The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19880308641 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 8, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Minutes of February 23, 1988 ...4 III. Committee Member and Staff Comments IV. Public Comments V. Monitoring of Projects VI. NEW BUSINESS 2:40 A. Historic Landmark Designation, Demolition and dillPConceptual Development Review: 334 West Hallam St. Trish Harris VII. OLD BUSINESS 3:15 A. Conceptual Development Review (Continued): 300 W. Main, Alterations and additions A Scott and Caroline McDonald VIII. Adjourn le 4 I 4 1 1 'f â‚¬r HPC Minutes March 8, 1988 334 W. HALLAM ............1 300 W. MAIN-CONT'D CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ...11 27 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 334 W. Hallam Street, Designation, Demolition and Conceptual Development Review DATE: March 8, 1988 LOCATION: 334 W. Hallam Avenue, Block 42, Lots K, L and M, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval, with request for carriage house demolition and re- placement with a new two-story structure similar in size. Two additions to the main house, an older partial 2 story addition to the northwest and a more recent two story addition to the northeast would be demolished and re-placed with a new addition. A greenhouse reaching 13' in height would be attached to the east side Of main house. The original window on the east elevation 2nd floor would be replaced with two windows. SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Refer to applicant's letter of 2-16-88 (attached). HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: 5 PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: The applicants are requesting HPC's recommendation for historic designation and conceptual development approval at this meeting. The applicant's next step is review by the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain their recommendation on historic designation. City Council would then hold first and second reading of an ordinance to accomplish designation. Applicants are also requesting partial demolition of the main house and entire two-story carriage house. A com- plete application must be submitted as stated in Sec. 24-9.5(c) Procedure for Review of Applications for Demolition. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Director the HPC shall hold at least one public hearing on its consideration of 1 application, with public notice posted on site and published in the newspaper. Written notice must be sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the property. It should be noted under Sec. 24-9.5(a) Demolition of Historic Structures that "No demolition and total removal of a Historic Landmark or any structure within a "H" Historic Overlay District or any structure rated as a "4" or a "5" by the HPC...shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the stan- dards of Sec. 24-9.5(b)(1) through (6). PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: On February 23, 1988 HPC held a pre- application meeting with Trish Harris, as associate of Bill Poss and Associates, Architecture and Planning to discuss historic designation, demolition of the carriage house and partial demo- lition of the main house, as well as new additions and develop- ment review of the entire project. The memo from the Planning Officer for that meeting listed 12 issues for HPC consideration. As a quorum was not available for this item (Chairman Poss stepped down) discussion with three members included: no interest in the carriage house demolition with recommendations for rehab development, toning down architectural details, aiming to keep carriage house facade as close in design to original function as possible; moving proposed greenhouse attachment to newer main house addition, retaining all original architectural elements and restoring where possible; retaining large tree in east side yard (not possible with proposed greenhouse addition); simplify architectural details of entire project. Applicant's representative stated carriage house is unsound structurally per findings from Theodore K. Guy Associates, PC, Structural Engin- eers. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Standards for historic designation are stated in Section 24-9.3(a) of the Municipal Code. The standards for demolition of historic structures are stated in Section 24- 9.5 of the Municipal Code. The development review standards are stated in Section 24-9.4(d) of the Municipal Code. Reference to both the Aspen Historic Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation have guided staff's comments below. The Secretary of Interior standards seem especially relevant because the property was determined to be eligible for National Register nomination in 1986. Historic Designation Standards 1. Standard: The structure or site is commonly identified with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The home and carriage house are associated with Eugene Wilder of the Aspen Lumber Company (one of Aspen's oldest establishments). 2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: Constructed c.1885, the front elevation of this two story home is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small panes Of stained glass. The quality detailing throughout the front facade and its highly visible corner location, make this entire property exemplary of Victorian 2 residential architecture. Please note that a nomination of this property to the National Register of Historic Places was proposed, and it was determined to be eligible. -In addition, the home is featured on the cover of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element. The carriage house and simple fenestration of the east and west facades of the main house blend together well. Carriage houses are commonly found throughout the immediate neighborhood, as well as in the adjacent "Hallam Lake District". Most are original and have been renovated in such a way as to maintain their integrity yet be utilized for modern uses. 3. Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing charac- teristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: The Wilder House embodies the characteristics Of the gabled "L" with Victorian detailing elements, identified in the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines", as an historic architectural style in Aspen. 4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The Wilder House was constructed from local lumber and may have been built by The Aspen Lumber Company, established c.1880-1882, according to Barbara Norgren, preservation consultant who prepared the National Register nomination for this property. The house displays a high degree of craftsmanship which was available in Aspen at the time of its construction. Through careful restoration of the original elements, this house has retained much of its original integrity. Demolition Review Standards 1. Standard: The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. Response: The applicant is requesting to demolish those portions of the main house that were additions to the ori- ginal structure. The additions include (a) an earlier partial two story attachment to the northwest of the original main house and (b) a more recent full two story addition to the northeast which flattens out the newer roof line. No evidence has been submitted showing unsound struc- tural integrity to the main house. The applicant's architect did note verbally that the foundation under the earlier addition appears to be very shallow and did not 3 0 - r o (-r Jb -6 0.3.:x=En--2- --=ba... n 4 j . ,1. (37â‚¬~-'. I I.* t\-- \\ f 33 r.' r \ 47 1 h extend around the full perimeter. The applicant is requesting entire demolition of the carriage house. The attached engineer's report states that the present carriage house foundation system extends down a very minimum distance, possibly 12 inches, and that upon further investigation a new foundation system may be recommended. The report also states the original roof frame system is functional yet is undersized for todays load criteria, and recommended a entire new roof structure. Also, the report notes that the existing upper floor system is approximately 25% of the structure required and a new floor system is recommended. Evidence of proper main- tenance of the carriage house has not been submitted. As stated in the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, (Structural System section): "Recommended: Repairing the structural system by augmenting or upgrading individual parts or features. Substitute material should convey the same form, design, and overall visual appearance as the historic feature." In our opinion, the original carriage house possesses considerable historic architectural significance and warrants being upgraded with structural foundation improvements and siding replacement as necessary. The removal of the shed roof dormer added more recently would enhance the structure. 2. Standard: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Response: Renovated carriage houses are commonly found throughout this neighborhood, with a variety of different uses. The subject carriage house is very large and original to the property, complementing the main residence, and could provide enough square footage for a garage and living quarters as proposed. The Planning Office strongly recommends the applicant to reconsider the feasibility of rehabilitation and reuse of the carriage house. The portions planned for demolition of the main house appear to be newer additions. The northeast addition changed the angle of the original roof slope; however, the demarcation of the old gable and addition is clearly evident. The carport between the house and carriage house is also to be demolished; it is of newer construction and has no historic significance. In general, it appears that either the existing portions of the house to be demolished do not lend themselves to being rehabilitated or those portions do not possess historic significance. 3. Standard: The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. 4 Response: The applicant states the unsound structural condition of the carriage house makes it impossible to move. In our opinion, on-site preservation of the carriage house is preferable and would prevent relocating the structure. We believe that it is reasonable for the applicant to pursue relocation to a new site if on-site preservation cannot be practicably carried through. Neighborhood compatibility of the new site would then need to be examined. 4. Standard: A demolition or redevelopment plan is submitted which mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood. Response: The applicant states the part of the main struc- ture planned for demolition is in the middle and rear portion, and will have minimum impact on the character of the neighborhood. Also the applicant states the demolition of the carriage house will have no great impact to the neighborhood. Planning Office comments pertaining to this standard follow in Conceptual Development review. Carriage houses in this neighborhood and particularly as complimentary outbuildings to larger, main residences are important to the overall character. Numerous carriage houses are found reflecting their original use although renovated for modern use. We consider that demolition of this highly visible carriage house would be a loss to the neighborhood, and that the redevelopment plan does not mitigate the impact of that loss. 5. Standard: A demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact the proposed demolition has on the historic importance of the structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: The applicant states they find no evidence of historical value for the existing carriage house, and that the partial demolition of the main house will have no impact on the historical importance of the original structure. According to the 1904 Sanborn's Map, the carriage house is original, however, was moved slightly to its current location. A footnote made on the National Register Nomination by Barbara Norgren stated that, due to exterior changes made to the carriage house it was non-contributing; however, after further discussion with Barbara she informed US nominations may be amended and she may find the carriage house contributing through additional study. Given the general prominence of the carriage house on the corner site - particularly visible to residents and guests using Third 5 Street as the primary route leading through the West End to the Music Tent - we believe that demolition would negatively impact the historic character of this neighborhood. 6. Standard: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of the historic structure or part thereof. Response: The applicant states the proposed partial demolition plan for portions of the main house will have little or no impact as the original portions with the greatest historic significance will remain undisturbed. The Planning Office upon review of the proposed redevelopment plans find changes proposed to the original east facade including the windows of the upper facade and lower level, not in keeping with the recommendations in both the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines (pg.55) and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Every effort to preserve and repair existing windows should be made; they are very important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Also not recommended is changing the number, location, size or glazing patterns of windows. The Planning Office also finds the proposed demolition of the carriage house to be contrary to the Guidelines (pg.51). "The traditional residential pattern placed barns, carriage houses...and other support structures at the rear of the lot at the alley. Buildings on alleys have an importance of their own, and give alleys a special character. Pre- serve...wherever possible historic outbuildings." Conceptual Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the proposed addition to the main house is mainly compatible in character with the original structure in its location, massing, height and roof forms. The development is not compatible in the following areas: 1) The proposed window changes on the original east facade are not in keeping with the Guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and should be preserved as is; 2) Removal of the very large cottonwood tree in the east side yard is contrary to the Guidelines (pg. 49) which state: "In alterations to existing buildings and in any new 6 construction traditional landscape patterns should be maintained."; 3) There are pros and cons to removal of the northeast two story addition. The existing addition can be argued to be most compatible because if maintains the basic "saltbox" shape; it is simple in detailing and doesn't draw ones attention away from the front facade. On the other hand, the original east facing gable end has been enfolded into the addition, and would be restored through the proposal. A cross gable would be extended north at a lower height. We conclude that the proposed treatment has merit and is appropriate. It may be even more complimentary if further set in. 4) Greenhouse additions are discussed in the Guidelines (pg. 59) and the Planning Office recommends this addition be sensitive to the historic original structure, placed where it will not obscure the details of the primary facade. Every attempt should be made to insure the greenhouse addition does not become the visual focus of alteration to the house. By attaching the greenhouse to the newer addition (rear section of the east facade) these results could be achieved; 5) The addition of the upper facade bay window on the west (Third St.) side is a great deal more elaborate than the original historic elements of this home and tends to overpower the historic quality of plainness of that facade. The front facade is the focal point of this home and all attempts to retain this main visual appeal should be made. A more simple approach would blend better with the original architectural elements of this home; 6) Window sizes and shapes on the addition should be further studied to achieve greater consistency in the design concept. The proposed new carriage house design elements are not in keeping with the Guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Planning Office recommends that any new development proposed for the carriage house, if demolition is approved, retain the original look and feel of this outbuilding without the addition of elaborate detailing diminishing its original character. Please note that the applicant proposes to locate the new carriage house in the northeast corner of the property, entailing further encroachment in setbacks. We believe this is less appro- priate than utilizing the present location as the carriage house would take on even more prominence in relation to the main house and streetscape. 7 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is con- sistent with the character of the neighborhood. Response: We find that the proposed development is mainly consistent with the neighborhood with the exception of the greenhouse addition which (as proposed) is a new element not common in the neighborhood. Also, the elaborate development plans for the carriage house are not consistent with the historic neighborhood character in our opinion. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of the structure. Response: As the applicant states in the proposal the new development will enhance the value as they will be main- taining and restoring the original portion of the building, which demonstrates the lifestyle of the original owner, an important family in Aspen's history. As previously stated, changes are proposed for the original east facade which will harm the historic integrity of the structure (windows). The new carriage house proposed is to be used, in part , as a modern carriage house (one car garage); however, it is the Planning Office's opinion that the proposed demolition will detract from the cultural value. We are concerned that the degree of ornamentation of the house speaks of Mr. Wilder's status in Aspen and that the imposition of a high Victorian stylization is an inappropriate interpretation. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated structure. Response: The applicant states the new carriage house plans complement the proposed historic designated structure, through the use of similar materials, roof form and scale. The development plans for the main house will enhance the original structure by setting the new walls back approxi- mately 18" from the existing east and west facades. The ridge lines will be lower on the addition to de-emphasize, which will allow for the prominent identity of the original historic structure. With the greenhouse attachment on the east facade, as proposed (and as previously stated), architectural integrity will be lost as window changes are to be made. Original fenestration is an important element to retain in this structure, and the Planning Office recommends the applicants redesign the greenhouse attach- ment. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Designation: The Planning Office recommends to HPC to recommend historic landmark designation of 334 W. Hallam 8 , -401 3 - -&2Â« LO f .1 42 3-,Cka, r 1 Bt., Lots K,-L, and M. Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen '*~ubj ect to the condition that no changes be made to the 2-original windows and proper maintenance and preservation of r the original /facade and architectural details be accomp- lished. ",7<ZA,p-e04:Â«44 2) Demolition: The Planning Office recommends approval for the partial demolition to the main structure, encompassing the newer addition only. We recommend denial of the carriage house demolition as we feel the owner should be encouraged to save and rehabilitate the existing structure or examine the possibility in more depth of moving it to a compatible site. 3) Conceptual Development: The Planning Office recommends to HPC to give conceptual development approval for new additions to the main structure, subject to the conditions j that the following changes be addressed in plans submitted for final development review: 1. Â· The greenhouse addition shall be redesigned to be as inconspicuous as possible, with no damage done to the original historic structure. Attaching the greenhouse only to the newer addition and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building shall be studied. 2. The west facade upper level bay window design will be further studied to result in a design more closely resembling the original fenestration of the historic structure. 3. Further stepping-in of the east elevation addition shall be studied. 4. The cottonwood in the east side-yard shall be retained. If it is demonstrated that the tree cannot be saved, a landscape plan shall be present showing transplant- ation or a new tree. 5. All new materials shall be identified. 6. Structural analysis of the house sufficient to assure that the proposed alterations and addition will not undermine the structural stability of the original house shall be submitted. 7. Detailed plans for repair and maintenance of the original house and replacement of original materials shall be submitted, including but not limited to treatment of the front bay windows, siding, and roof. 9 NOTE: A new set of plans received in the Planning Office on March 3, 1987, after this memo was prepared is attached. As of this writing we have not had an opportunity to examine them thoroughly and make comment. re.334WH.memo 10 t, 9* 4Q**'~J OF 2/1 #~1 4 31 '41 1 '41 1 till -VIA- 31$,4 L :23 1 2 9 Mul,imEG ..76'ma..'U - 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL (303) 925-4755 February 12, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval 334 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K, L and M City of Aspen Dear Steve: The purpose of this letter is to present our concept for the above-referenced property. Our program is as follows: 1. Obtain historic designation for the property. 9 a. Obtain permission to demolish portions of the residential structure. b. Demolish the carriage house. -r o. a. Obtain approval for the conceptual development plan (addition, enlargement and restoration) of the house. b. Obtain approval for the conceptual development plan of a carriage house, incorporating both a garage and dwelling. ~..i.%~.,)#yr,= *AP-L.1, a atw a 1 1 1.4, 1. .1 7 42 1 1 .: -4 Mr. Steve Rurstein 1 1 1. 4 February 12, 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 the Aspen Lumber Company. (2) Architectural Importance Architecturally, the house is significant in that it reflects traditional Aspen character and the Victorian style prevalent when it was built. The stained glass bay window facing West Hallam Avenue is unique to this architectural 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 maintaining the neighborhood and community character (the neighborhood consists of several other Victorian houses of similar scale). We will demolish portions of the 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 Neighborhood The part of the house planned for demolition is 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 neighborhood. , 1 Try Li.JIN 1/' 1 71/ 1 *# Mr. Steve Burstein February 12, 1988 Page three (5) Impact to the Historical Importance That portion planned for demolition has little historic importance in that it is an addition to the original house which changed the angle of the original roof slope. The demarcation between the old gable (with fish scale shingles) and recent construction is cl early visible on the east elevation. We will also remove the carport between the house and carriage house. 1-h is 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 tear down the existing "carriage house" and rebuild a structure that ser-ves t he owners more as a true carriage house, incorporating both a residence and garage. We base this total demolition following the STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION, Ord. 11, Section 24-9.5(b). (1) Structural Soundness The existing carriage house is not structurally sound, although it has been maintained by the owner. (See enclosed letter--STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION.) (2) Rehabilitation of the Structure Because it is unsound, this structure cannot be rehabilitated for reuse as a residence. 13) Relocation of the Structure Also, this condition makes it impossible to move this structure to another site in Aspen. yjl' \' ' 1 1 /1 1> 1 Mr. Steve Burstein February 12, 1988 2 1 r.-r.,2.,Ak.eki>**14' Page four (4) Impact to the Neighborhood With the demolition of the carriage house and carport, no great impact to the neighborhood character will occur, except for the removal of an older, architecturally simple barn structure. (5) Historical Impact The demolition plan will have no impact on the historic importance of the main house. We can find no evidence of historical value for the existing carriage house. (See enclosed Historic Evaluation.) (6) Architectural Impact Because of its location at the rear of the property, the demolition plan will have no effect on the architectural integrity of the main house, whose most important facades are at the front of the property. Regarding our proposed addition to the 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. 4 JM 31'j Mr. Steve Burstein February 12, 1988 Page five (ii) Consistency with Neighborhood Character 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 slopes with gabled ends match those of the existing structure, and the windows on this proposed addition be of similar type and size to match those of the existing structure and keep with the character of the neighborhood. The design of the addition is subtle and does not overpower the house or those neighboring structures. (i i i ) Enhancement of Cultural Value This development enhances the cultural value of the (proposed) designated historic structure; i.e., we are maintaining and restoring the original portion of the building, which is important in demonstrating the lifestyle of Aspen's families during the silver mining era. The addition we are proposing is demonstrative of the lifestyle of 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 propertyâ€ž These will all complement, yet allow , for, the prominent identity of the (proposed) historic designated structure. 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: r ;=.67 il . 1 -4 liSA 1 zin 4 779 1 91 1 1 1 (241 Ei U **3 February 12, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein 2. 71 Page six (i) Compatibility The new carriage house is compatible in character with the existing house located on the parcel as well as other houses CD rl adjacent parcels. It has similar roof slopes, gabled ends, wooden clapboard siding and corner boards. It is not overpowering, but is designed as a subservient and compatible structure for the house. (ii) Consistency With Neighborhood Character The new carriage house is in keeping with the neighborhood character. The smaller scale of the structure allows it to read as a carriage house, of which there are several on nearby parcels. The neighborhood is older, and it is not uncommon to see a carriage house which complements the main house. (iii)Enhancement of Cultural Value The new structure will function as a residence and true carriage house (single car garage). This does not detract from the cultural value of the proposed historic designated structure, but rather enhances it in a true Victorian style reminiscent of Aspen's silver mining heyday. (iv) Enhancement of ,Architectural Integrity This proposed carriage house does not detract from the architectural value of the proposed historic designated structure, but complements it and keeps with the style of the hOuse. It does this through the use of similar materials (wood shingle roof, narrow clapboard siding). rhe ridge height of the proposed structure is lower than that of the main house. The roof form is a cross-gable, similar to that of the main historical structure. It is set far enough away from the main house (10'0") to allow for its prominence. ' 445*Â·7- 1 1- 5 Mr. Steve Burstein - - February 12, 1988 Page seven If there are any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Patricia Harris Project Manager PH:dem Enclosures TAN-2 G. - c. A THI_! 12:01 M. D Industries, Inc. January 26, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 334 W. Hallam St. Lots L,K,M, Block 42 Town of Aspen Dear Steve: Acting as the owner Of the above referred lot and as the applicant Marta Chaikovska of 334 West Hallam, 925-2272 - I hereby authorize the following to act as my representative during the HPC review of the above referenced project: Bill Poss & Assoc. 605 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel. 925-4755 Kind regards. Marta Chaikovska 370 Brook Street . Elgin, Illinois 60120 312/931-5430 5 LO (LK- 4,6 \Aj aol- EM D ~FHANCIS ~ 91. -FRAAcid - ---/ 3 . 1-\ 1 0 -789Â»~ ~x-v-1- f- 1 NA MA 1 4 j 1 1 1*1 1 1 ) 7893.0 x -' \ f --1 g r i~ /3 2 a I i / .7122 \ h ff-\NE-\L X \4 . $ m 4.3 9-1 1 41 1 IL--/ -7 43 1 E J 1-- E-4 1 i 4 - 4 x 334 r.....44 320_r ~ 3 79 -1-/ 32-1.Â©14'/1, L h 1 \UAIt A A A O m. ih 6 1 ~U.ILI/ ;14 --2.-411 ' J\, 1/ B-= =.- 1-=311 :1. 11 1,1 V ,,1 - %\ ii. '.6 f. 1 ~ -=- - -ly---- -------:5-il--LL--2-LE.JEr- .\ \.y-WI V 2 1 9 1 -#Â«--RN 1 / 1 % in---Â·-1 n l ,<~f i r . IL ' 1 11 $ 11 lÂ· -1 - 1 i; 34' > 1 n / \ J r -_=412.-- ._u] 1 i A- F -1--I.-- Â¥ f. 1-24,9 j ~' 111 1 jill Ii. lib=----ili---31* :1~; Li 11, 11, ? 47---.Â·Â·2/.Â·-#.-_.. 4 1,1 i il >11 I ' 1.1 : 1 , i L'.--UEr.;.Dm.=7-- 4, :.L X- - -I-- 4. ~ i. -.. - 1 & il 'If/1 1 1 5 1 - 7:---- --4 f.39 .1 :- 11 14 / 1 1 /-12Â·i- '"p , ,Â· 4 -- - ...it... .-h,ihi: T N /, 2 I W 4 2 r F - - 2 2. Â£ -1 3 Zl . 1 , I /. .I f . rl r - . .. . -, -1 1 1 '.'' , 1,2==:6. 1 , , 1 t--'J 'I' 043 . , 4 ' â€¢ 4.1 i .... 11 4....- -44 1 17 X 1 ....\ 4.-- -44\ 5 + 4 1 lit,1 r, 11 1 1! ; 1 -,6 j.1U PI 7 1 1 1 11 -4-r...=.F.Â·3=3 -r=,f~ i'' -- 1- ,, I ., I r ---------9 11 1 i' 1 /, P 1 1 U 1 1, 1.--- --- - / 1- , f 1 r 1 1__r.c.-=414 .1 1, I Lug_4 i it t ' Al - -- h,} - 1 - Â¥ 4 147 41111 1 1 11 r ' -Fi I 63 14 0 4 11 9 1 t % h C e 1 --.1 1 1 1. 41} i r . FT- 1/ 1 4. ~iduc -ifi'~1*44~'*#AMMY,~~4.4 >43~-~-~: ~$ 1 : -- -- - T f 1 - 1 li f i / .- ied-Er-7- -4-2 119 -934.4 1- - t ./. .-. - ! .*T.41 6- 0 1- - j 11 kn...4 i .1"- 3 11= 111 I , i t. ..7.1 r--~ 1 ~ 1 , i j 1 f il' 1 4142=1 :42 . -4 W 4-1 :1 /404\ ..MI ''r, h.\ tx'- .-5;! .1 4.--:- =-14 2- / 1 //4 1 ,/4.. 'i'>21 ~1- 2-~-ZL - 3-1 11 9 ..1, -1 i j i: Â·f .1 t! 1 4-TÂ·l' 6: f 1 4 112- C Â£-9]F---91-t-----;Jr.-7 .-,. 3-41 21 14 4 i lili .11 id i ~ f 1 I .:i . -â€¢ 'i M ri.j iiI jL-JJH J'i; fl: 44 i] 1. 1 1 ..i . 4 1 11-=-a-=7 1 + - . - 2 b --4 : ..l L 11*. 46 4 4,EL,1 _.34 1 .. . / 1 H.0 1,4 i , It 11 Â· !1 --- 4-,1*ler~â‚¬.- - 4 - v.; - - 7 -- Â¥ 1{ - AJWAAN 5-< MAI<- A LVA9W 13,65 17 . '. Now 1----- 6- 9 ?37<.kyrtâ€¢an. 1 1 ; 1 -- i:-, 1 , .: Is 1 - 44 -1 , 1 - 1 . 14 1 - - -- ..A 6 6,- - P- - 51 1 1 Â·i I, Nli i:.-- - - .- .1 TQ--*-44 7 1.--- 2. fit Y - -fl :1 iii le It 1 , 1 11 .- -.. .. -- - 1 IL 1.1 1, i. ., â€ž , ........ i !111 4 i' 11 ., .1 1 ' + . , 11/1 '*133'~62-46=-.-4,~t- 44 : p uÂ·:1 D r Fr : H ~51 lili /;1/'~ li ; ! 11 4 T- f H )1,Â·l '11 'I /:in !': 1 . + 1 5 ?14 '.t. 1 tt '143--4.1....2- 4{:4 41 - 1,-Â· .2 Â·Â·Â· . - 1Â·Â·t :it. Â·4 4 2' b.4 5 7 4 r ' r T T -- . t- .4..7. , 9 1,- d. I , *t f 9 iIi_ _..11: . ;i - 1 . .: :111 I - ... 1 1 M; '/ C HC bi--2....21 1 1 1 1 2 4 9 2 1 . k ELI ! 11 i ... li ki... - . --.i - t p r 1 r. F ; 4. _ 1 1 1, pr- CAR 't Y 0-wri ' L : I jAN C )4 6 4342 Seal, -1 -- 1 - N j' 1 ,/0,9 .':>04 -~Er--=zz----=;*----0----f===0 4*--_ -U---fiti--3-171 ~7333- - --7 ~ T---4- -tli IIi i 31 11 i ' 11 iii 1 1 i i 1- U-'-1 - Ji--- . .-Prl Tl-- f r.te..7.f. i 1 1- 1 P. IT- --4 Ii 11 / 1 I i C (l,V b O.Se 43 -2 -.09 3,9 f 4Â·f --Twte t..'.â‚¬e . r Jy.,eÂ», 3 L J - 3-~1'f~.li,6,.p r , MV<1 1~ \-1-, 1- 0 ... _ ,* â‚¬ 1- tat, itâ‚¬ 4-1---A 9â€¢ra.le,1 -044-1 Pt HEY 17 1- Â·:Â·r â€¢ti 12+AT ON - 4 :-0:T-tkjâ‚¬, F'â‚¬9â€¢LE Of-*14 1- k - - -4644 -1 -- - - h l 4 W 6 Af-3 5344Â»86,(Ii ..45/7 23% .... 1111 1 e : r. tl 41 2.-4 r.x tsr:, 4,-, - iÂ·{ i 2 '. -9 -11-11 ; I 'i. , 3 '0' / tr~ 1 4 4 Â· '2 AT NE n ir W C ixtÂ«_6 910Â·, A,- Th T*.a g.4 .:..1 Â· te:T- tÂ© 4 -11 +=235<----- - . -- B i .1 F -11 li- HZ'r ! j *4=-gi,-l 4.-. I 9 97 -rÂ¢.1 1 /1 1 it k 1,1 11 11 11 jill J li 11 1 ip /1 - ti :'! d 'C,Â·r. C> ...t-P- i rA -10 1 I iii.~a f Y i! ' " 9, 1/ 4---1 1 43.-2 11 1 11 ; 7=91 {il i~ 1- * i A 1 < 4* E -,C. l Â·t,*U 1,1 (3 P [1' T 1.1 1 h 1 i----3 11 1 L, E- 17=94 +99 -44. 1 -4 1 T -- -- - P Â«Fr 4-1.rtâ€žn 1 99 1 4 , i : 11 :' , 1!lit;-- f . 1 1 3+ 1 Â·l Â· 11 t i, :i NÂ·+122Â·rÂ· W (-CT- I - ; b 2 1 Fc--1, Â·Â· i1 t. I i P it Ts MATE.*t 6 KiST i .16 3 ' i 1 B ' 14 44 01 . 11 1 k =1 -- .... 1 Al - -_ -____11_ ) il____;,__---___.-~__- -~ -_-_ -._ -- -~ 1 i E 4/1 h , 9,91-KEE 19 - Ccoa f A- sc 2)- O ~,15&2_ S â‚¬vu i S ic,0 t:/ ,5,~#4 1 55 1-4 - . 1 , ./. 605 EAST MAIN STREET , ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 March 1, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Elfin Planning Office . City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval 334 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K, L and M City of Aspen Dear Roxanne: In light of the remarks we received from members of the Historic Preservation Committee last Tuesday, February 23rd, we are making some minor revisions to the plan we originally submitted to your office on February 12, 1988. We have decided to not demolish the existing carriage house, - but renovate, rebuild and repair it as necessary for habitation. We are adding 4'-0" to the east, so that it can be used as a two-bedroom dwelling unit yet still maintain the appearance of a secondary building for the property. The carport will be enclosed, with the drive to the structure remaining in the same location. We have simplified the exterior of the main rasidence to more closely associate with the understated elegance of the historic structure. Please call me with any questions regarding these revisions. Sincerely 1*400*:AÂ«; Patricia dar i- Project Manager PH:dem .r.: arl g 1 4 71 ;17 .60 r t 4% I n L . lk'b -=Er ....1 ..1 9 4 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: REVISED 3/3/88 ZONING R-6 Lot Area: 9,000 S.F. Existing House Floor Area: 2,907.6 S.F. Proposed Addition Floor Area: 458.4 S.F. Proposed Total House Floor Area: 3,366 S.F. Maximum Allowed Floor Area: 4,580 S.F. . Existing Carriage House Floor Area: 1,144 S.F. Proposed Carriage House r loor Area: 1,280 S.F. Proposed Garage Area: 230 S.F. Maximum Allowed Area: 500 S.F. Existing Site Coverage: 2,090 S.F. (23%) Allowable Site Coverage: m-, -7 (3 (71 S.F. (30%) Proposed Site Coverage: ..:L , u./ J S.F. (30%) 'n 4 -C PROPOSED DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURE: Total Front-Rear Setbacks Proposed: 45 Feet Minimum Allowed Front-Rear Setbacks: 30 Feet Total Side Yaros Proposed: 40 Feet Minimum Allowed Total Side Yards: , mu Feet el C PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE DEVELOPMENT: Total Front-Rear Setbacks Proposeo: Peet tr 7 tJ Â·Ul Minimum Allowed Front-Rear 9 _.1. 4 Â·1 " |Â· r- ' --:r 17~ 3 v ,Â·- U J' L. rÂ·. L=> . ..iw Feet iotal Sioe Yards Proposed: 11 Feet Minimum Allowed Total Side Yards: 25 Feet With regard to the encroachment in the Alley and on Third 1 a.reer, we are utilizing the Variance Setback Incentive allowed with the (Proposed) Historic Designation. 4â€¢" t___-- 24**7 0- * re*â€¢Er' 1 Ah.* ~<117--All- __2 Pâ€¢!6 Â»E_*-Â»1:ti ---1 1 1 - 6 -7 N-1114 11 9 9% It 4 - 1 LEE Â«=1 2 1 li 1 11 1 11 13, t'-.- 1 Flu F 129 7- - N-Â»-/>Â» fo 0 -L -1 b 9/1, 7 -- - 12223 A KA ~~3fif . 2 4:2.~~ â€ž 5 1:ffÂ» 22~5|-t ,â€¢.20,7Â·.5 1 1 H AL-4-0.1-1 ''6*N* 4\ 1 9333--IESP SITE PLAN 1 41, ' i ..... 1 . 3 â€¢1 O/ I . eUN FWM -11 Â¢ 4 2 , i F--#(413(9 4, U U ..1.- 4, _-Dral_ ~ -Minill-ari~a 2-*3 1 ~ur (1 Fllk k-h U-Â»- 1 10 --iN 1 00 . I . 0 2 Il zt--=-, - i r-L----j* 4414 4__IL 1 %- U -1 4it-d~ F~f/1 -ElÂ» -Vc___--_~ --4Â»KE ~F*-3 Â© 1 - ILL-3 1 2'YA*. 1 2 -- 4 , 1 7-1'. 1 -- 9 11*r -i'-1 EL----i r LE --1 1-- Lf= 7/4 '-+===r- Lg 1.-U.leo I L - --1,~ 5 *4 -1"4 -c==121Ek 2 -2 9.1.2- 2,/SW 4 I'l ill . -- - Z....f=. 1 24-22-=t LOWER LEVEL 03 ' FLOOR PLAN 1 eâ‚¬.1.. 4,= F.'â€¢ 7-:. # 1 |A2.- 1 Â® 1.6 ..1.- It 334 1% . WEST i j kit HALLAM :lk 71â€¢7 -A+Â·prs# .~ *i. = M.- 89.El 302 29'I-' /14 7-1- 1 -Â» r--,91â‚¬ El-99 N 12572= 51222=- ' ; fii' 1 921 793- 12.f 'EL F~Z agwr â„¢.,i* H ~.ikÂ»r/3, % 9,11*" '1 0~*y4", .t,ikÂ«~Â· % ttft\--1 >i 1, *% lilli I 1 \1- -Imen=.. Ini .,â€¢G'~54;f~ , I,- I 2 S:1 - 1 1 11~ <-A_ -.1.-~r _Â· Â«44'A - 9 i / _t. *"8% r...r- 02==a -44 1 -"- 1(1=f l=Â£---mia LV El Ill ]2 k t#*1%"a 91=9177 1==L Oct , la-= J IL_111 j #Mp~* AF'$ 4' .- ~2 2 )32%- g -t~uu 13 t..U. 62 1 L .1111111 -1-1 ~EmE -Â»EE*~ ~ i=*==*ZE===ZEE!=U 1,4 -, e.- al,n. - 4 1 4 11 1 EX:F-ESES- UPPER LEVEL FLOOR - PLAN sc.le, ,4 - 1 -r' A2.4 c *.PP./.wr-â€¢0/ 3344't#ki .A'ES'-9 4 Ri 1 4 tÂ»*1 -.. I Nfip OniNO!-b fef -4 + 0-7 0 : - a P ve 1 f fi =ft f-=3 3 El #F- pAR\, 9-f 2-0-7 4#1140 â‚¬ E ?41 1 , I - Dri M & * 1 M ti Ii=Il[K fLIA):J FAP<IL--- - :3242/4.9 .4 ~ b 3Â£(22-blth- '7?94/4. Â§12; e ' -. 7 449*AI 4 t. 44. ... Â»771 5//*I- -I ~5120/JOLF _I m . tlvAN-----11- FÂ»FKC, altÂ»43 P BEL H Hi Wf LI -1 Ti \4 - 1 J JAPT J 3 ---0 --Â« 3% 1 7.4.--r.'.-Un MAIN Â£336:='- F HOUSE WBE,T ELEVATIONS Sc-1-1 :I'- 1' / c>Jlf*wuu.Â»â€¢â€¢â€¢068 A3.3 . i 8 492 i . ' 0 + 0. A A '- f . . E -O-1 211 j - r r##c -1 - --1 %-Xzz- -=0!-1 14 c go 0-1- -3-" 134 111â€¢: 1 1 --Ne.Â»/ *0*41@0t +U Ht?~ I . 'Â·/4 i, :11 1 1 1 1 -2-2.-LT H 01- P VAT I OVA Â·r-3 ' ' 74994 I /3- -41 5014â€¢porÂ«--- / | HOUSE ~ MAIN ELEVATIONS ~ U O K.1-B B L g 9\ 7-/ ati Sce~i 1 --1 Â·1>*IKSS r Â· ,Â·, 1 wap*~~3 ' HALLAM 7 rn - ?***imciÂ· 2. 1, rÂ») 1 ..4 2/0:fl 4. /77-1 â„¢11 182-S 4= -914Â« 00 19 --- \ 'UA--*R; ' ~' 131Â¢14 E-11 Ir--111- 1 I E loill - -- --'-~17 d L 16=li -i..*-2=2 41=.4 .42 *4 A PI Ill 21 . \ 'Â·fÂ· 11â‚¬Wl*'41 8 ' f '' I ' 96% Z 1~79 latf ~ 21 r===-1 h.22- i E . 4 JE]11 L 1- 4----'1- -U- U li. Â· 2% 'e~-23-W, -_ 4 - BOUTH hle<?fr I. -Fli 1 1 '5:6 1â‚¬/t 7 -_ ./ 1 -- 'jitp. 2Â· 2 28 2-5 4 ' 1.- /4. \,1 4 j Ill-- L_11ILY filf 09 U *:3.9-rey-On. Â£33â‚¬-1. 2.'- fl CARRIAGE 1*51- ~ -- - HOUSE P 09\ ELEVATIONS aÂ©.1., .1. I C /068 63.--il A off to - Vil.Li- LOJJ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Conceptual Development Review (Continued): 300 West Main Alterations and Additions DATE: March 8, 1988 PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTIONS: On February 9, 1988 HPC recommended historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main and gave conceptual development review approval for proposed alterations and new construction subject to the conditions that: 1. - The applicant shall come back to HPC with further study and clarifications of: (a) the massing, generally found accep- table, (b) softening of contemporary features of the addition, (c) elimination of the dominant character of the porch and steps on the south elevation, (d) consideration of extending the addition further east while pulling back the addition from the south, and (e) changing the roof pitches slightly; and h / 2. A sub-committee of the HPC consisting of Georgeann Waggaman, Charles Cunniffe and Zoe Compton Will meet with the applicant prior to the next meeting to generally discuss concepts of compatible architectural design that should be considered by the applicant for the addition. The sub- committee met with the applicants on February 12, 1988. On February 23, 1988 the applicants presented a revised plan to HPC. The purpose of that meeting was to clarify the conceptual plan approval - as the conditions required significant changes to the design first proposed - and to receive a written recommenda- tion from HPC to the Board of Adjustments. The committee indicated that the project had generally improved, however, there were still some outstanding problems that should be resolved. Minutes of the 2/23 meeting are in this packet; and a summary of issues is presented below. HPC did not authorize the letter to the Board of Adjustments at that meeting. 1 SUMMARY OF HISTORIC COMPATIBILITY ISSUES: Following is a summary of the issues discussed at the February 23, 1988 meeting: 1 1. Siting of Addition a. Moving the addition further east toward 2nd Street risks damage to the spruce trees' root system, according to Caroline McDonald based on discussions with the Parks Director. b. The south elevation (Main St.) of the addition is set back 2' from the the existing wall to which it is attached. Some HPC members felt this off-set was inadequate to differentiate and give relief to the original house. c. The west wall of the addition (towards the Eli-iha property) is 5' from the Elisha carriage house (See rriip of block attached.) Some HPC members felt this proximity visually encroaches on the historic carriage house and the separation should be more than 5' or the addition should not extend further south than the carriage house. The addition extends approximately 24' south of the carriage as now proposed. d. The proposed addition encroaches into the north rear yard (alley) to be 5.2' from the--property line. The minimum rear yard requirement is 15'. Some members believe it would be acceptable if the encroachment were increased by 2' feet in order to push the south elevation back by 2'. Some HPC members are concerned about the north elevation dominating the view of the Elisha carriage house, shading of the alley and adjacent residences, and compatibility of massing with those adjacent residences. Their position is that the encroachment should not be greater than 5.2'. -2._Character of the Proposed Main Street Porch, Staircase, and Fenestratibn a. HPC members indicated that the reduction in height of the 2nd floor porch railings on the south elevation, relocation of staircase to the west side of the addition, and replace- ment of the 76" high windows/french doors with somewhat smaller openings were major improvements. The directive from HPC was to "soften the contemporary features" regarding these elements. It is not clear whether the Committee was fully satisfied with the changes to either the window/door openings and type or the relocated staircase. 3. Roof Types a. The applicant was directed on February 8 to further study roof types with the concern that the flat roof and half- gable ends may not be appropriate. The applicant has argued that any other roof type besides the predominantly flat roof is impractical because the living space becomes too 2 constrained. No change has occurred in the proposed roof pitches of the addition from the original submission. Some HPC members stated the rooflines proposed are acceptable, and that design changes should be focused on elements of fenestration, materials, and set-backs of elevations. Other members have expressed concern that the two story straight wall west and north elevations are out of character with the original house. Staff expressed concerns that the flat roof concept tends to enfold the original house. Gable end, cross gable, hipped roofs, dormers, and combinations of these types are more traditional and compatible, in our opinion. One suggestion from HPC was to create a small roof overhang with a partial gable end on the west elevation in order to break up the facade, follow through more with the gable end theme, and keep snow off the back stairs. 4. Window Details in the East Elevation Dormer and Along the North Elevation a. Committee members requested that a more traditional square or slightly vertical window with muntin dividers be designed for the east elevation dormer. In the new eleva- tions, a third row of panes has been added. b. The false dormers along the second floor of the north elevation were considered inappropriate. In the new elevations, larger, undecorated multi-pane windows are proposed. 5. Materials a. The applicant has considered both 3-sided logs flat to flat or square logs on the addition's first story. Some HPC members preferred the square logs; other members requested further study of materials. Further study can occur at final development review. b. The second floor walls are identified as 1" X 6" lapstrake, rough sawn "native" or cedar. It is not clear if this treatment is acceptable to HPC. c. Proposed roofing on the pitched portions of the addition and existing house is green "pro-panel. " HPC has not indicated dissatisfaction with this selection. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff suggests that HPC use the above list to determine whether or not the applicants have met the conditions of your conceptual approval. After discussing procedural matters with the City Attorney's Office, we suggest the following options 3 for HPC's action at this meeting: 1. Move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution giving conceptual approval to the project subject to specific conditions of approval directing the applicant of what must be done at final development review. 2. Move to extend the period during which the applicant can meet the conditions of conceptual approval. The time period should be specified. 3. Move to withdraw conceptual approval for the reason that the applicant has not met the conditions of the February 8, 1988 conceptual approval. The Planning Office's recommendation at the March 8, 1988 meeting was that, if HPC agreed that there are numerous basic design issues that need to be resolved, the appropriate action is tabling. After additional meetings, including formal Committee, small group and individual sessions, there appear to still be a lot of design issues in the 300 W. Main proposal. We are pleased that some progress has been made. This project has some very special concerns because of its Main Street location. Very few projects have so many outstanding issues, over which there are so many divergent opinions by Committee members. Staff's assessment of the current proposal is as follows: - We share the concern about the effect of the addition on the Elisha carriage house in the proposed location. If the addition were pulled north by 18', to be parallel with the carriage house, a great number of design conflicts would be eliminated. However, overall, the proposed location appears appropriate given all the other locational constraints on the property. Besides, there may be modifications to the form of the structure that would reduce this conflict. - The fenestration on the south elevation is Still out of character in our opinion, although much improved. We believe this is an issue that could reasonably be resolved at final develop- ment review and not necessarily at conceptual. - The flat roof and resultant two story walls remain a critical historic compatibility problem in staff's opinion. Other roof forms - including a less steeply pitched hipped roof - may really have a profound effect on the design, helping the addition to become a handsome structure on its own and to reduce the effect of enveloping the original house. The details of fenestration and materials do not successfully solve the massing and roof form problems, in our opinion. Possibly further refinement of the elevations - including the use of partial gable ends on the west and north elevations and use of roof shingles - would make the 4 addition appear more complimentary to the existing houses's - scale, form, and texture. Plans have not been proposed that r demonstrate a detailed craftsman's approach similar in character to the original house. - Selection of the type of logs is an issue that staff believes can best be handled at final review, with a presentation of samples and photographs to assist in that analysis. As mentioned above, we think that the roofing material selection has special significance because the roof texture may do much to project the sense of scale of the building. 4PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC extend Pthe period during which the applicant can meet the conditions of conceptual approval by one (1) month to April 12, 1988, with direction to the applicant to: 1. Further study the fenestration detailing, including the size and shape Of glass panes on the south and east elevations of the addition. 2. Consider .pitched roof types, including gable end, cross gable, hipped, and possibly partial gable ends appearing to have shed attachments. 3. Continue to study breaking up of the massing of the east and north elevations, including the use of characteristic log house type detailing. 144,4/ 4. Eliminate the staircase on the ettt elevation. 5. Consider the use of shake or shingle roofing to attain a small scale element consistent with the character of the original house. sb.30Ow.main.3 5 3 1 1 - / 9 3 6.1.. i i , 7 c : _.4 l A, j J 4 8 1 .\ X -- 1 ___-<-_Ic-_3022(- _5 ~ - X Â· - 1 \ ' 1 - \ ' [3 Rk:=:=.==.3.-...=:23.:.:.....E:..:.E:E....mi ?8 , 7 <C,(2,2)/*13::Ai*~~ McDonald House l__ /4 ~ 1 19_ 10/ I-/4 350 r~ J d (LOG HOUSE) i-~-Liti_ae. c f] 410-31 6 %.......I~ PERS>4 ' 4 L~43TA / [ 1 4/- 9.-f: # C h \ .E 'jok I 7 1 320 4 , 2 1 L---1~ i j 1 lÂ¢ , 'ii Dc.u' ~j' 4\, '1' Ad ition .-c 1 1 F /\ ; 1 *, 1 4 --~ ~ - -P; * 2 1 8 2 VI c ~2-Aj j I lA. 1 ' A 1 ~~~ 'L r /7 / / - Ch /6I \ \ \ 1 - U el Â£ <5, 0 \ \ 1 & ) 1 A %503.4 ff M A 1 fil-4 24( / 44 L f t. 1 th E '3 - 3 1, N . ; Illul-5-3 Er-- - 113 1 I 1 00 11 11 , f 2 1 ~ (5-3 --1. ! 1 < 2-2 1 833 l fr /7 I ciE-ve '~1 <_f' 14 4 LE=Y Â£\.-r 1 *-gE n-e JUJ -t x 7902.1~~ -1 j / --129Â«149 \ 2- ' l / J / 1 k--2 .4 F 1 ' f I j. 3 \ h ..'Ii--r~N Â·Â·F-1 , r. , ' A 1 --N 4% i V-L_ 2 3 Vi ~Â·- Â· i l._) , 9, A ! --t Scale: 1"=50' blatd litr JA.Q._RES-L__MAIN RE.SIDENCE_ADDITIQ.N. ELEMAT.IQ.U._EQTEE RELE DATE:3\1\88 -1- r X 6" LAPSTRAKE, ROUGH SAWN "NATIVE" OR CEDAR. -2- 8 3/4" X 8 3/4- ROUGH SAWN SPRUCE OR LOG POLE PINE TIMBERS, CHINKING = 2". -3- WINDOW/DOOR TRIM: ROUGH SAWN 1" X 61 1" X 4 . 1 1, NATIVE" OR CEDAR. -4- ROOF; TAR AND GRAVEL, 1 -5- ROOF: GREEN "PRO-PANEL" -6- SKYLIGHTS: BOX HEIGHT = 6" ABOVE TAR AND GRAVEL. FOR I ADDITION FLAT ROOF ONLY, NOT DEPICTED. -10- TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOW. COLOR SCHEME -7- GRAY TRANSLUCENT STAIN, MATCHING WEATHERED OXIDIZED LOGS OF ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. -8- NATURAL FINLSH SEALER, FOR 8 3/4" X 8 3/4" TIMBERS. AFTER WEATHERING TO MATCH ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. -9- OFF-WHITE STAIN: WINDOW/DOOR TRIM HIGHLIGHTS FOR i ~ GABLE/BAY WINDOWS. 1 ~,7&9[513 -LINE .t -52' 5.0' 4 -_2~DUBLE LIA.'85 DUTL. 1 ICOUG. /9?OOF DVERHAA.'6 Ajoi -12Â£-C-*2 - 21' 4\ 1 --- 1~ ADDITION . ciMPROVEMENT- CuRVEW %47* 944 - f..1,Â£8/N6 L/AF affy,ET fAM 1 -T- 50, RETAINfNE, WAU \ ~ \ ~ \ Â· 1~ElayÂ£ OfEEL i 15' .-r/\\\7 2.En '1 RABAGE- ~ : 1 . ~--x<~Â¢14~G NAL HOUSE 1.â€¢------ 18'-4-- i 29' . 11 1 __1_ R*/84- A v:L .I..{Off,-2.& U 1111$11*- C -\ k .I \ C L.\ \ \ \\\\\Â»1\ , Â»r\Â»0-~~\ \24 l 1 'BO~UJM__of-Â£07- 4 . i 33.6' Al Lf. y 1 1 . . (ti . N . AR161 KAL STUCTUPE C] 1 1 11 2FT IMAZW,11 m PLAF t.1 197 METMM'i_ Al-â€¢DIT /hN 4 CJ<,61&14:. f,li,Ul 1144 r 51 1 - 1 1 1 - r l N 14- 11 R /1 - IL--18--i 1 _YLL Et! - -1-- 1 ---- --'F--4-:49]1 1 11 :1 j ---1~twi -,4.-1713 4 - . h - - - 1=================~ -rT=r--Ir.=JI=.=il==I.,2=.--i---I--- -4 -Â£4-20 . RAD E --9.It IL l 1 48,1 1 1 -------------I'll --/..i....I -----Il- -llOOLELQ*L___~ ; -1 ./r) L. 19 - 1 --7 Q--- k - ~ 1-]1]_1 /Noft)177 ) _40Â« . 9 0â‚¬16/AN\L _ _STRU-CTU.R E ADDITION - lu- - HAR I ZÂ¥4144. _.7-EÂ®%6 f - ---V -- Juri-TITH__F _~ 11 ORR M t R 1 1 ~11 42]42]fl -1 1 - 11 .. !1 - -- F===9===ff-~.fâ€¢:I.1 - 1 ; 1 0 F 1/ It /-- ill -- 'IL' r7-1-1-1 L * [-1 +4-1 r ----I U/=il - lJ , 1- -1-1_ - _____J DAILLI6 4 16) I t_ --------_-ADD-(7-/fÂ·N .. - -- - - ---- 3--*.--- ------- . 1.~R.Wht.NAL 5TRULTURE 1 21-T IlljP.)ZANTAL. Klit~F (944Â£1 ~ CDR ME-,f-- 1 . &:G ADEÂ·/ D O U , i 9 , (' 3,9) 4 : 1 i 1 &444 1 1 'Ly*g'-~,--~ EL 4 2 48 2491 L --7. --'~11*. -. 11 1. 1 -*4-.-1 - ~' : 1 8 1 " 1 WL~f-. â‚¬* Â£ 1 2.16 I A 1-K 1 1 9 4 4 4 ~- . - 4-*iÂ· ~ a K 4 L.,4-1 c>Â·Â·V~1~~~- 1 ~~ 6â‚¬01- IRON .RAL . . '' ' ' :! 2 1 ; 'Pul{-20= ' 'i* 7 ' -,-p. --L - 11 ; 1 - -, . . 1 1 6 . .__ 1 Fl HORIZAT.-TAL ROur Dric. 1 1 . / 4;?Â·Â· | f,'VD OR.6 N'A . 5-1-Pur.-ilipti 1 El Â£ tyÂ« :I-Ii'i i.Â·; ..I : ---r --- -Â¥1 1 -2--1-12-~i-U-N---1 A~1-1011-Lt' i -~ 2 f Â· EL... A Roof Jut.0 4 li ii :.: 0 1 4 973zl... -1 1,1111,41.1 , 1 , Â· 11 jb Ii:li i 0 1 ~ ' ' Â· 1 .1 ; 11 --- EL ,k TO FLOOR fr- --==b-; 1 , 1 , t! , 4..1 7--i 36 -'. -- . --- .- r Â£7.2-1==== 1 1 .t--- 3Â·' TIMBER - FINK . . 1 7 -- - - 1 1 --1 i \,4-1-ZE,7- 11 .4 . > - 1 1 -1-- --- 1 1 1 -- -- 3#91 7 \ P - FL 4. 22=~ -- EL N /2 DA TOM rk it, lot \ --,~ 13.9 ' 1- 0 Â«-4-1 PROPERTY LINE An ' 03 2-:\ 13 2 u.i.DR_161_NAL_- . _ ADD/ T/.0 A i STRUCTUP i. C 1 I./,i) 'lib Tr<g (4. ILL 1'1 -4 27Â£ 2,/8 \ 1Â«+1 4- ~6=z=-Â·---Â·-ZEILIZZ==IZEZIZE=.---a-~IZZIZILLIZIE~-1---JI=zzz=zz-----E-~ 4,) El 73.? . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i . 1 *1 -0/2 1 - li 1 1 ~:1 -11 1 \ 1. - , '6 .' 7 1 1 1 1 1 '' 1 E --! L Z P : fipfir- 1-1 T 0 |: i, i | '-HI. 1 ~-Â« 1-2~-- -703..~. i i ---3-il . '. ' 1 127*7791 - Â·~th ''i 1 11 1 / \ t/ i j 1 Â»- - al - 1- |~ ! 297 -' 1 |i.. a'! ' I 1 1-1 - -| |L-:L_J. . 1 1 ./ : 1 11 1 r. 1''FLNS- 1 . . ... 1 / 3 1 .- ALLEY GRADE -. ----.--- 1 1 4 0 * EL /7 -_ . DATU M