for Final yet. Bill Drueding: He moved the tree without a building permit. Georgeann: He moved it on his own property. Bill: I will monitor 222 E. Hallam. Joe: I'll take 334 W. Hallam. MINOR DEVELOPMENT-SCULPTURE GARDEN 411 E. HOPKINS Roxanne: The applicant is requesting approval of modifications to the previously approved sculpture garden specifically the dining terrace: To extend the length of the awning to cover the entire new terrace area. On Feb. 9th HPC reviewed an approved the sculpture garden and then on March 22 Bill came back with an amendment to the plan which was also approved which in that plan included a small curved stucco wait station. Bill has come back to us to amend the wait station and it has become more of a permanent type of structure. Regarding the awning they prefer to use white on the new section to allow light in the area. Currently exists green. The total new length of the awning will be 49 feet; it projects out about 9 1/2 feet from the building and covers approximately 230 sq. ft. The new wait station has evolved from this small curved stucco structure into a very permanent bar storage station with a back wall, however, in verbally talking they have now changed the plan. Instead of it being a 12 ft. high wall and 20 feet long the wall it is now going to be just the height of the door which is 7'2", the rest of the height of the wall will be filled in with canvas. The proposal called for 8" log siding which staff is concerned about but it has been changed to a bead board to match the bar front which I personally feel may be a better way to go. Our other concern was the visual aspect of the bar area in the winter without the awning. Bill says they apparently are going to try to leave the awning up in the winter, that the awning manufacturer has basically said it will probably be OK. Staff is directing the question of standard C to you: Does this proposed development negatively impact the esthetics and cultural concept of the sculpture garden that you previously approved. On the other hand the very activity of outdoor dining is kind of fun and may bring attention to the sculpture garden. We are recommending approval of the minor development application subject to HPC's approval. I have on here visual acceptable winter coverage for the bar area. With the awning being up that may not be applicable. 4 M HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Georgeann: In the winter time this bar will be closed down and will the snow be dropping on top of it, drooping the awning. Bill Lipsey: They will be able to strengthen the holes. There is a panel of canvas that comes down and snaps underneath the bar all the way around the U shaped area that will form an enclosure and will keep the equipment that is in there protected from moisture and weather. Georgeann: When Gary from Aspen Awning put up the winter time awnings at the Prospector those were reinforced and stayed fairly well. Joe: Where is it located in relationship to the wall of the Brand Bldg. Bill Lipsey: There is a hallway that goes into the kitchen and there is a low back part on the Brand Bldg. The bar sits right in front of the low part. By extending the awning the same height and the same plane as the existing awning that it will unify the wall. Bill: To the upper left of the bar where you have a circular paved area for dining how high is the terrace. Bill Lipsey: About six inches above the level of the pea gravel and there is a railing all the way around it. Bill Lipsey: We asked at our first approval that HPC look at the concrete because it is tinted in the wall and we feel you will find it acceptable. The color is somewhat of a sand color. Georgeann: I will monitor the sculpture garden. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the changes to the bar in the sculpture garden at 411 E. Hopkins and any awning is acceptable. Charles second the motion. Zoe: You mentioned acrylic on the awning and we went through this on Maestros and the material was shiny. Bill Lipsey: Either the acrylic or cotton is a matt finish not a plastic. The cotton is not a year round material. Roxanne: The existing green awning will exist and the white awning will be on the new instead of all being one. Bill Lipsey: After the present awning wears out we would probably be replacing it with a similar white awning. 3 5 F HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Georgeann: I certainly can see the point of having extra light. Bill Lipsey: We can get a few more seasons use out of it. Bill: Does the committee have a preference to have the awning all one color. Charles: What they are applying for is to have the green awning stand and have the white awning added to it. They are suggesting that they would come back later when it is time to replace the green awning and ask if it should be white. I find it acceptable. Zoe: I think it should be all one color. Aesthetically looking it would be better all one color. Nick: I would back that comment as we have pink concrete, colored gravel, white awning and two or three different colors of wood on the building. Joe: Do we have the authority to regulate color. Georgeann: While I see that one color would be preferable I see they have a valid reason for it and as long as they stay with those color schemes even in two years when they need to change it I don't see any reason why they need to come back if they change it to one of those colors. Bill Lipsey: You are reviewing material not color. Bill: We have a motion on the floor. All approved of the motion. Motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 212 W. HOPKINS Charles stepped down. Roxanne: On May 10th HPC reviewed and tabled conceptual development approval based on your concerns that the height of the new addition was too high compared to the relation to the existing structure and the applicant has submitted revised plans specifically relating to that. The revised proposal reflects a height reduction of three feet over the original plans. The original historic structure is 14 ft. high; the 1970's addition directly behind that is 18.5' feet high and the height of the new addition is 21.5' high so these come down three feet. One of the Planning Offices recommendation was fenestration, to include simple divided lights in the south elevation upper floor. The revised plans as presented show a great transparency in the south and the west elevation of the upper floor and we are 6 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 recommending that some of these lights be divided to act as a transition between the historic home and the new addition. One alternative may be to just divide the side light windows because the glass doors coming out over the balcony may stay that way and also to divide the lights that are on the east elevation as well. The applicant does intend to restore the entire front porch not to go half way and make it transparent but a complete restoration. We recommend conceptual development approval of 212 W. Hopkins finding that the setback variation is more compatible and subject to incorporating divided light on both the east and south elevations. Jan Derrington: We have measured the house to the west that is shown from the alley side that has a two story addition on the back part of the property and a smaller historic building in the front. The relationship of that two story building to the existing house and the proposed addition as close as we can tell the ridge of the proposed addition comes approximately level with the medium of the pitched roof of that historic building existing to the west at the alley. We don't particularly see any great advantage to adding a division in the windows on the south or on the east. The idea behind that is to make them look like double hung windows. What we had envisioned are easement windows. We could call for a window that had a divider bar in the middle. Bill Drueding: At final we would need a large site plan. Bill: On the revised north elevation above the garage doors are those windows double hung. Jan: These are called a stack and strip type window not double hung. Charlie: The reduced height is more appropriate and I disagree a little over the style of windows on the addition. I think it has a nice roof line and if the applicant wants that type of window it is acceptable. I think it distinguishes between the old and new building. Zoe: I was concerned about the porch and they are restoring it and I also was concerned about the height and they lowered it. I don't have a problem with the windows. Roxanne: Mr. Chairman it is important that the motion also have a finding in it regarding the encroachment into the setback. Charlie: The existing setback to the west. Roxanne: It encroaches to the rear yard and side yard setback 7 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 and by doing that we have to find that the setback is more compatible. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to give conceptual development approval to 212 W. Hopkins finding the setback variation to be more compatible. Charlie second. All favored. Motion carries. Bill: Roxanne, on issues that you feel we should keep memos you might recommend that the memo should be kept for future reference. Roxanne: Anything that is tabled it is automatic that you hang onto it also on the agenda it says to bring your packet. Bill: That was a public hearing: I will open the public hearing on 212 W. Hopkins. Sally & Sail Barnett: We were concerned about the height and our addition was somewhat lower then theirs would have been. I think they now come out about the same. Bill: I'll close the public hearing. Augie was excused at 3:30pm. CONCEPTUAL & FINAL-513 W. BLEEKER Welton Anderson: As I understand it the area of most concern was the pitch of the roof. There are three reasons why we chose to use a shallower pitch on the roof: One was to tie visually to the porch, by keeping the pitch low (a four and twelve pitch) it can tie in with the roof and read like it is one. I felt that a higher pitch would clash with the shapes and low quiet porch. The second reason was blocked views: A steeper pitched roof would have blocked the entire view of Aspen Mtn. and in addition it also allows winter sun to come in to this back yard and a high pitch roof would not allow. The third reason, the code for accessory buildings limits in return for allowing for only a five foot setback in the rear yard, it limits the height to 12 feet. Although you can vary the code if you think it is aesthetically more pleasing the applicant doesn't want to vary the code due to light, view and keep it subdued. If you went up five or ten feet it would be more of a dominant element on the property. Basically it is a hipped roof on the west, north and east. On the south side is a gable to keep snow from dumping down in front of the garage doors. I also understand that you had a problem with the full glass overhead garage doors. As long as we can have one row (second from top) of glass windows I have no problem. Because of the south exposure I thought it would make 8 . HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 the thing work as a solar element but it really is not that important. Roxanne: The allowable FAR is 3,660 and the existing is 3,306 add to that 486 feet for the garage and the storage unit but it is exempt. Charlie: Does that include the existing carriage house. Roxanne: From what I understand that does and those calculations were done by Charles Cunniffe before when he was the architect working on the project. Welton: I did not check the calculations. Whether the carriage house was included it is about 150 to 200 sq. ft. below the FAR. The structure is allowed to bump up another 500 sq. ft. above with the allowable FAR, the Mary Martin Bathroom rule. The actual FAR is 4,160 and the carriage house is 240 sq. ft. Bill: The 500 sq. ft. increase is only allowed if we find it to be more compatible. Welton: That predates all the historic preservation ordinances and the code (1982 or so) and in any case we are under what we would be allowed. Georgeann: We wouldn't approve it unless it was something we liked anyway. " Bill Drueding: I have one problem between the accessory building and the main building. The code does require that there be a setback separation. HPC would have to vary that as it does require a separation. It is supposed to be open up to the sky. Welton: Between the breakfast room and the garage I thought visually it would be better to tie the two together and connect them with a three foot wide, four foot long section of extension of the roof of the porch and extension of the roof of the garage. Roxanne: I talked with Bill Drueding prior to mtg. and that did not come up in our conversation that we had to find that a variation to that would be more compatible. Based on Bill Drueding's direction we could take action or I could research. Bill Drueding: HPC's ability to vary setbacks and things was the purpose of it. If you found this was acceptable and you liked it then you could grant a variance. There is a requirement for a separation between principle building and accessory building. This covering is encroaching that separation. 9 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Charlie: What about the connection between the two. Bill Drueding: If it is a connection that is a proper connection then it is not an accessory building, it is part of the building and therefore the setback changes. It is not an accessory building anymore if it is connected properly. Bill: Welton did you check with the zoning code as you are asking for final review. Welton: You can encroach with overhangs and setbacks. Bill Drueding: 18 inches or 1/3 of the distance of the setback but no more than four feet. Welton: It depends on what you call the building if the porch is the building then they are two close together and connecting them makes them all one building. The code will allow if it is all one building a one story garage to only have a 5 ft. setback from the alley. Bill Drueding: I have to maintain my integrity as far as setbacks but this is the purpose of what this committee has the power to do and I would go along with the approval of this as is. Welton: The shingles will match the shingles and the siding will match the siding. Bill: I will open the public hearing for the conceptual and final development review. No comments from the public. I will close the public hearing. Zoe: What are the garage doors made out of. Welton: I have no problem with going with one strip of glass to get natural lighting. Zoe: The way it is draw shows glass and wood. I am opposed to all glass doors since it faces the alley but I understand ,the light factor. Georgeann: I would recommend having glass just a single strip across the garage doors. I feel comfortable with the rest of the materials. Nick: For historical preservation whether the doors are all glass or wood I do not find it historically involved what-so- ever. If the owner of the building would like to have everybody look at his car through his glass windows that is his prerogative. 10 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Charlie: I disagree as this is an historic building on our records. I think it is well within our right to direct the scale and the style of the garage because it is a victorian style house. We have proliferated this house from one end to the other with porches and now we are being told the reason there is an encroachment between the house and the garage and that the reason the applicant needs a low profile garage is because the back porch and dining room is now way back on the lot and that the garage will now interfere with their viewplane and their light. Philosophically it is a matter of how we treat buildings like this that have an existing carriage house that are secondary dwellings. My feeling is that it should stay more on the victorian character. I don't have a comment on glass doors or wood doors once we leave the victorian element of the design. Nick: We have overhead doors and nothing related with historical background, not part of the carriage house, its a garage and we are somewhat dictating how much glass he should or shouldn't have. Bill: Originally I thought it should be more of a victorian character and I also believe the applicant created the problem of view lines etc. In light of where it is located on the site and the visibility from the street I tend to change my approach to it and would be in favor of this application but I also would like to see it be more victorian in character rather than southwestern. Bill: In the motion it should be noted that the setback variations are more compatible to the historic structure. Someone needs to add that in the motion. Bill: I might add Welton there is some discrepancy on the roof slope of the porch, northwestern corner. Welton: I will check that out. Bill: Augie will be sending you a letter. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve conceptual and final development of 513 W. Bleeker St. as show in the drawings presented by the architect today allowing for the setback variation as it is more compatible to the existing building with the materials to match the existing building materials. Nick second. AMENDED MOTION: Georgeann amended her motion to add that the garage doors be no more than one strip of glass at the eye level. Nick second. All favored amendment. Motion carries. 11 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Bill: All in favor of the motion as amended. All approved except Charlie Knight. Motion carries. FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-300 W. MAIN Roxanne: On May 10th HPC approved the resolution 88-3 which granted conceptual development approval subject to the following conditions: That the applicant shall address in their Final Development Review simplified south elevation upper floor dormer window and door fenestration. Detailed plans for the size of panes in the true divided lights. Further study of the east dormer mass and scale and accurate building materials and representation and a structural analysis. They have provided all of those things. The south elevation the applicant has proposed a triangular window as opposed to the original squared window. A sample of the Marvin windows is in your packet. The window trim will be very simple and narrow. The east dormer the applicant has furthered studied and has included sketched drawings. Basically they continue to prefer the shed dormer which was originally presented. Augie wanted the applicant to present two shed dormers which would break up the large expanse. I now have received a detail of that particular floor area which discussed using the two dormers and how it not practical to do SO. The applicant felt that the gable end was not going to satisfy their needs. The possibility of having one dormer over the bedroom and none for the bath, that also isn't going to work for the applicant as no natural light is coming into the bathroom. Reducing the shed dormer even more was discussed. They will also be presenting their materials which they have. They also have submitted a structural analysis that was reviewed by Stan Stevens of the Bldg. Dept. My concern was the placement of the skylights and size of the skylights. Scott: They are 3'by 3'. They are about six inches tall. Roxanne: Staff found their application to be complete as they have presented placement of the skylights. HPC may approve the development with conditions, no conditions or table action. The Planning Office recommends approval of final development subject to the applicant incorporating consideration #4 which is a further reduction of the shed dormer and for HPC approving the skylights and their roof placement. Scott: We may or may not use all the skylights. Charlie: You intend to use the Marvin window. Scott: If not the Marvin window it would be one like it and would be all solid wood and double hung true divided light. 12 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Joe: Do the applicants have any comment to the Planning Office's recommendation that we approve final subject to consideration #4. Caroline: We are in three feet from the eaves and our problem is the interior. Zoe: You have two skylights proposed. Caroline: One that shows and the other one would be on the flat roof. Roxanne: One on the south elevation and on the flat there are three. Zoe: The roofline is good and what is the material of the garage door. Scott: Resawn plywood. Zoe: I'm sure the applicant and Welton have tried to work #4 out and I am satisfied. When the motion is made I would like the material to be spelled out specifically. Georgeann: What they have done shows a tremendous improvement and I have no problem with the shed dormer. They have showed to make it any smaller would be too significant of a hardship and I recommend that we approve it. Charlie Knight: I agree on the shed dormer and it fits into the bldg. very nicely. In the motion we should condition that the skylights not be visible from the pedestrian walkway of Main St. Joe: I don't have a problem with the shed dormer as they reduced it the last time and again they have shown that they are not going to be able to work with the other alternatives and still have the floor plan that they need. Charlie: How is the parking going. Roxanne: P&Z approved the parking but because of the tree consideration and the roots so close to the surface the applicants are requesting instead of diagonal parking a parallel parking which will probably eliminate one space. They will be meeting with Planning and Engineering. Right now there is no problem. Scott: I talked to them and we are proposing one more space 13 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 on the alley which would make it six but it would be encroaching into the right-of-way. Bill: I was one of the ones that wanted you to look at the shed dormer and in light of the information provided I agree that it would be too much of a hardship. I would like to compliment you on your willingness to look at the constant changes that we have asked you to look at and it is a good job. MOTION: Zoe made the motion to approve the final development for 300 W. Main St. subject to materials being specifically called out and that no skylights are showing from the Main St. other than the one that was in the original drawing. Georgeann second. Caroline: Should our encroachment in the back be included. Roxanne: We approved that in conceptual and feel it is OK to include that in the final as well. Joe: We recommend or make a finding that it is more compatible. AMENDED MOTION: Joe moved to amend the motion accordingly to provide that we grant the variance on the rear yard setback. Bill second. All favored. Motion carries. Bill: All in favor of the motion presented by Zoe. All approved. Motion carries. MINOR DEVELOPMENT-220 W. MAIN Roxanne: The applicant is presenting minor development approval involving the attachment of two awnings to the facade of 220 W. Main. They will appear as one continuous awning down into the store front. We have gone through the standards including comments out of the guidelines. We recommend approval for the awning finding that the proposed development is in keeping with the guidelines and compatible with the standards for development in the Historic Overlay District. Gary Reed: We are trying to add something to the building as it is plain. Georgeann: I have no problem with this. Charlie: Is there black trim across the front. Gary: I would like to see the stripes continue down the valance and there would be no signage. 14 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Bill: Are we voting on the stripes. Gary: Vote on the stripes continuing down the valance. Zoe: I would do an all striped awning. MOTION: Charlie made the motion that we approve the proposed awning design at 220 E. Main provided however that the valance is a continuation of the black and silver striping that is on the upper portion of the awning on the drawing presented. Joe second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. MINOR DEVELOPMENT-ROARING FORK BLDG. 415 E. HYMAN Rod Dyer, architect: I represent International Lace which is one of the owners of the building. Roxanne: This is a minor development review and is an excellent presentation. The first floor store front is the primary focus. They want to remove the aluminum store front system including the doorway, replacing it with oak and glass and adding window boxes to all of the windows which are the width of the windows and including some brass lighting. The existing spot lights for signage illumination will also be eliminated. The net interior area will be reduced by 18.75 ft. The multi level entry way which is really outside of our area of review is also going to be remodeled. We are pleased with the project and recommend approval provided that the stucco course which is just above the garden level windows be restored and repainted or replaced with compatible wood and that a minimum number of posts be included in the oak railing within the two most westerly archways to add visual continuity. Rod: We are going for a plain oak not molded in any way. We want to take out the aluminum railing that is not really in keeping with the building and replace that with an oak frame. In doing we also will be reducing the interior opening of the building by 18 sq. ft. As the tenants move out we will remove the signage lighting and possibly change the signs so that they are less obtrusive. The whole floor is restaurant and we would like to change the front two UnitS to retail sales and there would be two back units that would be office space. In doing so we would move the bathrooms back to where they were. We are changing the existing rod iron railings to oak. The band will be replaced with wood panelling system that would be framed on each segment. There will be flower boxes on 1st, 2nd, 3rd floors. The fourth floor is not owned by International Lace. Roxanne: Originally we had discussed a singular oak railing 15 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 that would be across the other two arches that would not have spindles in them. They do not reflect on this however. Bill: Will they be there or not. Rod: We would like direction and we are willing to put them in but our feeling is that it looks better without them. We would like to move the entrance over to the column. Georgeann: I would like to ask about moving the door as it aligns up with the windows above. Joe: I'm not sure if you are really going to see it that much as it is set back far enough. Owner: I wanted the door moved because we are selling victorian gowns and it is more important to show your displays than a door. It gives more character to the building to have two windows with the "theme" which is victorian. Bill: I tend to agree with Joe that in reality you won't make that alignment and would allow the applicant to have more window display space as it would solve a functional problem. Rod: In the case of fire and people exiting it would be better if that door were a little farther away from the other one. Zoe: The building was built in 1971 and they did a good representation of something that blends in with the mall. The oak railing is a representation of a colonial style and I feel that is not in keeping with the mining town. That needs to be changed. Replacing the storefront in oak etc. is excellent. The four light fixtures that are there are not appropriate but the shiny brass is not appropriate either and I would prefer it to be in iron or something that is not so "stand-outish". Brass is out of character for the mining era. Joe: I like the design and it is a 1971 building and I am not so sure it is appropriate for us to require them to have a mining look to it. They are comfortable with those lights and I am comfortable with them. It is hard to tell how the oak railing will stand out but I don't have a problem with that either. The applicant put together an outstanding package and it is very helpful having the photographs as you can visualize what is happening. Georgeann: I wonder if the stain of the railing will determine if it looks colonial or victorian thinking of the wood rails inside the Jerome Hotel. The darker oak would look more in keeping what Zoe has in mind. 16 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Zoe: The turning part of the oak rail is what is colonial. If it were square. Roxanne: The feel of the spindles reflects the owners business. Georgeann: Possibly the applicant could look around at the Wheeler etc. and see what we have around town. Bill: I think your comments are correct Zoe and this building was probably approved earlier to be compatible with the Paragon building. If you upgrade to wood you have to balance it with a tone and I would also like to see the brass lights toned town. Rod: What if we put the lights up and take a look at them and if you don't like them we will replace them. Zoe: I know exactly what they look like. The colonial applications on this building are out of character. Charlie: My concern as a retailer you may want to carry a small bit of window trim around those two large windows so they draw all the oak work together. Rod: I understand Charlie's concern about the wood and from a practical point of view it's more complicated especially with the way the brick columns are shaped. It is more complicated to set a frame into those brick columns then it is to put the frame behind. There are a lot of flashing problems involved in that plus you have to cut the brick. Charlie: I don't have any problem with what they intend to do. Bill: I agree with Zoe that the metal across all three is a cleaner look and keeps a horizontal line. Charlie: As high as it is I know if it were my storefront I wouldn't want a security guard type fence up there because you have to realize it is almost 4 ft. off the ground so at eye level you would be looking primarily at the fence and they will really be dramatic show case type windows for whatever tenant is in there. Roxanne: Do you call out the changes in the stucco fascia board on the plans. You say repair and repainting existing fascia. Rod: We'll stipulate that we'll do that and cover it in wood. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant minor development approval for the Roaring Fork Building at 415 E. Hyman. Rod had said he is 17 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 going to do the wood and it is reflected in the plans. Georgeann second the motion. Zoe: I think if we let this pass without a little bit of study on it then I think we should let a lot of things pass. If we are going to let a colonial railing go up on the mall and brass light fixtures.. We have given so many people grief over minor things and this is the mall of Aspen, Colo. and we're going to let a Williamsburg railing go up I totally disagree. I don't want to vote or pass a motion. Roxanne: You could amend the motion to include that the applicant return to staff with a less delicate colonial type spindles and with a less shiny finished carriage lamp. Zoe: I would be happy to give guidance with choosing the right spindle and light. AMENDED MOTION: Joe moved to amend the motion to provide that the applicant will study the railing and attempt to produce a less delicate railing of a victorian styling and that the applicant reconsider the lighting fixtures and provide ones that are not as shiny and delicate and that staff can approve and sign off on the railing and lights and staff will do an FYI memo to HPC to inform them what has happened and staff will consult with Zoe. Bill second. All favored the amended motion. Motion carries. Bill: We have a motion on the floor that has been amended. All favored the motion. Motion carries. EXPLORE BOOKSTORE-AWNING Gary Reed: The Explorer Bookstore has a breakfast/lunch area on the back of the building facing the alley. The area gets a lot of sun and the owner wants to put in a retractable system. She will eventually be expanding the deck area. We will be making an oversized awning utilizing four legs on the deck area itself. It is a rectangular shape and is 16' x 14" and will be painted an offwhite to match the existing railing. The awning will be an acrylic fabric. The frame will be painted off white to match the existing railing. The awning will roll off an air crafted cable which is not visible because the fabric is on the bottom part of it. It is not designed to hold a snow load or to be used in rain. It accordions up completely out of site up on the roof itself. Georgeann: Who will be able to see this. 18 HPC MINUTES May 24, 1988 Gary: The people directly in back of the house and they would have to look up to see it. It is below the existing roof line. Roxanne: The owner will have to come to us for the deck approval. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant a minor development approval for 221 E. Main for the proposed awning to cover the deck at the back of the building. Georgeann second. All approved. Motion carries. Meeting Adjourned Kathleen J. Strickland 19 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Marolt Ranch Site (for information only) Date: June 14, 1988 I have asked Mark Fowler, Board member of the Aspen Historical Society, to come before US with a brief informational presentation regarding the Society's plans (and desires!) for the Marolt Barn/Ranching Museum. As you may know, this entire site is currently being reviewed by the City. The new (Highway 82) entrance to Aspen issue may affect it. Interns from the Design Workshop are studying development alternatives for the Marolt site now. Attached is a file report of current background information and the sketched site plan from the Historical Society for reference purposes. Although the presentation and attached items are informational only, HPC may wish to take action in support of the Society's efforts and become involved with the public information sessions forthcoming. This site has not been landmark designated, and therefore no formal review of a development application is required. HPC may wish to pursue the designation process. It is, however, staff's opinion that development activity on this historic, highly visible site should be reviewed for comment (only, at this time) by the HPC, and such recommendation(s) may be passed on to Planning and Zoning and Council. Many sensitive issues are facing the Marolt site, obviously a priority to many special interests throughout the community. HPC.MEMO.Marolt FILE REPORT - by Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office MAROLT RANCH SITE June 7, 1988 This morning, Don of the Design Workshop and five student interns met with members of the City and the Planning office at Anderson Ranch to discuss the initial planning/design theme for the Marolt site, the last large open space area owned by the City close in. Seemingly, everyone's main concern deals with the sensitivity of the site's development, historically, environmentally and visually. The Design Workshop has entered into an agreement with the City through Council and the Planning Office to provide initial design and planning assistance. The Aspen Historical Society has begun a dialogue with the City to acquire the Marolt Barn, and the 1.9 acres immediately surrounding it with the goal of creating an interpretive Ranching Museum and community-type center. Other special interests for the development of the site include but are not limited to: Preservation of historic resources and site Preservation of open space as is Passive park Active recreation Linking the trail system and bike path system Amphitheater Employee housing Highway 82, new entrance to Aspen This is the site of the Lixiviation Plant, with mining roots. Outbuildings remain which should be preserved in their original location. Historic Survey documentation is necessary to determine the age and original usage of these structures, and if they are in fact historically sited. The question arose regarding the moving of these historic structures, particularly to a grouping, which is not the preferred preservation plan. Every effort must be made to preserve these structures on their original sites, winding any pedestrian or bike pathways around and away from them to prevent misuse and deterioration. A funded maintenance plan must accompany the restoration efforts. A historical interpretive program could, in fact, be a tremendous education/community awareness tool if it were developed in such a way to be extremely sensitive to the site and the structures. With technical and monetary assistance, the Aspen Historical society may, in fact, be able to properly manage this aspect of the site if done well and planned properly. Their enthusiasm is high and current AHS President, Carl Bergman, is particularly aggressive in his desire to see this project through. Additional meetings are scheduled for June 13 and 17, 1988, between the Design Workshop Interns, City Council and Boards and Commissions, and other interested parties. ,--r,," NI370RICAL ouCIETY - 2 2. 1,11 Aecific Plans >*or Fund Ral o ing - L-ixiavation Building - Marolt Property -Â· f r GOAL - To restore structure :ind er.tablinh a Ranching Museum ; 4 HOW- - Obtain definite anproval from the city for a 99-year lease . ' - - for one dollar per year. 4 w o .c: THEN - We would contact twelve established ranchers in the area specifi- 9? cally explaining to them that the Aspen Historical Society?now has O i. .'~-~Â·.~..0. .:~~~. a location and structure suitable to house a. Ranching Museum. We .1 -4 '.,- 3.: -: -4......would ask for funds on the basis that; we are prepared to, start.3Â· A:i Â· i ..' Â·: ~97-~Â· Â· 1 > immediately on restoration of the building and start-up of the ~i~-'~~~i >IÂ·-Â·~ ~ 1 museum. Because these individuals are specifically interested Â·.- - in ranching, .we project receiving 80 per cent of the 850,000:00Â· r- .:.' ~ : r.: from this group twe prefer not to announce names, at this time).Â· r,-- j ~Â·Â·Â·Â· ., . Â· The remain. ng 20 per cent needed would be obtained by a committee (not to exceed â‚¬I people) who would contact all of the remaining Â·0.--Â·I te u.. Â·..-gÂ·. ,t' ranchers in the area. These would be smaller, more numerous Â·:Â·. .... ~4Â·~. Lit- rÂ·'-rÂ· contributions. Because of the nature of the project, only .'.-Â·Â·.-. .:Â·.-.~Â· ranchers will be contacted, thus assuring the sucess of this -Â·Â·Â·Â·:, ' Â·Â·~ .. .Â· : ~Â·Â·Â·Â· solicitation. 4. 6 - We know that there are many valuable possessions being saved ' r..z:Â·Â·1 5- 4 - ~ ...... by these peonle but, as experience as shown, the majority of - 1-1 -Â·~7 ..4 f.t Â·: h. items are not turned over to our museum until they feel a secure -.: 4~1 4Â·f~ ~ .Â·, I place is established. .Finally, in summary, it is crucial that we have a contract :in 620'9-0.. IÂ· hand before any request is made for funds. We are not asking V rt.../. 6 N Â·: , 1 Â· the city for funds, but only . for a lease on the land and building. :guÂ· Hours of Operation Â· Â· 6 '.Homrs of operation will be coordinated with our museum on Bleeker Street - :which is open during the summer and winter seasons seven days a week from - Â·- 11:00 until 5:00 p.m. CRB:cb 9 7 - , 6-26-87 t.Â·9 - --le-:T~~'-'1--:%-* -~ ~"' ~"' ~ .....1. . g. C 1- r .,1 . r ' 6 1, .1 4 /O 1111 1,1 101 4 'i t:J~ ' 1 6:29*Q.U.1- 6 1. 1 1 J. 1,1.. f 4 j,i}.21* a ji:joU tra. 4611<Vitfli.: 14$ 1 *211Â·1~-71131,â‚¬n :Â·' -1-1.tâ‚¬ tlii]-1 - -Ca-=/buÂ«.=. holt i,i~ ~4 t--2 - 13 Â·-- AW, 2 .: A /~j/,A/~,2#/U/%-iÂ·~0*1: 1 11:.- i. 4. '*. wf , 0. '41!49 1 1-1. 8 .f ; , 3â€¢Â®9Â·~1.. i?p ~11 1014 iM fm 8 1 ~11 1 14,1111/F 011'1 k' tin 4 4 1-Â· 51 RJ 11'Ah , 1 1 Err. ''09.4*.Fr Â· Â·- 4 'i' JA ' 7 Â· Â·.2 '>Â·,<-0~*4/, . 44,4.1-JFIE 3 YM"amb< 401 -AD 0 1 10. 4 -, -211.f,Â»Ir Â»4 401 94 . 1- 47//LA 9 -744*~ :IA.ki!-a~Ilitillmil 4Â»b> 1 ....Â·r- r- rly . 1 .... a ' .. - I 1 p . a # .-Â· .-I- -*j*#rk -/ -* ./.I I-, .Â»4 2 . . 42..." . F 4. . . L 3..1. 3.-- - ;.-f- r' R. 2.>-,9.,- â€ž'14*4Â¥iÂ¥*0.4.4 '1=24 - Â· 4,# I 4%*Â·Â· ~ ~h 1 " .- V , . 4 4. t.-1---7 1 1, 44.41 4 ggi Â· i.<7 111 * ' - Â· F. 1 11% L r -1.*15Â·1.' -3'0' ~ 'r . . : <(FLA -'-4- - T , ; - Or--i-=g A - I e -- . .F ../ 7 1.4. ~, 1/' " i; 7,- 1 - ---2 ' -+ ...320 , . r rÂ· li L. A I . -- ..,6 122. -â€¢ . - - , 9.24.' .r>--30-,*.- f. -- ;.rhi-Â·..., I 040- 'â€¢/7 VA I 02-$-3/ 4. 'â€¢/lf - .-2.... -2.=2 , t VA= I â€¢ /..% "Witt.. . ii,4. - <\ I 12 2--2Â¥0::IAL~~:'v. ..UdO-> Â·47~1.7 : .,411Pi~14&~vi .,2 - --4 ,.5!MUX,_ . .. '.-:th:'ID- - â€¢0 . - ",~ ~ i~ . 6 B. . . 04/ 5 -/3/pL,-U 1 -,-4/ 0 â€¢T.Â·>--0- .f'; â‚¬'41.-W~ .1- 11~%2;?*e- ->. . --Ut- 4 V . -*.1*04.- ~.. 3--ik -er<.:Mair 7.- - -,rx-h 7Â·34+4.- '. R...7 1''illd, tk g ... J . fi . I ty .... . b .9* - i' 'P,1 Yino. w , 126/3/6 ..,4- . I /*- Â·.- Â«Trj'.r. A Ir â€¢791/A- I 1 -9 MI:,1 ... (by 1 ..ti 1, r.~ 7.9'.1. . 4 .7"y. 1 -1-- - 74:.:Â¢:- k -. j r.._ L. - I I. .1 -4.' .. /. i . 0 , - -,6, . h .. ... . 11 - 1 - 4 - IA 1. 1 . 95. LI.1 - r ' 3.. I. . . r 'ti:!~ - -t 4,11 P -- - . 1 , 0.4 $ C.. :LU- . -- . - 1 7-7.. ../ a ./ 9 .4.1*: - - - . .2 , I. 4.072'-. - ./. - -1,1-.1 -c i.,wr'.&12"=.9-&'".0".. . .. . V . 0 0. . ~. 1,3 -tiL,$~~ 44 . ./- -. '-I - *ritp-- , . 71 -- I" 7 1 2,1 ~)Ba- v *61* - ~0,~-~=-f ' -- - 417." P *34,3.- ..... . p ~_.-2.4,?Ffiait %0444.- W. 1, P z. / 97JSPe - I . 04 . , I 3.31 -tâ€¢t==!â€¢2 r.- 2 .1 4, '' . -- . - , ~20:.311.:Nqu . a - F-- I Z 4- *J '*AN 1 11 VICE ntt% - i . WItt.,tkny Nul#1. lu tÂ».1 MANif , ..' /'9 :.r. 130.- -.. le - 12 - 1 - - e.,C.a' 6 1 ' . ,/ ./ --' I . I . . .-3. I & Â¥ 1- . - 8 . :Ch. ...... - ..-- - ..- I. ~/4* .. . Â· â€¢ .... , C ke.. a 963.. 94'.fl: e'.0 k.3.Y.t.43?. t.Â·si *-1*ffa.Ziejo.2.:f {444 2**f ~ Â·-: 23 -~At*rlk.i Â¢441?te!444â‚¬4.-LI,~-:ic;i- 01-~3921;4~Â·~~Â·:t~-92.-*f~,:~,j.?f:g~:1,<I,*6ifÂ·Â·9 tfÂ·fÂ»~*EARâ‚¬f ~ 1Â·41-t,tjitt~44?21.ft':; .i '; - .. ~ . -1 . 1. 1 . ' 1Â©01 .E "r k- I J/bj(~/. . ' 1 . I\500\\ t./ NÂ»'7~. 20 . 1.0 1 atE,Frlizirtit . .1 - . 45~- .. \ 0/1 . 4, \1_1& -1 .C r.pno 1%~11 Y- . . f / 4// i, f th Â» 1 1 1 I J, ' I 1 hkr28~ . ' .. .All toi 6 Â¥ 4 7. d 4 71, */. . 01 11 ! lill Â¥--. 5/ 43 i 1 4/,4 A tri tr ' . d0â‚¬/322 9\ -=-â‚¬ 0/f- 4-41-I>~-2-;%*31417:w-L-Ii*if / :11. 2, ,Â« Ii- a 41 1 . 5 0, / f I V 61 1, . 14,2.'. MARO!.T PROPERTY . in &32 1.'S H ., 8 z CA N S:,Ze : 3Â·- . - . ' /'IL\ Aspen His~. :<r S,:rÂ· â€¢:, Canch'-.; Ex'Â· 14 2.3 AtÂ·-Â·, 01/ 2 \ fal. I l,Â· tAi 1 .0,t. M ~/ B , 1.v - / l. f MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Review, 334 W. Hallam St. Date: June 14, 1988 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC's final development review approval for the partial demolition, alterations, addition and carriage house renovation to the property at 334 W. Hallam St. BACKGROUND: On March 8, 1988, HPC passed a motion granting conceptual development approval, based upon the recommendations presented by Staff, adding the condition that no changes be made to the windows on the south, east and west elevations of the original structure. Specifically, the conditions approved on March 8 included restudying the greenhouse/sunspace addition to limit its size and scale in relation to the original historic structure, and that the large cottonwood in the east side-yard be retained, or a landscape plan be presented showing transplantation if it is demonstrated the tree cannot be saved. Also at that March 8 meeting, HPC recommended historic landmark designation. On April 6, 1988, the applicant returned to HPC requesting an amendment to the original conceptual approval regarding the sunspace design and attachment. HPC approved the applicant's request to create the necessary access into the sunspace from the original structure's living room by creating a doorway out of a window opening, thus altering the original structure. HPC also approved the revised sunspace design which was more rectangular and simple in design over the previous arched style. OTHER COMMITTEE ACTION: On May 3, P&Z recommended historic landmark designation, and Council approved the designation ordinance on first reading on May 9. Council's second reading occurs June 13. The applicant is requesting the $2,000 designation incentive grant which the property is eligible for due to its "5" rating. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Each element of this development plan is reviewed below: CARRIAGE HOUSE: Primarily, the treatment of the historic carriage house's renovation has been a sensitive issue. This project comes very close to being considered a demolition. As stated in previous memos, 334 W. Hallam St. is considered eligible for individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and the entire site's treatment is critical t its future listing. With that in mind, staff obtained an opinion from the State Historic Preservation Officer with regard to demolition definition in this case. Her opinion echoes staff's in that although nearly all of the original historic fabric must be replaced due to its dilapidated state, the structural members are sound and will remain in place to receive the new materials. Therefore, it remains defined as a partial demolition and reconstruction. The Planning Office continues to stress the importance of sensitivity in foundation underpinning and other renovation work. The applicant has verbally stated the possible need to lift the carriage house up on-site to pour the new foundation. This activity is not recommended by staff due to the obvious risks, and other methods for foundation underpinning and shoring should be researched. Aspen is losing historic outbuildings annually, and (to coin a phrase): "Once they're gone, that's it!" The Carriage house plans remain similar to those approved at Conceptual review. It will be a two-bedroom dwelling unit, with a 4' expansion added to the east facade, carrying through the same lines as the existing structure. The applicant states the design "retains its appearance as a secondary building to the main structure". In staff's opinion, it goes to the farthest extreme of keeping its "carriage house" feel. However, in support of the project the revised design plans do show much simplified elevations in comparison to the previously submitted conceptual plans. The small west elevation porch is simple, however, it does encroach into the setback, requiring HPC to grant a variation in their motion finding such encroachment to be more compatible with the historic structure. The west elevation reflects a second story tri-parte arched window, definitely a contemporary design element and appearing quite dominant. Other elevations show simple fenestration, using double hung windows and some divisions. The gable peak height remains identical to the existing height. The renovation and enlargement of the Carriage House is considered Phase 1, scheduled to occur this summer, allowing the owners to occupy it while the main historic home is receiving its new addition and restoration. Materials are called out in that section. PARKING: As required in code, one parking space must be provided on-site per each NEW bedroom created. The current site contains two spaces for the existing house, which have served this four-bedroom home for years however, two additional spaces for the two bedrooms created in the renovated carriage house must still be provided. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan (Option B) showing such parking allocation, however, two of the four spaces proposed encroach into the city's right of way. The applicant is currently addressing this issue with the City's 2 . Engineering department, stating the precedent for on-site right- of-way parking has been set for years in the West End. The applicant has the option of appearing before P&Z in special review to request a reduction in required parking, or appear before Council with a request for an encroachment license. The original conceptual plans approved by HPC included one parking space inside the carriage house/garage, accessed off 3rd St. This plan has been amended, as the owners prefer to utilize the carriage house totally as an additional dwelling unit, not as a storage space for "modern carriages". It is staff's recommendation that the applicant pursue the Council/right-of-way encroachment review procedure, which will provide the four spaces on site. Although P&Z is the review body for parking issues, HPC's purview for review is linked to its affects on the historic character, integrity and aesthetics of the site or historic structure on such site. For HPC information only, the Engineering department has brought to staff's attention the necessary curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements required by property owners along 3rd Street when any development is permitted. These required improvements are due to 3rd Street serving as a major route to the Music Tent. The parking/curb cut issue is also connected with these improvements. The applicant is aware of the required improvements. MAIN STRUCTURE AND ADDITION: No changes from conceptual development approval and subsequent amendment are proposed with regard to main historic structure and the addition, considered Phase 2 by the applicant. The letter submitted by the engineer regarding structural stability states the historic main home is very sound and that the partial demolition and new addition will not undermine its integrity. The rear addition, replacing the earlier one which will be removed, steps back slightly from the original house on the east elevation. The sunspace links both old and new, with access into it from both areas. The sunspace will be custom built very similarly to the example of the attached photo. The east side yard fence remains, mostly screening the sunspace from Hallam Street. THE WEST (3rd St.) ELEVATION plans show a projecting bay window in the center of the second floor. Although the overall size of this bay window has not been reduced as briefly discussed as a desired possible option by HPC, at appears tucked under the overhang and less dominant. Staff's concerns were, and still are, competing south and west facades, the south being the primary and historic facade, setting the character for the remainder of the house, addition, attached garage and carriage house. Currently, the 3rd Street (west) elevation reads plainer, with no fancy detailing or projections. The only breaks in the elevation are the vertical double hung windows, allowing the Hallam Street (main) facade to shine as the home's focal 3 point. Staff is concerned that new attention-getting details o] the 3rd St. elevation will dilute the importance of the historic facade. To offset the new detailing the doors and fenestration remain simple and unchanged from conceptual, very nicely and compatibly designed, in staff's opinion. The garage is a one car structure, and staff finds no reference to door materials, which should be determined by HPC at this final review. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): The previously submitted FAR calculations did not include the basement under the new addition. The following table describes the new calculations: Lot size: 9,000 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 4,080 sq. ft. Main structure with addition 2,749 sq. ft. Basement under addition 251 sq. ft. Garage 310 sq. ft. Carriage House, both floors 1,270 sq. ft. Total FAR: 4,580 sq. ft. This is exactly 500 sq. ft. over the allowed limit, which HPC may approve finding such variation in FAR more compatible with the historic structure. Staff recommends HPC approve the FAR variation and include such finding in the motion. By adaptively using the carriage house as a dwelling unit, the FAR is increased. PHASE 2 RESTORATION: As stated in previous memos, this home is of particular importance to the overall historic character of the West End. It appears on the cover the Historic Preservation Element, its locale on such a prominent corner makes an important statement in the historic West End, its original owner, Eugene Wilder, was of particular importance in Aspen's early development, its special design elements are unique in Aspen AND it is eligible for individual listing on the National Register. The Planning Office is excited to see such a comprehensive plan of renovation, adaptive use, new addition and restoration all wrapped up in one proj ect. The Planning Office recommends that every effort be made to preserve and carefully restore those details that make this property a true Aspen historic landmark, exemplary of Aspen's history. MATERIALS: A complete listing of the major materials to be used is attached. In summary, the new siding on both the main and carriage house will match the existing, which is 1X4 clapboard and will be painted. The existing clapboard siding on the historic home is in very good shape for being nearly 100 years old, and will be repaired and repainted as suggested in the National Park Service' s "Preservation Briefs". Existing historic wood windows will also be repaired and repainted using technical information and guidance from "Preservation Briefs". Roofing materials will be wood shingle on both the carriage house and 4 . main structure. Windows are all traditional wood casement-type and double hung as the plans reflect. These materials are of high quality and acceptable to staff. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the partial demolition and final development of 334 West Hallam Street, granting the following variations: 1. The encroachment of the new porch of the carriage house into the required setback is found to be more compatible to the historic structure, and that 2. The FAR limit has been exceeded by 500 sq. ft., due to the adaptive renovation of the historic carriage house, which HPC finds to be more compatible with the historic structure. The Planning Office also recommends that the carriage house not be listed up for foundation repair or replacement purposes, and remain situated on the site. hpc.memo.334WHF 5 1 d N. -- 605 EAST MA/N STREET ~ ~ ~ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 June 8, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Elfin Planning Office Ci ty of Aspen ' 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Parking 334 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K, L and M City of Aspen Dear Roxanne: The enclosed site plan is a revision to the one we submitted to your office on May 27th. We have revised the drive to incorporate parking for the main house and carriage house. We believe there is, realistically, only a need for three parking spaces. However, our plan does meet the code by providing one space for the existing use of the house and one space for each new bedroom, totalling four parking spaces on the site. Some of the parking overhangs into the City right-of-way. We have looked at other properties in the West End, and this type of parking is commonly seen. We are utilizing this historic precedent in the site plan we are presenting to you. If you have any questions reganding this, please give me a call. S~~ly, , Patricia Harris Project Manager PH:dem Enclosure , 11 W 01'-1 f: 11* 1 0 1 1. 177?77Â§==2~ 605 EAST MAIN STREET - ---- - - ASPEN,COLORAD081611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 MATERIALS: .-1.->,4 WEST HALLAM AVENUE :r - We are matching the materials that are existing on the main residential structure and carriage house. There are: NEW (As Required) Narrow (lx4) Horizontal Clapboard Wood Siding NEW (As Required) Wood Trim to Match Existing Existing Clapboard Siding - Repainted and Repaired as in Preservation Tech Notes, Exterior Woodwork, Number 1, National Park Service, May, 1986. Existing Wood Trim - Repainted and repaired as ~ suggested in PRESERVATION BRIEFS, Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork, National Park oervice, September, 1982. New Traditional Wood Double-Hung Windows in Carriage House and Addition to Main House. New Wood Casement Windows on Lower Level of the Carriage House and Addition to Main House. Existing Wood Windows in Main house will be repaired and repainted as outlined in PRESERVATION BRIEFS, Number 9, The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows, U.S. Deptâ€ž of the Interior, Technical Preservation Service 9 1 ..Â· 1-) 1 . 1 0 01 Both the Carriage House and Main House will be re- roofed with wood machine-cut shingles to more accurately represent the Victoria Era than the existing wood shakes. The new sunspace on the Main House will be custom built and will be s imilar- to the s unspace addition shown on the enclosed photo (without the high "spike" trim). All new exterior doors on the Carriage House wi,11 be wood, traditional four-panel doors. . Scale U" = 1' 0" (1:48) TABLE OF SIZES - TRADITIONAL TD UNITS 2 + 1' 9 11" (540)2' 11/4 " (641) 2' 514" (743) 2' 91/4 " (845)4 w.-3' 11/4" (946)-4 F--3' 51/4 " (1 048) -1 A3' 91/4 " (1 149)--4 5 ~1'548"(448) 1'954"(549) 2'15/8"(651) 2'55/8"(752)1 4-2'95/6"(854)-4 '- 3'1%"(956) -1 k 3'55/6"(1 057)-1 1' 83/4" (527)2' 044" (629) 2' 43/4" (730) 2' 83/4 " (832)1 1-3' 03/4 " (933)-4 +-3' 43/4" (1 035)-1 ~-3' 83/4" (1 137)--1 16" (406) 20" (508) 24" (610) 28" (711) 4 h- 32" (813) -3 '- 36" (914) -1 2 40" 0 016) --1 3-4 -- - 283434TD 323434TD i WINDOW OPENING DIMENSIONS To determine window openings for single units in typical installations, add 16" (13 mm) to frame width and 91" (19 mm) to frame height. To determine window openings for multiple window groupings, add 46" (13 mm) to com- bined frame widths and %" (19 mm) to com- 1 bined frame heights, plus space required for mullion reinforcement, if any. Note: CIad window opening dimension applies to frame or masonry construction. 323636TD 363636TD TABLE OF SIZES - FIXED UNITS ~ ~-4'51/,"(1359)-1 -5'516"(1664)- ~~ 51/2" (1 359)- Â»--5' 51/2" (1 664)- - 4'5"(1 346) -4 - 5'51'(1 651) - 4' 5" (1 346) -4 - 5' 5" (1 651) - - 4' 3" (1 295) - - 5' 3" (1 600) - ~~ ~8~(:12~~~) I n i[(~f (~1 56204~) 23 - 48" (1 219) -3 - 60" (1 524) - ITTT -- - iTTT 2 GC rÂ» 1 11 4 lo 4845TC TITT 1111 4861TD M W â‚¬-4 NTT 0 co ill - Ck 00 4849TD 6049TD -1-== 3 7%0 X ~0 - -- 11 CIO - 9 4869TD* 1-TTT lii 4857TD 6057TD* Â§5*f S BOO . - - Note: When units are furnished with insulating 2 5 06 glass, glass is 1/4" (6 mm) larger in width and 7%0<'2 height than size shown. I 40 *Double glazing panel and Slimshade not available. liti An-71 Tn* 6' 6%" 0 000)- - 6' 2 3/4" 0 899) - 6'6" 0 981) - Â»----- 6' 2" 0 880) 36"-36" (914) - Elf 5I:~45(22) - 6'3'h"(1 927) Â» 4' 6% " (1 391) (1 289) 45" 0 143) 4' 1096" (1 496) 4' 2 7/8 " (1 92) 3' 107/8" 0 191) 2 )1(i,7 (008 1) (6*5 1) (Â£9Â£ 09 "69 (669 0 â€ž%9 5 (668 l) 5' 2" (1 575) 4' 6" (1 372) ticillctlt.4 01 11!-Clliteellii'C tillitilill.: {Unilizill> .1 !!L| sP, kh I I 4 1 - 11 +. r- -- 1 1.el- I M . ./ --- @20.. - .... Â£ , 4. .... 5 4% a.2 .. 441111 - " . -- , 6, p '- - rill 'kâ€¢.....t - IA*Fty I - 4 . 7 17 ' 0~ . -3 . 1/.MI - I, 9Â£, S; i, f. -5 * -- -1.-~ f , f .f ' -, . . 4. #49 '. -- rEf . / â€¢ 6 -- I. I 9.Dâ„¢,f 11- f -_. =1. ' 9 :1 I 1 k -4 . i -7,Â·- Â·,+4..k' <00 - '- 2 4 -1_k~ 00' 1 1. i ... 2,7.11 - , 47 1 -. 1 [Ev '4~~/5&~~Ma - 4,1L44//f .n.' .. . + --4 - I ..t 1.-1 - ' p./.6#~1~654Â·-FÂ·302" - I . -1. " . Â· . W 409*#.- . l. ... , 1 , r .. J â‚¬,ti , , 422-059,5,:%fE' -4 &,45.4 1 ' '* ' tr# 11 7*MF.Mplm 11-1,44 14, 2.2,2.. Dy harmonising the Construction materials with those of the existing. ..515;plq Me~ Mi*m Dbuilding, the impacto f a newaddition can bereduced sothat itappears 21-,vi.a I ad*St g,R _to be parrot the whole. This stone farmhouse in Buckinghanishireis three 4 644*5**W sia hundred years older than the conservatory, which makes a light alia ~652.Kâ€¢&5%22~M sympathetic garden rooill with views over the garden and fields beyond. 9 'rio 9 . 1 46 N . 1 3 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 May 27, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval â€ž 334 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K, L and M Citv of Aspen / Dear Roxanne: The purpose of this letter is to gain final Histo, 1 Preservation Committee approval for the above-referenced property. Our program is as follows: 1. Obtain historic designation for the property. 2. a. Obtain permission to demolish portions of the main residential structure. b. Obtain permission to demolish portions of the carriage house. 3. a. Obtain approval for the final development plan (addition, enlargement and restoration) of the Il(DLIse. b. Obtain approval for the final development of the carriage house (enlargement and restoration). Â¥9 .E *Rir. 1 i, 1 1 44 i *e, 6, r . a -1 'Slt t. Ms. Roxanne Eflin Â¥ ' t-1 May 27, 1988 Page two The following outline addresses all the considerations for this review process: HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS - Re: 24-9.3(a) (1) Historical Importance The principal residence is associated with Eugene Wilder, who came to Aspen in the 1880 s and was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, one of the pioneer lumber companies in Aspen. The house was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber, and might have been built by rhe Aspen Lumber Company. (2) Architectural Importance Architecturaliv. the house is significant in that it reflects traditional Aspen character and the Victorian style nrevalent when it was built. The stained glass bay window facing West Hallam Avenue is unique to this arcnitectural style. We find no evidence of architectural importance in the carriage house. (3) Neighborhood Character The prominence of the site (Third and Hallam) and structure is important to maintaiding the neighborhood and community character (the neighborhood consists of several other Victorian houses of similar =cale). We will demolish portions of tne main house and will conform to the STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION, Re: Ord. 11, Sec. 24-9.5(b)4-6. (4) Impact to the Neighoornood Fhe Dart of the house planned for demolition lS in the middle portion of the property and at the rear of the house away from hallam Avenue. Because of this location, the demolition will have minimum impact on the character of the neighborhoodâ€ž -All '. 15 AlÂ·A - ~Â£1 1 11 / "97 1 21 1,1,1, 1 31 3 0.1 -1 '99 fu 1,Â·21 Ms. Roxanne Eflin May 27, 1988 /1/ \,iMP'YMP're*As';# 1 Page three - (5> Impact to the Historical Importance That portion planned for demolition has little historic importance in that it is an addicion to the original house which changed the angle of the original roof slope. The demarcation between the old gable (with fish scale shingles) ana recent construction is clearly visible on the east elevation. We will also remove the carport between the house ana carriage house. This is newer construction and has no historical value. (6) Impact on Architectural Integrity The demolition plan has little or no impact on the architectural integrity of the structure because those portions of the house with the greatest historic significance will remain undisturbed. We propose to extensively renovate the carriage house (see letter from our office datea April 14, 1988). We will demolish the east wall of this structure to ada 3'-04 onto the yard side of the house, and conform to the STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION, RE: Ord. 11, Sec. 24-9.5(b)4-6. Regarding our proposed addition to the main house, we refer to the CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS, Section 24-9.4(d) (1) . (i) Compatibility The addition to the house is compatible in character to the (proposed) historic designated structure through.its similar proportions, roof slopes, and the materials used in construction; i.e., narrow clapboard siding, wood roof shingles, and corner boards. - I --Il'.i~~~ /Il'Q t r--1 1 fl f. , 1, fi -A MA Ms. Roxanne Eflin May 27, 1988 I I , 'li J. 1 _ Â·1 Page four y. , 04â€¢' I. *4$ I Â· (ii) Consistency with Neighborhood Charac-ter- We are also reflecting the character of the neighborhood by matching the style of the (proposed) historic designated structure and surrounding houses; i.e., we are proposing that the roof slones with gabled ends match those of the existing structure, and the windows on this proposed addition be of similar hype and size to match those of the existing scructure and keep with the character of the neighborhood. The design of the aaoi-cion is subtle and does not overpower the house or those neighboring structures. (iii)Enhancement of Cultural Value This devel opment ennances che cultural value of the (proposed) designated historic structure; i.e., we are maintaining and restoring the original portion ot the luiloing, which is important in demonstrating the ifestyle of Aspen's families during the silver mining era. The addition we are proposing is demonstrative of the lifestyle 0+ today's Aspen families, yet shows respect to and complements the former historic era. (iv) Enhancement of Architectural Integrity The restoration and addition to 334 West Hallam generally enhances the architectural integrity of the house. We are setting the new exterior walls back approximately 18" from the existing east and west facades. We are also keeping the ridge lines lower on the addition so that it reads with less emphasis as you get further back on the property. These will all complement, vet allow for, the prominent identity of the (proposed) historic designated structure. 1 /7741 Ms. Roxanne inÂ·flin ,~.1 , 47 May 27, 1988 Paoe five With respect to the DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INVOLVING (PROPOSED) HISTORIC LANDMARKS, Sec. 24-9.4(d)(1), we address the following in our development of the carriage house: (i) Compatibility The renovated carriage house is compatible in character with the existing house iocarea on the parcel as well as other houses on adjacent parcels. It will maintain the same slopes, gabled enos, wooden clapboard siding, and currier boaros. (ii) Consistency With Neighborhood Character The renovatea carriage house is in keeping with the neighborhood character= There are several renovated carriage houses in this older neighborhood. (iii)Enhancement ot Cultural -Value The renovated structure will +unction as a residence. Tnis does not detract from the cultural value of the proposed historic designated structure, but rather , enhances it as a more functional building, while maintaining its historic lines. (iv) Enhancement of Architectural Integrity The development of the carriage house does not detract from the architectural value of the (proposed) nistoric property, but complements it and keeps with the style of the house. It does this through the use of similar materialsÂ·(wood shingle roof, narrow clapboard siding). The ridge height of the proposed renovarion is cne same as the existing structure. If there are any questions, please give me _ call. S il -, C e r- E '1 \/, 1 - I. L 1 icia Harris Project Manager PH:dem E n c l o s 1.1 r e s . ..w< 1 V/9-'- , 9-1- f-p /13 2 M kkt/p, o p.170 11 )3 2 0 / 5791*A' ft'\~ 90731 _ m 1 ... .. 9, id 1 , .W r 6,\ . 1 1 -- ' 4t 4 (lil 411- 1 Â£ .-i 4.9 TIM) DRAf- 1 {\ PHASE ONE ~ 0 2899â‚¬ HONÂ». f *--- ; 9.75~:_9 -4-~ _443* ---- -* 1 4.-P Â®, C EMOVE 11 ---- -3-4 + i- ;rit, W C.DU511#3(301011 , //--Â«-% I r- -1 72*Wl -Cl _ -4 I E Y 1616. Imat/Ki 12+4_ 7,7 7 4--Er 1 \1 Â· ' 0' 3 01-1 1 U B 4 .1. ~ f ~ . 4- 1 11 . ' - 1 - / 0- , 1 1 L_! !1 0/ 1. Two otojer I Fi 2 k 2-0-0957- 21 1 6% 1 + 72 ti in 1 7. PHASE TWO b o 41 %00 0 -r=- 1 9409 $ 1 1 1 142ff'fi~ C ,- () P ' ><1i f ' 1 ~ fl 1 't V C--1 L--~JLf_ *_-1 -2/97=77=3 1 10'swl-Motc 1 , f / 1 5 .1. H\ \ ' / --875'09'11Â«* Â¥090 -- 44,6,0.-, 5 1-. TW I KD 10(>1 .8 /IlÂ¥*%28ttf, 7/% 1 10 Ort. , ' 43 9 , 7 (VU/, tv tw J- 4 21 ,!t. 34 '~ . 1 0 - 2~ CAR rek.r Â·'. &2 Â· 1 f .0 4 -Â· 13 1 0 /1,1 r- . '1091 30.5 f IGA -,713 1 10 > 4 .// 1 ~c, 04(89 6* 0 * B 3 0Â· O CITYOF-hy[N Mt*~=Â» 0 ~ ELOCK 49 It 0 55 I e . 0 4 :B y 14"PLAÂ· C.W. -1/ . 0 Le L k r4 ' *333're+y~_ . to, 10 Ct- ~ 2 10 M 9 R.. tajec ' 2- L. 4/1 - 1 // I. ' E- 1) F. - .. , - 4 . r '2 , 111 1 /- 1 0.-1-(Â· 1 ,Â»131 ~ 1 /1 - + 20'~;; 0 A l ..4 p -L- 51 0 . i J bÂ· 1 -------- - "~ I < 1/9" eM.CKABAppit . . ./ I : <0 1 / u< J)- I / , 28.2* Lk-A-2--_.-0141---*J : 4 0â€¢PiA. i,F:'mjee ., 6 Fr SreEÂ»P , ~,, .' rt~~ 5 - '.,~- L.12Â·0 - i,<,~. .0 .i. '' r 16.2, 1 13 Â£ 4 Â« r i Â» /Â« Â« 3 &'IT . 0 ,- 2,4*PR. 6 w r.0 3 4 24' PIA. C.VvÂ· < 0 11- f ~ 3 k| A lic:- 1- 5-3- 14' 00 C. W 2 -, L h C y C 3 - J - 5--3~-f 11.....7, ruJ/4 CT-7 1 1 il 1 - - WAâ€¢o Â·>t,\44â€¢Ut 0//F ---- --_ _. 0.0 33 - %:rt.sc./.$ -1 ' 1-~4 14 11 -==-1 - --1 - l.h==LIa===2- ==1 77*El Â»' .Â«01]UN _t -- U ff---=--=---rn-2=~-=-=-r-Â·-:r -1. - J [78 - -Â·---------Â·===ZE-231~ ---*-CHEE----EF---~~-jÂ«Er---- 1 -- 1 -lIE--349 la f-Â®Ii -Wooo TRIM--- Â·Â·-- --I.I.. -.1 - --- 2-722=tz.#394 0 61Â£9752 WEST 3 5 H le 1 13 c 9,1 \r,In 1' ni, .r Â·11 21=11 wrc, Â®Mht,Le , Rupp _ ___- pecoal:r.0 W . .4 0. *H 1 W.d.t =UES 2- 9 0 8 - -1-R -ORID 0 - -Â· 2 - E~EL 0 Â· i I - )42.4188 - - ...... 7 -271 '1 I~~~i--- -- WoÂ¢20 TKIM __--4 u - 0 O 0 - - ~ -- - -C t.r: r. t.- A .*. -V 1----1 -7 6.11. L"6 / - ------ t>AM.1,4 'r- â€¢ --- -E]0 - daa-= - 1-ri - r---n u i ~ --- -- Â« CIO00 1 AT Pel/H - Itto..Teb 1 9-1 .7.--- hill UVâ€¢. - 0- 0000 - 01==31 0 -. -1 0 SOUTH ___ 'EAST___ mil , 9-2 6. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Review, 113 E. Hopkins Ave. Date: June 14, 1988 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC's final development review approval for the alterations and addition, including partial demolition, to the property at 113 E. Hopkins Ave. r BACKGROUND: On March 22, 1988, HPC reviewed and approved the conceptual development plan, including partial demolition of the 1972 addition to the rear of the historic (1888) structure, a new two-story addition, the demolition of the rear shed off the alley, and its replacement with a new one-car garage with storage. The applicant requested and received HPC's approval to move on site the large pine which would have otherwise been destroyed with the new addition. Since that time, the tree moving has taken place. The motion granting conceptual development approval reads: "Move to approve the demolition of 113 E. Hopkins and to give preliminary approval of a new addition, asking the applicant to provide alternate design studies in respect to the dormers, porch and windows on the front elevation and that (the applicant) come back with detailed samples of materials. Also, to present information on the demolition plan i.e. protecting the structural integrity of the existing building for final review." The applicant has addressed these issues in his final development application, and these are discussed in detail below: PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The plans reflect a change in the location of the new one-story garage accessed off the alley. The previous site plan showed the garage located further east, with access from the west end off the alley. After further study of the landscaping on the site the applicant chose to switch the alignment of the garage, moving it to the west 15 feet, keeping the same 5' rear yard setback as required, and accessing it from the east end of the site, off the alley. With this change, the garage is no longer entirely hidden from view behind the main house; five feet will appear from Hopkins Avenue. However, the two large pines and other trees in the west side yard and rear yard screen this visible portion of the garage. The applicant has demonstrated his desire to preserve the older trees on the site by relocating the garage. The lot slopes upward to the south. The applicant has stated some excavation will be required (approximately 2') at the rear of the lot for the garage, which is designed as a non-competing low profile structure. Staff finds this change in realignment acceptable due to the landscaping issues which are important to this site, directly across from Paepcke Park. GARAGE ELEVATIONS of the east and north are included in this application for review. The design is low profile with a 4/12 roof pitch, cedar cut shingles in the gable ends and identical siding and roofing as the main structure. The south (alley) elevation will be simple with no detailing, and will appear approximately 2' below alley grade. The views of Aspen Mountain from the rear of the main structure are important to the applicant, which the low profile garage allows. DORMERS: HPC required the applicant restudy the front elevation dormers. They have presented a front (south) elevation second story dormer reduced in size, to nearly match in width the adjacent dormer, same elevation. Staff finds this reduction to be more in scale with the remainder of the fenestration and meeting HPC's requirement. FRONT ELEVATION PORCH: HPC requested the applicant provide alternate design studies, finding the "mirror image" of the new addition's front porch a possible conflict with the original porch on the historic structure. The Committee's comments made at conceptual development review on March 22 refer to the new porch too closely replicating the original. The applicant has restudied the entire front facade, going so far as to remove the porch entirely, which he found unacceptable. He prefers to allow the porch's design to remain as submitted and will present the studied alternatives in person at this meeting. The addition steps back 20' from the facade Of the main structure. It is screened a great deal from Hopkins Avenue by the newly relocated large pine. The front elevation design is fairly symmetrical, balanced on the west by the addition. Staff agrees in part with HPC's opinion of the new porch, however, feels a certain balance in detailing is necessary. In staff's opinion, the step back of the addition is considerable, eliminating the direct conflict of old and new porches. We also feel the addition will read as a new element to the historic resource, constructed of compatible yet new materials, even though replicated Victorian-era design elements are being used. One alternative the Committee may wish to explore is to request the applicant to submit a detailed drawing of simplified details, such as the turned columns and decorative brackets on the addition's porch. This minor revision could be approved by staff. 2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: The application includes a letter from Engineer Karl Krause, which states upon his inspection the partial demolition and development activity pose no threat structurally to the main historic structure. MATERIALS: The materials presented are identical to those proposed and approved at conceptual development review. All historic materials Will remain. New materials are reviewed below which staff finds acceptable: Roof: Terne-coated stainless steel, standing seam Windows: Double hung wood sash with insulating glass Siding: 1/2" x 6" rabbeted bevel siding redwood painted with acrylic latex paint Shingles: cedar, scalloped cut RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office finds that the application meets the criteria in HPC's conceptual development approval and recommends approval of the partial demolition and final development application for 113 E. Hopkins Avenue. hpc.memo.113EH2 3 \ Application for Historical Preservation Committee -- - ----- Final Development Plan Review JiN 2 1988 Apllicants Name and Address: J. Gary Bucher 522 Fall River Road Houston, Texas 77024 Proof of Ownership: Attached Copy of Deed of Trust Property Address, Legal Description: 113 East Hopkins, Block 68, Lot C&Dof Aspen Town Site, Pitkin County, Colorado Type of Reveiw: Significant Description of Proposed Development Activity: The applicant proposes the partial demolition and redevelopment of structures currently existing on the property. The 1972 out building is to be demolished and replaced with a structure of approximately equivalent size but architecturally more compatible to the residence. The 1972 addition to the original 1888 structure is to be removed and replaced with an addition more compatible to the original structure. A brick fireplace is to be added in place of the currently existing Franklin Stove. There is adherence to all FAR's including height and set back requirements. All siding, windows, and roofing which are not historic are to be replaced. The overall structure would increase from 1348 square feet to 2,388 square feet. It is felt that the proposed redevelopment meets the review standards in Sec. 24 9.4 (d). The proposed addition sets back twenty feet from the original frontal facade emphasizing the original historic portion of the residence as well as the addition being masked by the existing trees. With the compatibility of the addition's design and location, it is felt that there will be minimal impact upon the original structure and surrounding envi rons. It is the opinion of the owner that the proposed redevelopmet not only enhances the utilization of the property and historical structure but also adds to the visual aspects of Pacpeke Park. The representations made during the conceptual review are nearly identical to the final plan with the following exceptions. The out building has been moved to the west 15 feet. The second story dormer facing Hopkins street has been reduced in width. This had been subject to some comment at the conceptual review meeting. Essentially the final plan conforms to the plan passed during conceptual review in all parameters. Application for Historival Preservation Committee Demolition Review Applicant's Name and Address: J Gary Bucher 522 Fall River Road Houston, Texas 77024 Property address, Legal Description: 113 East Hopkins, Block 68, Lots C &Dof Aspen Town Site, Pitkin County, Colorado Description of the structures proposed for demolition/ partial demolition of the buildings on the cited lots is an out building constructed in 1972 along the alley and a 1972 addition to a residence of notable historic designation originally built in 1888. The 1972 addition is attached to the rear of the house and has minimal impact on the frontal f a ca de. Economic feasability: The cited property was appraised by James Mollica and Associates for loan value purposes in October of 1987 at which time the value was placed at $350,000. Land value alone is currently placed at 395,000. Therefore there should be minimal if any effect on the value of the property after the partial demolition. Demolition conformity to review standards, Sec 24-9.5b As described in the redevelopment plan, all historical aspects of the structure are being left intact. The neighborhood being of an eclectic nature, such demolition should have no negative impact to the surrounding area. Concomitantly with the 1972 addition and out building being demolished and a redevelopment more compatible in nature and substance than the proposed demolition, the new composite structure should be more in keeping with the neighborhood and the elements of ordinance 11. MAT ER IALS 1. Roofing - standing seam terne-coated stainless steel - Follansbee steel to be applied over plywood decking 2. Siding - 1/2" X 6" rabbeted bevel siding of redwood painted with exterior semigloss acrylic latex paint. 3. Windows: double hung wood sash windows with insulating glass of a quality equivalent to Weathershield, Marvin, etc. 4. Decorative shingles - scalloped premium cedar shingles 5. Framing: 2 X6 pine or hemlock studding with 2 X12 floor joists and roof framing. 6. Porch columns and filigree to match existing historic portion of the house. . . MR. & MRS. GARY BUCHER RESIDENCE 113 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO : ~ KARL KRAUSE CORPORATION ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS 820 GESSNER, SUITE 870 HOUSTON, TEXAG 77024 713/973-3950 DATE : 5-20-88 I . HOPKINS AVE. Y f REBAR 8 ~CAP li X REBAR 5 CAP SET IN PL~ACE ~ S 75Â° 09 it E 60.Od 1 " ~.Â· -Â·.--SE~ 1N-Â·PLACE ol 1, / PT 7 - lEXISTING TREES TO REMAIN -- 4 --- 4 4 zi, 1 cye . h -'l 4 4 1 - 5 12.25 2\ 1 h..1 2 97 1 I. / --1 7-1- \ ta :z oc o / EL.- l C \ 1 C, " EXISTING ONE 7, t STORY ORIG. HOUSE f .. TO REMAIN , L Â· 4 ~.-, - RELOCAT.E U -g L EXISTING TREE < EXISTING TREE 3, 9 . 2 1 1 1 - J TO REMAIN 1 ~ - ' (3)4/ / ... -: O 1 20 0 0 1 - It . I'-.lili:- - L i- 0 - NL. 4+ Ul Â¢ TWO STORYÂ·- AbDIT1(iN} 1 4,45' 1 00 TO EXISTING I R 0- ONE STORY HOUSER.Â·-: -t. - EXIS~ ING -- T O,STORY ADDITION W Cr i To d E REMOVED 1 & 1 1 -0 r! 1 2/ AG< h. d> 1 Â· r . ./ 1 r/ Â· C 1 .1 )Le-Â· V[) 1 i,..t.1. 1 1, iqu' X Â¥ r.1 v -1 9 r J. Uu. I Jl~L, b y I / f ./ 1 6, r I *W - 15 4 1 1 1 4 \ Â«\051 7 . & S>ORA;GET-j!; . . :..: NEW DRIVE WAYt t. 41 I 1 N O g EXIÂ¢TING ONE STORY -4 N 1 1 F- TO! BE REMOVED 1 13 -f REBAR 8 CAP SET IN PLACE ID f NE.BAR 8 CAP L- 6--8 3- --- ----2- --- 1 42 1 83' 29.00' PL ACE \. 138 SET IN N 75Â°OSil'W 6000 & 6550(14-TCS. INC.) A 1 03. DO 1.-IE [252>V CE &2 - 'eâ‚¬ , luAVE EXAMINED-TUE NORTH JND 11-42 IMPROVEN"IENT5. EASE- ALLEY 59 1116 EAMGAS SUOWN CÂ»41-KIts 1 /01,32th SnTE PLAN ret>.INC. AR.t:.Vir;~PÂ·:sÂ·.16% . .. 1 . t,16.' 100.007 * I 40'-00 1 . I 1 ' b BREAKFAST LAUNDRY Â£ ==t Th\ MASTER B.R. // / / 9... 0 f U * pO*DER,-Jl \ ,-4. 111~ L O 3/ .C rt-** -_ 1 3 -2 L.-11 -1--1 . I LI aLl_..1.- 1 . Li MBATH \JL--1 1 , I . NEW FRONT PORCH 0 rt- 7-1 r -- _k,r_ 20#-0. . 1 * 1. .1 $1 11 j /1 1! i ,; // EXISTING<HOUSE,TO'REMAIN- 1 1: ! ' :1 t.- i 'Â·. lt, 1.i Â«jÂ» NEWj FIRE PLACE 1 9 'ir'fli lilli. /EXTS1-1NG,PORCH'' j,ji.lill'li , 7 - 152 FLOOR :EXISTING - 660 S.F. NEW -,864 S.F. TOTAL 1st FLOOR -1524 S.F. 2nd FLOOR : NEW - 864' S.F. TOTAL 2388 S.F FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE : 1/80-1 '0' 02 - \UL / DATE : 9-03-87 NORTH REV. 1 : 9- 10-87 REV. 2 : 9-14-87 REV.3:10-02-87 REV.4:1-20-88 36'-00 rrÂ·Â»---1==i-/ . . ~T-. BALCONY B.R. + 2 [440*- B.R. + 1 -Ir -3 f (h F 2 -rev 1 4- 1 CL. ~ UL - - Tei - - --Â« -- < BATH 1 1*clf L __1411 1 -- 1 1 l ROOF ' 1 I T 1 f --91 1 l SECOND F] PLAN 03 SCALE : 1/8 - 1 00 (4 , DATE : 9-03-87 REV.5:3-25-88 NORTH REV.1 : 9-10-87. REV.6:3-30-88 REV. 2 : 9-14-87 REV.3:10-02-87 REV.4:1-20-88 . PED'* -22 _211... 2 1 1-jf ='.,:'.-~-'=--1 X JJ A HA Z CD - 26 6 2 r hi j ~~72 1,21.2- 1_ I E Ek * c c I & 1-- -------------4 4*44/14~ Â·Â·- ~Â· Â·~Â· Â·Â·Â· U.- '.1-2 OOP- 2 1 - 1 Ef *17 7 . "ji~-~-1-*H'004,1,4L rp' 1 itt_ 7.EQFA"'-Pi"I~'11~ *'~pil' ' re i 4-lilicurs- 4 - 1 "1 -- I ./ 4. . 1 <1 1 =-:=. .*I.=7- .. U- 4 -EL 4423'blir: -- 1 11 r Â« - --- U .- i ,, , 4/.22.- Z ~Fi 1 /-2 U 11 lili 111.12 ---Â·- -1.:-11 - U- - -.'llilill [13 ..ZIZ L.-Lj= lili lili lIt -- 1-=-1.â‚¬K- ."t.......... . d O H -E L L 3ON 3 GIS 3 UBHOAS .. 1 1 L 11 i 11 AP... 2 - 1 .<PU--1 6 1 1 6 li I 1, 9 fl T 1 1 .9 1.<> i Â· 1 1 11 1 11 I r 1 1 & - il J i ./2 - a. -- 1 1 1 --1 - /1 11.11 Ill!,i'~1~t'112. - -]111111' 1 01 -- - a 0 1 1! 1~ il E !~ &1{ . 1,-- - li il 11 i f 1 1 4 1 :CleR-fk- - ; 1 jill 11 .1 - ----------Â· 11 1 ~ Ill i N h E i 1 h - ': #11~ 1 'O! - 5 11 + N 1, 1 0 -- - - =- 000 -11 1 - rl* --- fir - 1 It 1ST,FL ~-----> EXISTING HOUSE EAST ELEVATION SCALE : 1/80-1'0" 25'00 , . i q 4 H 1. R -Â¢ 4 1 G t \ rfÂ· I : 1 v./ O 1 /----.i~ =-_co ' - dI--72=z===244\.1 1 : 111' ~--i~ ; ! It 1 i q --C . I 4, 1 1 1.11 1=4 + i i 1 11 LEI E --- - I>f b . -11 10 0 0 _ _ --2ND,FL , I I.- _ O/ -- --- 4 0 I ntÂ« 4-4 f 1 1Â«2 - -- --9 it - - -- F _.2- --LJ Edi -------1----W $-1- 1ST FL f --- - 1 1 I 'r El- EXISTING HOUSE < WEST ELEVATION SCALE :-1/80-1'0' .0,98 ,L .0,OL 1 '' J 1 " 0 1112 1 ! 1 1 1 ; ' 12 :Â· 11 Alt 1 :1:35-4 0 1 G , I ~0,43x ~~ T-1112 ~ !~ 12 E-~i;#td ' i' & I i I Â» \ 4 CD ' ' : 949/ ~-AU.UU.AD...~* 1 ' , i 1 11 ... ---r,-1 1 1 :1 '.1/ -t' fL'.1 Fl - flial" . 0 -- : CO - -L== ==1 -r. t- 3*i ili#i ki #4 -u__2 -3 - 2 Ng FL ' 1 74 M 4 11 7 1 1 11 rf TI ~ ----------- -~- -------- - --.-Â·42 -- ..Mi~.- -.t 'RE lili..1 ~~ =m~ - - T-T-- - -- L_ , 22-1 - - 2.-= 21- , Il ZE .1 -III 1! 2.1- _ .~~i- i_._ +~~Â« -IE UL- 2-ZE 1 1 1 1 . --- 1 1. --1 1 --- 1 ST FL - - -- 21 16=- 1-_ _~-_-- ----- ~launz =2223 4-2>EXISTING HOUSE REAR ELEVATION: SCALE : 1/80-1'00 12 ' ss.... =al:.3>kI~~*=mm~. ~~AkAA.kkk*,10=jbtikjlke-2~ -I M __ feâ€¢*baki - t--T Jug.~ , â‚¬(164 10.*tr GARACE END ELEVATION SCALE : 1/80-1'0~ l n ' 11 b | 4 1' ti I L J i t' Iii. :1 11 11 1 11 1 11 1 1 11 , 9 '__~~,1 1 f 11 ~ 1' 4 ~ 1! ! 1| f ~| 111 [Lj'_ 1|11 1 11 D 11! 1 L ~ 1 1 7---- E ~- lili - --- 12(toth 96 , 2 --' . 4 -4 L.-1 .- ... GARAGE SIDE ELEVATION SCALE : 1/80-1'0" Spactlk~_ -421_9_42____ CORPORATION May 20, 1988 Historic Preservation Committee Planning and Zoning Office City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Partial Demolition of Structure at 113 East Hopkins Block 68, Lots C&Dof Aspen Town Site Pitker County, Colorado It is my opinion as a registered structural engineer and ar- chitect that the removal of the 1972 addition from the original 1888 edifice at 113 East Hopkins is feasible without damaging the original house. Upon a personal on site inspec- tion, I feel the original dwelling is of sound structure and suitable for rehabilitation. All structural components Of the house are undamaged; show no appearance of dry rot or other signs of deterioration. The 1972 addition was appended in such a manner that there will be minimal, if any, effect on the historic structure. 1 Respectfully, iKarl A. Krause 'tt;sp\STE,?22 0 6253 * 4.4 91 4~. A ESS \0. %443, 1 l9237/NEâ‚¬-943- 7 â‚¬ OF COU ' RETIRED 820 GESSNER, SUITE 870 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77024 713/973-3950 0- FOLLANSBEE 07610/FOK Create the distinctive color BuyLine 0820 of a traditional metal roof traditional metal rooting Terne allows thearchitectand/orownertoselect from acorn- plete spectrum of color, thus creating the truly traditional look of a metal roof. One of the oldest types of footing, Terne metal Guidelines is ideal for restoration projects; its adaptability to both form and for Painting Terne color permits the visible roof area in new applications to become a significant part of modern design. Terne creates an excellent bond with paint. No special Terne metal is prime, copper-bearing steel coated both sides treatment prior to painting is required. A few simple with terne alloy-20% tin, 80% lead. It is a time-tested material guidelines will ensure a lasting paint job. which has played an important role in the development of , American architecture. Even today many of our historic Painting Conditions buildings are still rooted with Terne. Terne is also superbly adapted to virtually all weathersealing Terne must be painted after application as soon as pro- applications. Included among these are: copings and counter per painting conditions prevail. flashing, chimney flashing, valleys, termite shields, gutters and SURFACE-must be dry and clean. downspouts. Moreover, no other metal can provide equiv- TEMPERATURE-within the recommended range of alent protection at comparable cost. the paint manufacturer. Coating Weight/100 sq. ft. Avoid painting over condensation. Gage Weight IC (30 gage) 40# 54 Painting Information IX (28 gage) 40# 65 IMPORTANT-Paint must be brush applied. DO NOT 2X (26 gage) 40# 78 spray or roll. EXPOSED SURFACE-TWO COATS. Sheets Lengths-96" and 120" The Follansbee applied shop coat is not a Red Iron Widths-14", 20", 24" and 28" Oxide-Linseed Oil paint. The first coat as described Rolls Lengths-50', 100' below MUST still be applied. Widths-4", 6", o , 10", 12", 14", 20", 24", 28" n. FIRST COAT-The first coat must be a very slow dry- l Coils- Widths 20", 24", 28" ing (min. 72 hours) Red Iron Oxide-Linseed Oil paint. 2,000# + Coils without shop coat only SECOND COAT-The second coat can be any color of a good quality, slow drying, linseed oil paint. Coverage Data UNDERSIDE-The mill applied shop coat is sufficient 1 " except on applications under 3" in 12" pitch which Double requires a coat of Red Iron Oxide-Linseed Oil paint. Locked 2" x 2" 4" x 4" Bermuda Standing Batten Batten Roof Seam Seam Seam 2" Riser Terne is standard for FIREDOOR Allowance for covering and is approved by vertical seam (deduct from width) 50 9" 392" Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. 14" WIDE Distance between - seams-inches 11" 9"* 101/2 " Square feet required , u to cover each 4 4 square (100 sq, ft,) of roof area 130' 164' 134' 20" WIDE , r-, ,Â· 1!18[1'~ Distance between seams-inches 17" 15"* 11"t 161/2" Square feet required -i .... to cover eadh 2.24 - square (100 sq. ft.) of roof area 119' 142' 174' 122' 24" WIDE Distance between seams-inches 21" 19"* 15"t 201/20' 1 . + . . tlilllIllml Square feet required to cover each square (100 sq. ft.) of roof area 116' 134' 158' 118' Andrew Jackson's Hermitage. Many historic buildings are roofed *For distance between center of 2" x 2" Batten Seems-Add 2". with Terne, among them Monticello, the Smithsonian Institute, tfor distance between center of 4" x 4" Batten Seams-Add 4". Union Station and manyothers. Note: Coverage data per square does not include allowance for cross seams. Page 5 FOLLANSBEE 1~~F 26,/ 51-1 Standing and Batten Seam Specifications traditional metal rooling Standing Seam Specifications Batten Seam Specifications For applications of 3" per foot minimum pitch. For applications of 3" per foot minimum pitch. Use FOLLANSBEE TERNE ROOFING. When sheet width is Use FOLLANSBEE TERNE ROOFING. Maximum distance 20" or less, IC gage Terne may be used. When sheet width between battens 21". When sheet width is 20" or less, IC gage is over 20" use IX or 2X gage Terne. Maximum sheet size Terne may be used. When sheet width is over 20", use IX or 24" x 120". For maximum flatness use manufacturer's cut to 2X gage Terne. For maximum longevity, specify 40 lb. coating length roller leveled sheets. For maximum longevity specify weight. 40 lb. coating weight. For maximum flatness, use manufacturer's cut to length, Apply on wood deck. Wood treatments that are hygroscopic roller leveled sheets. must not be used for wood sheathing under Terne metal. Roof Apply on wood deck. Wood treatments that are hygroscopic deck must be smooth, clean, dry and must remain dry after application. Terne roofing to be laid on rosin sized paper. must not be used for wood sheathing under Terne metal. Roof deck must be smooth, clean, dry and must remain dry after When soldering, surface needs no special preparations. Use application. Terne roofing to be laid on rosin sized paper. soldering irons only (3 lb. minimum each). Do not weld or use When soldering, surface needs no special preparations. Use torches. Use 50-50 solder and rosin flux only. Remove excess rosin before painting. Form cleats from Terne. Minimum width soldering irons only (3 lb. minimum each). Do not weld or use of cleat 2". For best results specify Follansbee preformed torches. Use 50-50 solder and rosin flux only. Remove excess cleats. Use two 7,6. minimum length roofing nails for each rosin before painting. Form cleats from Terne. Minimum width cleat. Space cleats at intervals of 12"-O.C. of cleat 2". For best results specify Follansbee preformed cleats. Use two 96" minimum length roofing nails for each Form sheets on brake or pan former.* cleat. Space cleats at intervals of 12"-O.C. Ridge treatment to be specified. Form sheets on brake or pan former. Allow 1/16" distance between pans. Pans to be tapered longi- Before beginning the first course, be governed by proper appli- tudinally (narrower at the bottom) minimum 1/16" so as to fit cation at drip edges, or side walls, ridges, gutters, valleys, etc. properly at the cross seam. Pans to be tapered longitudinally (narrower at the bottom) Standing seams to be formed as shown in "Standing Seam minimum 1/16" so as to fit properly at the cross seam. Allow Installation" diagram. Press the seam tightly together in 1616" distance between batten and vertical side of pan. each operation. Batten seams to be formed according to diagram below. Cross seams to be made according to the flow; that is, the higher pans must always overlap the lower adjoining pans. Cross seams to be made according to the flow; that is, the higher pans must always overlap the lower adjoining pans. See Page 8 for cross seam details. Cross seams to be formed as shown in "Cross Seam Detail" Stagger all cross seams. on Page 8. Stagger all cross seams. EXPANSION SEAMS MUST BE PROVIDED ON RUNS (roofs EXPANSION SEAMS MUST BE PROVIDED ON RUNS (roofs orgutters) EXCEEDING 30 FEET WHERE BOTH ENDS ARE orgutters) EXCEEDING 30 FEET WHEREBOTH ENDS ARE FREE TO MOVE. (15' maximum where ends are securely FREE TO MOVE, (15' maximum where ends are securely fastened.) Underside of Terne rooting to have adequate fastened.) ventilation. All roofs must have drip edges. All roofs must have drip edges. Battens must be securely fastened to deck. Underside of Terne Proper precautions should be taken to protect all metals roofing to have adequate ventilation. prior to application. *Preformed pans available. 47 STANDING SEAI M INSTALLATION- . *97 BATTEN SEAM INSTALLATIONiN-13**~~~N C \ \42. \IA, ./ r/ -//53<.4, liN \1\ U // 1 \\ \1 J p.,1 \\ ~1"1 1 1 /-3 \ \\\ \62\ >11 1\ \ 9 111;84.210.,-/01 1 \\ 1 lisuk/96.31 1 /0/ \\ PIT- 21/3 ill IIMrÂ»...i' .0,:A \X"NUFf'/,/ CLEAT- ~~/ 233Â« "\ r- -~1 1 11 \\X \\UÂ« .- ~11 ~c:;4 i \ 1 . See ridge and eave details on Page 3. See ridge and eave details on Page 3. Page 6 . I . AN W-,6. p...a-- Al-Â¥.1 a*te Deluxe Removable Four Balance 'd WEATHER K 8\ SHIELD /. Double Hung 'CEEZIEZ, Classic styling and energy efficient construction make Product Description 1 Weather Shield's deluxe removable four balance double hung , a favorite with architects, builders and homeowners. 1. Frame and sash are specially treated with water repel Weather Shield double hung windows have vertically sliding preservative. sa<.h that open easily from both top and bottom. An effective 2. Sash are ofpine stock. Each sash is removable for finist, cleaning or reglazing. c, winter balance system assures smooth, quiet operation and allows you to remove the sash for easy cleaning of both glass 3. Check rail and sill have flexible vinyl weather strip airtight seal. surfaces from inside your home. 4. Rigid, aluminum or vinyl snap-in glazing bead gives t Beautiful, natural wood interiors are ready for painting or seal and allows unit to be easily reglazed from the: staining as desired. For added versatility, double hung exterior. windows are offered in multiple wide, picture combination, 5. Factory installed sash lock pulls the check rails toget angle bay and oriel units. sealing both sash securely and tightly. 6. Finger lifts are routed into the bottom rail. .f 7. Vinyl jamb liners conceal sash balance system, assure, --. i 4&1 4 --â€ž12 2. 0 + of operation and help prevent frost build-up. 1 J Â£1-1 li iii -1 11 344 , - ' 2 Product Options i. 0 Exterior Frame Finishes Primed ~-'/ r i 14- 3 1.41 8..MAL, * if] 0:g:-- White Vinyl TFT White, Adobe or Desert Tan Aluma TFT 'White, Adobe or Desert Tan Poly I I ZGL.U. 11.- I . , XYL ./31:31 All exterior sash are finished with Poly I mr 7 ' 'Poly l exterior frame finishes only avallable in quantities of 200 or -%..rug units. Glazing Options i Single 5/8- Insul 5/8" Insul Low "E" b..1 4.31 L , t . r a 1.4 14 1 " Insul i Picture Unit Glazing Options 1 " Insul Low "E" 1 - Triple "~ Finger lifts are routed into the bottom 1 " Triple Low "E" Combination Storm and Screen ~,7111,4 Factory applied white, adobe or desert tan alumi combination. --- 4 *b,92**id*0*64*7 Si*~~~*84**141 Full Screen l.. 0 1 1 Available in white, adobe or desert tan. ~ A-- ~~ 1 Grilles Ca------rr--*~SL~ E=299-2- - .-1 Removable wood perimeter grilles in diamonc kv-*- ~ -Â·; c nny'liÂ·u-cr,A - rectangular shapes. Factory installed sash lock pulls the 4 ': $:i . 44'12444.03# White, adobe or desert tan finished metal grilles seal, check rails together, sealing both sash liff.:33?*4**tE*43'Â· airspace of insulating units. Available in diamont securely and tightly. 41' 4,4,4 1.2..1.'Â·:984' .: rectangular shapes. Diamond grilles are not available with doubt units. NOTE: For detailed product option descriptions, see pages 1 1 12 3 - k. Opening Specifications & Performance Data IÂ·A Double Hung Windows 0* Openâ€¢g Un. FL Saoh Floof to Sq. Ft Sq. Ft. Crack Opg. Sq. FL Sal Stop Unit Ct.r Opg. Width Holght Glau Op. Sash Only Vent Opg. Ht, 16 x 16 2.03 18" 165" 3.6 10'9" 2.03 44" 16 x 20 2.53 18" 20'A" 4.4 12'1" 2.53 36" 16 x 22 2.78 18" 229." 4.9 12'9'0 2.78 32" 16 x 24 3.03 18" 241/4" 5.3 13'5" 3.03 28" f 16 x 28 3.53 18" 2894" 6.2 14'9" 3.53 20" 4 16 x 32 4.03 18" 3294" 7.1 16'1" 4.03 12" 16 x 36 4.53 18" 361/4" 8.0 17'5" 453 4" * 20 x 16 2.48 22" 16'h" 4.4 11'9'0 2.48 44" 20 x 20 3.09 22" 2014" 5.6 13'1" 3.09 36" 4 3% 111 nul m 20 x 22 3.40 22" 229." 6.1 13'9" 3.40 32" 20 x 24 3.70 22" 249." 6.7 14'5" 3.70 28" 20 x 28 4.32 22" 281/." 7.8 15'9" 4.32 20'0 20 x 32 4.93 22" 3294" 8.9 17'1" 4.93 12'0 20 x 36 5.54 22" 3694" 10.0 18'5" 554 4' 24 x 16 2.93 26" 16'A" 5.3 12'9" 2.93 44" 4 24*20 3.66 26" 20,/â€¢" 6.7 14'1" 3.66 36" '4 - 24 x 22 4.02 26" 221/.00 7.3 14'9" 4.02 32" 24 x 24 4.38 26" 241A" 8.0 15'5" 4.38 28" , 24 x 28 5.10 26" 28'A" 9.3 16'9" 5.10 20" Ikyâ‚¬ - 24 x 32 5.82 26" 329." 10.7 18'1" 5.82 12" j 24 x 36 6.55 26" 369." 12.0 19'5" 6.55 4" 1. p 28 x 16 3.39 30" 161/4" 6.2 13'9" 3.39 44" 1 :2 28 x 20 4.21 30" 20'A" 7.8 15'1" 4.21 36" 28 x 22 4.64 30" 221/4" 8.6 15'9" 4.64 32" 28 x 24 5.05 30" 249." 9.3 16'5" .5.05 28" *tat 28 x 28 5.89 30" 284" 10.9 17'9" 5.89 20" 28 x 32 6.72 30" 329." 12.4 19'1" 6.72 12" r 28 x 36 7.55 30" 369â€¢" 14.0 20'5" 7.55 4" S 32 x 16 3.84 34" 161/4,0 7.1 14'9" 3.84 44" R-Value U-Value Infltration * 32 x 20 4.78 34" 204" 8.9 16'1" 4.78 36" GlazIng Option No Storm ~ W/Storm No Storm ~W/Storm Ind. Stnd.ptim,d 0.H. .1 - 32 x 22 5.25 34" 229â€¢" 9.8 16'9" 5.25 32" - Double Hung Units - r> 32 x 24 5.73 34" 241/4" 10.7 17'5" 5.73 28" Single Glass | 1.01 1 2.22 I .99 I .45 I .50 I .17 32 x 28 6.67 34" 28%" 12.4 18'9" 667 20" 5/8" Insul I 2.13 I 3.33 I .47 I .30 I .50 I .17 4, 32 x 32 7.61 34" 321/7, 14.2 20'1" 7.61 12" 5/8" Insul Low E I 2.56-3.00 I 3.45-3.85 I .33-.39 I .26-.29 1 .50 I .17 ?'2~- 32 x 36 8.56 34" 3694" 16.0 21'5" 8.56 4" - Double Hung Picture Centers - 36 x 16 4.29 38" 161/4'0 8.0 15'9" 4.29 44" 1" Insul 2.37 .42 36 x 20 5.34 38" 201/4â€ž 10.0 17'1" 5.34 36" 1" Insul Low E 2.78-3.45 .29-.36 36 x 22 5.87 38" 229." 11.0 17'9" 5.87 32" 1" Triple 3.03 .33 ~14Â¢~' Â· 36 x 24 6.40 38" 249." 12.0 18'5" 6.40 28" 36 x 28 1" Triple Low E 3.33-3.70 .27-.30 4. 7.45 38" 2894" 14.0 19'9" 7.45 20" 36 x 32 8.51 38" 32 W" 16.0 21'1" 8.51 12" 36 x 36 9.57 38" 364" 18.0 22'5" 9.57 4" -3 40 x 16 4.74 42" 161Al' 8.9 16'9" 4.74 A A. 40 x 20 5.91 42" 204" 11.1 18 1 5 91 36 General Notes ~ 40 x 22 6.49 42" 22y." 12.2 18'9" 6.49 32" 40 x 24 7.07 42" 2494" 13.3 19'5" 7.07 28" LAir infiltration tests are conducted at an equivalent wind 40 x 28 8.24 42" 28'h" 15.6 20'9" 8.24 20" velocity of 25 mph and measured incubic feet perminute 40 x 32 9.41 42" 324" 17.8 21'1" 9.41 12" 4 40 x 36 10.57 42" 361/4 " 20.0 23'5" 10.57 4" per lineal foot of sash crack. , Calculations used for determining U & Rvalues are based r 1 - on the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals - 1981. # < 9 9,4 4 A . it -1 13 D , ; ~ ~~ j ,Â·4Â«' .A : r 1,~IZa~t'. , ,â€¢r' 4.'24&,11'Â·~~lf; 3*#P.1/..4..4 7 , /'/.4â€ž : .i -I .AW THE DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS THIAT BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO PLEASE YOU. Both sash of this fine double hung insulating glass b save energy * piece sill and top easing on two window tilt into the mom, making Authentic divided lites are also and three-wide units. The standarc them extemely easy to clean. They available for a true Early American jamb is 4%~'.' The sash is 1%" thick can also be removed altogether look. with slot and tenon corners. And And both sash are spring-balanced The E-Z Tilt is offered in single, the sash lock is statuary bronze. for easier opening and closing, double and triple units as well as in *Excellent weathetstripping is included on the head The E-Z Tilt is available with bay windows and picture window check rail and the bottom of the bottom sash. units. There's a continuous one- E-ZTILT. 31 - J.Rar,Im \ In , li'Yn" 9\1 *Yull Statuary bronze sash lock 479'. 4 1 -- 4 1 ,â€¢~Â·:4-TTE---1 r al 1 D- I i.Â·1141 provides security ~----+772 L â€¢- ,Â· - ~ with beauty. ,11 1, ./\& .,7 /1. .1 / i:.t, ill 6 4 2, 11 4 \ '! I â€¢ 1<v// 111 1, r Sash tilt into room - for easy cleaning. -01'di C _br/ M 0 / i I'll . ~ Ydv f - ---7.-21 i t'tâ€¢ Â· :W 1 j f,t / 2 1/ Standard insulating glass provides ---'"=Â»-- H N ff'it 11 1 11):f 'llÂ·.5 energy efficiency, with other ... =01 " glazing options available. U .,4,N.j, L'\ F 180\ ,1 , #>Â·40 \1 Weatherstripping at all three 1/ f/( if.041 critical points; top, middle and 91 :9 bottom to reduce energy loss. 24:. f - 1 . ,j./. I. --. . - .., -/2/ *...:IÂ·. , Spring balanced hardware makes opening and closing simple and effortless. OPTIONS: Jamb extensions, factory applied (49/16" is standard)/Clear brick-mould easing (non finger-jointed)/Flat easing/Aluminum flashing, white or Rectangular grids/Sash lift in statuary bronze/Screen, aluminum surround in white or brown/Alptne combination storm sash and screen GLAZING , insulating glass is standard)/Single glazing/Single glazing with removable energy panel/Authentic divided lites, single glazing/Authentic divided lites, st la ! removable energy panel/Authentic divided liles, insulating glass/Solar bronze glass/Solar gray glass PREFINISH OPTIONS: (Bare wood is standard)/Exterior C Exterior prefinish-XL-72 (White), XL-82 (Bahama brown), XL-92 (Pebble gray)/Interior prime 5 r ~ REDWOOD BEVEL PATTERNS 4 1, A -1 Â¥L~.__~__~___~_~__y' PLAIN BEVEL SIDING (S1S2E) r . NOMINAL PATTERN CONVERSION SIZES NUMBERS A FACTORS Mx4 320 3 /2 1.60 Wx5 321 44 1.43 44*6 322 51/2 1.34 19'z x8 323 74 1.24 V2 X10 324 91h 1.18 A %" PLAIN BEVEL SIDING (Sl S2E) .,-T 9/.6 - -_l NOMINAL PATTERN CONVERSION SIZES NUMBERS A FACTORS %*6 325 542 1.34 %x8 326 7102 1.24 ' 4ixlo 327 Â·v 992 1.18 IF A 3/.1 - r 1"'_r PLAIN BEVEL SIDING (Sl S2E) 34 NOMINAL PATTERN CONVERSION SIZES NUMBERS A FACTORS Â¥4 x6 329 51/2 1.34 Ax8 330 74 124 Ex10 331 945 1.18 44*12 332 11 44 1.15 -- rE,#Â» A i "1 I RABBETED BEVEL SIDING (Sl S2E) t--7241 72 1 46. 1 1 -- -- NOMINAL PATTERN CONVERSION SIZES NUMBERS A FACTORS ~f'-4/2xA - -360 31/2 , 1.28 C'J ~2)(8 362 54 1.17) gih 363 7Â¥21.137 - 22 9-10. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Approval, 212 W. Hopkins Ave. Date: June 14, 1988 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Final Development Approval of 212 W. Hopkins Ave. The plan includes the partial demolition of the rear lean-to shed and the restoration of the original front porch. BACKGROUND: On April 12, 1988, HPC reviewed and recommended historic landmark designation and on May 24, HPC moved to approve the revised conceptual development plan for this property. The plan included the original porch's restoration, a height reduction of three (3) feet of the proposed addition, and minor changes in the fenestration. The new addition encroaches into the required rear and side yard setback, and HPC granted a variation finding this siting to be acceptable and more compatible with the historic structure. OTHER BOARD ACTION: P&Z approved in special review the parking reduction and recommended historic landmark designation. City Council's First Reading of the Designation Ordinance will occur June 13. Second and final ordinance reading and public hearing will occur at the next available Council meeting. The property received a "4" rating, and the owner is applying for the eligible $2,000 landmark designation grant. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: No changes from Conceptual Development Approval have been submitted in this Final Review by the applicant. Accurate material representation is made at this Final Review detailed in the drawings and below: SIDING: 1" x 6" cedar overlap siding to match existing will be used, painted to match ROOFING: Asphalt shingles to match existing WINDOWS: All wood easement Marvin windows, true divided where specified, prefinished white DOORS: Marvin wood "French type", undivided GARAGE: Wood, 4 panel, roll up BALUSTERS: Simple square 1 1/4" x 1 1/4" balusters LIGHTING: Simple, squarish solid brass "carriage type" lighting will be installed on the balcony ADDITION HEIGHT: A minor height increase of 5 3/4" at the median point of the roof (from 21.5' to 21' 11 3/4") has been specified in the final drawings. This is due to a change in the width of the ceiling beams and required second floor ceiling height. Staff finds this to be a minor change which does not negatively affect the proposed development, however, HPC's concerns with the overall height of the addition in relation to the historic structure are shared by staff. FRONT PORCH RESTORATION: The Planning Office is very pleased to see the restoration of the 1888 front porch, a very important historic design element to this home. Great sensitivity should be incorporated in removing the incompatible materials, and proper patching methods should be utilized where necessary. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends final development approval of 212 W. Hopkins, finding the setback variation to be more compatible. ct CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. Ir-, -.- May 31, 1988 ;l I --/'i ' p - JUN , Ms. Roxanne Eflin City/County Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado j Re: Smithgall Residence 212 W. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne, Ort behalf Of Charles A. Smithgall III, Owner of the subject residence, we are applying for Final Review by the Historic Preservation Committee Of the Final Development Plan under the provisions of Section 24-9.4 (C)(4)(vii) for Significant Development of the Historic Overlay District, Ordinance 11, series of 1987. All requirements Of the Conceptual Development Plan review process have been met and approved by H.P.C. For this application, we are submitting prints of the final development drawings which call out the materials to be used in construction of the addition which are compatible with the historic residence. We have also enclosed photocopies of catalog information regarding windows, doors, balcony railings and exterior lighting to be incorporated in the project for your review. Please do riot hesitate to contact US if you have questions or require more information. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, CALLCHF Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal CLC/arh encls. MARVIN ..PaaÂ¢ Â£4Â¥23- WINDOWS ?59 ARE MADE TO ORDER. Warroad, MN 56763 (218) 386-1430 Â·, P.' *i92 f Lifit:t&*31'- 4 izlfÂ·. Â·- . Â·Vity"TP<-4*%r 1 1 -4-r"'+17 ..., 4 >e"*2'J-L ' I . - - I , '. IneÂ»YX:Â· 1. .. 4 1*roth , 1 1 Â· Â·:2; b - 6 , J ..f - |Â·-Â·:3.3.-:.c ~~~/m ~~~~ /4, f . $. I 2&A - . 3. r . i-I ' ' rd , 19=@0,.t ... *NÂ«,>..64 44 E ' 4 r HN' ../ h ' , 42 - 2 1502 4 4 . * DV I F - 71=U-- - .9 r 31/412, 1 4 Â£ 1 11 - ., 1,4.-1 2 f ./AFC . .-I . i , .. . Q 1-3,- . 1 1 _1 1. v..'Â·. memm.M~3/1(v475,6 9 , Â¢ ''14., 19-Â·2902},RRk' 0 4.l.. 'llig.f,A'%J,â€¢f 11~24%42 I , ,.=ADa. I.... 5 I. - . ~.% 4ylm. 0.1 fe trt:.993<":*.*c-:L...:...6:M~fÂ·tvÂ·4:ts::7*Â®, I .. ...tyl k./#ha/*QA:AL< . 1 " 2.2Â·. ' 1 :ir .2; 4-52%-;'222SL21 :L./VJLE,n:Â£%1/ki#22~. a.-8. 1'12.... f Joihowl:Ilmo Â£#Il 7=xeg-ke2WiÂ¥.=-M~p9IYL Hiee#EWa .a.7.7, -Â»40Â£Mig//1 m -8 011 W iii 12:fla#~M'lltiv,44~96--i-~Â·.~ BIR/in/zesr,Lip:>~M 1,53-1543* t===â€¢tz~-.1 Wy- D. 'Mil/- ~-4~i~~A" L - -- - v ..Fid---IFI?m:rÂ·,4â‚¬124:22 Â£ 4im.= kerl.....4- s .11,~IX# IDE-34:1 20;*, Malimi. ift-rLEal /84//*91%:71/:2249.9 1- r,2 $ ~Millilliii,lit 01!111~.ikq -' ' ix&.grAM.,IN I I. 41 1 -.,4 -1 ro'Â·Â· ,/r /.- 99 ... irtÂ»I fÂ· 14 4 7 49 ....-: r 14=L. 4.-~ f. 1 .. 14Â¢ . \>1. * KV. 9 41*. 1\ I 1. .1. 92%/1 - 1% . 4 1. W .... r . , '.1 4.1 M : 1.3 - 0 1 ' k - -I M&) I i "t .. ., :M iel. 4 0 . 05. 0. /1 V $ I - 7 :p-3â€ž.' --:-I,i 11. 2 1 ;ter p'/616./.r.Â·24' _U / -\N 1 0 Ill- , L i' 2 mIl i,51 r:74 t. 74 2-- L t 1 1 -- & N - . .t.. . 'Â·Â· . ' Â·-- ZE s H -al...; )11 m Irl Â£-1 9 . M , ... . '44/0. ty' I, 1 -\ 1 M411 3 1 P 11,4 , -- --9--U==1'-: ./ ,|2 [2 g 7 4 10 0 ,/ I Â«..aâ€¢" , ..9 A . '11. ., . r < ./. h. I . . . + $4 -9 ; 5. 9441 ed**34 -: :. * 4. - ~ 4. . ; Printed in U.S.A. Specifications subject to change v A BMUTIFUL CASE FOREFFICIEN(Y. No matter how you measure it, the Standard jamb width is 4966" and and screen. Multiple units have a Marvin Casemaster ranks as one of jambs are a full 15/16" thick. The continuous one-piece subsill and the finest wood windows in the sash is thick, with corners slot top easing. world. It has clean, good-looking and tenoned. Glass is held in place Double weatherstripping and lines; many glazing options; strong with wood bead stops. unique frame design give the energy-saving qualities; extra heavy Each operating unit is equipped Casemaster an extremely low air frame and sash; fingertip operation; with a cam action sash lock (two infiltration rate. Insulating glass or a large selection of standard sizes. on units 56 inches high or larger), Low-E glazing cuts heat losses There are five basic widths and a dual arm entry guard roto gear through the glass area. As a result six heights in 1-5 wide units, bows, operator which makes any size unit the Casemaster can reduce bays, and picture combinations. easy to operate, concealed hinges, heating/cooling bjlls significantly. CASEMASTER. 4". 1 t .~rei'fÂ·Â·4<~ -~, ,-22: .~71?itt2Â¢ELSY&Â¢232~~ 7.9/ /1 0%4; l... 1.-1.29 ~ 1-1L;22ii~y' towers air infiltration. Double weatherstripping t..it \ *4...1,1 -- f.,x, ,...1 :.~ ~ 1.79:11,0 il .'*. 1 :.~b Optional Low-E glass 1 Â· l ~f fl~~.~~ . I~ ~ lif ~ t. .Â·Â· ..11:Â· : ~ 12 A .334 further reduces heat losses. .: : 1 -2 Re m Ihil il ..: r.3.k 1.12.0% - 1 : 1 1: /: fl'.'â€¢9 . th "24 â€ž 1Â·,40-*,4 1,1 Â»r M . 6 CF.i...Dif Sash and frame are made with 20% :Â·Â·. -: #fi 'Â·' , to 25% more wood than our leading 1..1 11< 8,%37 competitor's for added beauty, : 4 " 0.12..1 durability and energy efficiency, .Â·- ./:##:.C:-. JÂ·~.Bu~.1,A Rob gear operator has concealed dual 1 J. 1 1Â»Â»,L . 1 arm hinges to carry more weight 4 i '04 Â»~. ~ j f while still operating easily. .1\- 1 1; 7 17 1 6 Sash opens to 90Â° angle 1. 11 for easy cleaning. -3.... 1 1- OPTIONS: Jamb extensions, factory applied (4%6" is standard)/Clear brick mould casing (non finger-jointed)/Flat casing/Aluminum flashing, white or brown/Scree: aluminum surround in white or brown/Diamond or rectangular grids GLAZING OPTIONS: <3/4" insulating glass is standard)/Single glazing/Single glazing with remov. energy panel/Low-E glass/Low-E glass with Argon/Authentic divided lights, single glazing/Authentic divided lites, single glazing ~able enerkinâ€¢017*01*9< divided lites, insulating glass/Solar bronze glass/Solar gray glass PREFINISH OPTIONS: (Bare wood is standard)/Exterior pri~/Exterior prefinish-XL-72 White), 1 XL-82 (Bahama brown), XL-92 (Pebble gray)/Interior prime -1---- --4 3 ONE GOOD THING AFTER ANOTHER AfTER ANOTHERAFTER 000 No line of fine wood windows ever Stack & Strip units are available tenon corners. The glass is held in presented more creative possibilities. with your choice of three kinds of place with wood bead stops. Each Take any of our 28 Stack and energy-saving glazing: single glazing operating unit is equipped with a Strip awning units and combine with a removable energy panel, screen and a five position Leverlock them with any of twelve view units insulating glass, and Low-E glass. operator so the window can't blow to create small, gem-like groupings Excellent weatherstripping virtually shut. Inoperable units are also or big, breathtaking arrangements. eliminates air infiltration. And the available. Or pick from the many heavy wood construction reduces Factory assembled multiple units arrangements already designed heat transmission through the frame. have a continuous, one-piece subsill and shown in this catalog. Standard jamb width is 4%67 The and top easing. sash is 13/4" thick with slot and STACK AND STRIPAWNINGS. 4 1 'Â· 9'F~Â· r?7 -tr~ .- :r~ Â·Â·*Â· 4 '':Ai ti~ ~. f rgi . i 4,440,I :1-1.*.1. Li Â·1: -9.-/21:2Â·2 -3 4:.._-~ 3- 12Â· 4.2Â·.Â·.--,i.~5...~222.,Â·NUXUEzl R'Â·....Â·-., Â£ JQU iF, Â· r /. a.,1 ti-t,(Ii~-11 ~-*51 #4Â·: :.Â·. /9Â·724:j i f l.t{i . ,i.1f...,ttt:,jiti.1 S 1 111,1 1 7 -,41, 27 Â· 4,16.4 9016342/ #74 :114 6 1.1 y.:31 1 - 4 4....lff. -'A.4 ....3,# :2 1 1,1.'/4 Â·Â· 43 Â·f.j . 1 9 1,Â·.~ : IÂ·Tg-5..22-7132.. -1.Fi ---4Â·Â·ty.?," Â·u:--:f- 2-2,(.-1â€žI:~9%46Â·JUâ‚¬=9--F:I -7-Â·7--07Â·-1-'Â·:j . 61 1 . Sash can -t .1 4 - 1 J \ j \ be released - : / r ''Â· Â· Â· Â·- Â·Â·Â·- Â·---Â·-Â·------ -Â·/9.Â·: Â· 1/ = a.: %-k- 4 , .i \ to pivot for Â£ C ./ ' --,' easy cleaning. 13/4" sash stock provides Five position Leverlock operator Weatherstripping reduces air durability with beauty. prevents windows blowing shut. infiltration, cuts energy loss. OPTIONS: Jamb extensions, factory applied (49/16" is standard)/Clear brick mould easing (non finger-jointed)/Flat easing/Aluminum flashing in white or brown/Screen, aluminum surround in white or brown/Diamond or rectangular grids GLAZING OPTIONS: (34" insulating glass is standard)/Single glazingl2281=Idaulthremovable energy panel/Low-E glass/Low-E glass with Argon/Authentic divided lites, single glazing/Authentic divided lites, single glazingiaail~-able energy panel/AutliERT13-~ divided lites, jnsulating glass/Solar bronze glass/Solar gray glass PREFINISH OPTIONS: (Bare wood is standard)/Exter~Gime/Exterior prefinish-XL-72 (White)/XL-82 (Bahama brown)/XL-92 (Pebble gray)/Interior prime 0-- -----/ 11 re-r,Tr'.77Fr'F= 0 + L.1-r :t, J-::t--10--ard,~1Â·09.j.Â·di:.1.>4 1 i 'llillililililillillifill + . Al in- -Fai b A.-22 4/ 1 *Â·Â·g,. Â»Â·Â·'. â€žA./Q<#4f4:,cv'K-*5---=~ 6:-:p ll-kÂ·]f 4~-kf,"p,~--~18 ,<1Â·~ , ~'2;Â·42;fj:.~.34.4,fpffIE'~ 2.-1 2 --1 1 1.- lilli /.L...z'.1.%108/zin/0.1:.fil,67. It'.tlifi,&1-k.. argi , , I t~lii -1110:'Fe*31%111 - %1*j ~ f -jjigaH/' #-14<y ,/311 - f 43=.Â®{mi.., e ... n i / -1 F 24-5#1-; t.i,@ ~ I 12' I :h 95':. - . 1 f M. M ..N.X. I . jab/#1 - / .. 1-1 2. 1 1 1 f A Â·'6Â· U'Â·1' 7';:J -- 2 A 29 -9 ' ..54 ibl'MI#U - mi 4 0 ~W~ 4/ tg "j 11&*t'kÂ·.9 1.al â€¢3147 ).6 . 3 J./ d . t.1 f 4 '. m Slili 4.1 . Â·, I.<Il F: &2. 0 : ICÂ¥' 'E 'Â· Â·~'I4â‚¬> 1 :.1 . ..=0*me ,' ~ 1 n Â«'Â·- b f ,,Â·,Â·-3 : 1 1 - .4 .:Et.1 I:Quil K 0/1 '*/////~<.4 i . =DETr .,_.5131 13~ 1 44 '98,4 ' ' 2%~* -'. -'ute=/1....!11.1.:.7!2166:9Â·I.b;'fah.Â·t t.f:'ret#bl BRI=i - c U - am=/411Â·: ~ : 3~~Â· 1 Bi,29Â¥kktÂ·Â·H. t; f . . .. f ./ 43.. 1 Â¢10.a.4.- ,Â·' ~ 4434 ~'.I- . c . WMA - 1 1/:/0 . I â€¢4,Â»Â·Â¢09'a,0'4&7*1 i felÂ¥ .:Â·. Et#>91Â£f..- I ttlk '~ -~ @@@ le -I ... .4 - , 0,4Â«5751 1 244 ...e.0,: . t.Â· Â·l.F ,:sa~, i,.lt. - d~ :,,.', 4 / 89 Â· fÂ·lii:~f:tiliÂ·.21:~1.~. I . 1 . 9/.1 L,t~f..1. 2 C. .9/52 ./".I":,4 0 i 4. 6 ..71 Â· .r 12%,01 li 4' .i ' '71'll :-4. 4. 37..4. , plÂ»t-?54-Â«i 3~422~ 'g .'/mt j %21}k.,{i " ' I 'M':1421 ii- 1 -9.--12,10@ . /1./ : 11.4 ..At -2 0,3 44'tr, ' . i' J @V 1314 r'.64 -'41- Fil I i . -Â· 4 +9440Â·'0.1.-7-3 196 4 4-' -Lif) duail... 1,6â‚¬205'#.. 5.*,",I ~ trÂ·<AG:#*li TR?*-ialmillf#ZIaH - t,i - : i.ct* f r '; 7?31% 1.11 i I *4,3y l -- D 1 m. For details and sizes, see pages 22, 23, 13 : 44â€¢. '4-4~ M '4 4->9â€¢ 111!mansion industries CTN. WT, ~~'f:>At?41,4,~, PCS LIST 4 PER PRICE ' WORKING .'i.t:Â·t:!-~'O CODE DESCRIPTION CTN EACH COLUMN 76149- STAIR BALUSTERS i...1.7.-1.1:, 7 -:Â· SB41-30 BALUSTER HAMPTON 12 5.39 13 16 19." 1 74 " 1%" SB41Â·36 BALUSTER HAMPTON 12 6.49 <~ NET NET NET SB51-31 8ALUSTER TRADITIONAL 50 3.99 30 - [ S851-34 BALUSTER TRADITIONAL 50 4,19 31 jf U f sa51-3 BALUSTER TRADITIONAL 50 5.19 3 SB51-36 BALUSTER TRADITIONAL 50 4.49 33 SB51-41 BALUS [ER TRADITIONAL 50 5,69 41 S861-31 BALUSTER COLONIAL 50 3,99 27 SB61-34 BALUSTER COLONIAL 50 4.19 28 SB61-36 8ALUSTER COLONIAL 50 4.49 29 SB61-39 BALUSTER COLONIAL 50 5,19 30 SB61-41 BALUSTER COLONIAL 50 5.69 31 SB81-32 BALUSTER PLANTATION 50 3,99 34 '' Â·'4 d '' - SB81-34 BALUSTER PLANTATION 50 4.19 34 SB81Â·36 8ALUSTER PLANTATION 50 4.49 36 . S881-41 BALUSTER PLANTATION 50 5.69 42 C. - U U _ A . SB-41 SB-51 SB-61 SB-81 - CONTEMPORARY SQUARE BALUSTERS P232SQ 2"x 2" x 32"SQUARE 12 5.35 1/ P236S0 2"(2"x 36" SQUARE 12 5.69 18 P332S0 3"x 3"x 32"SQUARE 12 10.79 36 P336SQ 3" x 3"x 36" SQUARE 12 12.14 40 'Â·' 9 .-(9 -~ *S891-31 194"xly," x 31" SQUARE ' 50 3.19 47 1 ' U. ' ~'â€¢S891Â·34 1 A " x 11/." x 34" SQUARE 50 3,35 52 - SB91-36 19â€¢"x 11/4" X 36" SQUARE 50 3.59 55 . ~ - S89139 PA"x 1 '4" x 39" SQUARE 50 4,15 60 S891-41 11/4/0 x 11/4 " x 41" SQUARE 50 4.55 63 Â·f , STAIR NEWELS packed 8 perctn. Hall newels @ 70% 01 whole nowel costs - SN1-48 NEWEL SALEM STARTER 4 36.79 30 3 7 SN 1-55 NEWEL SAI.EM SlARTER 4 44.79 35 SNIÂ·64 NEWEL SALEM LANDING 4 51.39 42 SN2-44 NEWEL CAP STARTER 4 36.79 24 1 1- f SN2-59 NEWEL CAP LANDING 4 45.89 36 Â· 1 an 0 SN3-44 NEWEL CENTER RAIL CAP 4 36.79 16 SN4-44 NEWEL TURNOUT STARTER 4 36,79 12 SN6-44 NEWEL VOLUTE STARTER 4 36.79 12 SN7Â·48 NEWEL TRAD STARTER 4 36.79 31 SN7-48H HALF NEWEL THAD 8 25.69 31 - SN7-55 NEWEL TRAD STARTER 4 44.79 37 SN1 SN3 SN6 SN8 - SN 7-64 NEWEL TRAD LANDING 4 51.39 43 Â·Â·:4 SN2 SN4 SN7 SN9 SN8-48 NEWEL BALLTOP STARTER 4 36.79 38 ..... SN8-48H HALF NEWEL BALLTOP 8 25.69 38 SN8-64 NEWEL BALLTOP LANDING 4 51.39 55 . fed SN9-48 NEWEL CONTEMPORARY 36.79 38 141 SN9-64 NEWEL CONTEMPORARY 4 51,39 56 SN9-48H HALF NEWEL CONTEMPORARY 8 25.69 38 .5,237\ SNMP4 | NEWEL MOUNTING PLATE 10 8.99 10 Â£ /0 ,- .2~ SABTO RAIL BOLT W/PLUG 48 1.99 5 Â· If. 1 OSNPA ~ OAK PROM NEWEL ADAPTOR 1 9.99 1 SNMP4 SNPG OSNPG SNPA SNPA PROM. INTER. NEWEL ADAPTOR 1 9.99 1 OSNPA SNPG NEWEL PLUG 1" TAPERED 48 .49 OSNPG OAK NEWEL PLUG V TAPERED 48 .59 1 *01111 ' T T Â·Â·Â· rl Â· 1, '-6 <tÂ·n SRB10 OAK NEWELS 3"x 3"Net (Shrink wrapped) 1..' ~ RAIL-BOLT %," x 4"w/PLUG 0SN7-48 NEWEL TRAD STARTER 4 56.99 33 OSN 7-55 NEWEL TRAD STARTER 4 66.99 40 OSN 7-64 NEWEL TRAD LANDING 4 77.59 48 0SN7-48H HALF NEWEL TRAD 8 39.89 32 0SN8-64 BALL TOP NEWEL LANDING 4 77.59 55 0SN9-48 CONTEMPORARY STARTER 4 56.99 45 , # 0SN9-64 CONTEMPORARY LANDING 4 77.59 60 0SN9-48H CONT. HALF NEWEL 8 39.89 45 . 8 . IONAL - SEE TURNED POSTS i Millmansion industries ;&*i* mla,Â·t:Â·134 ff,IM PO RTANT:744,6.Â·t,f: 31/ 46:41: STAIR RAILINGS Notei:Shottka'ilÂ·idifiths'Chhide'd>i.kieiubject:to'avallibill'ty,.. No Dickdofdor#,4, IDeke le,ligthsf Check-avallability-.when ordering. 2~ Call toll free.LI .4.1;firi'::y,Â·ANAf 48Â¢Â·Â·Â·:'râ‚¬Â¢*.-f :1Â·L# 2-.: rlÂ· 10:â€¢ '. LIST PCS LIST CTN. WT. PER PER PRICE WORKING CODE DESCRIPTION FOOT CTN EACH COLUMN RT2-16 RAIL TOP 1%" PLOWED 2.79 4 44,64 36 ID=.1 1 R82-16 RAIL BOTTOM 1%" PLOWED 1,99 4 31.84 27 145" F,T2) 13/8,7 RT3 i~ RT3-16 RAIL TOP 214" PLOWED 3.59 4 57.44 47 RB3-16 RAIL BOTTOM 292" PLOWED 2.69 4 43.04 40 SEE ~148"-~ FOR SRF1-4 FILLET 4 FT. 1%" .50 24 2.00 9 BALCONY RAIL --21/2" SHORTERLENGTHS SRF3-4 FILE 4 FT, 11/4 " .50 24 2.00 7 1~_f~Kii-3 -fT RB3 -~7 ~ SRF4-4 FILE 4 FT. 21/2" .75 24 3.00 13 SR81Â·06'4 :RAIL,BOTTOM 1%" PLOW Â·i.Â·,9 >11,99 U â€¢ .:4,Â·f .11,94 , Â·l'll''Al,-Â· â€¢'t 5Â·..~.***,15 SRB1485 .-RAIL.BOTTOM 1%" PLOW Â·9-4. :.Â·:,2.19Â· .4Â·Â·'i. ,17,52.4 , Â·,Cy?:.:,F:Â· -,~p444%20 SRB1-10' RAIL BOTTOM 1%" PLOW 2.39 4 23.90 23 1-1% "a Al '/4 'N 1-21/2" SRB1-12' RAIL BOTTOM 1%" PLOW 2.39 4 28.68 28 C===1 i i SRB1-14' RAIL BOTTOM 1%" PLOW 2.39 4 33.46 35 SRF 1 FILLET SAF 3 FILLET SRF 4 SRB1-16' RAIL BOTTOM 1%" PLOW 2.39 4 38.24 40 SR83-16' | RAIL BOTTOM 11/4 " PLOW ~ 2.39 ~ 4 I 38.24 I I 41 , der'FOTHER LENGTHS SUBJECT.TO AVAILABILITYÂ·,tr CHECK WHEN ORDERING - Â· - : i ~~.' ....02%k Ll~" 4 h 1/4 "4 SRT2-Â·6 ': RAIL' COLONIAL,% M :-I Â· 'Â· ':. ::4.19 -.dulde :25.14-! <ker:-9Â·Â· - Â· "Â· --'24 1~~ SRB-1 ~ 1 3/~<SRB-3 SRT2Â·.8 - 4 RAIL COLONIAL ,Â· v .'- -Â·w, -A 1 4,39 .Â·.4,-, ' 35.12 9' iÂ·,:Â·Â·~'-i,-,- i. r . CTE31 SRT2-10 RAIL COLONIAL 4.69 4 46.90 42 Â»292"-| - SRT2-12 RAIL COLONIAL 4.69 , 4 56.28 49 SRT2-14 RAIL COLONIAL 4.69 4 65.66 57 ~--2 '/4"~ 1-20.-| |--2 94"-4 1 SRT2-16 RAIL COLONIAL 4.69 4 75,04 63 6---3T T A* 3--7--1 SRT3-16 | RAIL COLONIAL 174"PLOWED.| 4.69 |4| 75.04 I I 61 j SRT2 / 2 98" 2%" \ SRT3 f1 234" C S RT# ) v.iÂ·49'OTHER LENGTHS SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY -.CHECK WHEN ORDERING.;49.f:,4-4& 12--4 -1%.- SRT4--6 *Â· RAIL HAMPTON 1%"Â·PLOWÂ·. .:Â·Â· .44,19 4'4.t'i' 0,25,14Â·i, 1:#I.Eix>42Â·.4 ,Â· P'Â·Â· ''4:22 r 198" 1 L 1 '6"1 SRT#--81, Â·RAIL.HAMPTON 1%"PLOW'....0-:Â· f,4,39 (94 9 ,:35,12 : 4.$.Â·titi,tirs. 9,1.r:~:.v,-t'27 SRT4-10 RAIL HAMPTON 1%" PLOW 4.69 4 46.90 35 SRT4-12 RAIL HAMPTON 1%" PLOW 4.69 4 56.28 45 SRT4-14 RAIL HAMPTON 1%" PLOW 4.69 4 65.66 48 SRT4-16 RAIL HAMPTON 1%" PLOW 4.69 4 75.04 55 SRT-5 COLONIAL BENDER RAIL w/GLUE FORMS' *For making custom curved rails on job site. SRT5-16 I BENDER RAIL I 22.00 I 1 I352.00 I I 29 64,Â·.OTHER LENGTHS SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY - CHECK WHEN,ORDERING.;fi--,te(C-4Â»i#it 1- 274" -1 PWR-6%Â· PROM WALL RAIL:'...,~Â·,~--Â·-x:Â·.. , 2.39 46/'Â· 14,34 400)9Â·:4Â·$Â·i: KYL*421 PWR-8' PROM WALL RAIL . 2.39 6 19.12 28 PWR10' PROM WALL RAIL 2.39 6 23.90 35 1 401 viL{~ PWR12' PROM WALL RAIL 2.39 6 28.68 41 PWR14' PROM WALL RAIL 2.39 6 33.46 49 -1.1%" 1- PWR16' PROM WALL RAIL 2.39 6 38.24 56 OPWR-61; :PROM WALL RAIL OAK .-9. i ' 2,4,,19 376 Â·.Â·tÂ· '25.14 :...'A:Â·Â»'>.).1Â·t rÂ·Â·Â·-Â·Â·r:.Â·229 OPWR-8' PROM WALL RAIL OAK 4.39 6 35.12 37 OPWR-10' PROM WALL RAIL OAK 4.69 6 46.90 48 OPWRÂ·12' PROM WALL RAIL OAK 4.69 6 56,28 57 OPWR-14' PROM WALL RAIL OAK 4.69 6 65.66 67 OPWR-16' PROM WALL RAIL OAK 4.69 6 75.04 76 A / Cc -3 // /-1 T PWRB1 WALL BRACKT 8RITE RETAIL PACK 12 2.99 3 PWRB2 WALL BRACKT ANTIQ RETAIL PACK 12 2.99 3 WALL RAIL WR81 BRACKETS BULK BRITE 24 1,99 5 WRB2 BRACKETS BULK ANTIQUE 24 1.99 5 1 1 Al i WALL RAIL Â· ' BRACKET 3' rÂ· 0---.-7-7.7.7.4.19.'. ' 39ISTE 1 3{93:{22igt~fTE*i-3] r;?63-.7 '7 4 "T 7.m- rw:257-' Â· AT.M'r:Â·3;.U 4 '. RO~ ~Â·.9-,tiG?rUS?A.--:4-0,1.>:j:Â·-Â·0? J.tÂ·j. 4-~ 1 I?-2, 15~.Rhâ‚¬Â·~ '.Â¥.t:.';*ibÂ·Â·,"2.-:ir.:cr.,s~Zo-'.4.'.,-~ *6343-- ' : / C .42<Â·~ e J '5 2 il'.f.7.9 4-E-~ .34*,6. â€ž Â· 4-Â®2,8 -*lk' >.J.t.tii ft.iÂ¥~i t" Zi 0 j:':ki .'.. ri''6: %. f.rt'./ 7â‚¬(111 1 : tw -1 -1 0, 11 -r,Â·:./ irS,A,ro 1 1 4 nâ€¢ U 'l 14 " ,=SÂ·,Â·4~1 .... . ..119 4 1 .:.6 1/â€¢ W~-t,-r #4 . 01 1, t - 19 1-'ji:blua- : f m. D m .\ ... liu'l -Â· I. , 4 I .1 - 1 . .. 4 , Ltv J d.:WRJ.Ki 1,~ ' 1.. 1 . , r. 64:.1 ...,i,<%7 0.-*MF F *,-' / ,-2:~' *-,ti.21 ria-4 a l,tÂ·,. 111 \ u ~ 6 0 1%.-~Â· ~ 201 Ff?3:1.,rrttlith,; '0 Ul N ... . 1 4 8 41.2 . 6~ : Â· b..Â·t. : .9-kf4:Â»fl'-3 ~1-17 ~ivr:.4 Â· oiti.:oft.k' i.,3, i-4*0552Â·-t.YOLâ‚¬.1 #95:Â·,-1 ':111.- - m 111 4 W . 497. %1-19>tiri~?33*l:Â·th...:;Ak#651 433.){:*14*207*~43*,MM-444 f - 34: Â· 2 .1.93 LillsÂ·flitiadisgjami/:~,BlE#LI .1655,1/,liuuvel'sliliwuilÂ·<528Â£1*222*Elilm:g:~1 l. .TE&filit.: fri;illglia .1 . 1167 1163 1165 , OF?2?r;7~1r;77*tr~-<79317-m,ger.7 ...1, 1 .. ' Â· 13 tfoit-itti-Â·: --- Â·-EFLM*4.49# ji j.;,t,14*Â· 0..:Â·.:,:~ e c_c.r,t 4Â£4#X#1 Â· 1 -1 % 1 11 2 ~39.~ ti ;4-f :914 iÂ·2 1 ..1*,3 Fit?:m -3311 itif-* i :ft:-- i''~~~i. ;:-,BA#9..-~-* - - 3 . '.L , ./.1,11. :Â© 1 "r '...1..... I I ' ./. .1-,7. u &3'Â·:iÂ·. !. ; I .Â·' /Â·I ..1% 1 ' . 4.-/ EFOrli le:..trz..... I.4 3, 1 1 ... ./ 1 Ill 11 -2..... .%54 ; ':t' 3.Â·ikily ./ /12.4.1.1 1 1 Al c. " ,/., 1...r M 6:-...rÂ·Â·.,4 ' 4% 1Â»:.Â·il .46 : 0 '98Â¢-1 F.34?9. -7 r A f .... .Â·Â·Â·'..<.Â·hÂ·f'A.Â·Al ;Â·\a Â·,94.Â· 1\â€¢1 . 4., 31 -Â·2 "~ #' Â·Â·,'~ .4. , n ' 11% 40 ' ' Â«441 i â‚¬*StÂ· I * i--,4+4 1 -Â·.44Â·A E-Â·7'Â·.R:i<'c~ ..:'Â·Â·r i . 6.--*1 :34 1 Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· .-, *3.1~ 1&'lit 'f..FWi'Â·' /f/ ... -; 31 Â· Â· Â· I ' 14....1,41 1 # 1 ... 19. 12 .R.{~ '16:-9m t=M:-=~r~: 9~ ~ - 9--- 9 4 5. LA. HM W !& || k-1â‚¬ W --It 11 4 A..266*Lk#-Vjibwdjati,4:t, 1 :e.'uli,21 ,Â».12-2-- -2.-1.-= *......</ . .: :...,u- .... .*,m./.-u......~:-/-, "*-,- ...Â· ...:'Â· Â·4-0:â€ž 2~- 243.wlk...4.~~di4*522--.0 1162 1164 1166 P . .4 - - -tz:y U. 41" 2.. .. I. 11111.41 SOLID BRASS 2. ~ ~ 2- !.'#Lk~--i:%24 . t Cat Body Top to r ...1 4.1 w ~ No ~ â€¢Â·s r Â·., F- â€¢ W. Ht. Ext. Outlet Lamp , 1025 A.B. or P.B. 5" 161/2" C. 101~4" 75W - 11 1, .1..' U / 1| / 6 1 1035 A.B. or P.B. 692" 1914" 7â€ž , l F f <i .fi# 1194" 10OW , 1 .9: , R.Â·.. 4 6.:, Â·tA:61 1162 Olde Bronze 714" 11" aâ€ž A , 10OW L<AL:â€¢i Ll, 1 4 k . r--r-Â·.---aâ€¢ 9.011:,Â·.5 1163 Olde Bronze 534" 834 " a. Ak: 10OW 1 7.-. . 1 1 -1- 1 61 :3{1 1164 Olde Bronze 534" 11" a" Alâ€¢ 10OW {fli --213 +01~bill 4 . ibil,~ 4 1 .141~ -~~ 1165 Olde Bronze 714' 81/2" a" 4" 100W ti#*Ar :,.:vi - . ----:'2~fr#4 1.---1.27Â» p 1166 Olde Bronze 914" 1134" 1014" P 10OW :9id. <1 Â·, 3 1167 Olde Bronze 714" 8 31 " a" A â€¢â€¢ 100W V , .h Vuol ' r.Â·Â· ' 26 ' .' ~1.4 : 14.Aft:' tal , - -4 , I I./-4,&.- 1025 1035 11 *4 Thermal Glass Doors 1 1 li &11 P 1 1 i t.11 t Il Â·Â·Â· 8 $ it A- .1 r Â£ 4. . 0 11 1 ,- .. . f 2 8 1% 1 ' C, ./ I. 4 " *b 0 .u/8 Se ' e 4 8 d r 4 a V * 4 B gm 4;1 R 71 gif (9 14 Fr.*1 -1 -2,= 'T'713 Plt#,4*4â€¢20. Â£24--4 l El''Etey#"*-- 1 11.-i.*Mqee W 1=11.=1 *Kip/Wip.,Mma -/4:-7 01~1 14'30*NA"Al illm#84* 1 5031 5570 5571 5118 5144 *5001 These Nord doors come with insulated glass. Species: Fir or Western Hemlock *441, 1 Sizes: 2'6", 2'8", 3'0" x 6'8" 1,40,31 s :~ (5001 also 2'0") ka-gr + tv Thickness: 144" '......., 13j 1,99 Stiles & Top Rail: 4966". (5001 is 1 9.it I ' .34 J = *i manufactured with 534" stiles and ; 4%,i'# top rail). 0%.1....i - ;,F Panels: Weatherbond. Â¢r -..: ... , 1 - 4 341 Bottom Rail: 91/4". Â£ ..ht.Ill 1. i %04 f 1 .1 b K:*4 70 ~ 141 , I- I 4'Â· 9 - b ..16&. 0/ 1. 4----1% 16... i 9 1 . 1 4 : Ra,#tz+Â· 21.42% L , Â· 1 .Pita 1-1 0 -4.- =t=. 1*299 D, I f 41 4 k<4 3* Er-, .4 1-1-''Ell r . 11 - 1 P' a ~14,- - 4 . 7 11-Ill -111 3 -3 * /1 - 16 L -1 1 IT - =j ---,4-11 ~11 L.t~'-,4 1'-1 1 1 11 1,1*3,5 -fhf!,"111,4, I-012 I-010 1-009 I-120 ES:*1 ./.4-2.'?X MALEY# 2 91 >, :, 1 W" Thick Insulated Unit Four popular grille designs available ~ 'A"Air Space 4Â·:g..: 4 : Tempered Safety doors (1-010 also 2'09. Please specify size when rell t Ti?H flfÂ·7*.1Â·4 . . Note: Grilles are available for all 2'6", 2'8" and 3'0" Ets#,3.r'+114 -fir~*4â‚¬1- ~- -1 8 /Glass ordering. 4 . 1 25=s torSupe,un'= *Does not include Weatherbond panels. 25 4 Plastic Sealant Efkm - 2 ./ 14Â·--.~ " . reski Aluminum Spacer Filled with Desiccant Creates Watertight Unit f.0, glog. U - .i--1-.-g~ FL-, 125'-24/411 - --- ~_16,4 Baa F. ~'7 L AepHALT â‚¬,H INg,LE* ME[7141 FT -ts MAT,H EnÂ«TINa, Ce Â¥Â·'COY --34\ 12 EL, 121'- ill/+i, _-___ \AM-712.- 4*#Fcer Af i - 5186.1 FAIr.In BEAferov&# --2- ..4 1 *32% 1 f / 81Â«1 *#RzÂ¥ I~34~ *A *T .0:>1U ~ Â«12 -1 . 2 1 1 1.0----=--- -- --.Nal. ..,- 41.- frA T. D. FARAFET 1-- -- FLUE FL. ~eeÂ· Â£>p- - ~ '~ ---- . -4 BAAÂ·, 6,99 Crh -- -,p:11= ..3:.-[lif~~ -Â« A--, 11 10>Clei-, i x G " 0.0Â£4~ f TO FÂ·81 -1 n \ Â»----- ----- - 10EMEL- .4121 49 --~-3, - ----1 il:- 1Â» MtÂ®H @<190,Â·16 ------ - 1--22.123- 1----12222 PAIN f COLO Â®4, 10 BE Stle,0160 err _~_~ - ChNNERÂ¢,Â«go+4, -.- 486042 8,Â·app 10 / 4457 31.fÂ· f<WOM .. 97*.bloA.---Â·~ - â€ž__71~-~.-2 TO, M Â» lol .01 1\- - -tel -- 05Â»K r IL gil-, k L LED-I 24-_LI WIff*49 ,.----- ~ 13[3- 7 ------------ I n ,-- 1----------vy 12:2 26 FaHOVE!2 U 54Â¥E yr?CT,jit - / - -tâ‚¬E 1-tart-ITI'NLE - Â«tie U ottl- El. 1 - --- - EILI LE--- M E:, c-Al Â· k:9 1210 = ---- - 1 - / -- 4 I - 11/ --- Â»+AdÂ·e pi-6212 To,Â«Ae $ FEF:M. - / - - B. 1 el, 3 22 NEW i/ E'><ls-rilÂ«ir F 1 1. NoFTH pwadATION 5 -1/4"skOL 4 - - /,2. 4/ 16 1 I NT '/7 i'/.8:,T 1 1 ~~~;.,HI"T -10 Â¥W'416Â¢1 F- ---- -z:za-u - , L .// --- - -=,râ‚¬=l =INâ‚¬>E~ **00422 91 %*64~1 'C. teÂ»1Â·*-0 Â¢009 --1/ I i r eusli,g./.. 9; L-r. 1~. 4 1 Â» 71 E -- -'- Fl-5,4 ---12 3 -- MAT AevATIONL - 1/40: 11â‚¬L 0 - *4 / X \ \\ MIr el,\hil f'T-<2. ! 9% 1,6-1-171*rF L r-Tr- T- ---7-i - - \36- - --- 1 11 - 4- I .a : lAI' J i -7-21 '- 1 1 1 1 - 4 ' T-r-rT-rrTT~ l 1 11 0 1 RaNCRE t'X'Or 31 VE.,6.TIMULC 4 10.1......... - Re <TO RE- PEâ‚¬06 -9 20612 4 w'INCO.W OF ORIGINAL 1- 14005,Â£ I 413.30 0 --fillÂ©YLQ I / %>< 'C- ' H,2, e _1920 TH PL...pÂ·Â·Â·Â»TWH e â‚¬f:07 - *" 6 212 1:0- APAE 1 . - -- - - -~ - - - - - - - AL. 7Â£-ST-*4 "-7 4.1.- _ _ _ _ 11Â·2, -- - --- - - - -14 e PIA~â€¢4 ELÂ°EEP~ _ - â‚¬1'1 Y 1 - --1 EL. IZI'-Ill/* Â«~-4_-1Â©jj 1 \ =1 --13 Â«i 4 (4 1--7 Â·Fe. reÂ·,Â·Wo. ---/h- --- 4 117,-2'1 lim--- 0 0-Â»77 1.-r ._<*k L-14[tT r#TURE ; 419911- <ft 1 12 @ *>1 -1-4. Ell SEE *c,+Ce. â‚¬,A, E-1 8*' 4 Ol-efaâ‚¬,T :,BY , I ' ~~m48*u -- - -3 ==1 ,=1=4 Ft- -1 <49 --1 6 1, _il_ - 1- -- 1 - 1, SEGONO FLODAL FL. 101(Â·37~2 11211110311 Â»*11 iL- I c T Idgil -- liu 1 11 -11 EX14 LIVING, ROOMA .J==11 41 - PlleT FLOOR. c - - EL. laoloIl Â¥ DR E-1-| - Ill--W- < EXISTING 24-04 N EW ADPITION ~ - ~ JOE SOUTH ELE-VATION - 4.a=I'-0" Dal SHE =1.Jivll-113=:Cl 1 1 u 141-LI VW) rl - *&NIPâ€ž~#Â·r~~6~~~r t_ -TÂ». NPAEL 1 EL..125'-24â€¢ / -91*67 4 -,4-, 1,41 -11 34â€¢ T 1 -- .7,44 1 4~ : --) Al/H,â€¢LT *HIRIL/6. TI j~~B,1 Â£*p'.riNg 141*,PH,> 44 .. f-i <35 Â»PerINg - *23;Fr 1 Wvt,+ PH _ __ ....... -I .....6 ..101/4 -TO liATLH e.*PS,T 1,4 . RENT colÂ·0#5,2 62 EÂ«1611 hei ROO P -- ;QZ513Â° /7 palia. - - --41[3-1 In 2 11191-i - ------ 1.-2-I.'155. i- 1~-Ji---1 - - '5â€¢*UP B-621L I r- - / >4>-4 1 ------ ;7 21-a.Â· IG~ '.0, 90 â€ž6(1 3 - 0 A -- . -1 E- El--Â®11 1 - - r= rene PA. 41 , t==%.rk"+ . r--11 ---/ - F..vitvE. E Ige>TINGr 1-- -4 LESTIrbJU- *//11.- â‚¬ A-41,491Â£. .. PE+4 '.RET!â‚¬8 j leÂ»ST EL-EVATION -2411.11-OIl f 5.d 60. d 5.2 FER,p BLOutÂ· ENVELore Fa='CD> Â«TÂ»CAL ALLEY SMT,i~NO~4 ,- NEW CÂ»44â€¢~in. Â£ DEPR-, ApPITIoN .20 FÂ»e,ES> 60,01 PRop MHS N76~01'll"W 11(90 9â€¢TDA>K- AERAIRES H,F>,C. ExuMPTI ON Haw WAIHeurrug IrÂ·/,7/ BE.6.T TAr.a* Ice.ZG 1200.1 5% 14 - 1REQUIRECD FRIHAML ,-*r -1- 4[- 1 1'- bf* 7- 0' 9-Â·-91~--- - 4- tr 0 0 ' PUIL-421,46, S ET 7Â£4 8,-r d OuggÂ·eNT ZONING, COOE 1/ ..., Â«*Uk ~' 1," il -1 1 /=-- *- ~ .1.k'--825.4.44-rfa- -- 4 1#26*1 e ICE),4- / Ir+41.11+TIo,4 ======h 44. It-1 < 2 ~Ri. 341-$;apÂ« 4 4~ 1 it -6- ,"11~ i /,<br F LAr R.#DOF n -===-*nin~t-:,41% --- kil (Two STOK-f j . 1 tt~24 peole 4 1 CM P F LeR.2 Il 4 A - 1 19 *io#,26Nk=Ly'1..167 198Â·75 * 8*Or CLEAR.Â«T[*(U.Ir,/r -1,- 9,+ AL-17<'4 PLAT- 4 1,<'<s, 1121-2 --1 51 j FOOP ~ PEÂ£:Icâ‚¬. i r,Â· 1 GÂ»IE 91'00'(> 4998- , 1 7 :il 1 11 1 W 1' .T . 11!! 1,1 ; Irl al Il ' i <.2- Ex'* piTC++E P - 0 N 6 -O wter .12 - 0 -2t-=Tr 8.66 â€¢ - 1!1 , 1 1 Ho 1 1 f K er' h,15' uriIA~*00 - ----1 (lil.)18,3 r~'Iurvl-<483* 6 98.+ :14%'~ 2--2 . 11*11.6 1 A-1.4 e.xle,TINCI L -ETDADA 2 â€ž22- 9 427? A-1- L.â€ž.3 <--CUFUZe.NT Z.041461 ca>oe. -O <E=-4,6 Do. 0100'~DiNED 0 4 FLONT * REAR Â¥*AD 3 0 5ETBACK 60 1%32 01 5 < 4> 18, e 00.+00 1.1 C - 10.2 FROP. 1-{MA Hofl<IND AVEAU 5 6 ITE- PLAIN - 1 "= I d SEN ERAL NOTES : 1. IH FOR,Aâ€¢mo N Â®HANA O N T+419 e ITE PLAN 16 DASED ON A SURVEY PREFASTED DÂ¥ 01-INE.5 IN "ACE: 6/14/84 + UpperED 1/19 / 82>, FOR 1-OT* P *cR, 8,06,c 62-,CITY * TowlÂ©DITE op Aepe-H, prr}<1 hi (LOUHTY,col-0, 2. + 100.0 EA<IÂ·S:,Tlr-14 at*Â·.Câ‚¬ -6Â·pT g.l-EVATIOND 3.*lao.o r I H leki <:5:$*â€¢DE ensT ELEVATIOH SETBACK 100.0' FRop. LINE N Il-'50'49 *E 9216'11AN.3 -27d -1 4 i L b MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Final Development Review, 516 E. Hyman Ave. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Date: June 14, 1988 LOCATION: 516 E. Hyman Ave., Lot O of Block 94, also known as Lot 1 of Pitkin Center Subdivision, Townsite and City of Aspen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting final development approval for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of 516 E. Hyman Ave., (formerly the Cheapshots Building, currently the Mouse House). The plan includes the demolition of the existing structure with redevelopment plans to build a new commercial building with 2,250 square feet on the first floor (Phase 1) and T \ 2,250 square feet on the second floor (Phase 2) subject to GMP allocation. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: On February 9, HPC reviewed and gave Demolition and Conceptual Development approval to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 subject to the following conditions: 1. Detailed representation of materials shall be presented at HPC's final development review. 2. The 2nd floor central windows shall be studied as to how the window spacing may better relate to historic upper story window patterns, how these windows may give a stronger sense of verticality, and how this building may be better differentiated from the Pitkin Center building. The results of this study shall be presented at final development review. 3. Prior to final development review, approval from P&Z for reduction in required open space shall be obtained or a revised design with 25% open space shall be submitted. (SEE REVISED STAFF COMMENTS UNDER " PROBLEM DISCUSSION") 4. Further study the materials, the brick, stone, slate and wood in the structure. 5. Also further study how the steps and railing up to the Mason and Morse building works. The motion goes on to read: "We would also eliminate #3 of the recommendations". (SEE REVISED STAFF COMMENTS UNDER "PROBLEM DISCUSSION'I. ) The applicant has addressed these issues in the final development plan, discussed below. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Insertion of a new structure into a significant situation presents special problems which are being creatively addressed, in our opinion. Staff feels the overall design reinforces a sense of place within the Commercial Core Historic District. Since HPC first reviewed this project for conceptual development approval, the revised Land Use Code has been passed by City Council, taking effect May 25, 1988. The 2 5% open space requirement which staff had included in their recommendation and passed as a motion by HPC did not materialize specific to this development situation. As the plan calls for replacing an existing one story building with a new one story building (Phase 1), this requirement does not apply. The plan is to gain final approval for Phase 1, the first floor, AND to gain approval for Phase 2, the entire project which must waiting for GMP competition review in September for allocation. The open space issue would effect the building's front setback, which is proposed now for 15', creating 15% open space. The setback will allow the space needed to the landscaped "plaza". The existing structure has an approximately 2' front setback. Any other requirements will be handled cash-in-lieu. For reference, the adjacent Mason and Morse building has a 20' setback and the Pitkin Center has an 8' setback. The new structure as proposed splits the difference and complements the streetscape. The revised final development review plans have been altered in the following ways: 1. A triangular parapet has been added to the second story to cap off the building, set it apart from its neighbors and allow it to read as a separate building, not as a "little sister" of the Pitkin Center. The height at the peak of the parapet is 35' 7", approximately 3.5' lower than the neighboring Pitkin Center. This parapet design is again repeated as a pediment above the center window on the second floor. The original conceptual design called for a flat cornice. This triangular treatment was often used in the 1880's and 90's in commercial building design, and is seen in a variety of CC district buildings today, such as the Wheeler Block. Staff finds the parapet slightly too dominant with the scale of the building and in relation to the adjacent facades. One alternative may be to reduce its overall size and height somewhat, allowing the pitch to remain the same as the pediment above the window as it currently reads. 02- 2. Only one awning is proposed for the center window of the main level retail space. The other awnings originally proposed for all windows have been eliminated. 3. The main level doorway entrances have changed, making the entire facade extremely symmetrical. A set of double doors appear directly in the center, with a pair of single doors, one leading up, one leading down on either end of the building on the main level. Each door measures 8', with glass transoms above. Above the central pair of entry doors is a dual panel of transoms, which will be hidden behind the awning. The previously approved conceptual development plans called for a central transparent storefront with doors on either end of the building. Wood bulkhead panels remain under the storefront display windows, however, the panel trim has changed from square to rectangular. 4. The building's central focus covering approximately 70% of the facade extends upward into the second floor and proj ects 8". The material treatment of this element is significant, in our opinion, and will give this building its own identity along this block. The plan proposes to utilize two bricks of different color to make this central statement more dominant, and break any monotony the structure may have. 5. The final development plan reflects a solid brick treatment above the storefront on the first floor. The previously approved conceptual development plans proposed slate tile with fixed exterior lighting in the center and on k either end. This change simplifies the style and texture of the first floor, creating a 30' long, 6' wide mostly unbroken band of brick. As a stand alone first floor, which this may be due to competition, this appears somewhat too bold and may benefit from the extra texture and detailing slate tile would afford, in our opinion. Materials: Summary: Per HPC's requirement, the applicant has further studied the materials to be utilized. Review of the February 9 minutes reflect concern from the Committee regarding the new development blending too closely in materials usage and color to the adjacent Pitkin Center. The Final Review plan calls for two colors of tumbled 4Fick on the main facade, rusticated Utah sandstone lintels and lorizontal banding, and Pella clad windows. These windows are very similar to the ones used in the Pitkin Center, though are proposed to be a different color. The Planning Office finds the materials acceptable and compatible yet not a duplication of the neighboring buildings. A variety of textures is proposed, a design treatment replicating Victorian commercial buildings. Staff is disappointed to see the elimination of the slate tiles as originally proposed, however, we understand the economic considerations which may be a factor in adding this decorative element. HPC may wish to include this back in when taking action. 3 The non-visible walls will be constructed of concrete block, built from the inside as they abut the two adjacent buildings. Fenestration: On February 9, the Committee expressed concern particularly of the upper floor fenestration, stating the horizontal "bank of windows" takes away from the verticality of the structure. The plan reflects subtle changes here in utilizing fewer divisions in the second story upper windows, creating a more vertical appearance, in our opinion. The two upper floor side windows have been reduced slightly in width and height, and remain double hung. The alternative of incorporating true wood windows into the design may be preferred, however, as this is not a restoration of a historic structure the exact duplication of historic materials may not be fitting. The divisions proposed are compatible with the Pitkin Center building and visually tie into its fenestration. Plaza: This proposed street level area is to be paved in non- tinted concrete, which may appear too stark in our opinion. This is a large expanse and staff suggests a softer option by utilizing tinted concrete or simple decorative divisions. The area includes landscaping with a defined planting area at the westerly end of the plaza and two trees with grates planted to align with the two end entry doors. Stairs and Railing: The applicant will present information at this meeting regarding HPC's concerns of the adjacent Mason and Morse steps and railing as discussed at Conceptual review. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the demolition and final development at 516 E. Hyman Avenue for Phase 1, and also recommends approval of final development for Phase 2, which is subject to GMP allocation, with the following conditions: 1. Approval for Phase 2 is subject to the applicant restudying the size of the second story parapet with modifications to the approved development plan being submitted for staff review and approval. 2. That the applicant further study the plaza area paving issue with modifications to the approved development plan being submitted for staff review and approval. HPC.MEMO.516EH ~ and associates 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 May 31, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 516 East Hyman Avenue, Final Development Plan Review Dear Roxanne, On February 9, 1 988, the Historic Preservation Committee approved the Conceptual Development Plan for the above- referenced project. Therefore, in accordance with Section 6-205A.6, we are requesting approval of our Final Development Plan. Following Section 7-610F.4, our application is as follows: (1) General application information. 1. Applicant Information: See attached sheet. 9 -1.- . Street Address: 516 East Hyman Avenue ' Legal Address: Lot 1, Pitkin Center Subdivision 3. Proof of Ownership: See attached Warranty Deed. 4. Vicinity Map: See attached. 5. Compliance with standards set out in Section 7-601D: Criterion 1: Development Compatibility with the Historic District: On the 516 East Hyman Avenue Project, our efforts to relate to the Historic District are through the use of materials, massing, and storefront detailing. 42.- '4 .... 4 -0/*4 andassociatesft h.,4*&'14Â·Â·.Re> 74' 42 >3.7 i Â· Ms. Roxanne Eflin May 31, 1988 Page two 4 First, with respect to materials, brick, sandstone and wood storefronts are easily the most prominent materials in the Commercial Core section of the District. Our use of these materials and the manner in which they are used is consistent with the goals of the Historic District Guidelines. Secondly, with respect to massing, our proposal follows the Historic pattern of a flat facade with a large storefront on the ground level. In addition, a simplified pediment was used to provide an additional tie to the Historic District. Thirdly, with regard to store-front detailing, we are showing large panes of glass with wood and glass doors. Both of these items are historic in nature and exist throughout the Commercial Core. Also, we are proposing to use wood kickplates and trims to further enhance the historic appearance. Criterion 2: Development Compatibility with the Neighborhood. The structures in the neighborhood follow the guidelines f or development relatively well. They consist of brick and sandstone buildings with small plazas in front. Our intent was to continue this trend, since this is an infill project. In addition, by locating the building behind Pitkin Center but ahead of Mason and Morse, we hope to create a flow of open space across the block. Criterion 3: Not applicable. Criterion 4: Not applicable. m '1 1. Ms. Roxanne Eflin May 31, 1988 -/2 Â¥Cll 0Â£12Â©0'.;3":'11"ll Page three l.,2 k Project Description. Our project consist of demolishing the existing Wach's Building and replacing it with a new two- story structure. This structure will contain 4500 s.f. of commercial/office space split equally between the two fl oors. In addition, there will be a full basement. The basement and plaza level are in Phase One, while the second level is Phase 2 and subject to GMQS approval. Major building materials are brick, sandstone, wood, and painted concrete block. The Hyman Avenue elevation is almost all brick with a sandstone base and banding. The storefront is trimmed in wood along with wood kickplates. Massing of the project is best described as a small central mass from a larger backgroundÂ· mass. The background mass has a more historic feel with its fenestration patterns. In contrast, the central mass has a more contemporary look with brick banding and a large window at the second level ~ (Phase 2). However, this central mass still has historic elements like wood storefronts and sandstone base and banding which tie it to the background mass. (3) Material Representations. See samples. (4> Scale Drawings. See attached sheets. (5) Development Compatibility. See .previous explanations. C Cl ? Final Development Plan Compatibility with Conceptual Review. Our Conceptual Plan met with general acceptance when presented. Therefore, our final development plan is very similar. It has the same basic plan and is located in the same position. 17= ' Ms. Roxanne Eflin May 31, 1988 Page four What has changed, however, is the Hyman Avenue elevation. These were a result of the comments of the Historic Preservation Committee members that the building looked to much like Pitkin Center. Though the form is still similar, two pediments have been added and the center second level window has been revised so that even though the opening is large, the individual panes have a more historic dimension. In addition, the 8"x 8" slate tiles have been removed to eliminate the tie-in to the 0"x8" bl ocks at Pitkin Center. Finally, some of the sandstone has been removed to put more emphasis on the brick, which is in direct contrast to Pitkin Center, where the emphasis is on the stone. I hope this letter helps to clarify our design. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, 4-Â» lÂ»A Kim Weil Project Architect KW:dem Enclosures 1 N 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 -Â»4 -- 1 41 u 11-1 1 Ill 1. 11 1 1 1 C -0 1.R i _! i I ; p 4 n .. 1 . YED . 4 ;1 1 1 1 1\ 1 - ~ ilÂ»Â» , Â· ' 1 0 . : 1 - 0 -'1 0 1 i i & l I . .1 1 -0-3 f : : - --rt # , 2 1-/L.**3 , 240- Cj 1 1 .1 - -- --- - -r, Â®.10' 1 ----- v (% 16' 09' 77' 3Â© 1 0 ., d' > . :e ' GO 8 4.- , 0-,4. â€ž l . , , '0= 1 2 1 1 11: (0â‚¬| A r 0. 05 40.00 r 0.05 rE - ~ 44 C-1 39 - > f i . 1-1 < F,0 ADBTf 9,Â·18 1 - 4~0 0 4 1 g. - ( U F F-0.-- -7-,-_ -- --_- - . 1 4--Â«ji .. 4 1 V HYMAN AVENUE 9 FLA-ZA PLAN 140 1-TH G. G. 88 APJAW : 1'2124 f\gr bu 91.2.,rer (47 /246*O42rt>Hy ;344,4 GAâ€¢log~Ch,le 7.0. MA6.2 FrAA -=I -4 - //OMANME,ur ux ---I.Il--Il- - 5' ~ AD.1. 6Â£06. Â· . ---- . N ; = 06.yow P h - T.O. MMe. 0-"-------- -EEPEFr--*I- -*.. T -Â£ . J = =.7-11.-7= -1 - - ..0.94:OP PECI' 26 12Â·0 1 -- - --I---- - 1 1, 56 WIP'TZ'ND -- - 4.-- -- -- - - - -- -.I-/---- --- Wi 31#Â· r,<1 -- - EJEJET-ing : 13--Â»- i 224 - - -- .--. Â· 2 El 7 9 r-J'-lf-F i ln ---- 1 -- 2 ALÂ·AC (%6, -=- i 178 t 0 1-0. MAe. -- -- L=-==IL==-1 L...U --- Â·- T.ZZ EL.+118'Â·0' 379 LEâ‚¬ DEF &â€¢.ll5'Â·O' 1 ---- - - - - - - ..+ - -- .--- ... 26Â£*Er - ---ATDNE DANG *-. Â·ON ' -- -*-- *- 359* P . 2 - - p AW H "*2, CrfF.) O - 1-'.-1 - - -- *AM - 1 OUGS. - - [-1 - E-1 1 /1 - I /1 -- - .- 1 1 -- 32.AKEA , I ------- ---Unt~I --- ~ 1 ./ 1 \\ 1 1 1\ --/ /1 p Cord. EL.\CdÂ·â‚¬. ....... - 1 1~,1 LEZZL--1 1 Â»000 el,416,0 erÂ·ffÂ».) i @OUTH BLEVATioN PHAe@ 2 6,6,88 4:1 c. cwiÂ·12'Â·BbL --2 ~F-:=23Â§ - 1. 10 . 9 .. L.--- M grAL F+42â€¢â€¢fbr, T. 51 MIA EN ON *ANOSroÂ¥4/ I k , 8.0,115'Â·00 0 1 -I -.- . - -1. .. - 860Â»Â·TI d l.4 6,1 --- rlxn,14 r.c. df'60- 1.Mi Gta#cEL. 115 'Â· 0~ 1 N _ PGa-Er,4 SANt*T 1 T.O. WICÂ·k . , 1 L' A..+1102'Â·O" '-4 -__ - ./ .. SANP,luble WATEI 94. k -7 - 1 Z i @1 - ----L--- \ CAN *6' Ahlk! 1 4 1- 1 1 -- 1-2 TyM D.1-3314 --- . -- .. 15 23-4 1 .0 -*-- - -- Iii 22 . -3 EEBE - 0 1 ---- - --1 -- 1 -- -- - 0/.CORATiJt = 7-1 1 ./.Iâ‚¬A,Aot-[ORE Eg . r2 1 1 --It 4 M =--- -- -~3 1.0. rthe . 1 -~ T. 4 --7 - EL. + 102 'Â·ON 1 '11 1 -3 j Â©2414 A.- -4 1 k toÂ· CONIC. C.,100'.0 ~ 2.--1 W I 11 *-I.--9.-Il- -li.--I-.I $.-- .-1-. It , 1 , 1 6â€¢10Â» h |IL M.:3 QUI eoLIT.H BLBVAT loKI Fikt*et 2 b,Grss id -o' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Monitoring Projects DATE: June 14, 1988 First, I would like to thank each of you for your extra effort in project monitoring. I welcome and would appreciate the opportunity to attend any site review with you. Please just call me prior to going and I'll rearrange my schedule to suit the need. A one day notice would be helpful! As we have many projects in process at this time, I wanted to reiterate who is assigned to what, and the status of each. PLEASE call me with additions, changes or comments at your earliest convenience. HPC Member Proiect Name Status Georgeann 300 W. Main Final approved Wheeler-Stallard House Windows being installed 411 E. Hopkins(Sculp.Garden) MD approved Charles 113 E. Hopkins Conceptual approved Joe 334 W. Hallam Final review 6-14-88 Bill 222 E. Hallam Demo complete - redevel.approved Mesa Store Complete Nick Elli's Bldg. Complete Augie 513 W. Bleeker MD(Garage) approved 516 E. Hyman (Mouse House) Phase I - Conceptual approved Charley nothing assigned Zoe 415 E. Hyman(Roaring Fork Bldg.) MD approved Pat nothing assigned Proiects needing monitoring: 212 W. Hopkins Conceptual approved Carly's project(condominiumization/relocation) 120 N. Spring/134 W. Hopkins Conceptual approved Any others? Thank you for your assistance! hpc.memo.monit. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Workshop, Rehab. Investment Tax Credit DATE: June 14, 1988 REHABILITATION INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT WORKSHOP TO BE HELD ON JUNE 16, THE COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY WILL PRESENT AN AFTERNOON WORKSHOP ON THE REHABILITATION INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT (RITC). RITC WAS RETAINED BY CONGRESS AND REMAINS A VALUABLE INCENTIVE FOR INVESTMENT IN HISTORIC BUILDINGS. THE ACT PROVIDES A TWO-TIER CREDIT OF 20 PERCENT OF QUALIFIED REHABILITATION EXPENDITURES FOR HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL INCOME PRODUCING BUILDINGS AND 10 PER CENT FOR NON-HISTORIC, NONRESIDENTIAL, INCOME PRODUCING BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED BEFORE 1936. INVESTORS, DEVELOPERS, LENDERS, ACCOUNTANTS, ATTORNEYS, ARCHITECTS, PRESERVATIONISTS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS, REALTORS, BUILDING OWNERS AND TENANTS WITH LONG TERM LEASES NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE RECENT TAX CODE CHANGES AND HOW PROJECTS CAN QUALIFY. FEDERAL TAX CREDITS FOR THE REHABILITATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES HAVE RESULTED IN THE REHAB OF OVER 200 BUILDINGS IN COLORADO WITH INVESTMENTS TOTALLING MORE THAN $154 MILLION. STAFF FROM THE COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND TOUCHE ROSS (THE BIG EIGHT ACCOUNTING AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTING FIRM) WILL EXPLAIN THE PROCEDURE THROUGH WHICH PROJECTS BECOME CERTIFIED AS ELIGIBLE FOR THE RITC. ALSO, STANDARDS THAT PROJECTS MUST MEET, QUALIFIED EXPENDITURES, LOW INCOME HOUSING CREDITS AND IRS REQUIREMENTS WILL BE EXPLAINED. PARTICIPANTS WILL RECEIVE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION, A SAMPLE APPLICATION, AND "PRESERVING AMERICA'S HERITAGE: THE REHABILITATION INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT", A 37 PAGE BOOKLET BY TOUCHE ROSS AND THE OHIO HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE WHICH ANALYZES REHAB PROVISIONS OF THE TAX REFORM ACT AND WALKS THOUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS. THE WORKSHOP WILL BE HELD THURSDAY, JUNE 16, FROM 1:00 - 5:00 P.M. AT THE HOTEL COLORADO IN GLENWOOD SPRINGS. REGISTRATION IS $30.00 PER PERSON, AND MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY (1300 BROADWAY, DENVER, COLORADO 80203) AT LEAST THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE WORKSHOP. (Note: I will be attending and will report back any information which may be useful to you. Please let me know if you are interested in attending so that I may assist with any last minute registration needs.) HPC.MEMO.RITC MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Attached "Preservation Law" update: Conditions DATE: June 14, 1988 I found the attached Preservation Law Update interesting, and wanted to pass along the information. This Connecticut Preservation Commission attached four conditions to an approval, one of which was overturned based upon the Commission "exceeding their authority". Food for thought. memo.hpc.fyi 4 . NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW 233 20TH STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 501 0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20038 0 (202) 828-0811 PRESIDENT EXEE!:TIVE DIRECTOR TERSH BOASBERG. ESQ. brEPHEN N. I)ENNIS. ESQ. PRESERVATION LATV UPDATE 1988-17 May 1, 1988 When May a Preservation Commission Attach Conditions in Granting a Certificate of Appropriateness? An unreported case from Connecticut may be to date the only case from any jurisdiction which considers the validity of conditions attached by a local preservation commission to a certificate of appropriateness. In Belinkie, et al.. CO- Administrators of Estate of Weiss v. Bridgeport Historic District Commission (No. 21 46 54, Fairfield Judicial District Superior Court, decided October 2, 1984), a court approved three conditions but struck down a fourth. ! The case involved a property in the Black Rock area of Bridgeport consisting of four separate lots in an estate. The plaintiffs applied in December 1983 for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish certain existing structures on the lots and to restore other structures: The application indicated they intended to construct 47 condominium units in three buildings with provision for 94 parking spaces, and to restore the existing structures at 87-89 Ellsworth Street and 103 Ellsworth Street. One of the lots contained the "Captain Hall Houser" called by the court "one of the oldest and more prominent homes in the Black ~ Rock area" and said to have "some historical value." The historic district commission approved the plaintiffs' application in January 1984, but attached four conditions: : 1. One building was to have a maximum of eight rather than twelve apartments; 2. The same building "shall be aesthetically and appropriately centered in the same general area"; 3. There would be "no less than twenty (20) feet of space between the Hall House at 87-89 Ellsworth Street" and the building involved in the first two conditions; NXTIONAL CENTER FOHI'HEKERVATION [.AW 4. Two additional buildings of sixteen apartments each were approved as presented to the commission. The commission's attorney wrote to the plaintiffs after approval of the application with the conditions noted above, and stated in his letter: The requirement for twenty feet of space between the Hall house and Building #1 was stipulated because the Commission decided that less than twenty feet of space would be 'incongruous with the historic and architectural aspects of the District' .... The plaintiffs contended that under Connecticut's enabling legislation for historic district commissions a commission may only "regulate exterior architectural features" and that the conditions imposed exceeded the commission's authority. The court concluded that the commission "did exceed its authority and it acted illegally in imposing the first condition which reduced the number of apartments in Building #1 from twelve to eight apartment units." But the court approved the other three conditions: Conditions (2) and (3) which relate to aesthetic considerations and the distance between the Hall House and Building #1 are conditions the Commission is authorized to c control pursuant to the statutes. Section 7-147a(b) permits < it to protect the distinctive characteristics of buildings. Furthermore, the defendant did find that a distance of less than twenty feet between Building #1 and the Hall House would be incongruous with the historic and architectural aspects of the District. This decision by the Commission falls within their authority pursuant to Â§ 7-147f(b) of the Conn. Gen. Statutes. Though this unreported Connecticut decision is brief, the court's reasoning is likely to be persuasive to courts in other , jurisdictions in the future. Conditions which further a commissionis statutorily defined duties are likely to be upheld, but conditions which cannot arguably further the commission's responsibilities would be struck down as exceeding the commission's authority. Unfortunately, because of the great variation in state enabling statutes for local preservation commissions (see the report State Enabling Legislation for Local Preservation Commissions (1984) from the National Trust for Historic Preservation's State Legislation Project), conditions which would be valid in one jurisdiction may not be valid in another. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") 4 Â· 1 2 : 14 l --71 , --+ 9 n m 0 Â·4 C Il 2 -1 L 1 + r. l m mz .Cl 11 EF 11 0 2 0 0 C-31 - ./ - rift,J -/71. C. ... [> f f 1. -j . 1-r,-9 -:%~t .1 \' :N. f . ~: - 0 -0 3 *AmÂ·Â·2:.2:* - - T , w,9 -2 ..1 L eÂ·4 6Â·. Â·I: 4-t ...\ 1 . -1 Ly> , 1 P F.--1 t, 4 2 - Â¥1 1 - 1 7/v - i m 9 1 4 4 m '/ 0 r 8 4 5 2 19 F . 2 / 1 (D Iii .. 1 -1 Il m ,, m 0/ X - 0 0 - 40 1 - 4 I ..4 5 ~ m Il D 1,4 2- 411 2 0 n L U: E -' 1 1% i , 7 - , 1 - E-f-Â» -7 -1 ' 2 4 , #11 -4. i C i T K 7 1- I D 1 HE .<- 1 > > \ 0 .-3 . 4 231 1 F m / _li,- - Â» 4- 21 f 1 Â· --:t- 7 t t. 1. 112/Â·-4 -5-EEED:.:i ;:i,,=as pI.EEE-~=w.-U.+ -Â·r W.Di~'- . Â«-.72.6-WW i.Â·m:09 Â· 4_ _~ (,1 - Â·Â· Â£, ; 9 â‚¬-3 0 -1 Jr\'. + Cr J. ~ , , 2 03 + *- r MILL STAEET igo L 1 1, 1 l i C.13 , I. ADDITION TO ELLI'S . A .- _ - Aspen Colorado 4 - If ' . pro "i#,c 1 9>A.?rÂ·ruu .~61 ; 1, 1 4 .4-~2,4.0,1 6,/JI ' ;24 )'~~Â·.-3.' .1-32 1 -t.2Â· I aola:10/-11Â¥13Â¤ tiaddn 79Aa-I CINOJES #-- i ..all OESL OK 9 0 79Aa-I J.Stll=I -119.1.Btl isxa line of wall above -11 -2 EXISTING ELLI'S 13at.04__ - _ STAIRWAY ~ - _ ---1- VIEW PLANE - WOOD TRIM >// .-. A - ~ ~ r- WOOD SIDING . i-. ...1~Mizz~/'Ir- .-/ -*--1- _ 0/1 '1,7; 502 - 4 --1- 9 hEZIi-,83 --1 .-/ li I 17:t, Ah't FIG.MIA ---1 ' Fifif-------*En - 152 iny,bra--1---_LEL L.U..41 1 (%44%14 2,11221 - - -~~-M-- 4~74)A' 7-1.- tri/)BQZY/i~j.<BW-~.3:0.t#.30fbiLABLL4~:T'/Â·7~Â¤ifilyr7:8473'155' z>50/2Â©7-Zf---~L~_~-__ ~__~__~_- _--~ 117'- 2' Â¥12//9 41,7.3, . 4 444" t.,"I '~.ril r;Aqi-53 0Â¥~ Â· ' ~k---â‚¬7-5-- - - --7~ 1*Ind'*&:Let" L/ki 1% C.UiE *~ 24â‚¬ 27 7 1.11 - . . AN.i)11/ E@%1'28 fillifj~ AÂ·,><- RÂ¢Mt.Ed-~Â·Â» i//1/,~1, -020\1 \ r-7Uti'/ f, 1 -~2-----226Â§2iaia*~EEEYEE<YFimiSSE---1 U Â·. VA'. 14'R T411 lt:.-- . - f -VON\l I/4 <">,4 - 1. /1 1' ' 1Rrrux,_lt / ) rAV_ ZZ - Â£,aL.â€¢Â£.a ?YÂ¢t 1973*9 7,Â£70 ~ 7%'~ fi/*HIÂ¥iF- ;to-f.CA,94% (/ \ 4/,7 ''~ / ~ #// t \% %, *Ag#Wk 'T//,*Â·' 1.\'11 1 1'1/f . 1- litj> , keyt k Â·3 -Eflf/,31 1 Aft I.,/4 ' -1 tat 4/ '252 11 4 >.====- -, 1 ~/25 *4 ir,0.,n 2... ~F' .t,4 Y/NICAINGâ€¢02*2" .7, Ut,/. T:fALÂ·~V.?t lEA 35:0 1 1 -/ 04* '.:/0,2'R, 63 24'Â·491 73*317;f 104 7/1 91%~ T , 1/â€ž 1; 11./,1Allit /4 . a -g-Â£9. lt, /1 m// . . 1 1 E,iÂ°94/ to*#41 y..1 ~i ?arl g a !*;4 40AJO.iT,ELE~,TA## Â·,(10 9 KUDit ~ 2 '42541.2;49 1% VA Ryl m/airtrTE,~'Flr- 2,4, ,;.. 115:16.bi,LIS,4 I fCS.Z.linetâ€¢e'SCA .11 1 - - 1 J.V- li) 1+t,=-----0-=G,r. la 1 4: 1 - - 1 1 - '7\N, Ii; li]01! - -1 - -1 1 - 1 ILI -11- 1 -7 -4 1 1 - 1 ~19.:IPOM 245Â¢Ag -Al~:4.,F.4.234.:~:.~~&903.JER?,7*I-*:im;9*AAN**Kf#/4.-.Â£ 1/42*102*14:init*,@.8.10Â¢24SGOS?*,'Â· , MILL ST. ELEVATION ... â€¢... '4 -r EXISTING Lrs 1 ANGLED MINER'S BUILDING r-WOOD TRIM 1 1 11 ~ wo0O SIDING . ==2nLKCSâ‚¬/'EE-Z~ZZZ~~~ZZi-I-N-w/ZÂ»~-If - ' 1 1- -/.~41.'Ai*,4,''I.r#z/1,)"21'-is,rit.iki)Itifift--firs 38Â£351&&&6/fifffigmM2E9ME fITIEjtz==!Ek=zf- - ,.1. 01% 7 1, 2,Â·/ c./, * + 'F?. 41\\ t 1\1, 1 //,fÂ·*// - 1 .14 5, \ 114 A ,14 1/ / 1 ..â€žr..r-â€žty- \' Vi 24jit?i - I. , " .b Â·Â· l A- 1 u ~5.1 .1.\ 'r/+,- R*F lgE-r~j~ 7%---3 EFS;17j i.Â·griÂ» IFÂ¢457; FIE~,1 &4*t,~*ini~g. 6 $.41:\ * 1*4 7 \4/ ~ ' ~*AU. 0/Â» ~~ MUM@ 1,4,*P~ '12*2} pm~'-ag* -fireve. 3 1 .:*11 2, Pe 0%14* & f-Ki F.~. #$' 1- - ti<,4 YiX - i. f//l,*115 u . oin/r. 24#24:11424 typiAL i---=--.44.Al/.t-'~ -- C.râ€¢ .0-'- , - Â·Â·1 ; f 'F'#1~ I -1 +Ul / 222- / lk,/7<22 rds-a,;:*2##46?-w,16 7 *FJift, ZD~*h 1 - Raridll zi49~%44@8.;'-2 A ff,34 Eff:*45'*fÂ·t'j.,5 99 111 Rt,or'/{ ErÂ·~'4111 lt* Â°3.1 1 RU, 5 ~ l ~ . - - p .2Â¥aA,=rl- 1 32 ... 914.11,0.f MAIN ST. ELEVATION .?8. ./'i .. ALLEY 1--7 3 --- -1- -- -1/7 /n.~re,~3 - TRASH C A 40 NEW COMMERCIAL i EXISTING ~ V . TREES 1 . >C ' x b/1 ' ..0 Xx ' hÂ«/93<Tri'',6(34, .., â€¢â€¢â€¢Â«â€¢ ............ U ..... ........ :ft- ....... -. ........... ......'.. -...... ----- I ........... ............ -1 ,Â·r-r~7 i v \ V EXISTING ELLI'S NEW COMMERCIAL . I ... PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY -41 1 1, 2.. . -7 Y 7,1 0-3- 1 7 .\,I,/: ~ COURÂ¥*ARPI' *c Jf z -nÂ»-*~x44~49> .... . =-=41=.-=_-4-9:~. --- -~#*4>3>3/22 /..1-9,4 2.-65-0 29. 4 9 r L 4 - 3 49 .fuir-ye- - MAIN STREET It. = %*1 1 -_ *17- PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN ELLI'S OF ASPEN ASPEN, COLORADO 1-7-87 0 5 10 15 20 N MILL STREET .. ~1&48'At \1\ - 4 7 4, Â· ~ 5 Â· 73 4% - 5-Â¥,1~ % A ..ht.. f.... 4. . 41 Â·* V 0 4 I "#44 444 . ' 1 4~4 9 ~./.,#76 - 5 u 4. 2. > \\34\\ 11 Â·. - t . -1 1, 9. .4., 9 . w 1 % 1 4- . '0* h . + 9.- 0,1 -.,> - Vjb, Nf <: .1 .L - 4 ~2 4 6 4. 9 '%1 i:/ 2. .,4... . - 4 . I , '.- . .~*04....44.,4.-1342:Â·A &.; -44*,4$ 't -2. V..4. . -1 1 1 444 ./ -n . 4. ~1 Â«4Â«41<3~~b<Â« 1 ..\ 1 6 1 h 41Â· . , I. bi-Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·-.' ' C'>l ** .4 / L ./ *i?-, t~ k ..24, Vt :i %1 1 4 44 -1, 1 I I 144. f...2,4<..$ .hu \1.V Â¥ : . 24*<N-77.4, --lub- .- 4. . hy-. id/' I | .| ~~ | ~| ~. 4. 39Â» . 4 - - , 4/, . d. 146 Â· PAF '44- . , t.'.#. ...4 \12 -1 . .... 14 4 , / X I. .1 ... 1, -1@. 4. 11 1 +.. - h.* . /.-. I & I i I ' f- --- . 1 1 - 14 -../4/1 1- . w -- ---_ _ \ :. 1 -2. 1 'AdÂ¥/7 ---- -- - ---1...Ii--*--.i --*I.---il--i-------- -DLL.JI- 0-4 - ...43'11 k . -1 hA_K V Ud ,- 14/2-N -h.. \ .L le / -2-24 j\% 1 reÂ»Â«029%#K 4\... 1 6, 19,Â».3414 - 41.'lls --r- .:.1 =11 <# ' 1-: , ..-Ill./.'.-/I - 1 T v~l/Z///7/3*2 ~////~&//~/~7// 1 4.-...-- i a ./.--./.- F. _.--0- .1 . _ -*i %41*11 ~43~g th,<-:47 i*~:YACK# 44Â·211. I El:-lifet: 1 * f-Efilf- ' -- - - /2.1 11 1 1:=-r $20 I l Â«0â‚¬1--p>C<bu 41.8~N Â· - - 1- -0.J 14'//1/7,\.le/F'ijil M.I.1/It"47"al/-4.:/IlifY/'IJÂ£~ ---L- 0*,p'LZEd*,ro/Bft.ft-1fi=---- -- 4/.&.Ty ./.)- 1 - 15-14 1 4 - j# lk* &1 ZZCA.-Â·*.ar A. ~ I Yl ' 1 L '14Â£:.f L 9'll I .iaÂ£â€¢~ i r..OAM 17. eTÂ¥ | f~~--* 1.92 . -F0--ZIJ-1~ -â€¢1;-ti- - ------Â·-->.. L ia Ve I -=04-Ar 1 .-, t 1 .-/ \1': .3 ' 1-- , ------U.I -4 - . k-- j!Â©-ims- -----)Ii'I-11-~ 1 ' â€¢â€¢:A~==1.4,3 f ==zy=-r-N-- + + - , Â« 9 j Af Â¥ i __~~~~ ~~:blt . ~ --Â·â€¢~7-p IN.g â€¢49~ 124(/1 .Fâ„¢7 - .9- I r r.rix 11,1-(21 1 11 '1 3!1â‚¬4~\ 1 24\)Â¢ Ull~,1.1- 1,6, t ----- le--+~1 ~p-60-31 1-*f&%11 1 ip.vi__c----ul=7---0.-- 5- 2 > 13-3~~ 2- -9,~di f a..wrY K.< ,-i Â·i'I IM* ; -t*ji 4, [R &~41**,1-44~ ,---ftbl 1 _i 1,2*j ' ~ -=z,E- m Un~zu--+ ~- Wil - H i Â·id : 14' r f -Â».Â» i.' lrÂ« .. 1, . ............. - ...... '. -â€ž....*i -* - .# . -* 2.+VE=7-17MN,Il-93 =+me-4 - . 1 -m=Z=ZE- - 1 V#24#*4,8 , ' 1 C \ 7 -' LY .-Il.,.,1.2,12:â€¢2,4-~-Â·Â·-- i 'L -1-- ' ma- ---- 7- x- -----i- j,~7,.-/ /-/~ 2~fL~~~ --- -.! 1 29 'ZZ-22-22---â€¢--a---ih-~ l 41--- : 9 1-----*.-I..,1 1 i -----p------ =*,i 1 -Â«3 1 1 -9--1 3, 1 Else=- Â«**541*74 1 -- ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT' . ,=cuIJ------ Elli's of Aspgncs=Sly->191,- Â»-1 4- ALLEY V / /.1 119W~ . 71//2,1,/F///91/1 r V ,, F , 11,7// t, 7Â¥GF,/H. \ 511//1/7/1/2.1/,f'/Ld 4 . 1 V//1/1"1711 7/?lk \ \:Â·5:9Â£.1 0:J 1 E I I .I . r fri i 1~11 Lil i //E l l, - .i' 1" i '4*.2.-â€¢~ Â· 4 t 'r . f 4 2 4 . EXISTING TREES :. 1 . , 1 lili! 13 SECOND ADDITION , i , 7 . THIRD ADDITION i / f#Mt#lk I FIRST ADDITION , 1 1 -1111 / ' ll I ' "111 1 til l i f t}161-1 11,1 TWO STORIES ililii :lififill rmi !5:9"A lilli , EXIST,NG PARKING AREA E'4, ''. t-. Â£ f 1 l iii,4-ittl 11 11 . 1 1 1,1 1 1, 14 11 Ill 1 ./ . V ' -!_1 f f Oft â‚¬ - EXISTING TREES - 2 I 'll lilli. / 45// /7///,i,/2 ~ w /# //1///h,c DNE STORY Ill /~r 111'11111~. \\ , 0Â«Â«fo 1- (n " ""/lijtja~ 1 ,- , -1 '' A , /// " it - 1 Y//97 /e- EXISTING SIDEWALK : 1291>, 9 / /924 4 I 1. --- O 0 1 1 . / EXISTING GRASS AREA -- f .1 7 MAIN STREET EXIST010 CONDITIONS ELLI'S OF ASPEN ASPEN, COLORADO L.....r-L._r--1 1-7-87 0 5 10 18 20 c . , /' 2 9,r t,2 ~ 45.t >2 Â·2 .. â€¢p~P~-1e42 . '1 1 - *. . -7...~'I-*%.iMâ‚¬24-../..', ' . ,..4--1.-.I -.. - --r/# --.~.4.â€ž . 'â€¢Â·- .. .- ..~'.6,'. /* â€¢. . i ./' . â€¢~Â·1-*;I Iâ‚¬-â€¢-- -Â·-.-â€¢-h..r-râ€¢Â· â€¢.-I.- .-I-I.. . MEMO TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FROM: STEVE BURSTEIN DATE: JANUARY 9, 1987 RE: ELLI'S STORE ADDITION Because the Elli's store addition is a very important project the planning office has prepared a memorandum. The applicant is requesting HPC's preliminary.review of a proposed addition to Elli's store. The expansion would not be subject to competition in the Growth Management Quota System if Elli's received individual historic designation. Therefore there would be no P&Z or Council review; only HPC must give approval. At the present time, this building does not possess individual designation and is being considered along with other undesignated structures on the Inventory. The present owners have not yet joined the applicant in requesting individual designation. Staff views this project to be very important in terms of (a) restoration of an historic commercial building, (b) compatibility of the addition with the commercial core historic district,and (c)visual and land use impacts on Main Street. This preliminary review should help the applicant understand the 7 HPC's general priorities and standards to be applied to the development of this property. Staff recommends that the committee deals with the proposal in a general way and should not feel compelled to give any approvals at this first meeting. Following are some conceptual issues that might be discussed, and that we have included for the applican'st benefit for future submittals: 1. Is the general approach of adding on to Elli's Main Street and Mill Street elevations, surrounding the historic building and its first and second additions, acceptable in terms of compatible massing? 2. The Mill Street facade of the addition is basically on the property line, maintaining the existing edge along the sidewalk.The Main Street facade is stepped back in four sections, creating a small courtyard. The design generally maintains a strong vertical edge on both streets. Do you find this approach more appropriate than providing usable open space such as characterized by the court yard design? As we know,some commercial courty.ards in Aspen have not worked well. Does this design feature reinforce the pedestrian character of the block? V W+ 1 4,2 41â€¢4 -' A~ h .~ct:,2.- 1~~ .. 3. Is the 25% open space required in the CC zone district h being provided? -- 4. Does the segmented Main Street facade create appropriate proportions of massing along the approximately 48 foot long storefront? 5. Do you believe that cutting down the three evergreen trees west of Elli's is a loss of a major existing streetscape amenity? Should the preservation of these trees be incorporated into the building design? 6. Are there certain important landscaping features that would help achieve a pleasing transition along Main Street from residential structures to commercial buildings? 7. The materials selected are wood,glass, and possibly concrete and steel mullions. Do you find that the materials will partially match the existing structures in a way to reinforce important historic features of Elli's? 8. What do the Mill Street elevations look like? 9. Does there appear to be too much glass on Main Street? 10. What storefront features would be appropriate on the addition? - 11. How do the proportions of the two stories of the addition relate to the one story Elli's store? - 12. Will the Elli's store be restored or reconstructed? 13. What is the floor area of the addition? - 14. Will the view plane special review be required for the addition? Reminder: HPC will meet in the joint work session with Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission at 5 p.m. January 13. ALLEY .L /---U'~ ' -1 - TRASH .-c,- rk LY f er 4 0 IV . 1 NEW COMMERCIAL EXISTING 0~0,0 .. TREES 0.. I ,, ' xf \ I .J ......-....... 1>00 ............ U ........... 1 -2 f ......... ZZC.291 A </ '-27 . - %... + I 0 %. 1 . 4 1 J EXISTING ELLI'S NEW COMMERCIAL . Ill' PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY :'*V h/1 4 7 > f y 3 .4 7' 4.I:/3 L 4.4- k ' /-Â«3144:2 Â«4 Â»::.-:-.~ 1%Up,ilÂ·*A~01 ,>, /31=:* 1*#f:Q:;;242,?i #I< b. . :-' . ; '14 .1. , >' 1 A x y. / i x y 3, 03 0 -1 1, ,--') MAIN STREET PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN ELLI'S OF AS 0 5 10 15 20 f-4 f