The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19880823AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE August 23, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes-August 9, 1988 III. Committee Member and Staff comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 2:45 A. Conceptual Development-Public Hearing 309 E. Hopkins-The Berko Building, Relocation, Restoration, Redevelopment 1--Ate El-,6 ,-luL Jx I -1.11 3:30 B. Minor Development-Mason and Morse Building 514 E. Hyman S f A Luu.-Â£4_- V. OLD BUSINESS 3:45 A. Final Development - 715 W. Smuggler 4:15 B. Final Development - 200 E. Maint.lff~uâ‚¬qÂ»-Â»d THIS MEETING HAS A VERY FULL AGENDA. EVERY APPLICATION AND RESULTING MEMO SHOULD BE REVIEWED CAREFULLY. PLEASE MAKE NOT OF YOUR COMMENTS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING TO ELIMINATE EXCESSIVE TIME SO THAT EVERY AGENDA ITEM MAY BE REVIEWED. YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS VERY IMPORTANT: PLEASE ARRIVE AT 2:15. THIS WILL ALLOW US TO CONVENE THE MEETING PROMPTLY AT 2:30 AND WILL PROVIDE YOU TIME TO ASK ANY OUESTIONS OF STAFF YOU MAY WISH TO BEFOREHAND. STAFF IS INTERESTED IN COORDINATING A SITE REVIEW OF THESE PROPERTIES, MONDAY, AUGUST 22 AT NOON. PLEASE CALL ROXANNE NO LATER THAN 10:00 MONDAY MORNING IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THE GROUP SITE REVIEW. SITE REVIEW WILL CONVENE AT NOON - CITY HALL, PLANNING OFFICE. 5:00 adjourn MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development, Mason and Morse Building, 514 E. Hyman Avenue Date: August 23, 1988 LOCATION: 514 E. Hyman Ave., Lot N,, Block 94, Townsite and City of Aspen ZONING: CC - Commercial Core, Historic Overlay District APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC minor development approval for the entrance plaza renovation of the Mason and Morse Building, located at 514 E. Hyman Ave. The east brick "wing wall" is to be removed as well as the two street trees, which will be replaced with maples to match the trees proposed for the adjacent building at 516 E. Hyman. The existing Plaza area will be replaced with a new raised plaza (same height) accessed by 45 degree angle stairs on both sides. what currently exists, and will be constructed of brick. Planters will be incorporated into the design, created as a "pedestrian space". The project will eliminate the "visual barriers" that currently exist in this plaza space. It is the applicant's goal to enhance the plaza area as the inviting focal point of this facade. PROJECT SUMMARY: The contemporary approach for the redesign of the entrance Plaza is unique to this block, and should enhance the main facade of the Mason and Morse Building, in Staff's opinion. With the removal of the east "wing wall", the adj acent building (516 E. Hyman - previously approved by HPC) will be visually unimpaired. The Development Guidelines have been referred to extensively in staff's review of this proposal. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: Please refer to the Standards for Development in the Land Use Code, Section 7-601 (D)(1), page 7- 24. Each standard has been reviewed in accord with this development application. 1. Character Compatibility: Staff finds the proposed development compatible to the adjacent structures. As stated in the Secretary of the Interior's Standard for Rehabilitation: "All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as produces of the own time. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, materials and -3 character of the property, neighborhood or environment." This building's strong, angular character is further strengthened by the proposed graphic design of the plaza, yet softened by low scale plantings and trees. Page 35 of the Development Guidelines states: "Plazas or courts that break the continuity of the facade alignment should be avoided. If the best design solution requires a plaza or court, the alignment created by building facades should be continued through the use of architectural elements such as wells, planters, arcades, etc." It could be argued that due to the 45% angle of the stairs, the facade alignment of this streetscape is broken. However, staff feels that since the plaza is accessed by three 7" risers, the finished height of 21+" is not dominant - enough to warrant a restudy. Also, the setback is in keeping with both adjacent structures. The bold, contemporary design of the building also dictates to a large extent the redesign of the entrance plaza. However: Staff's concerns regard the sign base, particularly as the applicant's goal is to create a "pedestrian oriented space". The proposed sign appears large in relation to the elements of the plaza, beginning at three (3) feet above sidewalk level, reaching a finished height of nearly seven (7) feet. A smaller scale sign surface is recommended, to maintain the pedestrian-oriented character of the plaza entrance. It should be noted that HPC has an advisory role only in sign display. However, the large base for this sign is incorporated as an integral element of the overall design of the Plaza. Any questions the applicant may have on signage should be directed to the Zoning Official for a determination Of compliance with the sign code.) The Development Guidelines state: "Because it is such a prominent part of the business image selecting a concept for a sign is one of the most important design decisions for a building. Position signs to fit within features of the facade. So they do not dominate the building that they are trying to identify, signs should be carefully located. due to the pedestrian orientation of the district, signs should be incorporated in the first floor design of the building. signs should not overpower other facade elements in size and they should related to other signs in the block. The applicant should refer to the Guidelines section pertaining tosignage:"Commercial_ Buildings, New Construction - G. Signs", pages 43-45, for further information. -- 2. Neighborhood Compatibility: Staff finds the proposed development in keeping with the renovation/new construction activities currently in place throughout this entire block. The 2 domino effect of development/facade enhancement begun by the Pitkin Center Building is carried through in this project, which will continue to strengthen this streetscape. In this proposal, the applicant has made an effort to bring visual continuity to Hyman Ave. and the Commercial Core district. Staff_ recommends that the plaza reconstruction coordinate time- wise with the final facade/sidewalk renovation project of its next door neighbor, 516 E. Hyman. The coordinating trees lend continuity with these two facades and Will compliment the streetscape in an understated way. The wing wall demolition will greatly enhance both the plaza renovation and the main facade of the 516 building. TREES: Currently, two trees (one crabapple/one pine) exist WithinIftie right-of-way. The proposal reflects the removal of these trees,-to--be- "replan'teel within city limits" (as the applicant states). They will be replaced with two large maples, /~ identical to the ones proposed for the adjacent development at 516. Staff has informed to applicant to contact Bill Ness at the Parks Department to discuss their criteria for tree replacement. The trees proposed are hearty, slow growers, and proven to be good urban street trees. The coordinating trees lend continuing with these two facades and will compliment the streetscape in an understated way. "Up Lights" are proposed; these are flush to the pavement and will illuminate the foliage from the ground up. 3. Cultural Value: The proposed development does not diminish the cultural integrity of the adjacent historic landmark, the Elks Building, in Staff's opinion. The Guidelines state: "Creative expressions of modern design solutions are sought, rather than recreations of 19th century architecture." 4. Architectural Integrity: Staff finds the proposed development enhances the architectural integrity of the building, creating a more inviting space through the use of compatible materials, seating areas and plantings. The removal of the existing informational kiosk will open up the central entrance area. MATERIALS: The applicant will present a sample of the brick pavers proposed to be used in the plaza reconstruction. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Minor -D@Velopment proposal subj ect to the reduction in height o f the 25-ign base, recommending the applicant redesign an effective, ___smaller scale sign more in keeping with the pedestrian-oriented -e.lements of the entrance plaza. hpc.memo.514eh architecture sutherland, fallin, inc. & planning , su.: 1 6 i z. 00 1280 ute avenue aspen 81611 August 15, 1283 colorado 303/925-4252 Re,ponse to Attachment JA.B.C,D Re: Plaza Renovation, Mason & Morse Building lA: The proposed development will replace an c. -- i 1 â€¢â€¢ c k i; b F I /16/1, . that. :it liest. was an after' thought to the existing 1)1.ill(ling. The new plaza will attempt to become part of the rovised screetsrupe that was begun by the construction of "The Pitkin Center fill.i.lditti:-", contitilled by the renovation of the lotÂ·,'er floor of the Elks Buildi 41,_'lliI ... Â·' r.' d wi] ] be completed by the "316 2. Cyman Ruilding". The applicant feels that any revision to the existins p] 0721 willl] d be an improven:ent to the d red anct :-1 compliment to the najecent structures Specifically, the IltÂ·W p] aza will effeel j rely remove or lon'er manv visual barriers in fLe Prpsenf streer <.(Filici The H ..e of materials will he in keepjng wjth, and complimentary to, adincopt efrp,+U 48: The plaza renovation is consistent with adjacent strentscape development The applicant has made :in effort to march trce spacing und type, concrete color und scoring, in an effort to bring visual continuity to Hyman St. and the neignhorin.Hui. _EL The plazE] renovation will m.? a compliment co the 2 existing historic strupCures nearby (The Elks Building and The Ute City Bank) by lowering and removing existing visual barriers inâ€¢ (S 1 L. , ee above ) architecture sutherland, fallin, inc. & planning 86* 16 833 1280 ute avenue aspen 81611 colorado August 13, 1988 303/925-4252 Response to Atrachment 3.1 Re: Plaza Renovation. Mason & Morse Building 0 The proposed development inrlolves the partial demolition of an 1 1 existing raised pla:Nl nt the 'Rotit}lern :sifiewall< frontage :11 31-1 E, Hyman St.und the total demolition of a "wingwal]" entendinfr approx, 13' along , ill L â€¢ '.) I property line 1110 1 J '1'.'.. to ],p Th:n 1,1-,-1 le rpplaced hy u new raised plaza that is set back off of the 11. - 1 J.JUM*AA. ;11 1<: aegreps anples, On each of these an. n-les are 3 steps flanked on ench side by a plunter. Dne planter, at the intersection of the two staircases, will form a base for a new s i r.11 The planters will contain seasonal plantings in removable pots. The raised plan,i surface will be pav:d with brick in u herpring bone pattern. The stair will be paved with 1,A . â€¢ 1, brick in a hold:er pattern. The planters will be brick. The sidewalk will consist of scornd concrete to match the sidewalk to be instalieu Ht 516 E, Hyman The trees and tree grates will 4190 match tho adjacent development. The (reex to be removed,(1 crabappie, 1 evergreen) wili be rep}anted within city limits. -- E MASON & MORSE BUILDING 516 E. HYMAN BUILDING PITKIN CENTER EXISTING NEW EXISTING E,usâ„¢.OSTO~~ON'.#* 0/ / 1 - -Imn 11 -51 L - b ./,9.El' 41'tz' 1 E*,3-0 vES~lLE ~i| 7 r~=9 1 ELKS BUILDING ELK'S PARKING 4 . .#TEA K 9 A C -0Â» L ) 0 \12\ Â· 1441 1 .- i Â£E Â» '~ < ;Ta --Rn '* F I 10.-ED) V - + r . I 75Â·0*,1- w 30(*r 1 - i k In ....-01â€¢/*eâ€¢.â€¢1~.. I 1 1. 1 W - 0 f 0 4 /.1 L U.1 Ltio. 0 ..i./SED.-U.ts -1-- 0 4 2 Z 0 W HYMAN AVENUE J 20* 87-01w a.i. 1- drwn SL chkd 2 I *MIS Sull,IA- *1*P OCrÂ·H.LUt .-I -J --â€¢ .â€¢â€¢.~â€¢â€¢ .â€¢â€¢â€¢ VeLâ€¢ pate,od,038 NOUVAON38 VZÂ¥ld 00 'NadS, 3AV NVY,AH lSÂ¥3 ikS 2 -1 0,2 J L -- ~ 9 , ...M Z :~4 LLI- - 14- - 4 ELKS PARKING MASON & MORSE BLDG 516 E HYMAN BLDG owâ€¢ SOUTH ELEVATION O,2 994,4 j qf .9. L ,Â·, - ., ki (A , $. '. l'-4 '7/71 1 ' fl<_u I 3 1 ___-- ---______ +k 47 4, rk ~ 1 ~7 I 'l le - ws,t .1-r -:F- 1-7 ~ 1 ~097* 92~ --1 1 4 ~ 1- ~ // i -% *=1-- 1 .1/ . 1 4 87201W_- 3,t,8-10-88 12 06<F- WEST ELEVATION chkd PERSPECTIVE SKETCH 1 of sh-1/ Aq eUOIS,Ae, e,Up '9018 3Sbl 24 6 2; 2 00 'NadSÂ¥ BAÂ¥ NV~Â¥AH ISÂ¥3 * Â£9 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Letter redeived from Congressman Ben Nighthorse Campbell Date: August 23, 1988 Attached is a copy of the reply letter I received this week from Congressman Campbell. I thought you might be interested. I would like to arrange a meeting with him and the three organizations named in the letter when he is next in Aspen, on the topic of Heritage Tourism and Historic Preservation. Any feedback? Thanks for your interest. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL PLEASE REPLY TOÂ· 30 DISTRICT, COLORADO WASHINGTON OFFICE 1724 LONGWORTH BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (202)225-4761 COMMITTEES: AGRICULTURE â‚¬ongre55 of tbe *Initeb *tated DISTRICT OFFI 720 N MAIN INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS SUITE 4 SMALL BUSINESS 300115Â£ of latprtssentatibeg PUEBLO. CO 8 100 (719) 543-9621 magbington, Bâ‚¬ 20515 0 835 â‚¬ SECOND AVE August 8, 1988 SUITE 105 DUAANGO. CO 81301 4303) 247-9300 115 N STH STREET Ms. Roxanne Eflin SUITE 520 GRAND JUNCTION. CO 81501 Historic Preservation Specialist Â· (303)242-2400 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ms. Eflin: Thank you for your communication supporting my Special Report on Tourism and Recreation. I agree that Aspen and Colorado have great potential to increase their role in international tourism. Colorado has so much to offer with a diverse citizenry and history. Our continued role in development of tourism will enhance our state's economy. If I get a chance to meet with you the next time I'm in Aspen, I will contact you beforehand. I would be most interested in speaking with the Aspen Historical Preservation Committee , the Aspen Historical Society and the Aspen Resort Association if the time can be arranged. Thanks again for your support and concern for Colorado. Sincerely, A * 81 c nv ~Â·----Rt Ben NighthJ'se Campbel-244 ~I Member of Congress BNC/dj ASPEN STREET /9332- -- , .X .1/ 1 4-3- -7 Â· 1 -c li, 4 <3.05 /2--1- 1 10- 2;0 F <*2 .47 ----5/ - 4--2 <W SIOE-LI i 'Url r 4 as 31*jin i - C.turÂ«Â»xtoÂ¢+U*9*Et - . ' ,&*Mi*tpmt>â€ž-92,9-4921 + b - - 91 1221--.Ett 1114-2-4=2-*e-2449* 0.4 FLE==iEE, 76 Ill'~ 21- - 4---~Â£b--1~- - M 4 #*r[- -___T#I,1 i.~~~~~A i d/ Â«-vviRL-e=1 1- 1 ., f' t . 1 \ i f i.1 1 4 1 i . h 1 X=:35> job no. revisions LANDSCAPE PLAN 88-10 u AUG. 11.88 r., 01 200 E. MAIN ==- 44?.2 sutherland 9 DEKP j.<'-tft f fallininco,po- aTÂ©hR@Â©tumapgaugn@ug : date 0~Â·iÂ®36 -6. ASPEN. COLORADO AUG 11,88 1280 ute Ovenue â€¢~4 2 01611 389*4252 (TYP. OF 7) MAPLE 3" CAL EMERALD QUEEN 133EI1S NIVFV 3 PÂ»-ING SPICES ALLEY 8 L=,,1 NÂ¥12 3dVOSONV1 S t L 1 --41Â© - 4-- 0 -t --Â» F,F 44 7 + B Td,Uv u \17 , -4 Lf' E-: . 1/0 r 44-- 3 9 .L ,-rÂ· 93 Â» 5- r. 25'y,_-- 4- 0% -4 -11-Â«L--0 22>71 Â«1 Q I-Lf-f 4 R 11 4 -3*3 \0\ 11_I j~ j STREETSCAPE 88-10 ~ , 904 job no 22 revisions drawn 1.. sutherlandze $ 1.-?.1, ....02%â€ž/ 200 E. MAIN DEKP 67,Mi fallininco,po- afÂ©hN@Â©t[!:011Â®&10)DanÂ®&8â‚¬0 13 ~- ASPEN, COLORADO date AUG 1 1 88 2 . 1, 1280 wtâ€¢ Ivâ€¢â€¢wâ€¢ â€¢apâ€¢â€¢. â€¢â€¢ 81611 303Â·925Â·42*2 133819 NIVIAI INOH=l HlkION SNI>I001 3dV0S133EI1S -49 1 *9018 0390dOWd 8 b 0 0 - mi 1 1 01 - 1 9 - Â»Z==1 ASPEN STREET 11 6' 12Â· 1 0 20.6' L 1 1 50 L - r JI '1--1f-1 5 3 4 m /// 1 1 4 [3 4 1 TE,1 POWER 1 2 9. ---U------ - ~MW-- j r G) 03 job no. EXISTING CONDITIONS 88-10 19. . b.25*ib / .,1 ...5.~~P;~ revis, **4412.14443>Â·2 9%? AUG 11 drawn 484* sutherland - 200 E. MAIN Â·mr----0 r fallinincorpor-d~ amhmÂ®Â©itto~i@&~bllando~~~ ASPEN, COLORADO JULY 18'88 1280 ut, AÂ¥*~u* â€¢â€¢/w. c, 81611 303Â·925Â·4252 OVEF*EAD POWER TELE TV MA' ... # eÂ£JOr '2 " : ---- 4 Pb, N r C. .CE=f 22' NoVE NA-7/AL- CeA PE A----fi~ E=*â„¢3 --- J - --1 126#.7. Â©4922-9-12 ~14127Â«4 11*Â«i 0 Tri--1.>ce=al - 01FT] Fil. 1-[13 -4+0+Ur iÂ«--r==1 Â« INE[*NE &421-3 -2 --le=a 1 222Â·uA-Il/./1.12/44 -g ------=--) 'Tri-V -% 2- - =#07,73>rf=7Â¢N 97 -1-2 1--j Id#32 74i B/86hadiweeÂ·.1 09#,iÂ·m, . - 4ert ALL *INCOF-,4 4- e-eeâ€¢AE-r w;LI- 0 6ued;â€¢=ACE L ~ 11 1. WEST ELEVATION (ASPEN 5-1#EET) SOUTH ELEVATION (MAIN STREET) ' 4_9Â«Â» 9- - 11 ---- - ~2< 1%39-~Â«31- - oa- 1 -'--' 9&3 ti EM Â® +7- - --- -=I>1=~~_ -< .~Ze .EE - 116 -r=er .1 IL-*Â« -11121 --- -- El 4 3 --- - - - . 1- -- c,â€¢Â·rr.NE 0 - â‚¬326:7-- W #V I O -- 1 1 - NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 11!,f sheets SUOISIA'J SNOI1VA313 gg H Â·snv Â£ !uuel@I,@inpellwole '- Â·Â· Â·. 88"~ mr 1 \\ / /q 12, 2 1 ,Â»4 /44= a -1 .' i i - ' 4 74 'k r i . / I. I I' ... -*I-r 1,6*1 I" 1 17% 00* 77.- / Ij-9 i . hwl... '11 'f'Li 2 1 1H. , â€¢4 4 1 W 1, 2 W U\U / J ' 1 11. . t~21 5 441. I - 1 - --1 T I. 4 Sy f , 1142 |~-7 9 41-k,61.6- -1-4/ 3 1 : 1 *'. U . 4 1 ./ I f..44 1 1 1 /2 ... 5/ 4 I 1 1 i / l. / 1, lili .1=K,5-1 job no. PERSPECTIVE 88-10 revisio. . architecture &,lannins date | ASPEN, COLORADO JULY 18'88 00 N3dSV NIVFI 1943 002 19 9NIallnd aBSOdOEjd V MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Review, 200 E. Main Date: August 23, 1988 Note: Please refer to Staff's Conceptual Development Review memo dated August 9, 1988 for issues approved at that meeting. This memo will address conditions placed upon Conceptual approval, and standard Final Development requirements. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC's Final Development approval for the construction of a new 2,250 sq. ft. two story office building at 200 East Main, and is requesting HPC grant variations on sideyard setback and minimum distance between buildings, finding such variation is more compatible in character than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. The proposed office building will include basement . employee housing units, totaling 1,100 sq. ft. _JeRIOR COMMITTEE ACTION: On July 12, 1988, HPC reviewed preliminary plans at a pre-application conference. Direction was given to the applicant to guide conceptual development_desig-9, and committee review. The pre-app proposal consisted of a long, narrow two story building, which HPC found to be incompatible in design to the adjacent historic landmarks and to the Main Street Historic Overlay District Guidelines as a whole. The_applicant returned to HPC August 9 with revised conceptual development plans whith-Were-graitly- improved in areas of massing, scale, and compatibility, generally meeting criteria specified in both the .-Development Guidelines and the Secretary _ of - the ___Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. After studying Staff's conceptual review memo, the applicant presented slightly revised plans at the August 9 meeting, which amended the following elements: 1) Height: the revised plans reflected a height reduction of 2.5' of the east/west cross gable, the highest roof peak, a staff recommendation - 2) Materials: . as an alternate to a stucco/wood combination, the proposal utilizes horizontal wood siding, and wood shingles in the gable faces, keeping stucco as a base material. 3) West elevation shed dormer: moved slightly north, centered in the upper floor of the rear portion of the west elevation. 4) Round "port hole" gable windows: the applicant reduced the number from seven_to_ fgur- At that meeting, HPC granted conceptual development approval of the revised plans presented at that meeting with the following conditions to be presented at Final Development Review: 36) a simple massing model b) consideration of building signage JO) landscape plan to include sidewalks -d) study of light wells and parking e) direction to the applicant to study the minutes of the nAugust 9 meeting for direction on additional concerns and suggestions from the committee (including front entry, columns and bases) The applicant has met the conditions, with the exception of t' 5 massing model, which will be presented at the August 23 meekini, and the positioning for j?uilding--51IgnagE--(See applicant' s comments on the attached applid-Atian-1-diter regarding signage. ) PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff has referred to the Standards for Development Review, Development Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation in project review. Accurate building materials: At the last meeting HPC discussed the use of stucco as a major building material. The general consensus was that narrow__horizpntal overlap siding was a more compatible building material for this building, which is residential in nature and located adjacent to Gracy's wood sided Victorian cottages. The gable faces_will be clad in squared wood shingles; roofing materials will be wood-shingles-7~~stained black. The__only__stucco to be used on the structure will be at the-bas& course, finished-iii-the same -601-08-as--rthe siding to blend and appear less dominate as a horizontal feature. These materials meet the Guideline criteria. Elevation revisions: In general, the changes proposed do not adversely affect the character__of_-the__structure -as a-pÂ¥70-Ved by HPC__at_ conceptual,-in staff' s opinion. The changes--are--mostly subtle, dealing, with fenestration and gablesT- 1) _The__west_ elevation has_ received the bulk of the modifications. The small (becondary) upper story gable has been eliminated. Staff is pleased with the new fenestration approach, which appears more balanced with the remainder of the building. The new paired windows located in the main east/west gable are separated and are topped with an arched transom. The round gable peak window remains here. The remaining second story windows have been rearranged, with one entirely eliminated. All panes are divided vertically in the upper third. 2 The shed dormer has been relocated again, positioned off center, yet containing-an improved window treatment: two pairs of divided windows. Sta f f' s concerns with-the--shad- dormer were presented at conceptual review, and HPC may wish to request the applicant to center the dormer and eliminate one window to reduce the dominant transparent appearance. The perspective drawing 99*2=10-t_ind.icate the round window which is indicat@d in the - west elevation ' drawing for the lower level gable projection (west elevation). Staff recommends this decorative window be eliminated entirely as it appears out of scale in relation to the space within the gable peak, and an identical one is already indicated in the main gable directly above. 2)Nort~--levation: the pair_of narrowdouble windows which was presented_at_conceptual on the first floor have been eliminated -- from the final development planÂ£--Staff-feels-this elevatian- ia particularly important as viewed from the National Register< Aspen Community Church, its neighbor to the south, and that this elevation is too plain. - Somg relief to the flat, unadorned wall should be considered. . . 0*ic 3) East elevationf a small gable has been added here to the far north end of this second story. Its affect is-not negative, in staff's opinion. 4) Light wells: The applicant has taken into consideration HPC's concerns regarding visibility and safety of light wells needed for the basement level employee housing units. Five light ~ wells are proposed, two are quite large. Low level landsqaping surrounds-the -structure on the south-and wes-elevations, which appear to screen the light wells from view a great deal. Staff's concern regard irrigating this vegetation; causing possible foundation failure --in-Othdfirture-Gif-improperndrainage methods-zaie notâ„¢tilized. No light well existâ‚¬ next to- the main building entrance. Zoning Official, Bill Drueding, questioned the need for the large light wells, questioning if a sunken patio were proposed, or may be later incorporated. The plans and application do not indicate such, however, HPC may wish to request further clarification of the light wells. 5) Landscaping/Site plan: A raised planter is proposed, which encroaches into the right-of-way. Alyse Elliott, Engineering Department staff, stated this was not acceptable. Staff recommends the applicant restudy the landscaping issues and design a plan which complies with city code. The required --5 L wide sidewalk is indicated__ which is adjacent to the grass _strip Aflt-+n the_street. Eight 3"-dalip@r trees are proposed, to be 3 planted (. where__indicated on the landscape plan.9 Along Aspen - Street the#ewillscreen the-west- elevation and soften the visual impact of a new building on that corner. The existing cottonwood on Main Street will remain. Three on-site--parking .spaces are indicateÂ¢; _ Approximately.--eight -are required_; The-**licant will be applying for special review -for--parking -reduction_ at_the time of GMP application submittal, as previously discussed in staff's _concepÂ®14&~_development revief memo. - ------- Staff would like to commend the applicant for designing a compatible yet modern infill structure for this challenging site. The building's design is both contemporary and in scale with adjacent landmarks, borrowing on their historic design yet remaining simple and keeping the neighborhood spirit, and should complement this corner of Main Street. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends__that_HPC grant_ Final Development Approval with conditions_for the proposal at 200 East Ma_i.Il,-a-Yid- grant-variationsz for both_sideyard setback and minimum distance between buildings, finding that such variation -more compatible in character with the historic landmarks, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Included in this approval are the following.conditions: c i) the north elevation main level windows be reincluded as < approved at conceptual development review ~ 2) the raised planter be redesigned to not encroach into the ~ right-of-way ~ 3) the round gable peak window be eliminated from the west 4_plevation main level gabled projection hpc.memo.200emf 4 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT The following information is provided in accordance with the Specific Submission Requirements for a Final Development Plan as set forth in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Municipal Code. (1) Proiect Description: The proposed project, to be located on the northeast corner of Main and Aspen Streets, is for the development of a small office building to be used for the purpose of a commercial real estate office. The proposed Building will contain approximately 2,250 square feet of floor area, as well as a basement level consisting of approximately 1,100 square feet to be used for employee housing. The Development Plan submitted requests that a variation be allowed for the building to extend into the West side yard setback (6'8"), so that the Building not extend beyond the front line of the adjacent building, Gracy's. In so doing, the proposed project is designed to be more in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. The intent of the applicant is to construct a small office building, quiet in design, with traditional features, together with the use of contemporary materials, that will respect the integrity of its historical neighbors, notably, Gracy's and the Sardy House. (2) Building Materials: Skirting: Stucco Lower level: Wood clapboard siding Upper level: Wood shingles Roof: Wood shingles with black stain (3) Scale drawings of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure. See attached Exhibit : STREETSCAPE I ,~UG 0 2 :988 ATmaNENI' 1 . IAND USE AFFLIaTION FEe! 1) Project Name 200 East Main Street 2) Proj ect location 200 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado Lot K, Block 73, Townsite of Aspen (indicate street ackiress, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning 0 Zone 4) Lot Size 3,000 sf 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Wheeler-Carter Venture, Wheeler Square Associates, 710 East Durant Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2122 Richard and Claudette Carter, 373 East SODriS Creek Road, Basalt, Colorado (303) 927-3087 6) Representative's Nane, Atiress & Riagie # Donald J. Fleisher, The Fleisher Company, 710 East Durant Avenue, Aspen, Colorado (303) 925-2122 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): - Coniitional Use Ccnceptlial SPA - Conoevhlal Historic Dev. - Special Rew Le.i - Final SPA - X X Final Historic Dev. 8040 Quenline - ax-*Delitlial FUD - Mimr Historic Dev. - Stream Margin Final RJD - Historic Decolition - Mountain View Plane Subdivisic]n - Historic Designation - Corximinilnization - ixt/Map AmerXiIIant - GI)S Allotmerrt Lot Split/Lot Line - CNDS E=ption Adjustnâ‚¬It 8) Description of Existing Uses (rumber and type of ecisting structires; approximate sq. ft. ; number of bedroans; any previous apprc,vals granted to the property). The 3,000 sf lot is currently vacant. The adjacent lots, also owned by'the - applicant, are currently the location for the Gracy's Building. 9) Description of Development AFplicatian Development application to construct an office building of approximBtely 2,250 sf for the pupose of 2 commercial real estate office. 10) Have you attachad the following? 2 212;7Â·2Â·Â£132 1-0 .Atte..32:IrIS 2., 3'SItirri c:1 23uk=IliCZ-~I Cly-rtÂ£=rrtls y 3-1---r.Â£ - to Attacz=ert 3, Specific Sukni Ssion Oiltiests -- Pasixnse to AtcadÂ¤znt 4, kevia.' Staniards for Ycnr Amlicaticn 218 1 2 322 (4) The effect of the details of the proposed development on the original character of the neighborhood: The front projection of the proposed Building matched Gracy's in terms of width, height, pitch of roof, and window proportion and placement. The proposed Building does not duplicate the architecture of the period, however, by using traditional shapes, forms and roof pitches, coupled with the use of contemporary materials, the proposed Building will complement the neighborhood. (5) Statement of how the Final Development Plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon: The Final Development Plan is submitted in response to a variety of comments made by members of the HPC committee during the course of the review of the conceptual plan for the proposed project. Based on the applicant's evaluation of the consensus of opinions conveyed by Staff and the HPC, this final application incorporates those ideas that are most compatible with the overall design concept of the Building. In addition, the applicant has chosen to focus on those elements of the Building which are permanent in nature, rather than to propose ideas for those less permanent elements, including signage, that will ultimately be determined in light of the final use of the Building and its tenants. Therefore, the final detail and design of the Building represent, to the best of the ability of the applicant, the consensus of the opinions and ideas voiced during the course of review of this project. With respect to the specific conditions placed on the Approval of the Conceptual Plan, the applicant submits the attached Site Plan including the landscaping proposed for the project. The site plan also indicates the plan proposed for parking for the project. In addition, the plan submitted for final review addresses the issue of the window wells that are proposed for the employee housing units to be located on the basement level. The massing model requested as a condition for the final plan will be presented at the Final Review. 5. The proposed development complies with the "Substantive Development Review Standards" as follows: a. The proposed Building does not extend into the front yard, the rear yard, or the East side yard setbacks, nor does it exceed the allowed Floor Area Ratio. It does, however, extend into the West side yard setback (6'8"), as a result of an HPC finding allowing the applicant to do so, in order that the front line of the Building not extend beyond the front line of the adjacent historic building to the East, known as Gracy's. By extending into the West side yard setback, the Building's design is able to take on a more residential character, with its undulating West wall, rather than being a pure rect- angular shaped building similar to the Mesa Store Build- ing, which was built in the latter part of the 19th Century. b. The proposed Building reflects and is consistent with the Sardy House to the West and Gracy's to the East in terms of roof pitch, window dimension, and general massing. c. Both the Sardy House to the West and Gracy's to the East are existing historic structures in the neighborhood of the proposed Building. The proposed Building, as a result of its architectural style, scale, footprint, site plan and use of materials, neither detracts nor over- whelms the historical significance of its neighbors. d. The applicant intentionally chose to develop a separate building rather than extend onto the existing Gracy's Building on this three lot site in order that the architectural integrity of the existing historic building be preserved and not compromised. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Review - 715 W. Smuggler Date: August 23, 1988 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC's final development approval to: 1) construct a two story, 837 sq. ft. "Victorian Revival" addition, attached to the rear of the existing 1,535 sq.ft. historic miner's cottage 2) demolish three (3) 8' x 10' non-original walls to allow for the addition, and in the process clean up (design-wise) the rear of the house, which was added onto when it was moved 3 ) re noyate___the - front-_porchy; reorienting the walk and expolint original elements of the facade 4) add agne_car alley-accessed carport at the_rear of the siteÂ£--a-hd construct a wood wrap deck around the addition,-to intersect with the carport walkway. The deck is elevated approximately 2.5 feet, with stepdowns and step access to the rear and side yards. 5) remove the_two--multiple-trunk 8" -caliper__trees, and replace themr-7-With two 2.5-3'r-(miniinum) caliper deciduous ornamentals, to be --located --at the southwest corner o f the rear yard. SUMMARY: The_-historic _presegvation considerations of this . development proposal _@re_ strang, and the applicant--and-twner--arâ‚¬ to __commended for their int*rest-in- renovating -this- historic _._._miner Ls-cottage, becoming a ka-re- historic resouree in Aspen. The front porch (main facade focal point) will be mostly restored and -the entirer structure -*Uk -receive- a new roof,- and a maintenance face _lift. No demolition action (partial or otherwise) is _proposed_to the_origilial - strilqture, _and--the_-owner wishes to even help protect the historic Butbuildings which endroach_ obto-hat--eas'L_rear-yard J The--tropasallreflectsark , expanded living area-to_ meet_ contemporary needs+-yet-_retainsanat renovates the historic elements-of the cottagep The designatedt miner' s -lcottage-was moved from the 609 --block of East Hopkins approximately- 20-years ago-:The -fr6nt porch was enclosed~-R-nd--a small-addition-was _added_to--the rear.\ lt-was- set-~ on a new foundation over a excavated basement-Which currently serves as k dweI114 _unitq ~ -The plans are - to- convert- this space bafk-into _____storage to bring the space intg conformity. In the R-6 zone district for a 6,000 sq. ft. site, gode requires a total of 15' in combined side yard setbacks_._j The_plansr-eflk* a total-1-2 11 --feeâ‚¬-ln.726mbi-ried---si-dayard setbacks, due to the a total of 11 feet in combined sideyard setbacks, due to the - proposed location of the carport 5' from the east property boundary. The alternatives are to 1) construct the carport tg the west by four (4) feet, or_~5EHPC-granting- a--side yard_setback variation -_finding that _ the__ proposp@_ _development -,_ is-more cqmpatiblet to the historic structure than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Staf-f_recommends HPq grant a_variation__for the p_urpose of compatibility and to --All â‚¬w more open rear yard space. - PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTION: HPC reviewed the conceptual development plans on -July-_14 granting approval with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant further study the front porch design to restore the original, and return to HPC with revised plans 2. That a reduction in the height of the addition be studied for compatibility with the original historic structure 3. Accurate major building materials representation be made at Final 4. A structural response letter be submitted at Final addressing the stability of the existing structure with regard to the attachment of the addition. 5. That the south elevation turret element be studied 6. That final development plans be presented that are more readable 7. That elevations include the proposed garage 8. That a simple neighborhood context be presented for compatibility-in-relationship issues HPC also reviewed at Conceptual the partial demolition of three 8' x 10' non-original walls at the rear of the house to allow for the addition. The plans for this partial demolition have not changed. The applicant has studied the above conditions and is presenting amended plans accordingly. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Standards for Development Review, (Land Use Code Section 7-601, Page 7-24); the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines; and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation have each been referred to in review of this development application. 2 CONDITION #1: FRONT PORCH: After further study, the applicant has presented a porch design that is transparent in nature and most likely a very close renovation, with the exception of the small central gable. No original photos apparently exist of this cottage to determine complete porch restoration accuracy, however, the applicant will present a photo board at the meeting showing a variety of similar porches throughout the West End. The Guidelines state that transparency is recommended as a second choice over complete porch restoration. Please refer to the bracket detail outline enclosed. The gable has been added as a practical and design consideration: it will serve to prevent snow shed onto the front walk, and as the applicant states will add more architectural interest to the main facade. Although gabled porches on one-story miner's cottages are very rare in Aspen, the practicality of this design could have been incorporated in porches similar in size and scale. Environmental considerations often influenced exterior design. Staff has also further studied existing porches throughout the West End, and although the original gabled porches appear on larger two-story vernacular cottages or Queen Annes, this gable is small and in scale with the primary gables of the house. The renovation activity of the porch includes the removal of the small interior closet, making the original elements visible and once again a main focus of the front facade. Staff is supportive of the porch's design, including front walk orientation, which is historically accurate. CONDITION #2: HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION: HPC requested the applicant restudy the height, and the applicant has presented a revised plans showing a 9" lower maximum height, from 26.6' to 25.9' at the roof ridge. The median height is approximately 21.8'. Appropriate scale for new development within the preservation context is a sensitive issue. While adapting historic homes to meet current lifestyles is preferred over other alternatives, compatibility MUST be taken into consideration. The applicant has further studied the height considerations , has reduced the addition's height as much as possible without sacrificing too much interior space and head room at the dormer level, and feels the seven foot difference between old and new is not extreme enough to diminish the historic integrity of the original house. The addition appears on the elevations to somewhat dwarf the cottage, especially with adding elements of the turret and two story bay on the west elevation which give it a vertical character, different than the existing cross-gabled cottage. Often times the maximum allowable height per code may, in fact, not be a compatible height when adding onto a small scale historic structure. Such may be the case with this 3 development proposal. Staff brings to HPC attention a variety of alternatives which may help reduce the height of the addition, if that is the preferred - action: 1) Basing the rear addition at current grade, which is approximately 2.5 feet below the main floor level (due to the structure's new foundation and basement when relocated to this site). Interior floor design may need to be restudied to accomplish this exterior height consideration. 2) Bring the addition forward (north) approximately 3' to reduce the height accordingly. This alternative will require much more extensive demolition, including partial demo of the original structure 3) Reduce the overall ceiling height of the second story and make the addition smaller. It should also be noted that the new addition is setback 29 feetj from the front facade,f and _nearly 70 feet from the Smuggler j Street asphalt line_Â§ Also, the - cottage -Itself issomewhat~ elevatid-on its foundation. All these items, as well as existing trees lessen the visible impact of the addition to the original . home, in our opinion. - Height and massing issues continue to be of concern regarding diminished historic integFity when additions are being attached to historic structures. (Althqugh Staff would_prefer__a smaller addition for compatibility reasons,-thi--69-efill height ~Bancerns have been adequately addressed by the applicant in our -opinion.-- CONDITION #3 - ACCURATE BUILDING MATERIALS: 3 The applicant - has -called out-- exact building -materials on the plans. These will match the existing historic structure. The siding is lx6 beveled wood; wood shingles will be used for the proposed new roof as well as replacement material for the existing roof; painted, turned wood columns, squared railing and balusters; decorative shingles shown on the proposed turret will be painted. The applicant has verbally stated the chimney brick will be tumbled, in a traditional reddish-pink color. Decking material and finish has not been called out, to be clarified at this meeting. CONDITION #4 - ~TRUCTURALRESPONSE LETTLRi__please refer to the attached letter from Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. Larry Doble states: "Based on our visual inspection of the existing structure and review of the drawings for the proposed addition, we conclude that the structure is in very good condition. The structure can be easily modified to interface with the new addition with minimal impact to its current stability and structural integrity. The structure...was built using generally accepted design and construction techniques and has been well maintained." The applicant states that the new addition will have its own foundation and will not tie into any 4 significant structural members of the historic home. For reference, the Secretary of the Interior Standards state: Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to structures - shall be done is such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired." CONDITION #5 - 'RESTUI)Â¥_TURRET: The applicant has restudied the south elevation, focusing attention on the turret. Towers and turrets were primarily a flamboyant element of larger, more elaborate Victorians. Their purpose served as a fancy alternative to colonial symmetry, and added interior floor space for secondary sitting rooms. Occasionally one story turrets are found on main facades, capped with either very steeply pitched "witches cap" roofs or 14/12 (or steeper) pointed "caps". Simple cottages were generally adorned architecturally with carpenter's lace porches, modest bay windows and fancy cut gable shingles, if at all. Economic and life style considerations played heavily in Aspen's early cottage design. HPC's concerns with the proposed turret design at the rear of the house are justified from a historic standpoint. The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation specifically state: "Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged." Staff feels there_are_pros__and-cons to this desigÂ© #1) The Turret is an attractive and practical-design- -that works well with the owner's life style #2) Only a portion of the turret roof is visible from Smuggler Street, as it is centered at the rear of the house, set back approximately 70' from the street #3) The applicant has simplified the turret's design to quiet its impact (refer to the second floor railings) #4) The applicant has steepened the pitch of the roof some after further study, finding the steeper pitch adds to the verticality, bringing it into better balance with the remaining addition. As well, architecture in Aspen is eclectic in nature, this design notwithstanding. Staff feels that the turret is a New Victorian element to this small house, a design feature not uncommon in this vicinity. Its very design prevents it from "confusing history", and it is being treated design-wise in a contemporary way, using new compatible materials, and skirted by decking for outdoor living. Importantly, the turret alone does not diminish the historic integrity of the original structure, in staff's opinion. CONDITION #6 - tMORE READABLE_PLANS_: The_applicant hasÂ¢ submitted .final plans with dimensions called out. The site plans reflect the existing trees, replacement trees, setbacks, neighboring outbuilding encroachments, decks and carport location. The applicants "massing study" reflects both a west elevation of the main home with proposed addition and carport, as well as a streetscape showing adjacent structures in height 5 relationship. The floor plan presented is of the main level -- only. The newly proposed two story "stairway bay" is clearly defined on the west elevation. The east, west and south elevations reflect the proposed deck railings with simple, squared spindles. (Please refer to NEW DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS for details of these issues.) CONDITION #7 - ELEVATIONS TO INCLUDE GARAGE: The detailed elevations only include the main house with proposed addition. The sketches submitted in the "Massing Study" include the carport in relation to the main house. The carport's design has not been altered from conceptual approval: it 14' at the roof ridge, contains a 12/12 pitch and decorative shingles in the gable ends, to be constructed of like materials as the addition and original house. CONDITION #8 - lNEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT: The applicant has submitted a sketch neighborhood-context, as referred to in Condition #6 above. Please refer to the maximum height of the adjacent structure (25.9') - which matches the addition's maximum height. Tree removal/repla_cement:, The two elms currently located in the rear yard, where the p'roposed turret will be located, will be removed. The applicant states: "George Robinson of the Parks Department has approved the replacement of these tress with two deciduous ornamentals to be located also in the rear yard. The specific species and location of the trees shall be included on the landscape plans and given final approval by Bill Ness of the Parks Department." FURyHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:j Staff brings to HPC' s attention the f8llowin4--details: 1) .The-chimneyj (west elevation) _appears very dominant___in_the elevation drawings. Its height is within code requirements, and it extends approximately 2' above ~the-roof ridge. - HPC -may--want-- to give direction to the applicant to study alternatives to soften its affect. 2) The south elevation plans reflect portions of the complete deck/railing system which will line the perimeter of the proposed -dec.k,-- -approximately_100-linear_ _feet. The railing and spindles are very simple, squared in design, though extensive. The owner will be developing a Victorian garden in the rear yard, and the deck will serve as a break between the house and the yard. ALTERNATIVES: Actions which HPC may take include: 1) Grant Final Development approval for the proposal as presented, including the sideyard setback variation based on findings of compatibility as previously specified. 6 2) Grant Final Development approval for the proposal, including the variation as stated above, subject to specific conditions such as a restudy the chimney massing and other details which warrant further study. 3) Table Final Development approval based on inadequate results of the restudy of the addition's height in relation to the historic structure, and other design details such as the turret. The dilemma in designing an addition to a small house of historic character is that the original house is not large enough to "hide" the addition on all sides. Although a variety of alternatives have been presented by Staff for the applicant's and HPC's consideration, Staff supports the preservation activities presented for the original historic cottage. The addition, though borrowing from Queen Anne Victorian design, is an improvement to the rear of the structure and will allow the owner additional living space while at the same time preserving the small scale of the cottage and interior rooms. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office -recommends that_ HE-grant final development approval for the proposal, granting a__side yard set-back_y-ariation finding' that such variation- is more compatible in character wit-li-~~t he historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements, and-_subjectT to- a restudy of__.the_chimney massing which revision -may be approved by-Staff as an Insubstantial Modification of th@ previously approved plan. Notes for discussion: hpc.memo.715WSF 7 -. AUG 1 1 1923 August 3, 1988 To: To The Members Of The Historic Preservation Committee, Mr. Bill Poss Chairman: From: Jenny Lang , This letter will address the particular concerns of this committee with respect to the conditions of approval given to this project at the July 12, 1988 HPC meeting. Condition # 1: Further study of front porch design After considerable re-examination of existing conditions and constraints of this particular property and accompanying structure, we propose the following changes to the front porch design: A. Pediment addition reduced in size and significance. Although pediments' were seldom found on front porches of smaller miner's cabins, one can find throughout the west end a number of instances where original pediments are part of smaller porch roofs or have been added (many on north elevation's) to alleviate problems of water and snow build up. B. Trim details simplified, including turned columns, balusters, railings, and wood brackets. Condition # 2: Further study of addition A. Height of Gable addition reduced by 9" by moving west wall 18" to east. Plate height of interior wall at 5'-6". B. Addition located approximately 70' from edge of asphalt pavement, well to the rear of original structure causing least visual impact to orginal cabin. Condition # 3: Accurate representation of building materials A. See exterior elevations and notes. B. See cut sheet packet, Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. Â· P.O. Box 10599. Aspen, Co 81612 Â· 303/925-4502 Condition # 4: Structural response letter from structural engineer enclosed Condition # 5: Further study of turret A. Turret roof studied and corrected to more appropriate pitch. ~ B. Design simplified, less decorative trim. C. Location of turret well to the rear of residence, least visual impact to front facade of residence. D. Admitting there are few instances where turrets/octagons are used in conjunction with victorian cottages, there are two such instances (2 1-story turrets) in the west end (see picture boards). 1 1 Condition # 6: Expand site plan, more readable - see sheet A . Condition # 7: Elevation of carport and relationship to house - see sheet 'A' . Condition # 8: Overall neighborhood context A. Massing study shows height and mass of entire proposed residence with respect to compatible neighboring homes. With respect to the removal of 2 muliple-trunk 8" caliper ash trees in the rear yard, George Robinson of the parks department has approved the replacement of these trees with two 2 1/2"-3" (miniÂ·um) caliper deciduous ornamentals to be located also in the rear yard. The specific species and location of trees shall It '~ included on landscape plan and given final approval by Bill Ness of the parks department. INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,Ltd 411 East Main Street Suite 106 Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303) 92'f. 4-9'3 July 18, 1988 Job #88019 Ms. Jenny Lang Gretchen Greenwood Associates 201 N. Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Miller Residence 715 W. Smuggler Aspen, Colorado Dear Jenny: As per your request, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted an inspection of the above residence in order to determine the adequacy of the structural elements with regard to the attachment of an addition. No review was made of the electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. The residence is one-story wood-framed structure with a concrete masonry unit and concrete foundation. The inspection covered only those structural elements whidh were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due to the cost and disruption of exposing them. Based on our visual inspection of the existing structure and review of the drawings for the proposed addition, we conclude that the structure is in very good condition. The structure can easily be modified to interface with the new addition with minimal impact to its current stability and structural integrity. We would like to reiterate that the structure is in very good condition, reflecting that it was built using generally accepted design and construction techniques and has been well maintained. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of any further service, please contact us. Sincerely, : INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. Lawrdnce A. Doble, P.E. President E-Z TILT DOUBLE HUNG MARVIN -00- ELEVATIONS Wlâ€¢ VS L - PN q, 4- 91 /tk /- SCALE: 1/4" : 1'-0' - I. Mas. Opg. 2-0 1/2 2-4 1/2 2-8 1/2 3-0 1/2 3-4 1/2 3-8 1/2 4-0 1/2 Rgh. Opg, 1-103/8 2-2 3/8 2-6 3/8 2-10 3/8 3-2 3/8 3-6 3/8 3-10 3/8 Frame Size 1-9 3/8 2-1 3/8 2-5 3/8 2-9 3/8 3-1 3/8 3-5 3/8 3-9 3/8 Sash Opg. 1-8 2-0 2-4 2-8 3-0 3-4 3-8 Glass Size 160 20" 240 280 32" 36* 40" (D 3; / * CD- 0 i T.T. OJOINN- NE REE E-) E-) EE 16 x 12 20* 12 24 x 12 28 x 12 32 x 12 36 x 12 40 x 12 4.1 01 7 9 1-0 =il FIN-U 09.- 0 MAAA) 11-11-LE LE-1 IE=11 4121 Aug [L 16 x 14 20 x 14 24 x 14 28 x 14 32 x 14 36 x 14 40 x 14 A - E 10 ' u p r n 1 - 71 0 c!,c:,clogy~ ~ La 1=4 L 16 x 16 20 x 16 24 x 16 28 x 16 32 x 16 36 x 16 40 x 16 1,9 HHOLOA LAAAE 16xl'~ 20 x 18 24 x 18 28 x 18 32 x 18 36 x 18 40 x 18 1/ 830 0 0 0.03.03.03 ,-I 1110 * V " ed 16 x "' 0 x 20 24 x 20 28 x 20 32 x 20 36 x 20 40 x 20 O Une 97N 1Â· 4- M V N 2 16 x 22 0 x 22 24 x 22 28 x 22 32 x 22 36 x 22 40 x 22 3-21 -6 9/16 -2 9/16 -2 9/16 -5 3/4 9 3/4 Eiz E-Z TILT DOUBLE HUNG MARVIN -*- ELEVATIONS Wli NSL - bÂ»-6 SCALE: 1/4" : 1' -0" Mas. Opg. 2-0 1/2 2-4 1/2 2-8 1/2 3-0 1/2 3-4 1/2 3-8 1/2 4-0 1/2 Rgh. Opg. 1-10 3/8 2-2 3/8 2-6 3/8 2-10 3/8 3-2 3/8 3-6 0/8 3-10 3/8 Frame Size 1-9 3/8 2-1 3/8 2-5 3/8 2-9 3/8 3-1 3/8 3-5 3/8 3-9 3/8 Sash Opg. 1-8 2-0 2-4 2-8 3-0 3-4 3-8 Glass Size 16 20' 24' 28" 32' 360 40' CD ED. 1 1" V * 1 H CU 16 x 24 20 x 24 24 x 24 28 x 24 32 x 24 36 x 24 40 x 24 0 1<D U-)LOLD#CNI 16 x 26 ,- 20 x 26 24 x 26 28 x 26 E W 32 x 26 E W 36 x 26 E W 40 x 26 -\ 1 0 O 0 - 0 .O tin oil . 1 1 1 *ao 10 U-) U-) U-) N 16 x 28 92.nÂ« 24 x 28 28 x 28 E W 32 x 28 E W 36 x 28 E W 40 x 28 (10 7 ; i Fb LouÂ·)43.9(9 16 x 30 , 20*30/ 24 x 30 EW 28x30 E W 32 x 30 E W 36 x 30 E W 40 x 30 EW-EGRESS WINDOW 3-: -2 9/16 -10 9/16 903/4 -1 3/4 -9 3/4 9 1/4 -1 1/4 1/4 li:i:' .- luE?P -Â· ?*4*.4.. 1, ..7:~i lx6 UNIVERSAL ]DESIGN BOOK. BRACKETS. roj i 2009 A / 2009 2009 B .Â·.Alli, 1Â»4 2009 C 41* 2010 ~~~ ~ 2018 )2010, I.-- 9/ 0* 7,/1 Â· ..t. fit. =712 Vt 1 4 / 2063 B ~ 2064 A [L~ - -322<3\ 1 1 0- 1 - 47': (. M.: 8--~ 2064 47 4 . ..472% . 1.-hs t. 0< 2132-1- 1t LÂ« 0~ 20 701 9.-0- - Ft J * e i ,=1-2\~ 9 ~ :â€¢Al Â· 2066 5 2067 WOO P *ACKETf 1 .1 -0 Be USED Ar ~ 1, 1 ' 1, ; 3 1 4 As quantity affects price we will be please to qualt~ appl?catibrt. .44 9 : f -/ Â·428'' , t# : , '44*yifir 44â‚¬44*Nf.,4.1111Â·931 - ~ d3.439*e:g* .Â¥-*5934.#fi.% 4 49 43.rj;RÂ»irk/, 24. 'lf '/I#~,~I'~~Â£<.~'//~%1;. .. '5'.'Â» i:14'*twfl')r ' 29.44 9 VE .444 '.AS .cr :90:.1.-4.-:iltra ... J:'#Eft'Â·%49 '0,5- ?5;:Â®*k. -.Â· .. F:..12'*X+,f>.- ...Â· ~21:i,94'72#JiE .Â·f,tr:Â·4.4-742:..14~54'~/:. - AE-:p 4 .2:~P.ALC:Z.5*44' i.0.- - Â·'Â·-.,f.P;202Â·1~ 1#J 331*fiff ,Â·....y:tv'dtip tgr,;441Â§1~4 â€¢ -Â·fell. U lili .7 lei;04*5~ .. im 2*%9440 ir - â€¢Cr V Â·Iigi-*S* * 4/*AE+FFELY '. 1 - S *j ;04f.*f. . AIR.'Â©1*48&5<~ ' pre W ~\1'Â·A-:>7*''tÂ¢ 3. I 7. '41*42 '**:43*1 -ff- ,-,-rÂ· 7. 0'46'Â£41 0. .5*#it.:4#LAA.1 . : *36'Pil,W.Vir . I 946.'*F4,. f. 30.50,-,0 fte.j JV' f ,Â·Â· , A'J . I. 44'11 01 '1 1 1 173 ". 0 ..21 ..tip-P*,& , -t k / -Â·'..t,k ~A'Nia ./ .629>9+ I . ce.Â· e 03 N '~f{~744*,M~.4 il ~ 4*Al ..99011% -4.4.-3 i :Â· Ai# lf- I , . $*4*. i ...,#.'.2. N: I ' . ' t..~'f'+4$6,1 41244 ill'#I, Â·keâ€¢.' &Â¢*/a*'* A.' <0 0 ~I'.''#Ivar C. '1Â·27 tri 7. i.v -. .4*iÂ»WN , ...Rt . .terÂ¥91 .. 16 1 . ~t ,â€¢ 4 04 Â· - 0 - - . . I ..... 4.//2 14 -, Dfallk , iN:i . 41 -*!Â®44 . *EL**'11. . Â·*249 AÂ»32*-43*44646*it>jittifflitti.iÂ·cÂ«*62'4~.,d%*f&,::~~vri:Â»20---:WD--'-11....4.... --- ~ .4..1,14' ~jt-fjl544%~- ' /,4/ : c.:-....: .,Ft.->.4'-#:4â‚¬7:) 1.~:435~Â·;.449Â·Jt;?:22.Â·Elil~846/?4432461.}49Â·i>%44.;25*Apx:~:F..~~9..~.:ktr~.<-cirs*#7.~. ... i ../* i -/4-7. , .~A,4-9.4,1.-iÂ©i?.4.t.- >1.,Â«e-*.....iÂ¥ 9.VEÂ·"~-4 CA&Â·MY. # ALTa2kl ME WOOP C Em<.Ker E F;Roer f?DALIA EXTERIOR M~Lih/8RK DESIGNS *\ r ... I \- I . 1 UUX,07#7 . bd oÂ¥ , Or+3$1444.10 1 92394:' 97 33-2 l<iN > 33-3 ~ 1 33-4 . ~ 34-1 34-2 7 34-3 11 34-4 --4,1 - 4----, -tURNE P U 1 ~ Cool}MU 4 36-1 36-3 if 6 FRONT- % 5 FbAL#+ 37-1 37-2 l 37-3 j pd- 37-4 . '1 Â·11411Â·1 1 eN UL ' 1 VAT/jillizjft *.1.10 7 11 i 11 l ==....2 . CO -4. # i -ftfigfitt -- 14\1.2, h - 4 - ,-. .- REPEATING - PINE CORNER :TERIOR ORNAMENTS Pine BRACKETS Pine ILLWORK ientic Victorian Millwork designs 33-1 3/4" x 41/2" x any length 55.00 per ft. 34-1A I 1/2" x It 1/2" x 16 528.00 ea. be the perfect finishing touch for building project. Constructed of 33-2 3/4" x 4 1/2" x any length 5.00 B I t/800 xiii/2" x 16 24.00. r, ki'!1~[led Ponderosa Pine. these 0 lu- numerous custom de- 33-3 3/4" x 31/40' x any length 4.25 34-2A 11/2" x 11 1/2" x 14" 32.00 ~es. All exterior millwork 33-4 3/4" x 41/4" x any length 5.25 B 1 1/8" x 11 1/2" x 14 28.00 rackets, balusters and ornaments ' routed detailing and are sanded TURNED PINE PORCH POSTS* 34-3A r 1/20' x 7 3/40' x 15 22.00 .vo sides. ready for installation. All â€¢Manufactured from solid lamtnated stock 17.00 nor millwork iS produced to a B 1 1/80' x 7 3/4'0 x 15 nt grade" quallty, all turned and ireas are sanded, voids are filled 36-lA 51/4" x 51/4" x 96" 5217.00 ea. 34-4A 1 1/2'0 x 7 3/400 x 12 1/4" 18.00 'eady forpainting. It is important to vv the "Doorand Exterjor Adillwork 36-18 4 1/4'' x 4 1/4" x 96 201,00 8 1 1/8" x 7 3/4" x 121/4 14.00 " on Catalogpg. 7, forbestresults. hing for turned baluster ends is 36-ZA 5 1/4" x 5 1/4" x 96 217.00 PINE ivailable at present, (available in . Call or send specification for 36-28 4 1/4" x 4 94" x 96 201.00 BALUSTERS Â·es on any custom exterior mill- Sawn Balluster designs you may need. 36-3A 5 1/4" x 51/4" x 96 217.00 37-1 3/4" x 51/2" x 33 516.25 Sawn Balluster 36-38 4 1/4" x 4 1/4" x 96 201.00 37-2 3/4'' x 51/2" x 33 16.00 ECONOMY POST Turned Balluster 37-3 14.75 BALUSTERS /72\ A 13/40' x i 3/4" x 36 Â«_/ ' I Turned Bal juster Commercial grade posts man- .El 37-4 13/40' x i 3/4" x 36 14.75 u factured from hemlock or pine. I Â· 1, 1 rn| 35-1 1 .... 1 1 --,1 Presevation treated and sanded ~ 4.-4 <25 PINE NEWEL POST finish on turned areas. Economy 35-2 & HAND RAILS porch posts are hollow, finger- - Jointed & laminated and must 1 1 1 .*1 be shipped motor freight. 71 1 38-1A $127.00 ea. -- 36-7A Porch Post Newel Post 5127-00 ea. 4--1Â£18 ]08.00 RAIUAG 4 5 1/4" x 5 1/4'' x 9 4 1/4-' x 4 l/4" x 48 36-7B porch post 109.00 5 1/4 x 5 44 x 48 41/4" x 4 1/4" x 9 38-2A Newel Post 127.00 EALUSTEF- Newel Posl @ FRONT- 38-7 Newel Post 69.00 38-2B 108.00 1 4 1/4- x 4 1/4.- x 48 4 1/4'' x 4 1/4Â° x 4 FDFLA 4 i Hand rail 38-8 Newel Post 69.00 35-1 55.10/ft 'CECMS 41/4'0 x 4 1/4" x 44' . 1 3/4" x 4 $ It/16"x I 1/8 37-7 Balluster ,-1 - dip Fillet Strip .70 per It. ' ~ 1 5/8" xi 5/8" x 36'. 9-75 35-2 37-8 Balluster 4.50 per tt 1-7 38~ 37-7 37-8 1 5/80' x i 5/80' x 36' 9.75 38-1 38-2 35-3 35-3 Bottom Rail 13/4" x 31/4 1 Cata!06*i Prices are per lineal foot or per piece. -. coRNEK e>67- 6 twiL+s AÂ· 2 â€¢ t-; 71 ek. SASH. DOORS AND BLINDS. 7 3 . 'A: OUR SPECIAL COTTAGE DOORS. 4 1 - / 6,Lag GLAâ‚¬6 I jr, , I'l ,--"+ r i ...7 r. C 7 .Â¥~)'.6...1 Â¥ g:.....,- 9931 2 -1 . , ... . ~ '.' 9~,1;4<Â·Â·,~.4*1.' .~1,.;Â·'Â·Â·.' .:, I~~~.814*9 C ...+=EFR I ..y...:. I ' 'ru.' d ,-*ir-//.-.' Â£ 2.3 , ---4:~3*em=L ~te:10:K*:2NF>~,try 141: g 4- f h* a . Kit *Â»9,4*22*22,2 Â· *6%*ARÂ» 183Â¢11 ' Â· * #Ab,ewzt fr'.ti.ir ' mk:45:6:,:5:~~ri:,e,iwe:* -~ 0,26*Votipt:44&&=9' ill m. VT f k %**~49**0::fl 22*A*13Â·'.::8**:4 Â·uc':vywÂ·.re*v'.f~lic:f::i%% ? ~,frpl . Â·4%Â·r th' , w i#Â§*'*Sâ‚¬ tÂ¢f Â¥ *42:I c.~2:~~.~~.~.*2:it dia**2Â£5. =:,3.:,l,.:.,..(.:. â‚¬ . 13 twASA/*0 1 r,9.-1 ' 5. I â€¢ C~'~'SCY.V/,1 9.1 â„¢ 2 ' :t:471/4."3. m iÂ· e,*:fvf.ny.t~â€¢ 4 - : : p EM:>16>"=>:~:â€¢:â€¢.0.Â·.12*221: .-9,1,8 i...r]'101 ~' 4 ~ .28~.ili~~k-1~,6~#.*-<. 411 *294*2*N :11 ; ... 74= ?fii.. 4. ~ A â€¢Â·â€¢. â‚¬tz*Â¢MemeluÂ·fe,r.e-~ ~Â·mÂ»' / '12,1 41 ,Â£.1. Â·. 294/re/A 9 : pi 4 :.i- - .:..:91,211'Z.'t. 2.15 <-2.k ' 17.9 â€žLK?V; *9 Râ‚¬I, -' 4739&*-t,Â·90-(Â»'.ilDA 4,~Â»3 ... ' f .t . iÂ© f elâ‚¬ 5 E'**At ibi-4-. i;,i.9,1,+ : e.it, : . .1. 0611- ./-2, 4'4'- F-;'Il., 1292 k67 '6'4?... 1; 1 ; 4{41. ttif D,4* 51 1 ekÂ·N -23-12? 1 2 i.*941 :450! r 4 ~.,~~~~Â·7,4~-1~~.b.<2:.4-; f.,''-, 7 42--1.-4 2 6+4.4 Â¢ *Atwor- P. I .. M:*wid#4744,7474%.dt.:.1.. ? f fj*Ef Â» .5 7*Ni ., 'AttkyÂ«*Â®32003-. 'li '24'Â£.1 -.94../. .: - ,- P.Alh -1. 1 Good Diamond .4 FROFOSED 13Â©og Pt)12 KIEN REPrie ENTEr 9 ' 6 MUDRLOW Crm be glazed plain D, S. or clesitrns of glass as shown on pages 32(, to-JÂ·TD, i S. . '74.9:4 eA?91 3 4:4:~.9-:AGI t-r.,;~t'~* I~ j~ LV f. A '4,~1 1%#&*A:$.4.:8.: .twl '*444.0.,34"fP A-' 1 144*56:7*'t-,264.4 tv.. -Dy,7.,Â·Â·'>.94 59<,PÂ«,.Â·-~ Â·Â·2 ke;â€¢,;UÂ· 4; 33/';*045Â¥R;,TA,65 W+4% .' 1Â¢496 4159 -t , .*65,"4345Â·6 4.' ,/ 1854*?i~,3.:1**tfff i.Â·13&?*ix- .. ..... '6*':. C.%%3444%5.. ~ 03*40Â·~~Â·(dr Â£ i w â€¢ 4**0*4*44*411:E A ' .-1.0994.-Â· . 9*45#*94(. i.Â· ..4. t4*F~ ~Â·(F! 5,4}k':':44':E'/,2 2 .4 Â¢*942339'j 'p,ld ' ~4Â·64 t'iN.9Â»,.~â‚¬Â·IÂ· l#: :i,ic ".7...5.1' .~,;,4,9.0/*9~3'.41 ./ i,23 I - y I ,, 1.,4-4. 17 ': It: . -; ymÂ·~Â§-*Â·*Re.i. ." 21'94:i.'Lf:.23~'~'.-'::~~~LkÂ·;Mr:i 17,41 2. r '. 1*/ .6 / %4;20%*93319Â·.&.4,3 7 F j?ve;1*Xj#Iti*%8:..i :4&1<19&9Yr.i~i.794 p !'6.Â·L .VI Â· 1 , F. '. Â· 2 ..f 7,Â·Â¥Â·â€¢!1.â€¢~~Â·:.' L -Â·Â· i:tÂ·$20,1.~93~fi~~~,d-V~f"-ili}j~ ~3*Ffe-293%9'4,tÂ·.i 'F#*.*134:*;44Â·*4 Â§*f-f kN-.4:Â· 'Â·0.1. -44' Â·9..'f~,A;i;-2.6 , . f!8494#it??43:41%49*z:#t .. 09 4 Uttift&%&1.9.Â·,~4':Aâ€¢.Â·.3~At*S:<fÂ·I I I .....'... ... I I. - j- 42:waÂ·D~Â¥fifiÂ«Ri*Â· 4%.Â¢.6~/12Â·'5:4.2/' :Â·1*&98/Â· Â·,Â·,I t;â€¢ 'D'.* LiZP,3,~1~9Â·4:~f:*'494:b: '.55'.~'t#*J"::t~Â·1.-ZfAiÂ·~~.Â·~49 9.t W*93*44%949:49(.F '#4#~L '.p.:,4,Â£|'..'~stjtto :feauff{** *:f:.t.UNa:4.34*duA ./ ' f/:iÂ·~~:72Â·-t)9~:6:/'JAi.t~45Â·Â·'Â·,/:1 :tt>"%60Â·:~IiÂ¥)3Â·Â·,/ <Â·Â·i~44-:3:.t;404~ .. i92.44:,5*>/7-7.24Â·'Â·Â·Â»â‚¬.. 444:*Myel*dwn: ''94,â€¢ .J:. f;. kr . 0.*52 91*49:ff*5 t, **42.14 824 3#WN'li'hÂ·;Â·e~*20 i~'Â·Â£*01:. '.. .h 1. 1 9%**titit . : S.,14%4' 64Â·* -4/â‚¬'1 Lt?? r: . 4*43.lif.42. 2- '05. Â·. . 4, 7 , t L . S ;903944% 98:liP./, :Â·3:' rt , 1 ... Â·.'Â·"me:i....3.0.Tae'liOr..Jy ~~*%*9142:- f 1 : 61, ,+ %:>:44:4=?Gr.93Â·? 0;:Â·S'.Â·;Â·9'..; Â©r '."r :2*92*Â£*Al .dtâ‚¬4*Â©41ijtfÂ·'31. D . --I. 0 70 . 90)94*934.,5.9.7'K, . '2m@Â·*-t':'Â·1.<'4(;ity,lp . 9Â·90Â»*20,14*2>. A. 4 f . 1 ... .D 404,'/FO&'.y'Â·'. Â·UÂ·}3Â·iÂ· **062%31:.i .... ..,34#.dul/444 'gi: 1 .. 4*23%89$94?24' .... 'Awefff i'..ft..85'FA, . ~try Â·spreÂ·,7,;>6,0. 'Â« r#*.Â·,'.':~? f .:.172:bi{27-2..17Â£1 :.3.1,4,2*:3.49:15:2.~- Â·Â·--'... 9% .... ~*143:0%i i'Â·,06@?t.'i-4114,1.14'Â·5 4, 1%8%6Â»4*4 :i.6,961'h)'i?:4'Â·'Ary*;:0:6Â·fk*Â· .... IiÂ·. .t,1 :. ~' f'>F~~:**1'f~#4t..~.~~~.4.W. Â·Â·Â·Â· ,,e' C ... 9 '' /4. *.4 : v : # 1%2.Et .4...:'.7 . % t SASH, DOORS AND BLINDS. 59 Au-%RE{ ATE *42 FROWY- teÂ©8 REFLA-6â‚¬Mâ‚¬NT- FRONT DOORS. 0/017+ CLevg., 66/166 FANâ‚¬L - -4, I-' 1 -T-==h- F 111 1 . ' 11,1~1============== K 0 =El 1 Panel -I 1~EEP: Ct"*71; C =ed C ===*r=+ G' - ' Un ~r 1111 1 F ' i &90 2 231 233 d .4 4 16'. ;4- List Price 1% Inches Tliick. "11 . 41 -â€¢ 231 233 Or:; Size of Opening. 4 Open Glazed D. S. Open. Glazed D. S. 9*03- -- Z 13 2 2 180 $ 9.45 $14.05 $10.95 $15.55 10.60 15.90 12.10 17.40 ly' 1, - 2 8 x 7 0 11.05 16.35 I 12.55 17.85 ro' 30x70 11.65 17.95 13.15 19.45 Per- 30x76 13.50 20.85 15.00 22.35 3 0 x8 0 I 15.40 22.90 16.90 24.40 6 For prices of 1%'-inch doors, in stock quantities, add to above list the difference between 1 H and 3 Four ~, Irregular and intermediate sizes, in stock quantities, same list as next larger listed size. IM-inch 0. G. four-panel doors, sallie size, see table oil page 63, C' For less than stock quantities, on sizes tiot listed, ati extra 10 per cent will be charged. 6 rÂ· r.Â·Â· - Aff. M . #'.0 'Â·t. . 2. I -*4.. ..*..*/..ZU' ...$ ) ./1 1 1611 Lil 611 U. r-1 -cr 4 4- -A 1 f-T 1 1* 1 - -49- 1 03 0 0913- 26 UP Bull.:r-IN 1306*SHOll/25 ---1 582 /Aln ELEU SHT; O 1 34 1 Â» 4 0ppica I %/1 7 - r 4.-2 6/VINGROOMI \ 0 If==21 AL. 100Â·0' 1---71 01 -- 1 4 fli- ~ --I Ti -- AuTCHEN ~ H || r ~~1 |1 EL. 900' i 11 1[t O DWING PARLOR 11 FRONT ROOM 11; 10 11 j 1 11 a. 100.0, NOTE : 528 6" r,iupri " 11 11 7 SH t . 0 lA ' 4 0 2 1-------\ .2//-1 1 1 I t ~ 1 j 4 0 3. R '19 --Â·-t DECK. EL. 94 0' U Im--7/ 048 5'091 -f-btl I3'-1 ' ' IVI ILLE K 2 3 6 1 ID E NIC MAI N FLOOR Platt NJAUST- 1, 1460 60\Le: 142'= i'-ap E~~4 d 1- i 4 1- 1 -- 4 1 01 - 60 1 j - 1 -4-4 PECK , ~ 6'_on ALLEr ,> m PROPOSED 1/21 1 REQU RENE SETBACK- \X.j< 0(TCH CA 12 po FET 2 Lon AbeHALT PAVEM'T- , 24'-00 WEST ELEVATION \ FRONT EDGE OF= ADmALT -DETBAO< 01 .1 â€ž~ 43 , W/LLEâ‚¬ 46/JEA/dE 0 1 1 . 1 1 - â€¢d~fr ' - 0- G 1./.-I -.I 60 1 6/1 BFOf27- . 1 1 1 - fl'f -- - - -L W 2 6-E SMUGGLER NORTH ELEVATION 0 APPROXIM/110 (-CCATIC)N Of- Af Uk' 1 RE E.G . - 6106 1*0 â‚¬PETBAO'- 0 - 1 1 Â¥ 1\ \ -- FRONT YARD 0 66796# 1 GARDENS - ..1 - sit - cy . 0. f / L , ' . 0 a 11 F 1 PROPOSED ADOCrIC,Â¥ 1 \- J 9 /DJ , -1Â£=27 iÂ© EKISTING FENCE L/NE OF EX/9TiNG OTBOO-EURE / rl 4 0 E---1--4 /1 - ---Er, 4 4 W 1 11- 6 1 0 5 m 1 (\1 3 1 2 8*167!NG 9 CAUPER PJO U 1 - AOH T#2886 -O 66 REMOVED. 17 ,~ / ,/VEW .204 ~ I 1 Â»9*1 1 1 .1 / , P- 1 r * E)(/577,4/6,|' 1 7 LF====42 02Â·Al/EL- PARANG -7 ~- % 4-/ 1 IN 4/,/ - 62-AR TAMP 66-28Â«6,= e 6 -r: a r.--=i- O 1\/ -/ Vt / .OB C.kl@9012:r Â· 3 _ '1 11- (3' , \4 --1 -94-1- / L n - 1 EDGE OF ASPHALT C - /01 04 3 /A '3- rAVEMENT 24 NORTH -./% 1 --- De- D ROPERÂ·TY Ll NE. O - J.,AFEENâ€¢b ----1 h ALL ASPENS TD REMAN CARPORT- D . V /, --- + ENCPOACH MBA-7 ~ -- 6/36 79 *20 96Ta,4<LA lf 1 1 1 ORT'-11 1. 1_E/' 1 1 --- 0 03 "/ -1 /1.--- 4% ~ -- ----- -- 1 rk 2 NE.61 Â»16'DIP 3 6-+ING>LE: czaÂ», 1 0 1 /1 ~- 1\ 31 1 1--3 - 1 L A 11 r \X> - 0 - ll--1 -1 2321Â«-f k - --- -2 It NEÂ« 9PME*irr- O 5- E 1-121 ht DET, 11-6 Tb /7- MA Â»H EXICANG C J 22 26\8 7 6.ABLE 4 .bLAI U NG - - Ch W --- f fl Hle,4 TU @1460 WOOD ------ -- ---- ---- - -ClEF 1 2-ANG 40Â« --- - 9-1-900 ~121* FBAL-0-re>14> - SEE + L - CUT *AGET.0. 1 1 - 1 ~ 1 OF) - 0 1 -1~ j FOIÂ« 1-1 *T-61- EXIOflk,16. 1 ,< G, BWELED WOOD 91 PING 4224 612161< CH<KNEK 4 - 0 7" p- 81<, ->C::4,-ELÂ¢,--Â» ACUITION --- WORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION P/\ I id 1-10 A - APE)IT-ION . - - 1.- C.PONN *DULPSÂ· FLAr *Wikl GABLES 1&03 1 301-0" 9 b TD MATCH RIGINAL - SEE /Â« KIOF~H ELEVATION Â»2\41 A / - -- 7,1 - 0 I'KIMED *300 DOU BLE-- HUNG 1 I /ZLLal./f.. 41 w Dow:- analt. EX 1617 NeÂ· 4 =====-r=== I r- - I fly -%..#0.t'.Ir': - - - -- . 434 111 02* _f 4- L L_[1 & E EE LZU Â»LUL 1\Â« - 1 1 -FIT.-73 -:1'.f, 1--fÂ«- MAr ditiki- -.-t'l rit~T ill,1 k+% T'T.Â·Â· -fÂ·;,, PUV , -- 1 9 INTE,0 6102>0 <AILIK*b, 3-1- 7 - --- a,ALUST-aft, DOWN'Ef 1 --r - /1>61-6 6 98006 + PolÂ«HES,- -mt 622 OUT -6*-tee'rs. 2 - --- UP- - - I ' 0 1 \ I 11 11 111 1 -- 1 1:-=== 1 lill'llal'1111 11 1_11 1 4 1 J J U l I tlhfi 11 211 I -L_-1,7-0-- -1-3 -Ed- 92=.4 [/b- 27- A-L|_Lful)i)Â·~ |r|=~=1~ 11< 11 1 1 .1 1==11[L : - ijill. i! j#94.- ~,1 ~~i;11 li PkÂ· =14111 L- 1.-1 --- *721101 1 C AjoITION ~ 249-j "gk-- 7 \ thea-1 1 4 L &0 4 C- d' 1 Â©OUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATIONI 0*th