The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.198804264 0 L AGENDA 0 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE April 26, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 4:15 P.M. FIRST FLOOR- City Council Chambers City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes-None III. Committee Member and Staff Comments IV. Public Comments V. Monitoring Projects VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Conceptual Development Review: Public Hearing 300 W. Main Scott & Caroline McDonal.(lf-a~o(*6~_ 5-49 - . 2 t 4. . :.~1 B. Final Review: Aspen Fire District Office Exterior Treatment Bob Walker CLf fr 0 9-41 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development Review: Aspen Community Church 200 E. Bleeker Graeme Means a.01-0-k0 B. Conceptual Development Review: Public Hearing 212 W. Hopkins Charles Cunniffe - S-/0 - Tht/L. 2- C. Redevelopment Review (continued) Public Hearing 222 E. Hallam Charles Cunniffe 5-/O- 5 4 l9j9 SPECIAL BUSINESS Annual Aspen Preservation Awards nominations review and voting Greenhouse Additions Entryway Alterations in Carriage House Conversion Rescuing Outbuildings r 1 VIE MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Conceptual Development Review (continued): 300 West Main, alterations and additions DATE: April 26, 1988 PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTIONS: On March 8, 1988, HPC passed a motion to extend the 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 study and present revised plans concerning the elements listed below (presented in shortened form for reference): 1. Fenestration detailing 2. Consider pitched roof types 3. Breaking up the massing, due to the removal of the employee housing unit 4. Eliminate west elevation staircase 5. Consider shake or shingle roof 6. Restudy southwest corner, in particular the second story porch and massing The applicant returned on April 12, 1988, with three alternative plans for the addition. Welton Anderson assisted in the presentation, and has been retained by the McDonalds as a consultant. A fourth plan, very similar to "Alternative A", as well as a typed review of actions and comments made in previous HPC meetings, was presented by the McDonalds at this meeting, allowing no opportunity for prior review by Staff or the HPC. After extensive review of the three plans submitted (please refer to the Staff memo of April 12), the Planning Office recommended that the HPC withdraw and deny conceptual approval for the reason that the applicant did not meet the conditions of conceptual and extension approvals. At this meeting, HPC voted to extend the period of time for conceptual approval by two weeks, to April 26, with the condition that the applicant present elevations addressing the Committee's concerns stated in the conditions of extension on March 8. Roof pitch, the northwest corner of the addition, and ~ the second story porch and massing on the Main Street elevation were of particular concern to committee members for further design change. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The applicant has presented new plans addressing most of the Committee's concerns. The major changes . 1 and staff's comments are stated below: 1) The footprint has been extended 6.5' east (refer to site plan and north elevation) to accommodate a two car garage, as opposed to the one car garage originally proposed. 2) The height of the proposed pitched roof is increased by 1'9", which is most visible on the west and north elevations. This new plan attempts to address the flat VS. pitched roof issue HPC has had with the project. Staff feels the plan as presented offers a good transition between the original log structure and the Elisha Carriage House. The minimal height increase has allowed the use of gabled dormers along the alleyside (north elevation), which are providing increased headroom in those upper floor bedrooms. The Planning Office is encouraged with this approach. 3) Very minor changes are presented for the southwest corner, which HPC has stressed as an area of concern. The further study of this elevation has not, in our opinion, produced the desired results the Committee is seeking. Staff feels the "shed dormer" is, in fact, more of a sloped roof covered balcony, and feel further study should be required from the applicant. The expanse of this covered balcony is not in keeping with the style of the original log house or with the 1 character of the Main Street Historic District. It seems to create a very modern feel to this elevation. As the applicant continues to point out, this elevation of the addition is considerably recessed from both the street and the original log cabin, and they feel the negative impact of the shed roof/balcony approach is minimal. Also, the footprint of this elevation has not been moved back to the north, a desired result as previously discussed by HPC. 4) In Staff's memo of 4-12-88, concerns were discussed regarding the width of the shed dormers on both the south and east elevations. The applicant has not presented amended plans reflecting a shrinking of these, however, they did balance the east elevation upper floor windows which were asymmetrical. 5) Fenestration: This has been continually discussed by HPC, and Staff feels the applicant has only addressed some of these concerns. The question still lies: are the windows "true divided" and compatible with the original log cabin? The larger panes as represented and the variety of window dimensions should be further studied for compatibility. In particular, the windows as presented on the West Elevation, upper floor, are irregular in relation to the remaining windows. The dormer windows on the north elevation appear to be oversized in relation to the dormer. The original log cabin windows are not trimmed out, and the proposed addition reflects window trim. Staff calls this to the HPC's attention with a recommendation that if window trim is deemed appropriate, it be narrow and extremely simplified. 6) North elevation dormers: The 2nd story north elevation consists of small peaked cross dormers protruding from the pitched roof. The horizontal area of the dormer is continuous with the front floor siding. Staff feels the applicant has presented a good plan, with the exception of the zig-zag approach to the gabled dormers. Further study should be made of how the dormers may better fit in relation to the upper floor. We suggest that the form of dormers on other historic residential houses in Aspen be studied to arrive at a dormer detailing more appropriate in scale and roofline effect. 7) Roofing Materials: In Staff's opinion, materials are a very important issue of this project, primarily due to the fact that an entire new roof will call attention to the new addition, especially now that a pitch and dormers are proposed. HPC's request was for the applicant to consider shingle or shake roofing materials, and Staff feels this direction is even more critical now. Shingles or shakes help soften the overall visibility of the addition, and lend themselves well as a transition between new and old. 8) Siding Materials: The applicant prefers to use 5/4" custom milled channel lap of native timber. Staff feels strongly that due to the design of the addition and its effects on the original log cabin, that half logs may be a better approach. Actual material representation should be made as soon as possible, or at Final if that is determined to be the next step. 9) A south elevation second floor "Option A" has also been presented by the applicant. It reflects a gable end with many windows and a door opening onto the balcony. The apex of the gable is off center and out of balance with the first floor. It is "busy" and does not, in staff's opinion, adequately address the option of a gable end at this elevation. If the shed roof dormer/balcony were modified as suggested in previous meetings, staff could support the design for this elevation. 10) Second Egress and Handicapped Access: Building and Fire Codes may require a second mean of egress and handicap access to the restaurant, necessitating exterior changes. Requirements have not been finalized yet and any alternatives will be presented at final development review. Recommendation: The Planning Office is very encouraged with the plans presented and feels the areas of concern are being met, for the most part. We recommend that HPC table conceptual approval to the next meeting, May 10, and direct the applicant to further study the issues of fenestration, shed dormers on both the east and south elevations, gabled dormers on the north elevation, and roofing and siding materials. We recommend that HPC give staff direction to prepare a resolution granting conceptual development approval for your consideration at the May 10, 1988 meeting. In that resolution we Will incorporate the concerns that HPC discusses at your April 26 meeting and must be addressed at final development review. hpc.memo.30Ow.main / - '9 Â£ o - Â£40 Â¥ 6 n ne Efli~& 1 APR 20 1 sce.i-/ 1- 0,4â‚¬Nt,te jifc.Cl,2,1#(cf -300 U., du 0-171 -5-7. F Ul l. 791 2 04+6 2-T- 02(391 9'-IC-h Coo G. 1.-/nes izonA ;ne paf ciliu W 'th ffle U...05-0 cion ite./2-/-6 676-9 6.-11 6,10 lib in~711â‚¬-5 -thâ‚¬ Fled- roo F 0.-Ppeorculc e (/1)012/-6 7- Lu67 el'21Â£>boi,5) Lger 5,-747 /~/6/US , Â·z . 711 e /lj o g ri> e le catio h bei t 200 0 1 0-j i i -o doug ( Â© c),ge 41311)160 001 (Loctoleâ‚¬> 711 e -Ai ad 94:- des 00@j: 71(9 (DIC,raqâ‚¬ 4,0 vT)(25 ct '1>/1)61/le-1,<, 8,6 1200,1,1 (,0/ r\Jdd-LID 6 M CE-Th 21)~57 co,z ner< ~ 3 71'ie fl.) & i.3 Ptl *167 0 6 /2 02-f ? bed Rec irn li) I f'JOL O CO I l 900(1}ect hq G. 9.,643 blâ‚¬CU<tiog OF) ffle )30% . -D 1 - 00 f hel 9,1.1 oas been /foccâ‚¬a sed by / 9 ' 404 A 0 -0- 0 13 6 l-17 0 4-7 /714 41 â‚¬ 2/h S ) 14 00 0 ((14 â‚¬ 4 0 in> e 4 / 1 954 a h 8 0 , 4 fickleot QOU'410 0 5 1 d j,t c 4 /' C d 067 0/11 /77 1 Iled chan)->e-,i l.af), jlhelÂ·Ut 4-bm bvi , 71 LINE 32 V- E / 1 --\\\\t I T 2 1 -L?EC-K 21' - - 1 /1. CON)R: /?EMEONE -- - 1 [SIb \~----ADDITION0 ~ 1 2439 - \\ - RETAININE, WA// 1 b /6, C~RIG MAL HOUSE i / A --~ fe- . 9 1 GRABAGE 6 - LD.5'X/8 U . 1 1 1 91/ \ 1 1- - r -- 1 . -illill-r. - 1 4 4 33.8, 3 09 W.MA}N Sll-& 2,40*F fLAN ,-f WAI K /901 .--1 2 f. : 1 94 1 It - li 11. 1 i h I 11 1 1 1/* 1 - 1 -\ 1 i i 21\ 1 - j 1/ III 1 i 1. tu d. / 1 1- -1 P; i d ~ 1 c t'h ( 90011 i .44-004 ow of->11 c< 4 1 : i i OR IBINA L 57BUCIURE ..- .. . i!-â‚¬ 1 All kic/97. 1 -4 1 i *_CtÂ»-- k I ~~64Â·- - . 1 1 1, . 2%24 1 1 p . 1 7--Â·IIi i ~: ; i ~ .,@Li., 7 i *11[4=71'-U~In--f.-- -1- -11Â«11 +T lit*;,r! . 1 2 r 4â‚¬9==-T s/irm/34 -__f.1 4 lic 1 L , 1 : 1 1 1 , 1 4/4 -'r# _616.-2-â‚¬=Â»- -- - , ~ 1 .5 1 i! ~ ~ir=-47.*73Â» i--- .-- -t ' lit f ' C - L -- -- - /--Al ! 1 litit[Rjinull il !11.1 1:1 - - ----==ER - - - - Â»-_--L~_-4 k --- - --- r - . i ' . 146 0â‚¬ - - â€¢ 11 .i I. i _1_-1.-, - 1/1 :\ jf i ,: j i __ _ Ill. 1 r 8 -1:7 1 1---3-~ 1!t- -- - 11 , ii p ' li 1 1~ , 1 Kilvl '=33=-- - P ? . 1 1 1 1 i i -' 1 - I l /Â·- -jw- -0.1--uÂ·za: h ' 3 ' 1 9 I. -''ir - I i i ;d, :1 0 1 Â·' M,qb.*t-6--- --. ip 1 2 -.-21 A~vi)77:k3il-~Irf - 1. 1 A. j 11 - 1 1- 11 P - -- --au EL .h /2 (,1 (A f<ti 3.17.yt*\ 390 \Â» .IA A) jO -2--3-64#-H--g-LEIVATID-?D - ORIGINAL STRUCTORE_ . . ADDITIOAA l ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 .3 1 ..i - It" 1 1 1 1 jik '. 1 IiI . 11:' Â·Â·i i 11 . i 1 ill-_1 filli -6 Â«a i ; 08 f Â£ i ' 99: 1 p 3--/6.... 1 Â¢ 0 1 1 --2*~~.-e/-- ..1 1 Â£ .~ - ~1.i h. 11 1 1--- --- 1 1 -1 -3--- --- 2 1 - 1 1 - - -E:ZE<glt - AjhhIR<Ir>ZiNIa-=42=1 -1 1, BET) .' KIL= -2.22-+ ; -.- N I . --*# ..1 r 9 p flil v I-t---32 --7.-f.-7--- ---f _-- -0- i ~ 11 Â· XI- 1- 1 :.:i'.: ...- --. DA{1110 E 4-5 7 212 VATI-ON - -- - --- [ ~.-01 (-xÂ«.1...ZURE CARRIAEÂ£ ADUCE OLIJL /NE / 6 1 1 \ I . \ ..... - r---3,2- .2---EFT- ~ B -4 Ii- [1.- 1 - 1 - 11 11- i ,4- .4 82321 Ill - -Ii- ..a~.u'ili i i ~i ''til R il . 1 1! 1. - - -1--4 - ,\1 r r - r q r 1 :i 9 U , ~ it , 1 1 -/ Z * 1 ' : !| ! ,1 /Â«4111152- . h i 4 8 F -I . + 1 ~ 1 1 . . f-3 j :If 1 1 :49 Â·i 4 0 1 - I. , 1, i Â· 1. ' 7. : 1 / : - - - - , 1. 1 ill L 322 It - 2 1 -21/ i , 7 1, 1 1 0 \ L i Â· ! 7 - GRADE ,- W 557 5 LEVATIAN .. *4-*} i V \ 1 j!// /,di.\1 1 1 E ti 1=22=7-- '19 ILOE=-39.-:..~../ i ! //U - 7 4&==1. \ ~ I P 1,4. 1 ii------f 77=-4-- 111 - I P= 1. . 1 ,- - .- - - ..... -1------ 1 -- --.- -1 ' 1 E--11- li il 1 L.-2--- J Iii - I _- AÂ£r_= It----17.- ---i-WI --i-~i- -.-V 1 - - -* U---1-2-.- --: - -*rC--- *= --pi*-1 , -- - ~ ~-t- -1.-- -4 , -- L 2, i m -IL- - 1 -2-=r ._1 -2--====r= i .=4 - . ---=*i =--- -=---== ---3 B .- I. 1- _-1 0-6===1 ' LIE ~ ~..r -_E..1-I--2-U---5 ~ 1 - ... -1 J 1 '1-, - --- 1 GRADE i C NORT-14 ELEVATIDN VT. 6 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Aspen Fire District Office: Final Review of Exterior Treatment DATE: April 21, 1988 The Fire District office addition was given final approval by HPC on January 26, 1988. The only condition of approval was that the applicant shall either select a colored concrete block or experiment with painting or staining of the gray concrete block and discuss the results with HPC. Attached is a letter from Bob Walker, project architect, presenting final colors of the trim of the front facade and proposing to paint the concrete block with a color equal to the existing Thrift Shop. He will present a sample of the painted block at your April 26 meeting. Walker/Grob Enterprises, Inc. GENERAL CONTRACTORS BOB WALKER PHONE (303) 927-4262 DARRYL GROB PHONE (303) 923-3428 April 20, 1988 Historic Preservation Committee City of Aspen Aspen, CO 81611 To the Committee, Regarding: Final finishes for the exterior of the Aspen Fire Protection District office addition. We are enclosing a schedule for the final colors. We feel that the concrete block should be painted with a color equal to the existing Thrift Shop. This would keep the relatively small office facade as a "quiet," neutral background to the park. The window, door and fascia details would receive the colors indicated,,which with the black "AFPD" sign would visually relate the office to the Firebarn (red) as-well as picking up some of the brick color of adjacent and surrounding buildings. We will be painting a sample window area which will be available for your consideration on April 26th, in time for your next meeting. 4ma /< FVÂ«' fJVV w v L . Robert Walker ~ Project Architect P.O. Box 12369 Â· ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 . 50 ... V I 1 A MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Minor Development Review of the Aspen Community Church, 200 East Bleeker St. DATE: April 26, 1988 Location: 200 East Bleeker St., Lots K, L, and M, Block 47, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting approval for minor development involving restoration and maintenance of the bell tower, including re-roofing and restoring the wooden louvres, and re-roofing the area above main entry with copper sheathing. These activites are necessary to help preserve the structure and halt deterioration. No exterior changes are proposed. Historic Designation Status: Designated, rated "Exceptional", and is individually listed on National Register. Note: Reference is made to the Secretary of the Interior's STANDARD FOR REHABILITATION as this structure is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Procedure for Project Review: This is a one-step process, with HPC approval based on the proposed development meeting the standards in Sec. 24-9.4 (d). The application is for restorative maintenance only, and could be determined exempt under Sec. 24- 9.4 (c)(2) - Exemption; however, as the Community Church is an extremely significant structure in Aspen's historic fabric, Staff's decision was to include HPC in the development review process. Staff has required applicant bring representative materials to the HPC meeting for review. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels. Response: The planning office finds the proposed development to be compatible with the historic structure, specifically in the areas of restoration materials to be utilized and in the staining and repainting. No exterior changes are proposed, and all surfaces Will be treated similarly as they now appear. The work is necessary in order to correct inadequate (original) roofing to prevent eventual complete failure, and to halt deterioration of the wooden louvers located in the bell tower. The problem roof area is located directly above the main entrance ; the applicant Will be re-roofing this area with copper sheathing. Further material details are discussed under "Response" to Standard #4. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Response: The planning office feels the continued restoration efforts of the Aspen Community Church are in keeping with the Goals and Objectives of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element, and sets an excellent example of preservation maintenance and restoration to the community. Staff finds this particular immediate neighborhood surrounding the Community Church exemplary of early Aspen architecture with the Church serving as the centerpiece of this potential district. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development of adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds the proposed development necessary for properly preserving this historic landmark, and we feel the methods and materials proposed will enhance the cultural value of the structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not dminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff finds that the materials proposed for maintenance and restoration will enhance the architectural integrity of the Church. The bell tower will receive all new shingles which will be individually dipped in stain, prior to application, and will be coated completely to prevent future uneven breathing and expansion/contraction. The color will be specially prepared to match as accurately as possible the existing. The question arose as to what percentage of the existing shingles are in good enough shape to be re-used and integrated into the new. The roofing company reports the existing shingles are original and are in very bad shape. To integrate old with new where possible would create a patchy appearance, and would become a continual repairing problem, replacing old ones here and there as they fail. As this is not a certified rehabilitation project, Staff feels the approach to reshingling with new materials which replicate precisely the old is a logical economic approach, and handles very well to problem of deterioration due to water damage. wouldWe do, however, strongly urge the applicant be sensitive in his methods of replacement, repair and staining. The original bell tower shingles appear to be treated with a graphite dip, a treatment process used in the late 1800's with good long term results. Great care should be taken to replicate the shingle appearance in texture and color. The bell tower louvres will be restored and reconstructed where necessary, repainted in the same color as currently exists. Copper sheathing is proposed for re-roofing that portion of the roof directly above the main entrance. This is the problem area, and has been in the architect's opinion since the Church was built. This area has been continually patched inadequately over the years after the original tin roof failed. Copper is recommended for a number of reasons, aesthetics and proper maintenance being of prime importance. Copper has been found to be more pliable and the preferred materials in re-roofing smaller difficult areas as is this. It is recommended that sheathing be checked for proper venting to prevent moisture condensation and water penetration, and that all roofing material be adequately anchored to guard against wind damage and moisture penetration. Roof repairs with limited replacement in kind, or with compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated portions are recommended. The Planning Office sought assistance from the State Historical Society's architect, Jay Yanz, whose recommendations on the copper roofing were: In consideration of Aspen's high altitude and intense ultra violet light, treating copper is no longer recommended, due to the coating being a short term solution requiring a great deal of maintenance. Spotting can also a problem. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the minor development Of the Aspen Community Church, 200 East Bleeker St. with the provision the new shingles replicate the existing in texture, shape and color, the width and angle of the new louvers match the existing, and that the new copper roofing above the main entrance be allowed to weather naturally. r. 1 t iMPR 1 2 Â¥- IÂ£- APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1 2 Applicant's Name and Address: ASPEN COMMUNITY CHURCH Proof of Ownership: Rocky Mountain Conference of the United Methodist Church Statement of Applicant's Interest in Property if not owner: Property Address, Legal Description and Name: 200 E. Bleeker St. Lots K.L.M. Block 47. Aspen. Colorado wt Type of Review (Minor or Significant) : Minor ti~ Description of Proposed Development Activity, including but not limited to: architectural elements effected, additional square footage (if applicable), height, building materials and illumina- tiOn: This project involves rt--rnnfing and restoration of the hell tnwer. Specific work tn hp rinne is: 1) replanpment nf the exiqting wnnrl qhinglpq nn the ronf and Fide walls; of hell tnwerr 2) re-rnnfing the .a rea R ahnvp the main pntry with enpppr qhpathing,R) rpqtnrivi-inn nf thA wr,arl lrÂ·,iiver,q in th# hell tnwAr. an/1 4) repAinting nf All npr.7 An,1 Al c=1-irrhAA ArBAC Statement of the Effect of the Proposed Development on the Original Design of Structure (if applicable) and/or Character of the Neighborhood, and why the Proposed Development meets the Review Standards of Section 24-9.4(d) (pertaining to compati- bility in character of historic landmarks on the site, contis- tency with character of the neighborhood, and whether it enhances or detracts from the cultural value or architectural integrity of the structure) : The above mentioned work is being undertaken with restoration ikt, of the original design being the only intention. This work is necessary in '3.-:-Â· order to correct inadequate roofing that is 100 years old and to halt deteri- R + oration of the wooden louvers. Materials will be as close to the original 2 as possible. Paint color will not be changed. We feel that completion of '0 this work will rejuvenate this historic structure. E Any other City Approvals needed by Applicant, such as encroach- ment licence, GMP or Special Review: Building permit only. SB.APP ~Â· ~ I.'.Mm//INPÂ·.-0./.-r-I...... 2 22"Act 3"4"46*6 9116Â¥00Â£ Â£4)082.6 1 1 1 4 . ..I. 10 4.1 . ...1-1. 4 Â·~ ,' 6.1 --. -.4, 11. Llc. 2.- .. 11:t.1.14 1. t ;1 ., 4 .. 1, ~2 â€¢~~Â·'te#Â»~ FU/%*i=Z==Al ..,..'' . . 1*-1 - 12 ...6.- , . 2 1 . - . ~i~ ~ . .#7 i - 72Zu/~ra ; 4,04#-31-INC-- 4%.... 2--i', i.2.- ..+*.S.UP*Xtri 2- .... 1.- 7-4-Fr:LiÂ»Â·49:.-3-kI;fltifigef#4--,.,f-----3-Â·:j:.~c~.Ittit_-5-E5.5,62 7:il---45-$.27.-:22â‚¬:-Â·Â·~04.13,..4Â»x.irl-.42.4~i.3122.24~Rfit? L.. A.2 #A o P . . ': ':.2 -:.7 : '.' 7:b-~.--9.-~:~..:r..ij. ---2--*&.* P I. I ANÂ» apffft 1. 'n ...-S .n___â„¢.:.:-aÂ«? p-222=EAL=r~EKNET=- ' /.70-4 .' 1.. Ar.4 404. i-I:.42*~.igriger j=- 5 ,i:,p -3â‚¬>1 Jioop . 4' -1 - - - Â· c .3-<%.r-*3' -1- 1. 1.4 9 -Â·:2.....:-,~~490Â·.*,4-.?'tuÂ·*:clÂ©-fla.-0 -12 5 -.2-7 L /-- -2-- t., - -2 - 3-234-1 46Â·.' r<- N ..'.16 --0.~4.14 34%*a.94-2*4 9--,9#(32 Fitifi,>~31.g tf 2 _ _ 1.Â·-Â· -Â·- 48*735.'~bly7 j-Â·4-Ek<-Â·.-j:i~'W>Â·'41=132 Â£Â·. .172 r..Zl'< M I . . .. i R ..:...r-~32 -2/600:.3922 22$.2 FitÂ· 4.:133434Â·1.-= t.92.99 -1-==-'~ c:<3 EzirraÂ·Â·3 - Â·Â·Â·7 - a.:i-+1.,65-- Llk -E-=.291 f~Z-:1~2 /:.'Caf. 2_J Â·Â·'~. > Â·- -i ------tri-- 3-Xtio.-21 he -ry,t. Â·i=Â·3'r ... - 1, .~. 2 /1 1 )2~ 1(' .4 ' ' '' f q t.' , 1 - /-%-0-#---*---JITIJ-~- Il- -- - -1\X /// 1 'â€¢ Itt .. ...C \ 1,/n \ 2 \ \ \ / , 1\ . /\ 1 1 \ 4< MidA 1 FA '1 E 1 r 3 c Â© /,; ~~;i *~ 31/lifir i -D , d -rD . 1 1 1:1 1 . 1 Ii. 1 1 1 ., /4 i r!! 1 0 703 ir J -11 -1 1 1 4 1 11 1 . 4 1 91 --9 5111 ,; 1 , ~ 1. L C 1 1 1 1/- ! li -71 ,!i /111; il"it! r--79-2i i ~ -Ptl . 1 ' . . If 1, li, lillil'/ i 1 ! >/ W (1)1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 212 West Hopkins Avenue, Significant Development Review and Partial Demolition(Public Hearing) DATE: April 26, 1988 LOCATION: 212 W. Hopkins Ave., Lots P & Q, Block 52, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. SUMMARY: In the HPC packet of the March 28 meeting, a full staff memorandum and application was presented. Due to the required public hearing, HPC will be reviewing that application at this meeting. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: At the meeting of March 28, HPC recommended historic landmark designation for this property, which must be reviewed by P&Z at a public hearing to obtain their recommendation, then to City Council for first and second readings. Please refer to the memorandum of March 28 for further details and for the responses to the partial demolition and conceptual development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the partial demolition and conceptual development for 212 W. Hopkins, including the setback variation specified in Section 24- 9.4(d)(1)(i), finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark. In addition, accurate material representation shall be made at final review. HPC.memo.212wh . VII A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 212 West Hopkins Avenue, Historic Landmark Designation, Demolition and Significant Development Review DATE: March 28, 1988 Location: 212 West Hopkins Avenue, Lots P & Q, Block 52, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Historic Landmark Designation, Demolition of the one-story lean-to shed at the rear of the house, and Significant Development Review. The total new addition floor area is 687 sq.ft. The applicant is utilizing the Variance Setback Incentive allowed with the (proposed) historic designation to encroach into the rear and side yard setbacks. Applicant is also requesting a reduction in required parking one off-street parking space per bedroom in the R-6 zone. SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Please see applicant's letter attached ZONING: R-6 HISTORIC DESIGNATION STATUS: Rated "4" SUMMARY: At this meeting, HPC will be reviewing this project for historic landmark designation. Conceptual Development Review was not properly noticed for this meeting, and will be heard on the regular meeting of April 26. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: The applicants 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 readings (two meetings) of an ordinance to accomplish historic landmark designation. Applicants are also requesting partial demolition; application must meet the standards in Section 24-9.5(b) (4) through (6). The HPC shall hold at least one public hearing on its consideration of the application with public notice published in the newspaper. The two-step Significant Development Review process involves both Conceptual and Final approval by the HPC. Special review for reduction in residential parking requirements must be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Planning Office has the following comments in response to the standards for historic designation stated in Section 24-9.3 (a) , standards for demolition stated in Section 24-9.5(b), and standards for development review stated in , Section 24-9.4(d) of the Municipal Code. 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: This structure, dated 1888, illustrates the family/home environment and life styles of the average Aspen citizen during this era. 2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The historical significance of this structure is that it is a typical Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage (see pg. 9 of the Development Guidelines - II. Architectural Summary). It represents the built environment of Aspen during its Mining Era. The existing addition, to be removed and replaced by a new addition, is a remnant of the original carriage house, apparently built the same year as the original structure (1888). Attached to the rear, this addition does not possess historic significance, nor does it detract much from the original house. As discussed below, the new addition should be more compatible with the architectural style of the house. The front facade of the house has not been altered, to the best of our knowledge, except that the porch was enclosed. Restoring the original porch would help a great deal to reveal the original character of the house, in Staff's opinion. 3. Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: This home's special features are characteristic of the Victorian Miner's Cottage. They include a front gable with projecting bay window, cut shingles in the gable and horizontal clapboard siding. The windows are typical long, narrow double hung. 4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: Although the architect/builder is unknown, the historical integrity Of this original 1888 structure exemplifies early Aspen architecture. Demolition Review Standards: Note: As this is a partial demolition, Standards 4-6 apply. 1. 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 demolition proposed is of the one story lean- to shed at the rear of the earlier addition (1974) and is primarily visable from the alley only. The historic integrity of the original facade remains unaffected by the demolition. The redevelopment plan is addressed in the following conceptual development review comments. 2. Standard: The 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: No important historic association has been identified with the house, nor would be effected by demolition. 3. 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 historic evaluation rating of "4" recognizes that alterations and additions have previously been made to this house, however, staff finds the proposed demolition plan to be sympathetic to the original structure. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1 Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a Historic overlay District or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. Response: The Planning Office finds the development plan appropriate in many areas. By locating the addition to the rear of the property, as both adjacent properties have done, it lessens the impact on both the historic structure and the streetscape, which Staff finds to be more compatible. The applicant wishes to take advantage of the incentive in Ordinance 42 (Series of 1987) to build the addition encroaching into the rear yard setback. Section 24- 9.4(d)(1)(i) as amended stated: "The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic strctures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels...In cases where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks...HPC shall find that such variation from the underlying area and bulk requirement is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with the area and bulk requirements." The application is requesting a variation be granted based on this finding. Staff's analysis: The original house is encroaching in the west side yard required setback of 5.0 feet. As it sits now, it is 1.4 feet from the property line at the southwest corner and about 1.6 feet at the northwest corner of the house. The proposed addition will be located 5.5 feet from the rear (north) property line. Current code requires 5.0 feet rear yard setback for the garage only, but 10.0 feet for the principal building. The proposed second floor bedroom and bathrooms would not be in compliance. The applicant states the siting of the proposed addition helps to avoid competition with the original structure, and provides the optimally functionaly floor plan interfacing with the earlier addition. In staff's opinion, the siting of the new addition encroaching into the setback is more compatible with the original structure. Staff finds the proposed roof pitch on the new addition in keeping with the Guidelines (page 51) and is compatible with the original structure, and may lessen the striking difference between the original and the earlier 1974 addition. The proposed height of the addition at the median point on the pitched roof is 24.5 feet (just under the allowed 25 feet) is much higher in comparison to the original structure, and seems to overtake the original house. However, as it is located at the rear of the site, set back approximately 60 ft. from the street and screened by vegetation, its appears to be less dominant. The proposed contemporary-Victorian details such as the arched windows, the divided lights, and open balustered balcony reflect some of the styling of the original structure, and by using compatible materials as the applicant has proposed, should blend well. Staff strongly recommends the applicant renovate the original facade by restoring the front porch, which Will allow the true historic structure to stand on its own merit. The Guidelines discuss the importance of porches as a common element of the residential steetscape (refer to Page 57 in the Guidelines). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Response: This particular block exemplifies some of Aspen's early neighborhood architectural styles, as well as reflecting newer additions to these older homes, some of which are more compatible than others.. 222 W. Hopkins is designated, 200 W. Hopkins is rated "3", and 219 W. Hopkins, directly across the street is rated "4". Both 222 and 200 W. Hopkins have two story additions to the rear. The very large, nice cottonwood trees are remaining untouched. With the large addition being proposed, Staff has taken a special look at color, and finds Guideline VI. L on page 59 applies for the purpose of general guidance. The existing house is a vivid blue, and as it sits now as a one story home is fanciful; however, with the addition carrying out the existing paint scheme, Staff feels it would be overwhelming for not only the original historic structure but the adjacent properties as well. We want to inform the applicant that in our opinion, a more subdued choice in color would not only diminish the dominance of the new addition, but would be more historically accurate for Aspen. HPC does not have jurisdiction over color selection; therefore, staff recommends that no action be taken regarding this issue. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds the proposed development does not detract from the cultural value of the structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: It could be argued that the 1974 addition dimishes the historic integrity of the original structure. Staff finds the proposed addition more compatible with the original, however, disagrees with the applicant that the new addition will improve the integrity of the residence and justify the "41' rating, as a "Typical Aspen Victorian Miner' s Cottage" (page three, application) . Staff finds the new addition in keeping with adjacent new additions, and feels it does not detract from the original structure, or adjacent parcels. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Historic Landmark Designation of 212 West Hopkins, based on the findings stated on page 2. Conceptual approval with partial demolition will be formally reviewed at the April 26 meeting, at which time HPC may wish to grant the rear yard set back encroachment requested. MAR 16 APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Applicant's Name and Address: Charles A. Smithgall III, President, WCNN Radio,209 CNN Center, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Proof of Ownership: See attached Warranty Deed and Quit Claim Deed Statement of Applicant' s Interest in Property if not owner: N/A Property Address, Legal Description and Name: Lots P & Q, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Type of Review (Minor or Significant): Significant Description of Proposed Development Activity, including but not limited to: architectural elements effected, additional square footage (if applicable), height, building materials and illumina- tion: Applicant wishes to add a two story structure to the rear (north) of the existing house, and east of the two story addition that was constructed in 1974. The proposed development will he in compliance with current height, bulk and lot coverage regulations. See attached Area and Bulk Characteristics. Statement of the Effect of the Proposed Development on the Original Design of Structure (if applicable) and/or Character of the Neighborhood, and why the Proposed Development meets the Review Standards of Section 24-9.4(d) (pertaining to compati- bility in character of historic landmarks on the site, consis- tency with character of the neighborhood, and whether it enhances or detracts from the cultural value or architectural integrity of the structure): The proposed addition will enhance the existing house in two ways. First, it will partially cover and de- emphasize the 1974 addition which is a boxy, modern structure that is alien to the original Victorian house. Second, the addition is in the vocabulary of the Victorian style to compliment the original, thus creating a more harmonious and integrated character which is compatible with its predominantly Victorian neighborhood. Refer to attached letter and -drawings. Any other City Approvals needed by Applicant, such as encroach- ment licence, GMP or Special Review: Historic Designation by H.P.C. Refer to attached letter and ' drawings. SB.APP CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE. A IA Ms. Roxanne Elfin March 15, 1988 Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval 212 West Hopkins Avenue Lots P & Q, Block 52 City of Aspen Dear Roxanne, 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. 2. Obtain permission to demolish a portion of the residential structure. 3. Obtain approval for the conceptual development plan (addition and alterations to the house) 4. Obtain exemption from the current zoning code required yard setbacks for: a. The original house which is encroaching on the west side yard required setback of 5.0 ft. (It is about 1.4 ft. from the property line at the southwest corner and about 1.6 ft. at the northwest corner of the house.) The proposed addition which will be 5.5 ft. from b. the rear (north) property line in order to avoid competing with the original house as much as possible and provide the optimally functional floor plan interfacing with the previous addition. (Current code requires 5.0 ft. rear yard for the garage only, but 10.0 ft. for the principal building.) Thus. the proposed second floor bedroom and bathrooms would not be in compliance. - C. Obtain exemption from the curr-ent zoning code requirement of one off-street parking space per bedroom - in the R-6 zone. (The existing house has three bearooms and with the proposed fourth bedroom would require four parking spaces.) The proposed garage will provide two parking spaces off the alley. Providing the other 1 ':,1 Page Two Re: 212 West Hopkins Avenue two spaces would require a curb cut on Hopkins Avenue for a driveway and parking area in the front yard which would require removal of four large cottonwood trees and a twenty foot spruce tree. Obviously, this would destroy the yard and be a detriment to the neighborhood. The following outline addresses all the considerations for this review process under the guidelines Of Section 24-9.3 Of Ordinance II for Historic Designation. 1. Historic Importance Not much is known of the houses's history except that it was built in 1888 and was owned by Walter Paepke from 1948 to 1952. Refer to attached Aspen Historic Sites/Structures Inventory. 2. Architectural Importance Architecturally, the original house is significant in that it reflects the traditional Aspen character and the Victorian style prevalent when it was built. It has been given a 4 Rating by the Aspen Planning Office. The addition, which was built in 1974 is a boxy modern two story structure that sits at the rear (north) which fortunately dimishes its negative impact from the street. 3. Neighborhood Character The house is flanked on both sides by Victorian houses Of similar character which also have two-story additions situated at the rear (north) of the lots. The remainder- of the neighborhood is predominatly Victorian style residences. Page Three Re: 212 West Hopkins Avenue We submit and assure that the proposed addition will be in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 24-9.4(d), Ordinance 11 and 42, for Development in H, Historic Overlay Districts, as follows: (i) The proposed addition will be compatible in character with the original house through similar roof slopes and matching exterior materials. The addition is in the vocabulary of the Victorian style and compliments, rather than imitates the original. Also, placement of the addition to the rear and extending into the required setback is more appropriate as explained in item 4 of the Program Outline at the beginning of this letter. Refer to attached drawings. (ii) The proposed addition is consistent with the adjacent houses, which also have two story additions to the rear (north) of the original buildings. It will be in scale with and reflect the predominantly Victorian character of the neighborhood. (iii) The proposed addition will enhance the cultural value of the original house by partially obscuring and diminishing the impact of the 1974 addition, which is not in the Victorian style. Thus, it will improve the integrity of the residence and justify the 4 Rating, as a "Typical Aspen Victorian Minerts Cottage". (iv) The proposed addition will enhance the architectural character of the original house for the same reason as listed in (iii) above. With regard to proposed demolition, a small one story lean-to shed at the rear of the earlier addition will be the total extent required. We will be in compliance with Section 24-9/5(b) of Ordinance 11, as follows: 1. The lean-to portion on the north side of the existing , building is actually a remnant of the original carriage - house that was incorporated into the 1974 addition. The foundation is ill poor condition and the original carriage doors were merely covered over with siding to create a utility room. Page Four Re: 212 West Hopkins Avenue 2. The space occupied by the structure will be enveloped in the proposed addition as part of a new mud room and the north wall location is incompatible with the new room layout. The new second floor will replace the shed roof. 3. The structure is only a minor element of the existing house and relocating it would be impractical since it would be unusable in a different location, having only two exterior walls. 4. A demolition and redevelopment plan is irrelavent for reasons stated above. 5. As stated earlier, the proposed demolition will not impact the historic importance of the house due to its location and the fact that it was already modified by an earlier addition. 6. The architectural integrity of the house will not be impacted for reasons stated above. If there are any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, aLL 4 Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal cc: Charles A. Smithgall III CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS PO. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.IA ~ March 16, 1988 212 West Hopkins Avenue Lots P & Q, Block 52 Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS ZONING (R-6) Lot Area: 9,000 S.F. Existing House Floor Area: 2,205 S.F. Proposed Addition Floor Area: 687 S.F. (exempting 500 S.F. for garage) Proposed House Total Floor Area (FAR): 2,892 S.F. Maximum Allowed Floor Area (FAR): 3,240 S.F. Proposed Site Coverage: 2,243 S.F. Allowable Site Coverage: 2,400 S.F. Proposed Height of Addition: 24.50 Ft. (at median point on pitched roof) Maximum Allowed Height: 25.00 Ft. (at median point of pitched roof) Total Front - Rear Yard Setbacks Proposed: 23.75 Ft. * Minimum Allowed Total Front - Rear Yard Setbacks: 30.00 Ft. Total Side Yards Proposed: 7.00 Ft. * 1 Minimum Allowed Total Side Yard Setbacks: 10.00 Ft. *With regard to the encroachment at the rear and west side yard setbacks, we ar- e utilizing the Variance Setback Incentive allowed with the (Proposed) Historic Designation. Ed 60,2 5.2 : ' RE<:211> BLOA' ENVEL.oFE :224'15 sere:,Â·Â» SeÂ·Terhol< ALLEY HEY/ GÂ»Â·Â»â€¢641 Â£ Dap Y 60.60'FRop, Litle- N75Â°01~Il"W -230Â· 0 APPITICXH PROPotto -O-ya ' -- C +100,2- . or H.F, C. EXEEMPTI ON ~2Â«T- es.TeÂ»c.)<Â·_ RENUIR! Id .0 g til LA - -REQUI225) AZINCID' , -- --A--il-~i -9747 , d CURA.Z.>IT 20(9 If-1431 C , 0 #,011 L.0 I >46, e E-T 2,~C+C i, ax'di PITCHERi ~ c Rcof=-4 071 FI'l'' '~41 1 -0 ~~;~ - i %- i -->/Ci-1 145* /1.-AT . â‚¬3-~D.X, ir.184, PITE.HED/~=-~~ 11 . 1 /44-4~ 0 70.P --1 1 - 4--4347.7.-2 2.14/#LE! ; . 2=74-NEW - . 9-51 111 N 1 i, 4=_.7 J OB.tc,ILETr /' '11,1 \ ll 2 4-1 44;-:ll' Â» i i L ex'Gr FLAT 12-DOF zh 17,-,-, 1-,1-,-----43 21 C Twa STOW-r) t-NE- pac.,ce eMP FLÂ£OR.2 I W = 4 - 1 /1,1,-6,19-A 2,1- 3 Exp (LuM#wpAY J 1 CA -f ~715 -- LA 2 W k y= 7,1 LF--EX#.LAT- ..1113=8 2 F,2.2 Â· 2.X~4 2.NOB+1- 1' 1 ~ #aT~ef,) 48,â€¢PE MEMT INTZ: CENVIRED 2 1 1 1 vETEACK d 11 1 11 1- 3 1 ! '',i 10 -1 1' 1 ' Oil 11'IN r d PÂ· i, --Ex'<21 plfcate v - 1 Â· ..1 1 6 -O 12 r - t- th 1 Â£11 1 lili 1 44 9-# 111., 10 1 11 J' 1, 11 1 ----~-1 T: lilli 11 UPUL__ -2 ~1.4' 2-xleTI NG, ' 1-5 ET DAOK Irl -0 KEQ'S 320.0'6330,Â·601rl, -CU#uT ZONINA co . FRONT 2 â‚¬EAg YARD - 4141.W 41. B 4 4-V-,4 f- 60.0 prEOP, Llria HOP!<IND AVE HI LI E .19 r. il , 6 IT-8 FLAIN 11'7 10' GENERAL NOTES Q " 1, INFoeNTAT ION '540*/N ON 7-4,6 el-TE plAH ~~41 16 DAeâ‚¬ O ON A SUP+VeÂ·Y FAEFASED FDY 4-INEs IN OFÂ».CEÂ·;6/14/84 *- uppperEID 2 /0202/ 88, Fof< LOTe f Â¢62 , Flool< 62,0 ITY * TowHe ITE op Ae,CH i FITICIN COU NTY,colo. 2. -* too.0 IMPICÂ·~rEP VOT 51?CAPE MLEVATIc)>19 100.01 7â‚¬OP. 2Nll 1088,0'001 21013ANS -1901 EX '4 SETBACK - .!14 11==1 ~ Fm - 2* 1 9 2=1-222/5 RE* 1 - UG. 2 9 n * Â§3 20 Z m rn T-- x - DE =1 h 9 1 0 3 1 - If i U I 1\ P E U 01, Â·16 23 - 8 0 0 P 2 1 Z \ .0 -- 2 8 F- 9 FreIN--Z 0 0 1, b ~ 11 -ll g b it d KTII-m 0 1 -1- I ---13 Â«/1 4 67 1 0.1 :-2,1 < I 91\ / 1 61 11 8 ' 2 4 7 1 / - l / z 1 -4 / Ta 1 - lide / , .tz 7/ 01 4 H ,>11 - . W f + GY 12 \ g 91 6* i ep i ' W il , // 33 .r~ . 2i .Â· 1 B 1 1 0 11 1 1,24:sl' f 10'-6.1 1 H,art* eATI+ exleTINLT Â¢8826-1 79-- 1.. -7 _*16717 Ht,W MbÂ«ree eec,Fachl_ \ 1 M 5 x : 4 *4-<rz*tr .*.toe.6 ~ +9:h trlÂ·,2,<nwl nal 31-1 1 -- IN TrrJ,W,rr- 1/ - _14111_LL-LE=-1--1__ 3 12*Ft=F FLAN - 1/44 1'5711 4- ~â‚¬VISÂ£LN N ! L ~T ___~f_~ 1--li- Â«r - ---- - AFF>,AILT *FIRIMLE'b TO ~ATE-H NeT,Na MoueE 7944-.6 97.-U - '4 1 3, . r- . .. ~~-F-75_.7 T-T-1 Lt---~~~~ PRE/CH poole, 4 -I I; i: p ; il 1 - WDOC> W . 0.9 'g - I Â·~ 'LOW-E"LA!~DUL. AL,446 I 1 |2 li i i : 1111---'Ir 1(19-i~--- t,1 1: .1 1 1.* ' .- OPEN 5/LueTER 11 1 Ir .1 '11 1 ';| A- -. 4 -Â· WOOP +WAA.PRAIL 1 1 =Â«1 11~.E f MWL) 1-11 911 2]:- Â®! -1~ x IL-- - -, 0 --- 1 0 t- Ete LIVINQ Floo,4 ' * . La_._L__; '13[333 ~ -- - -- - --i -., Â¢ r- WT To MATCH < -2~12 ...1,9-- =321.- 1.- +-4- 1 1- - -. fl U.1 Uj 1 -1 -1 4 L - 2 4 . 40 r-----Â· - -- & -- L~ ' 6 71 0 I E*bi floate , NEW APOITION I< e 0 3 SOUTH ELEVATION W w clourÂ·-0.4/L -013 4. 0802 0.Â£ e /15/82> 9. E,W I L.â€¢tET O S.E)3.LIHOHV/531Â¥DOSSV Â¥ 33=!INNOD SEI-IUVHJ BOW-3019 0655-526/EOE 3NOHd3131 2198 OCJV303O0 N3dSV 'DESE XOE Od CdÂ»eol 02 20,#39 GNI>(JoHÂ· C + '---1----2.-U=Il 11 h 11 /\ ti}% 21 0. \ lit ti 1 & A M < I,Imjp K 4 1 1 1; 131 [%,29 4 1Â£= 09 1 i :, im ZI -'-Â· ~1 /!i~( lilli Â·' 11 . r=,Ii ircs)A:It 1 41,1,19% 1 Off==FAq Ila LE Â·[LL-_-4~-2 Ir,-ail,1119Â», 1.-Â· --- --=El U l! 11 . / 1 11 --12--29-7=~ ~ 1 C f[f C 1 !-4 SM ITH/6 ALL GESI DE NCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHFTECTS APP'710140 Â¢ ALTER'.ATION,5 9.1,2-w, HOPKINS AC, PE,Â·1, Col-oeÂ·DO PO BOX 3534. ASPEN COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925Â·5590 94,rloH **9 Â»LFHAL-T NO11*A 313 197 0665-SZS/ECE BNOHe3131 2198 0(]VWO103 'N3dSV 'DESE )<08 'Od OOMWOMGO ' H: JGY ChilÂ»lotÂ·AN 2 11 4 P.4 . SHOILÂ¥2311-19 + GHOI-LICIOV *6 98 w 91 1"% 9.8 . 103.LIHoarv/salvix,ssv Â¥ adwINNno syluv,0 30KIEGIG'323 1195)Hll We F 43 L._-,-1.1 6, -- 4 1 7-Â»-All Â£411 1 lf---0~3'l i /Irrt-jl~ 1 1, 1 - =-=43 1 11 I. tr,_.- fl;... 11 11 1 :-III !'h M.-i -- - 1 .,1 ~ i 1 ; .E-=11 [7 -0- !, i i : 1 -al.1 16=.=--4 hi ll:111:.1 TÂ¢=7-~11 'ittijAW.513 '1 1 1 1/1;Ii 11/ A.\09. \ H. A 1,/billil:~, Lfig-rT, 4/24' ': i . 1 rly'li!;IN ; , 1 44-111 1*11 1 1 \Â©01|111 ' 1 1 3.7 ~pE>=22~ 1 14 il 11144 'p 991:liÂ·11~ D ''i~J aerÂ·94 10:*3 'N 04.UndÂ¥ "aN NO I 17/\3-1-3 HlhION 1\ 4 lilli 1 74 . ' r 1 L. 1' 1 [Of -I. il----i--4_1 N â‚¬ ht 1-1 i g '~~ 13 i 1o i t~ i J " 91 eM ITHEALL AESIPS.ACE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS R ADDITIOND 4 ALTERAT IONÂ« 11.2- W. 140 F 11 4 5 *0 P E hi i COLORADO PO BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 ' - HEW ADDITION 1 EÂ·KIâ€¢PT,96, Aoute_/ - *3 H.- C_~ 1 ~ p ' 1 -,1- I {e N .750 09// r 1/V 8 iO0.16000' '; 5- A ~A AÂ·'5511rned elÂ¢V. 100Â·L . - 9- qq,5 -499,1/ 2 - 5-\-O N-N 11-- Pal SCALE:]'4 15' -2,9 - 4,9~ b /5 146 4 jo~,0 ~ 7-9 8.75- e INDICATES SET 9 Ffi@bay Fi EDAR + CAP O 9 rl O INDICATES FOUND lF f REBAR + CAP Q + in dic ates e \ e v ce- 3/ 4- fo n 03 1 2 1 -4.4- 7-2,* 3 '0-0 y /Y) .+11 101 1 U P 1 1 01 SO'42' 3 9,9 VII e. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Demolition and Redevelopment Review, Continued: 222 E. Hallam (Public Hearing) DATE: April 26, 1988 LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam Street, Lots K and L, Block 71, Townsite and City of Aspen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting redevelopment approval for the site, pursuant to the demolition approval requirement. PRIOR HPC ACTIONS: The approval for demolition was made by the HPC at the March 22, 1988 meeting, subject to redevelopment review and approval, which action was tabled. Due to the public hearing not being continued to the next HPC meeting, notice was made for the April 26 meeting, the earliest following meeting. Your March 22, 1988 HPC packet includes the first redevelopment plans presented and can be reviewed for comparison with the current plans. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Upon initial review by HPC Of the redevelopment plan at the March 22 meeting, general comments regarding scale, detailing and steetscape were made to help direct the applicant for formal review. On April 12, HPC had another opportunity to informally review revised plans and were generally pleased with the scaled-down design approach. The application includes descriptive information on materials as well as a letter from consultant Lisa Purdy addressing design issues. The Planning Office has general concerns regarding the redevelopment plan. We wish to point out that the application states it is for "Significant Development", which is incorrect. In accordance with Section 24-9.5(b) (4) this application is for "Redevelopment" approval. The Standards for Significant Development do not apply. The Planning Office has the following comments in response to those concerns raised by HPC when reviewing the redevelopment plan and tabling action on the proposal: 1) Massing: HPC members expressed concern that the height and 1 0 massing of the new house may be more than that of adjacent houses and the neighborhood, tending to dominate the block rather than fit it with the neighborhood scale. The proposed - redevelopment is a very large two story Contemporary Victorian, definitely "new" and not reflective in any way of the existing historic structure to be demolished on that site. The historic neighborhood, which does not just consist of the immediate adjacent properties or block, mostly contains smaller "Victorian" style houses. It is staff's opinion that the general massing of the proposed structure is out of scale with the neighborhood, and should be diminished to soften any negative impacts of a "visually overbuilt site" in a historic neighborhood may have. The west and east elevations are very long with minor setback breaks, which do not adequately address the issue of "breaking up" those walls, in our opinion. The Planning Office recommends further study of the west elevation, including the separation of the garage or pulling the garage in to the east and south, which would bring the main house back into scale with the adjacent structures. This elevation is important as to how it relates to the Frost House, and how much of the continuous wall (with minimal undulations) is visible from Hallam Street. The scale of the east facade is important as it has fairly high visibility from Hallam Street beginning at the intersection with Monarch Street. In our opinion, the bulkiness would be reduced if the height of the cross gable were no greater than the that of the adjacent Frost House. If the height of the turret and the cross gable could both be reduced, compatibility of the massing would be improved, in staff's opinion. The following table gives several dimensions of the existing house, proposed house and adjacent house for the purpose of comparison: Table 1 Comparison of House Dimensions: Houses on 200 Block E. Hallam Size of Existing House: 2,000 s.f.1 Height of Existing House: 19 feet Width of Existing House-Front Facade: 25 feet Size of Proposed House: 3,002 s.f.2 Height of Proposed House-Front Gable: 24 feet Turret: 29 feet Cross Gable: 28 feet Width of Proposed House-Front Gable: 18 feet 1 In addition there is a 472 s.f. work shop. 2 Not including porches and balconies. 2 Width of Proposed House-South Elevation: 39 feet Height of Glidden House: 22 feet Width of Glidden House-Front Facade: 25 feet Height of Frost House: 23 feet Width of Frost House-Front Facade: 18 feet Width of Frost House-South Elevation: 30 feet Prepared by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office using figures and measurements from material submitted by Charles Cunniffe and Associates, April, 1988. 2) Siting: The site plan contrasts to some degree with the two adjacent properties by having a deeper setback than what currently exists with the adjacent properties and the existing structure on this site. Additionally, the new footprint is approximately 10 feet to the west of the existing house, closer to the Frost House and requiring removal of the line of shrubs. The applicant appears to be trying to minimize the streetscape impact from this large house by setting it back farther than the neighboring houses. The proposed setback also shows consideration of staying clear of the existing large spruce tree in the front yard. Staff is concerned that the new house will still have a great impact on the streetscape because of its massing while not respecting the street alignment now in tact. Staff believes that the most appropriate solution is a smaller-scale house, more closely resembling the scale and siting of the historic resource currently on the site. This would allow the siting to be approximately 5 feet closer to the street and more consistent with the historic street setback. In addition, we suggest that the applicant address whether he will save or replant the existing shrubs along the western property line, retaining this historic landscape pattern that gives a soft buffer and visual break between properties. 3) Detailing: Some HPC members expressed concern about the appropriateness of using neo-victorian High Style detailing on this new house. The applicant was asked to consider simplifying such ornate replication features that may tend to muddle architectural interpretation. Some HPC members were not concerned with this issue or believed that the style is suitable in this location. Staff shares those concerns about neo-Victorian detailing reflected on the plans. We agree with Ms. Purdy that the fenestration treatment has been substantially simplified from the February 25, 1988 plans first shown. However, the turret in particular continues to be overwhelming and a very dominant element. The applicant states the "turret derives 3 its form from the Community Church" which statement staff finds exemplary of the detailing. Historically, turrets complimented the overall facade of a building, and were not necessarily the dominant feature. On the Community Church, a large turret was in scale, while on smaller residential buildings, smaller and shorter turrets were found. It is staff's recommendation that further study be made of this architectural element with direction to scale it down in relation to the other details of the proposed house. 4) Fenestration: HPC's concerns were primarily with the arched windows, and the applicant was asked to present other window options. The longer, slimmer windows presented address these concerns, in staff's opinion. 5) Materials: The applicant states the roof will either be cedar shake or metal standing seam. It is staff's opinion that cedar shake would be more appropriate and would aid in softening the general mass. The applicant has presented beveled clear cedar exterior siding which will be painted. Overlap siding is recommended, and, in general, the materials (with the exception of a metal standing seam roof) are similar in finish, texture and scale to those used historically. Staff supports this approach. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that HPC table their approval of the redevelopment plan for 222 East Hallam based upon the concerns of scale, siting, landscaping, massing, and fenestration, and give direction to the applicant to further study these areas, presenting changes at a future meeting. hpc.memo.222e.hallam 4 APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Â§24-9-4, please consider this an Application for Significant Development. This proposal is for a single family home, two stories in height with an attached two-car garage in the rear. Its architectural style is Victorian in keeping with the character with the adjacent buildings in the neighborhood. An accurate representation of all major building materials is attached as Exhibit "A. " Scale drawings of the proposed development in relation to the surrounding properties was submitted to the HPC on April 11, 1988. Supplemental graphics requested by the HPC which show variations on window treatment in the turret are also enclosed. Attached is a letter from Lisa Purdee of Citiscape in which she talks about the design of the house and its compatibility and scale with the adjacent houses and the historic neighborhood. Lisa also points out that we have retained setbacks that are parallel to adjacent properties, put the front entrance on the street, maintained the typical spacing pattern of the street, kept the orientation and dimension of porches, and the steep pitch line for the roof that reflects the neighbood styles and building facades. The proposed residence derives its form from the Community Church neighborhood and adjacent residences. The gable portion of the building which projects closest to the street is in scale with the adjacent residences to the west of Mona Frost. It is the same height and width as the Frost gable. The building then steps back ten feet (10') to the turret which derives its form from the Community Church. The turret helps to balance the house visually. Behind the turret the house is two stories but with the low six foot (6') high second story wall it reads lower. The roof is hipped, sloping towards the center of the building visually decreasing the apparent height and bulk of the building. Dormer type windows are introduced on the second level, as are protruding bay elements reflecting the architecture of the adjacent residences. By incorporating these elements and forms the proposed building is in harmony with the neighborhood, and in fact enhances the street scape and the Community Church neighborhood. We feel that we have responded to the concerns of the HPC at our original meeting by reducing the apparent mass and feel of the building and simplifying it. The HPC seemed very pleased with the changes and the only issue that remaines outstanding (the windows) has been addressed in the newest sketches which will be discussed with the HPC at their next -1- t meeting. We feel that we have submitted all information necessary for final approval of a significant development plan. If there is any additional information that is requested, please feel free to contact Richard Klein. RK/kl Land\Klein.App 4/18/88 -2- EXHIBIT 1 A ' CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A. IA. AMATO RESIDENCE EXTERIOR MATERIALS o Foundation - Concrete o Siding - Beveled Clear Cedar, Painted o Trim - Clear Cedar, Painted o Windows - Marvin, Wood Sash, Painted o Doors - Wood - Solid Coor, Panel, French o Garage Door - Sectional Wood Panel Roll-up o Millwork - Cedar or Redwood, Painted o Roof - Cedar Shakes or Metal Standing Seam, o Flashing - Copper o Masonry Fireplace - Used Brick Clisce[7 20-1 April 8 1988 Mr. Joe Amato Kent Management Group 600 Route 32 Highland Hills, N.Y. 10930 Dear Joe: I have just reviewed the newly revised plans for your house in Aspen on 222 E. Hallam. 1 believe the architects have done an excellent job of incorporating comments from the Aspen HPC and of designing a house which is compatible in scale and design with both the adj acent houses and the neighborhood around it. A number of areas which were of concern to the HPC have been addressed: Simplicity - By reducing the number of windows in the turret and front porch and some of the elaborate detailing, a slmpler and more refined style is shown. Height and Scale - By bringing down the height of the chimney and narrowing the front elevatlon, the appearance of the house is less massive while retaining 1ts distinctive sense of verticality. Massing - By shifting more of the density of this house to the back of the property, the . front of the house appears smaller and therefore more compatible wlth the rest of the neighborhood. While revising the above areas, you have still retained setbacks that are parallel to the adjacent propertles, put the front entrance on the street, maintained the typical spacing pattern of the street, maintained the orientation and dimensions of porches, maintained a steep pitch line for the roof that reflects neighborhood styles, designed windows that are vertical in proportion and fairly regularly spaced across the building facade. Finally, the materials are similar in finish and texture and scale to those used historically. All of the items mentioned in this paragraph were not mentioned at the HPC but are referenced in the HISTORIC DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES that were published by the Aspen l-IPC in January of 1988. While the details of any design could be debated endlessly by any group of people, I believe this latest design for your house reflects a successful attempt to address the concerns of both your needs and the those of the Aspen HPC. 1675 Larimer #600 Denver CO 80202 303 893-5444 :6* liE /41'r 1. 1 1 1. g r - Â»-flritrf/lij 4 Â· - '!11Â·!U *>xii . -4-,- -- 1- 1. J - U il - : ~ li ).0 tv~\,4.\~ - E-1 1 --f -T \\ 1 41 M ni rn -1 ICL 211 b 1-[IL" -2 P- : 1 It ------Â» lili 11 r P P, I i \ - -1 : i-In :77 -i~! ZZ- 1 11 N HA_-1-24==/ .1====:El, A / 1 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFEE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS i~ Good luck with your endeavor I Si 9cerely--1 Lisa Purdy ( / President 4.3 1 / f b - 11% 1-6 4-- lic' 4 11 111 LI-~ , " 11 1.=7=11 ' ' i F 24 '1 i 2 4 Ji.4 . , 4 i LI a il] -~ - L'i 7-- - -/ 1 11 1 111 k P \41 -- 071 'r-- -ff--7,,..4 p ~ ~' di 14-U-4 1-..,IL- 11*....4 1 1 114 1 ...ft 0 . 11 1 -1 Hop-714 BLE-v,TIONLt EL E- *'AT 1 (5114 -=... 1 . - 1. 1 . 4 1 6 - . juft. / 1\\\\ - - L\\\ /â‚¬/%63 \- U m 1 4---,7 ' r ,r :Flj:~ =d }1 1 1 1 1 .22 '\A 11 11 1- 'A=Â¥1 til ~Ir-r- f -1-7-7 - + 4 T r i al f G 1 E: & 1 14-= 41 ..:;. : : + 1 I . 1 1 R tvfâ€¢, 4 --1 u 1 --kill-i--1 1.-*- dk#*v 1 1 - 6 - 719-TI-* it## law 1... M , f- '01 1 . 1 ' li .' 44 . I ' . 1 0 A A 9 1 - t: L E v F T 1 0 H . 4 ><-1- 5 Â» 1 OP- EL EVA-[ 1 ,#Ne 4 e h L EL - I /5 " 1 I '- o " :P I. 4 4.:44,4.21-4 -.2.2 %;5Â¢i 143> 60;~.. .r' .,- - ..â„¢-0-- . 7....... . 4 Ar- / 1 4 / -v-~-Â« -33Â»1 MI r..4. r~-1 41- I 11 '1 1 . A Il 64 2 - 1 1-1 4---6 LU i r -4 - - -- M 14 :3 Fif ~ u-i L T -1- -=F=T"F 7- . - - ~ 1-1 4--1 4-1 1 /1 ft Il- f:~1 1 1 1 1 11 111 1 11 W E- 6 T E L E VA-7 i o N 1 1 A 46 1~73_ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Preservation Award Nominations Preservation Forum reminder DATE: April 18, 1988 You Will be reviewing nominations for the Annual Historic Preservation Awards at the April 26, 1988 meeting, as the deadline for receiving the nominations to the Planning Office is April 22, Friday, after your packets have been prepared. The award nominations are to be voted on by you at that meeting, with the official presentations made at the May 10 HPC meeting, which is during National Historic Preservation Week. Press releases went out to all area media, and the Aspen Times reported on it two times as of this writing. A reminder: Preservation Forum will be held at the Pitkin County Library, Tuesday, May 10, from 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. This free opportunity for the community to learn more about Aspen's history and the current "state of preservation" is expected to be well attended. Copies of technical briefs covering a variety of renovation/maintenance issues will be on hand for distribution, as well as other resources. The Historical Society's presentation will include slides showing historic Aspen and "Befores and Afters of the West End". The Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines will be available for purchase, and Chairman Bill Poss will introduce members of the HPC in attendance and discuss the role Of the HPC in the community. Questions or ideas? Contact me at any time. I look forward to seeing you at the upcoming meetings and at Preservation Forum! {4Â«4 (1 4Â« ilt 7/1 *- Mmu*1\ C/lOU f Â°g~YaNOQdv . UJ--L kÂ©t._.0 t-t 1.71,0 CITY,oF ASPEN 4.j/, 130 south lialena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925-2020 ASPEN CELEBRATES NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK! "HISTORIC PRESERVATION: THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE" is the theme of this year's Preservation Week. Aspen celebrates by inviting the entire community to take part in the following scheduled events: HISTORIC WALKING TOUR OF THE WEST END SUNDAY, MAY 8, 11:00 - 1:00 Convening from the Wheeler-Stallard House, 620 West Bleeker. A delightful outing for Mother's Day, the tour will include the landmark Wheeler-Stallard House, and will present a sidewalk study of turn-of-century Aspen homes and architecture. Halfway along the tour is a stop at the Aspen Community Church, which will be serving refreshments and featuring a special tour by architect Graeme Means, who Will focus on the Church's renovation in process. Both the Wheeler-Stallard and the Community Church are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, exemplifying early Aspen architecture. The cost of the walking tour is $8.00 per person, with proceeds to benefit the Aspen Historical Society and the Aspen Community Church. For more information, contact the Historical Society at - 925-3721. ### ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2:30 p.m., City Hall Presented by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ### PRESERVATION FORUM TUESDAY, MAY 10, 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY, 120 EAST MAIN STREET Topics: "Historic Aspen: Before and After" slide presentation made by the Aspen Historical Society; guest speakers to include Bill Poss, Chairman, HPC and Roxanne Eflin, City of Aspen Preservation Specialist. Aspen Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines will be available for purchase. PRESERVATION FORUM is free and open to the public. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Articles attached FYI: Rescuing Outbuildings Technical Preservation Services Briefs: Appropriate Scale of Greenhouse Additions Entryway Alterations in Carriage House Conversions DATE: April 26, 1988 I have attached three interesting articles for your review. The Rescuing Outbuildings article appeared in the current issue of the Old House Journal (excellent timing!), and I feel it is very good. This leads me to ask for feedback from you on beginning a project to inventory specifically outbuildings. The other two briefs I found interesting and useful. They come from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and have been included for your review and general use. They are not necessarily intended for specific use with any current project, although the information may be useful in final review of 334 W. Hallam. 1 Technical Preservation Services Preservation Assistance Division nterpreting National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 81-022 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: APPROPRIATE SCALE OF GREENHOUSE ADDITIONS Issue: Greenhouse additions to historic building are sometimes used by developers to obtain additional floor space or for passive solar heat collection. NPS does not discourage new additions to historic buildings under certain conditions. A number of projects that include contemporary greenhouse additions have been certified for tax purposes where they have been proposed for non-significant elevations and have been compatible in size and scale with the existing structure. In addition, their construction should not involve demolition of significant historic fabric or obscure significant architectural detail or features. Greenhouse proposals that do not meet these criteria may jeopardize certification of the project work. k Application: The proposed rehabilitation of a four-story Federal style structure included plans for a wrap-around greenhouse to be built on two of the building's three elevations. At the end of a long row of wharf buildings, this structure projected prominently into a square near the center of a downtown historic district (see illus. l). NPS determined that all three of the building's elevations were equally significant, and therefore it would be especially important that the size and scale of any addition be sensitive to the existing structure. The developer of the building planned to convert the first two floors to a restaurant, and several hundred square feet of additional floor space would be provided by the greenhouse (he sought no solar energy benefits from the addition). The initial proposal submitted to NPS called for a two-story, lean-to greenhouse whose roof would connect to the building just below the third floor window sills (see illus. 2). NPS determined that the two-story height of the greenhouse would dominate the four-story facades for which it was proposed, thus violating Standards 2 and 9. NPS suggested that if additional space was required, a one-story greenhouse would be more compatible with the scale of the building. A one-story addition would obscure only the ground floor of the building (comprised of storefronts that had been altered several times in the building's history) and would leave the upper three stories unimpaired. Such an addition, however, would not be a recommended rehabilitation approach. The developer responded by presenting a slightly scaled-down greenhouse design, with the sidewalk depth reduced and the height lowered from the third-story window sill line to the second-story lintel line. By reducing the size of the greenhouse in this way, the developer gave up some seating space in a second floor balcony which had been included in the original design (see illus. 3 and 4). In arguing for their revised two- story design, the developer and his architect maintained that all of the greenhouse 81-022 would be glazed and that only very light framing would be required to carry the sloped roof, allowing a person on the sidewalk adjacent to the greenhouse to look up through the glass and readily observe the historic brick wall above. They argued that a one-story greenhouse would require an almost flat roof because of the relationship of t its height to its depth. In order to carry the weight of the glass roof, therefore, the framing would have to be heavier and would, they maintained, obscure the view up through the glass. NPS did not agree with this assessment of the addition's impact, and in its letter of denial to the owner, stated: the scale of a two-story greenhouse would dominate the facades for which it is proposed. A one-story (design) would not have the same overwhelming effect-from either a close-up or distant perspective--on the existing structure. In appealing this NPS decision, the developer wrote: ...we believe the sloped roof of the greenhouse reflects the line of the existing roof of the (building) as the one-story design would not .... The configuration of the two-story) canopy, combined with sensitive lighting will high-light the components of the historic (facade); a one- story addition would intrude upon and obscure the significant features of the (facade) .... The dramatic alteration caused by the proposed greenhouse addition will have a positive effect on the...building. At night, "suitably illuminated," the greenhouse becomes invisible from any sight line, and the facades of the...building are dramatically revealed. After reviewing the facts of the case,the hearing officer sustained NPS's denial of 1 certification and, in his letter to the owner, wrote: I agree that with illumination of the facades of the...building the greenhouse would be nearly transparent at night, and that the facades would therefore "read" through the glass much as your elevation drawings depict. I would hasten to point out, however, that the drawings overlook the reflective quality that glass possesses during daylight hours. As a result of this quality, I believe that glass in a greenhouse is not a neutral material, "virtually invisible," as you maintain. It is a dynamic material with bold visual qualities very different from the red brick of the...facades. (These) visual characteristics...would make a two-story greenhouse less an invisible addition and more one which would stand alone as an architectural statement, competing with and altering the historic character of the building. The hearing officer reiterated to the developer that a one-story greenhouse likely would receive certification. In a resubmitted application, however, the developer C--- 81-022 eliminated the greenhouse entirely, proposing instead outdoor seating on the sidewalk during the summer months only. Upon receipt of this new plan, a preliminary approval of the developer's proposed work was issued. Prepared by: William G. MacRostie, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. . 1 - 81-022 -rETr'---a_~4 - + - 1. Corner of the Federal Style build- ing for which a two-story greenhouse was proposed. The greenhouse would ..'*,I have run half the length of the facade '9! at right and the entire length of the 1- ~/1.*-~.di/,fe.~fil facade at left. Tri M&:~L-~k 1=1 m 15-- -104*j L 151 1-i; 34 Ific- .44-~ 3 TE HEMH 41 : 04 r ' 1 i / - h <. - 2. Initial design proposal. NPS deter- tivrl= 7-=Â£T=~r _--1 1 , , fl 71 i mined that this two-story addition would i dominate the two facades and overwhelm the building. U.- - C MRI-Ulft"~'~~W-=------L E Ed--<4/ L 445 MI~ f 1//7-ri.--if~â‚¬- MIEEMEFN ~ 2.- r- ZE 7.-All-Ir 3. The developer's second design pro- posal reduced the height of the green- house to the level of the second story window lintels. NPS continued to with- hold approval for the project. UIIUM .--- - Ef* E-N a m m imm MI imm 4. NPS suggested a one-story green- LE'EEME house, similar to this, which would not have the same overwhelming effect ~ 11 -1-1- Rj-L-13-1--,1 1-1 1-1-n . on the building as the proposed two- story addition. sep Technical Preservation Services Preservation Assistance Division Interpreting National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. the Secretary of the Interior's Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 82-025 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (conformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (conformance) Subject: ENTRYWAY ALTERATIONS IN CARRIAGE HOUSE CONVERSIONS Issue: The rehabilitation of historic carriage houses into usable living spaces often poses difficulties for owners undertaking such conversions. These structures are often more modest in detail than the main house they serve, and generally lack architectural features such as window and door surrounds, elaborate cornices, and high quality brick-work. Nonetheless it is important that their essential form and integrity be preserved during the course of rehabilitation. Doors and openings are frequently the most distinguishing features of carriage houses. Owners, however, often find it necessary to modify these features for the following reasons: to allow for privacy, for adequate light and air, and for more efficient access into the interior living spaces. Owners should be concerned about the possibility of violating Standards 2,4, and 5 by damaging historic fabric or severely altering the integrity of the structure through the use of inappropriate infill designs. Additionally, where original or historically significant doors have survived, they should be retained rather than removed, and the sense of opening should be preserved. Projects that fail to retain their "carriage house" character can result in denial of certification. The following project provides an example of the mitigating circumstances that existed to enable the approval of a particular infill design. Application: The owner of an 1840 carriage house in a historic* district rehabilitated the structure for use as rental units and upon completion of the project requested that the work be designated a "certified rehabilitation." The two-story brick building had been constructed with a balcony across the second floor and two arched doorways that opened into the interior carriage spaces on the first floor. In 1934 the structure was converted into apartments, and wooden doors were installed in the arched entryways. These doors were not original elements of the structure nor were they significant to the character of the carriage house. The rehabilitation work performed by the present owner, according to the certification application, included refinishing the interior woodwork; repairing existing wood sash, doors, and shutters on the balcony level; paving the existing gravel courtyard with exposed aggregate concrete; repairing the balcony elements; and replacing the wooden carriage doors with fanlights, sidelights, and French doors. 82-025 The regional office determined that the project did not meet Standards 2,4, and 5, primarily due to the infill designs for the elliptical-arched doorways. The denial letter stated: Our office would have suggested, had the application been submitted before work was begun, an alternative design solution which would have incorporated a simple, contemporary entry into the large garage doors to 'scale down' the openings. The regional office also expressed reservations over the apparent replacement of the balcony balusters and the extensive amount of paving that occurred within the courtyard. The owner subsequently appealed the decision. After hearing the appeal, the decision was made to designate the work as a "certified rehabilitation." Although additional balusters were apparently installed on the balcony, the hearing officer determined that the replacement features maintained the simplicity in design and austere detailing that existed prior to rehabilitation. Regarding the courtyard space, the new paving covered the existing gravel surface, but its appearance as an informal courtyard and not a formal garden or patio was retained, preserving its historical and architectural integrity. The major source of concern was the infill design for the carriage house doors. The hearing officer agreed with the regional office that installation of fanlights, sidelights, and French doors was an extremely formal solution for adaptively reusing the existing doorways. A more appropriate approach would have been to design a doorway that incorporated as much of the character of the existing fabric so that the doors are able to maintain their original definition and historic character. Nevertheless, because the need for light and air in the first floor spaces was clearly established and no historic fabric was destroyed, the architectural elaboration of the doorways was approved-although not recommended--as an acceptable treatment for this particular structure. Prepared by: Christopher A. Sowick, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-025 = - 7......'-I/..I.....~ 2&//6--11 -11.. .4 U,~*Â·2 111~~3*.-1-B10 A+W" 44'3.. EP--2 "-2,1 *el/*f WI/&/1961 - - - * 7 ., -- .3 . . . 7%2â‚¬, ..A . -:ht .- . * . 27264/j4.*1...1:.R.6<-<.*.ST* --11 1. Carriage house prior to recent 2. Completed rehabilitation rehabilitation. This view incorporates showing formal infill design, repaired 1934 changes, including interior balcony railing, and paved courtyard. alterations and wooden entrance doors This work was found to meet the Standards. in archway. *M# * A w#* * F:: Â·<g, > * 53%Â£''r Â·.-- -9149<Ef{ 1 -~Â· ;J.9.4463'14Â¢:-Â·Â·942*Ittj~47 n 3:'.~~'.4''k:,62..~fÂ·Â·Â· i:-4~r st.{:re,(319Â·1 -:--y'-Â· -41 t @trtjffÂ»,t, -Â·.4 . '.. ~34'iÂ·ttf74.*Â¥'.?....~ . "' ... ' I .... i,k : .8 c... p ;.:?-: ; F.je<,... -. Â·' +1.- I $ ir:Â· Â· ~35 -- 3 5.3 W OUTBUILDINGS G ...Ir by Gordon Bock . In*- //f' 341/2/"PL lL- aNK wri.Â· ullfN#1234$17: - , PeriFI Â».24=466= Â· 1- .....621-1.-f.*223.07+W -1:-Adk.&(Â·: .(:--~~ 1 01&<;~~~/ Wt> 1 Â£4 I. - , . 1 V / 2 + -. 1 - Â·Ifig. ~. 0: 'Ullwa- i/u,"H"r- Il.1 1 .P-../1. ~*~40Â·#9Â»4*es#A#49*:,yâ€ži I. -2 C ~~~~~~*~*Â»443~:~.1.~~(~Q~~Ii~:~ ~I. ~:~~;~~~ ~~2....~ts)Â°~f..7-fF~%*~Â¢k~-3.'..t.â‚¬6,4.~f>Â·::~42~2~Â·1~t~-~,:1Â·.-~.,t.~..~.;:.;..: --Â·. Â· t n. 9 -thli:>.p.r Â·, Â·1Â·~;4~>*43~0:ic :;~-1- Be f Â£ WiM *1,20 1 .~3.f--52:,.. 1 ~ Â·'* t Â·9:Or,11.fgfi;.7-id::A. / 2 - - ->....i*Â»aik-0.1 -- - 8 %*.4/8644.i**Dlf.~:4Â·4*bÂ·:1:4-4473644#46*66.zilelÂ·kig**12as/LE-:.OÂ»ii;ti Â£/ds,Dahx .*~S~'*M;**~. riends kid me about all the weekends I devote to Service has a professional preservationist's interest in out- my obsession: resurrecting a neglected family buildings, as head of the Williamsport Preservation Train- homestead in Pennsylvania. I must admit, I spend ing Center in Maryland. For his work, outbuildings are "an a lot of time working on the main house, But essential part of the historical context of a homestead or they've yet to catch on to my other mission: bringing back farmstead." In historic sites, they sometimes stand as the the satellite structures - the outbuildings. I can't whack only evidence of an economy and way of life now gone, away on the main house and watch it improve, and at the In some areas, too, their construction is a rare record of same time ignore the tool shed, the summer kitchen, the early immigrant building methods before ethnic tech- well house, or the tractor barn which are also crying for niques were homogenized into American ways. John Bruce maintenance. Dodd, a restoration architect in Layton, New Jersey, has For me, outbuildings are the homestead or furmstead. grown to share the same views. In the course of preparing The land and service buildings that support the main house a government report on historic structures, Dodd inven- are what give the place history and context, setting it apart toried hundreds of "O.B.s" (as he and his wife call them) from suburban dwellings. In the days before plumbing, owned by the federal government in a project that covered refrigerators, or central heat, the outhouse, icehouse, and the Mid-Atlantic states and several years, woodshed did these jobs for anyone living outside of a As I continue to work on my outbuildings, and help other city, Twentieth-century inventions have made these "de- people with theirs, I've collected a kind of two-phase com- pendencies" obsolete today, but I feel a 'stead-house would pendium of ideas and techniques for saving them, Some ' still look naked without them. You may not have livestock tips are my own discoveries, others are common knowl- I for your barn, or need a milk shed to put cream in your edge or borrowed from different technologies. None Of it c coffee, but knocking these little buildings down or letting is complete. Also, I've limited myself pretty much to the benign neglect eat them away will, at the very least, take wood-frame building, because this is by far the most pop- away the sense of dimension you feel when walking around ular construction method, and is used even in structures your grounds. made of adobe or stone. Again, what follows is not com- I'm not alone, either. Jim Askins of the National Park prehensive, but it's a place to start. 38 MAY/JUNE 1988 ~~' . ST'ABILIZATION - 2-5--*-13Â«.am=Â©=2 Solon (who works in the Delaware Water Gap National ~ ' ~ The situation I come up against is: Yes, I want to throw Recreation Area) says that windows and other portals 4 some money and effort into that tool shed, but a new roof where light penetrates will warm the inside of the building, ~ on the main house has to come first (or we'll have "running circulating the air and minimizing the negative effects of water" in more than just the bathroom), When faced with dampness. To maintain this natural system, windows , this clash of priorities, I do as much as I call to stabilize should be covered with clear plastic, not with opaque ma- 1 or "mothball" the outbuilding so it can resist the elements, terials such as tarpaper or lumber. Ventilation for the es- ; and prevent it from slipping past The Point Of No Return cape of trapped moisture is usually not a problem with the f (to be discussed later). simple, loose construction of most outbuildings. Still, never Making the building watertight is usually job number seal them SO tightly that interiors cannot breathe. one. Water inside any wooden building causes lumber Ground or runolr water is the third source of water : problems, from warping and splitting (where the wood problems. Neglected outbuildings most often sit on ne- j expands and distorts) to rotting (live fungi eating away the glected building sites, and the growth of plants or a shifting 1 wood). Water gets in by three avenues: of the landscape will channel melting snow and rainwater Rain is the most common source ofwater. Unfortunatelv, into the foundations instead of away from them. Outbuild- ~ outbuildings have a long history of being roofed with eco- ings are notorious for being built close to the ground or i nomical materials - woodshingles or sheet metal on open into hills, and this only compounds the damage runoff 1 nailers - and then being forgotten, Once a few shingles water can do. Stabilization may mean digging culverts to i blow off or the sheet metal rusts through, rainwater runs channel water away, or regrading foundations temporarily. j in along the nailers and supporting framing, and rot starts. Once the invasion of water has been halted, the next job , Eventually the weakened framing and roof will collapse is to make the outbuilding structurally sound, This stabi- 1 under its own weight, if the burden of snow doesn't bring lization is, once again, just to help the outbuilding hold its } it down sooner. own against wind, snow, or its own weight. Structural prob- Stabilizing a leaking roof, then, is a top-level priority. My lems vary widely (and each has its own solution), but I y technique is to attack the problem with the most cost- make much use of shoring when a building is in danger effective means for the moment, while keeping an eve of collapsing. toward how a permanent repair will be made later. Cov- Buildings that teeter on their foundations like collapsed , ering the entire roof with plastic, tarpaper, sheet metal, boxes, or walls that bulge almost to breaking, are candi- fiberglass, roll roofing, or tarps is a valid technique. Making dates for raking shores. These are beams erected perpen- watertight, localized repairs with, say, leftover asphalt shin- dicularly between the ground and the sick wall, at 60 to gles is also worthwhile, Your goal, for the time being, is 70 degrees, so that further movement is prevented. I use to simply keep water out. timbers (such as heavy pieces of construction lumber or Rain also can enter into walls through broken windows, small felled trees), and Set the ground end on a block in missing doors, or openings in the siding. These should be a well-tamped "notch" in the earth. The wall end is posi- closed in with the best means at hand, but interior moisture tioned so that it supports a structural member in the build- should be considered as well. Historical architect Thomas ing (like the plate the rafters rest on), or a large board 8/4.3 2*41*2%3:':-a=*3'Nsf>.%%,2%13*390124*F;%*E' 1,<9/1/Gua/1.34,1 6 ~ # ./0--- . . 1 I ., 1.19. .11 11.11 71 . 1,1 ~ m - -Â· eÂ·' ,.'''i' P i j'' ,Â·-7 -1 -1 1 4.'Lk''tel' 19 1 5,4''ll .- - I *.r-- . â€žI,t~.6.A. lilli . JIr,1,11 1 - --- - -1 --- -- - - Mt 1*r-' i r li â€¢IT 4 *M.,1 " - f l. S p "4*r 9/M 41 - 1 4, , -1- I. $ I I. i /-- k , 3 :ill 1Â»4- ~r -:- t-Nt,~~.y ' =-.i, '11'2* 4-32 k i - L 24 9412'Â· â€¢ 9- 1 '244.'- -13* T : i i m IL r I 41 ./ .- :I :amlin# 24(Â·.Â·*41/2. , - 7 1 * -I -''7'.&- I- .4.-'ll I Tbe entire building may need work, but stabilizing a leaky roof is tbefirst critical step. 4 THE OLD-HOUSE JOURNAL 39 . work you know would have to be done. For instance, that tool shed I want to rebuild probably has several hidden . 1 \11; yÂ»-,6--,0.-Â·-~m --1 r # 1=0â€ž- problems, but at the very least it needs a new roof, a door, NmATin* 4.226*81 and a paint job. The calculated cost for these materials alone comes to $580, so that becomes the nlinimum figure s for the project. Now ask yourself, does that put it over- ic 1 /IMI 1 i 1. 4 -Lr,r/,I.- 1 if -1 ; -0 ,Â» ,; 13 2 1 7-4 budget and out of the question? If I have tile money to / c '~~.,1 1.21 46 spend, I can extrapolate from this base by adding another t 3096 or so to cover unanticipated supplies. If this is still [ 1, 4 7 Fl, .4 Â£ 2 0,7-' . OK, I get a handle on the labor by doubling the materials Â·' 7 _ - 0 44 704*M cost - a very crude equation for estimating what I might e pay someone else to do the work, and another way to look r at the scale of the project. nailed across the wall as a cleat. Two mating wedges on If the outbuilding passes either of these tests (and I'm the ground end are tapped together just until the shore kind of a softie when it comes to grades), then I figure it takes the load off the building - no more - and are hasn't slipped past The Point Of No Return and beconie a inspected regularly for shifting. candidate for salvage or firewood. u Dead shores are vertical beams used to stabilize dead REPAIR IDEAS t=i:~=*=*atim# :1141%%2*20%0@193=.9394%:a b (vertically acting) load problems such as broken roofs or Neglected outbuildings are case studies of what lack of g walls with missing foundations. Shoring here is also be- maintenance can do to a structure. It may not look gobd. s, tween the ground and a building member, with wood On the other hand, outbuildings are usually simple, work- p blocks used at both ends of the timber. For dead shoring, aday buildiiigs that respond quickly to a little attention. t] the wedges should be inserted at the top of the timber Their unsophisticated construction actually helps in slap- t] and, again, be tightened not to correct the problem, but ping them back into shape because they lack the interior S just keep it from getting worse. Jacking-type steel columns . * also work well, and any dead shore should be braced with Â£ - .044#iÂ· *. A ** lumber so that it can't shift or fall over. The third priority is to keep CritterS Out. And by "critters," iM)7re, 21 I mean vandals, rodents, and insects. Vandals have the big- Alw.rÂ¥,/ &4"6 : â€¢ -fÂ»'â€¢01: \,~~1 gest potential for doing damage to an outbuilding (i.e,, setting it on fire); fortunately, they can be discouraged by securing all the openings into the building. Use of bars, grates, or spaced planks of lumber will prevent access ,â€ž1 i~,t~~~~1,~.*...~~, 1 ~ ~~ 2 through windows while still letting in light. Rodents do 197 4 : -9 1.-, less damage, perhaps, but are harder to control. One trick 4.Â·L 2 1 is to nail chicken wire over holes in eaves or under bull- dations - anywhere there is evidence of entry. Insects, such as wasps, are the peskiest to keep out (especially when I they are determined to live there), but the hole-plugging walls, multiple rooms, services (such as plumbing),or even . i a technique helps keep them at bay. floors that get in the way with many major house repairs. e ' j: 2 "THE POINT OF NO RETURN" :z .# * 1*~giaÂ«Â«Â»mign#.* Some say, "If you don't have a roof and a foundation, i s I'll stabilize a building to buy time for the day when I have you don't have a building," so these are the two areas I h the money or manpower to invest in it. I have learned, attack first when rehabbing. t however, to put enthusiasm aside and evaluate whether ROOFS ,&-rit <~, **.AMEMEN*A RE~%, i;g.tii~t'Â§ attatÂ¢~49:%2'FreÂ¢I#trfÂ«33ZLDâ‚¬ ~'Uxt'uÂ¢411 t< the building is worth working on at all, or what the scale I use the three-fifths equation to evaluate the condition of . a of the project is going to be, I've come up with two methods a roof. If less than that can be saved, the damage very likely i of assessment. extends into the support framing, not just the roof covering. g c One method is an old rule-of-thumb for fire-damaged This means it will be more efficient to remove the entire 5 i houses: If you can salvage more than three-tifths, it's worth roof anyway to make repairs to the framing. tÂ· rebuilding. Even if you're not planning a complete rebuild, Damaged rafters can be replaced entirely if the roof is 3 ~ C such a guideline is good for evaluating the condition of a removed. Barring this, they can also be mended, sistered f building. If investing less than tWO-fifths in new materials or flitched. In mending a rafter (or any beam), sections of F and effort will produce a sound structure, you're probably identical lumber are placed on either side of the weak or F not throwing "good money after bad." If it looks as though broken section, and through-bolted to effect a splint-like ~ r more would be needed, you're in the realm of a "labor of repair. In sistering a weak rafter, another length of lumber love, and a completely new building might be more eco- as long as is practical is maneuvered in alongside it, and a nomical. then both are nailed together to share the load. Flitching z The other method is to estimate a dollar figure for the employs metal flitch plates to strengthen weak rafters, They I 40 MAY/JUNE 1988 T 91 2 IN tioN ,1 %7,040â€ž1/ 9 U )>1" f H )01 N./ 14 nuolut LE 47.210 14 ,),m~ wi.- â€žgoN d 3 (U Â·14 57~OJW.UN77#,f . it' ~ can be used like lumber in the mending method or in- r. .f~tat n serted singly between sistered rafters. r, i FOUNDATIONS AND SILLS *0--t 23=0*#"'i ~; lr- : 22*%2'%Â§*p. [S P Large outbuildings such as stables and barns may have i --1*2:1.77m'*t>t' ' Â· 7 4;: 1 1 substantial foundations by necessity; smaller buildings typ- r- 1 icallv get by with much less. As mentioned, the classic =347 1 \ . 0 ~ outbuilding sill is only inches off the groutid, resting orl a - ~0;4~41-4~': tff'Â·3<6-207 6&1~~ %' 3.-r ?r ~ base of perhaps a few courses of roughly mortared or dry- 9 4. 14:2;Upt,3 117-1:1 f 4--fl,9, [1 Â·~ laid stone, or maybe just a few strategically placed boulders. ,:. < 1 F 1, rtff'f #~Â· r. -- L Is ,, They seldom extend below ground, so frost is their biggest . 414 9:. > 9 ?4 u 1 enemy, heaving and shifting them over the years. Luckily, 21/'74Â¢*1 V 8, 4 Ik repairs need not be elaborate. Collapsed foundations can Af'*,4 Â·*2~ *M / i - be renewed simply by relaying. Other cases where settling 3 le-WÂ» n has occured can be made level again by adding a "fudge" new sill; 5) drop the building back down and nail it to the it . course of shim stones. new sill. a The condition of a foundation and sill can often be de- WALLS *,j:M?li%72,43? 1 8223:â€ž: ..*ER.2 ~. *, <Câ‚¬4~ Â°1Â»Jr~S,Ek}%44~'%?Fer.%*j;>tj? n 2 ~3+F~.2 ~*Ob~..ma termined just by looking at it from inside and outside the A problem that plagues all small outbuildings is twisting building. To see subtler "creeping out" of the walls at or leaning of the structure. Because they're built simply )f i ground level, use the picture-frame technique. Cut a true and rarely stand more than a single storey, they usually 1. i square or rectangle in a piece of cardboard (or use a real lack the diagonal bracing given bigger buildings to prevent :- picture frame), and view the building from various angles deformation. In reviving an outbuilding, your aim is to 1. through this "window. Framed within the right angles of straighten the building to plumb again, and to brace it in the window, out-of-plumb walls, creeping sills, and other some fushion so it stays that way, ir shifts in the structure suddenly become obvious. My technique calls for using a sledgehammer and a block-and-tackle or a "come-along" (a self-winching tool consisting of a hook, cable, and ratcheted spool). Once the sill and foundation are as fixed as the project permits, and -- *EW 9 \ while the rest of the building is in its most stripped con- I dition, I attach the block-and-tackle or come-along between ../31.-1 a suitable anchor (such as a tree) and the worst-offending corner of the building. By tightening up on the tackle or come-along, I can gradually pull that side of the building into line, checking as I go with a level. It is a step-by-step process: first tension on the corner, then coaxing the wall further by tapping it at various spots with the sledge[-tam- mer - tension, coax, tension, coax. If I have to do major sill or foundation work, I wait until Once the corner'is as close to plumb as possible in one I've lightened the load by removing unsalvageable roofing direction (and often a little more for spring-back), the new i and other defective materials. Then I proceed with any position can be secured by nailing a brace at 45 degrees jacking or levering around the base. Rotted outbuilding to the corner from floor to ceiling. Few buildings twiSt or sills are veryÂ· common in my experience. Their close prox- lean out of shape in only one direction, SO there's usually I imity to the ground subjects them to runoff water, splash- more than one corner to be trued in this manner. Each back from roof drainage, and wood-eating insects like corner might need to be aligned in two directions (the termites and ants. Occasionally it's worthwhile to splice in planes of each wall) as well. Once the walls are square f a new piece of sill if the damage is localized and the wall again to a reasonable degree, the new roof (if any) can be is long. Be aware, though, that adding joints to such a put on and the rest of the building revived. critical member tends to defeat its purpose. On small build- Relocation is an interesting closing idea that has more ings, I opt for replacing the sill along an entire wall, par- possibilities for outbuildings than any other structure. For ticularly when it can be done with a single timber. small buildings, the same no-frills construction details (like 1 (Changing sills is also the time to raise the level of the primitive foundations) that aid repair, also make moving , foundation above 18 inches if termites are known to be a them to other sites very feasible. In the last century, rolling , t ~ problem.) I also use pressure-treated lumber for the re- a henhouse or bunkhouse across the farmyard to a new ' placement so (I hope) the job won't have to be done again home involved little more than logs (as rollers) and a team while I'm still around. of oxen. Today, the same results can be achieved with The project goes surprisingly fast on many small sheds construction equipment like a truck and a heavy-duty [ and houses: 1) Jack up the affected side, much like a car: trailer. Moving is a whole area beyond repair to think about, 2) knock out the old sill (it usually falls out); 3) clean any but it is one more technique that can be applied to the nails out of wall studs and posts; 4) trim and inSert the same end: saving outbuildings. 22 - 1 THE OLD-HOUSE JOURNAL 41 illustrafions by Tlbomas P Robâ€žMon. Ripnilted.#rom Houses in America by, 8 Fay Robinson 6 77,omas P. Robinson, 1936. ASPEN COMMUNITY CHURCH APR 2 0 MARYANN DOWNS, PASTOR 114 N. AsPEN ST. / 96â‚¬IUNITIO .- - -- ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-1571 April 20, 1988 ~CHURCH 1 Historic Preservation Committee 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Sirs: Standing proudly on the corner of Aspen and Bleeker Streets in Aspen, Colorado, is the Aspen Community Church, a grand old edifice that has been the site of many important events throughout the history of Aspen. As it approaches its 100th birthday in 1990, the restored structure continues to enhance the entire community by its stately presence. The church has many outstanding features, such as numerous stained-glass windows and the original woodwork throughout the building. The original archi- tect, Fred A. Hale, was also the architect on the Wheeler-Stallard House. In addition to being a place of worship, the church building is signifi- cantly used as a public meeting place because of its close proximity to the elementary schools and the center of town. To date, we have completed major restoration work over the past two years at the cost of $187,500, all of which is completely paid for. The re- maining interior and exterior work is estimated to cost $298,000. Our next phase of restoration will begin in early May when we have con- tracted to have new shingles and repair work done to the bell tower. On May 8, we will be a part of the historic walking tour of the West end of Aspen, which will be sponsored by the Aspen Historical Society. We invite you to consider the Aspen Community Church as a nominee for the Aspen Historic Preservation Award. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Ch /4 ) Maryann Downs, Pastor MD/sm 1 S t O o A 1 3 4-4 Showcase ~Better 94* 1 T-TOIneSÂ® Properties ~~* 0â‚¬ 1 land Gardens 332 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 920-1500 -r April 21, 1988 uuk / I. Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Committee Re: Historic Preservation Award Nomination Dear Roxanne: I would like to nominate the F.M. Taylor residence, built in 1888 for an Historic Preservation Award. Located at the southwest corner of Third and Main, this one hundred year old building has remained one of Aspen's grand Victorian homes. This home has been well maintained and recently painted. Currently occupied by several professional groups, I feel that this property is often overlooked by the Historic Preservation Committee. As an owner of the property, I can assure you that this Victorian would make a lovely addition to the Victorian Home Tour and that we would be agreeable to allowing groups to visit. I have enclosed a rendering of our property along with a backpage historical summary. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Gary M. Feldman President GMF/tos enclosure 01.zs 1- REALTOW' APR 19 _j ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY (303) 925-3721 620 West Bleeker Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 April 19, 1988 Planning Department City of Aspen Re: Nominations for preservation awards The gracious Victorian house at 620 West Bleeker and now open to the public as the Wheeler-Stallard House Museum was built in 1888 by Jerome B. Wheeler, .silver entrepreneur, to be his family home. Due to family circumstances the Wheelers never occupied the home. It was used instead by Wheeler's mining executives as employee housing. After being sold for back taxes in 1904, Mary Ella Stallard purchased the home in 1917 as her family home. The Stallards lived there over forty years. Walter Paepcke purchased the property in 1946 at the beginning of Aspents revival. The Aspen Historical Society, incorporated..in 1963, purchased the house and opened it as a house museum in the late 60's. In 1,973 the Wheeler-Stallard House was included in the City of Aspen Historic Overlay District. In 1975 the property was entered on the National..Register of Historic Places by the State Ilistorical Society of Colorado. The Wheeler-Stallard House maintains the mood of Aspen at the turn of the century. The three-story Victorian house, built of locally quarried brick, is furnished with a collection which has been donated by the Aspen and Roaring Fork Valley community. This fine example of Victorian architecture is the house in Aspen, furnished as a residence and open to the public. Museum operations to maintain the only historical museum in the valley are supported by admissions, memberships, foundation awards, and a grant from the City of Aspen. The museum is staffed by three employees and a corps of dedicated volunteers. As the Centennial Anniversary of the Wheeler-Stallard approached, the Board of Trustees realized it was an appropriate time to do necessary exterior repairs and renovations. A Wheeler-Stallard House Renovations Committee was appointed. The Committee determined that three areas needed attention: broken and loose masonry; deteriorating wood trim and window repair; and the painting of exterior woodwork. A total project budget of $75,674 was prepared. The committee was aware that all repairs should be in keeping with the historical character of the house, its current use as a public museum; and prevailing local historic guidelines. A local architectural consultant advised the committee. page two Private donations from the community in the amount of $20,000 enabled the masonary repair to be completed in the summer of 1987. An Aspen Foundation grant of $20,000 for the repair of the windows was awarded in 1987. Approximately $7,000 of additional donations have been received. Efforts to raise the additional funds needed are underway. Future plans of the Aspen Historical Society include expanding the educational program to include a lecture series and slide presentations, rotating exhibits in the house and Carriage House, and a traveling exhibit which will enable outlying areas of Pitkin County to share in our rich heritage. Plans are underway to establish a new building which will be devoted to mining, skiing and classroom space. The Wheeler-Stallard House is the only Victorian house, furnished as such, and open to the community and visitors alike. The Aspen Historical Sociuty remains dedicated to preserving.the house and artifacts for this and future generations to enjoy. lah#:rprÂ·/Ballap1 f I '4/: , 0 4 , . r:. - 410*22'.~lrd-T- - . ... Al -4,4, *.5 '. . -, ... 7 - - 1 . bea .-A; i. 4 :11 1 , t $ - . i:,4.â€ž ~*-- - : 2Â» Mi 21 f k .~r' 0 lim 9% f r F G . ... i 0.1 . ...%90 . 4 4 -t==11.43 - â€¢m "11 â€¢Im =. -% 2Â»A. .1 :,2 .. .m .05 n A/1 -,1 SOCIET' k I MUSEUM I - 1 FIEÂ» tri - 4 PAit-1 , â€žâ€žâ€žâ€žâ€žâ€žâ€ž It""14, JWW/'7: 54= aâ€¢Â·â€¢ â€¢,tult 'R.,4.- -- .C#? L.,=7 r f Al ..PÂ¢ . I . 1 9 . b' , 1 ) /. +C#4%44&WROW,car/* - 4../91./4.. I ' 9-j Â¥091 1*542~ INS}MTMER/%214/98934 2*. .34* 00: Â· $ Jâ€¢ Â»a Ge . 4# 504.;A:4*7n1.2 ./ 47.1 .prAâ€¢.6. - I . 41 ifir; 32<5..522,7414, 14033::20*9545%441tmfi1<k#*~~*f*&*im~.465~~:,EffgÂ£6*4.14.4Â»1114 Â·",Â· '. '* :Â·.Â·Â·iâ‚¬:89,;Â·7 :-t. Pb#-24<T 2.-,9 . P '~:: f O--7:,-~(L?.ff,fi '~00yflff.,~4(7431$4*~-~,,i123~*ff?UP*Â®:0fl.ffâ‚¬o:*126 -2411*,*4.ripÂ·ti: zg 8 07Â· r, - Alk z 3 605 EAST MAIN STREET , ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 April 26, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Presentation Awards Dear Ms. Eflin: In regard to the above-referenced program, we would like to nominate the Sutton Residence at 131 East Hallam Avenue. Located on the southwest corner of the Aspen Street and Hallam Avenue intersection, the house was originally built by Dexter T. Reynolds in 1892. During the next 95 years, the house underwent a series of I minor additions. However, in 1986 work began on a major remodel, renovation and small addition. Inside, the house was almost completely gutted and restored in a true Victorian style. In addition, the structure was strengthened where necessary to meet current codes. On the exterior, siding and trim was replaced and/or repaired where it had deteriorated. The Victorian detailing, particularly at the eaves, was also restored. Finally, the entire house was repainted in a Victorian scheme. The property was also fully landscaped and new fences and gates were built. A new garage was built to replace one that was structurally unsound and encroached into the alley. re.*iN Ms. Roxanne Eflin April 26, 1988 Page two ~ and associates Thank you for considering this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, L / 1/ 1 U Kim Weil KW:dem 0 0 . 1 I ./ . I Project Team Architect: Bill Poss and Associates Interior Design: Karen Day Hudson Landscape: Design Workshop, Inc. Structural: Theodore K. Guy and Associates, P.C. Contractor: Pioneer Building and Construction, Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FROM: ROXANNE EFLIN, HISTORIC PRESERVATION SPECIALIST DATE: MARCH 8, 1988 RE: INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION In the three short weeks I have been on staff with the City, I have discovered the beauty of Aspen and the vast potential you have here in your historic fabric. From your rich mining history and fine architectural inventory to your current economic advantages, Aspen has preservation potential other communities dream of. I am very pleased to hold the position of Historic Preservation Specialist here, and look forward to learning from you in the near future. I feel I bring a Front Range viewpoint of preservation to this position as I have worked primarily in the Denver/Colorado Springs areas. I look forward to learning from you and gathering ideas from the HPC on how to make this position operate efficiently and best serve the needs of the community. I would like to develop the historic preservation resource area in the Planning Office for community assistance. I feel a central area for materials and technical advise which may be easily accessed is important, not only for us here in Planning, but also for you. If you have any written materials you would . like to donate or temporarily house in the "resource library", I am interested in receiving it. Please come up anytime (you may want to call first); I am here Mondays, Tuesdays, and half-days on Wednesdays. I hope to accomplish a great deal this year with your assistance, and am open to any suggestions you may have. One area I feel may be helpful to you is the memo process on project review. In order for packet preparation to flow smoothly, and for you to receive your packets a little earlier, we are coordinating final packet preparation no later than the Wednesday morning THE WEEK PRIOR to the HPC meeting. This means any last minute minor changes an applicant wishes to include in the packet must be in the Planning Office by Tuesday at 5:00 p.m., again, the week prior to the meeting. This should result in you having more time for project review and the opportunity for on-site examination. Another area I feel may be of service to you is an Executive Summary of the lengthier memos, time permitting. Please let me - know if you feel this would be helpful, or if this extra step is unnecessary. As staff for your committee, I am interested in assisting you as much as possible. Page 2 MEMORANDUM TO HPC March 8, 1988 In reviewing the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element, in particular the section on Goals and Objectives, I would like to meet with each of you and informally discuss your thoughts in the following areas: 1. Quality of the Environment and Architecture a) Site visits with entire HPC, particularly on detailed -- -- or difficult projects b) Comprehensive checklist for project review for your use c) Districts 3, 4, and 5: boundaries, descriptions, formalization, new inclusions d) Develop network of area craftspeople, hands-on folks who understand preservation; technicians e) Development of Historic Trust: non-profit organization set up to acquire/sell historic properties, find new sites if necessary to save potential demolitions f) Aspen Annual Preservation Awards, awarded to property owners during National Historic Preservation Week in May, excellent public relations tool g) Nominations from HPC of exemplary Aspen projects to Colorado Preservation, Inc. for the statewide Annual preservation awards (excellent statewide press coverage) h) Review of all historic elements in Aspen for proper documentation (may include bridges, public walkways, etc.) 2. Resort Amenities a) Walking tours highlighting obvious individually National Register buildings, as well as designated structures, sites, neighborhoods; linking Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts with the others 3. Education a) Workshops, possibly in conjunction with the Aspen Historical Society and/or Library. Could be monthly or quarterly, dealing with maintenance and renovation, preservation incentives, historic landscapes and interiors to name a few topics. b) Community outreach: school programs, articles in local papers, focus groups with developers/downtown merchants? c) Brochure outlining role of HPC in community, incentives, WHY PRESERVE? d) National Historic Preservation Week: second week in May. Annual big deal - many activities taking place throughout community. Excellent media event/project, workshops are ideal during this week. May involve entire cmmunity. e) Slide presentations - historical inventory, cultural amenities, even how-to's! f) What are the thoughts/feelings of the HPC on the benefits of marketing preservation in a public relations way to the Page 3 MEMORANDUM March 8, 1988 f) (continued) entire community? How can preservation be integrated into every element of Aspen? Should it? I look forward to getting your feedback and working with you. I appreciate your volunteer spirit. I have included a few other items for review which you may find interesting. Thank you for your time! Sincerely, Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Specialist re.intro.memo.HPC - 1 g -U COLORADO PRESERVATION INC. PRESS RELEASE CONTACT: ROXANNE EFLIN, CPI BOARD FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- - 685-5349 (Manitou Springs) FEBRUARY 18, 1988 EXCELLENCE IN PRESERVATION TO BE RECOGNIZED: STATEWIDE PRESERVATION AWARDS COLORADO PRESERVATION, INC. THE STATEWIDE PRIVATE NON-PROFIT PRESERVATION ORGANIZATION, IS SEEKING NOMINATIONS FOR THEIR FIRST ANNUAL RECOG- NITION AWARDS. THE AWARDS WILL FOCUS ATTENTION ON PEOPLE AND PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF COLORADO REPRESENTING THE BEST OF PRESERVATION'S EFFORTS IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL NATURAL RESOURCES COMMERCIAL PUBLIC RECREATION ARCHEOLOGY AGRICULTURAL PEOPLE/CULTURAL THE AWARDS WILL BE PRESENTED DURING NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK IN MAY. WRITTEN NOMINATION LETTERS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO COLORADO PRESERVATION, INC., P. O. BOX 843, DENVER, COLORADO 80201, AND SHOULD BE RECEIVED BY APRIL 1, 1988. NOMINATIONS ARE TO INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT OR INDIVIDUAL NOMINATED FOR SPECIAL RECOGNITION, AND THE RELATED IMPACT UPON THE COMMUNITY OR STATE. IF A RENOVATION PROJECT IS BEING NOMINATED, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION SHOULD ACCOMPANY THE LETTER: 1) ORIGINAL AGE OF BUILDING 2) ADDITIONAL SUPPORT MATERIALS, I.E. PHOTOS IF AVAILABLE, NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS, BROCHURE, ETC. 3) OWNERS NAME/ADDRESS 4) NOMINATING ORGANIZATION'S CONTACT NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE (NOTE: INDIVIDUALS MAY ALSO SUBMIT NOMINATIONS) COLORADO PRESERVATION, INC. WAS ORGANIZED IN 1984 TO PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION OF COLORADO'S RICH HERITAGE THROUGH STATEWIDE EFFORTS TO EDUCATE AND INFORM, SUPPORT GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUAL EFFORTS THROUGH ACCESS TO A NETWORK OF PRESERVATION EXPERTISE AND ADVOCATE FOR PRESERVATION POLICIES. THE BOARD AND MEMBERS ARE FROM ALL CORNERS OF THE STATE, REPRESENTING ALL THE VARIED FIELDS AND INTERESTS OF PRESERVATION, INCLUDING PROFESSIONALS AND VOLUNTEERS. 2\ - I ; Colorado lottery funds preservation > projects BY CHRISTINE PFAFF, I)irector Preservation Planning T OTTEl<Y MONEY usually brings to mind parks and L athletic fields. But did you know that Colorado's lottery funds have also been used to help restore the splendid Kit Carson County Carousel-a National Historic Landmark-and to help implement a historic master plan for the White House Ranch-a National Register site owned by the city of Colorado Springs? You may also be surprised to learn that in addition to the well-publicized park and recreation uses, Colo- rado lottery funds can also be expended in certain cases for scientific, scenic, aesthetic, and historic purposes according to language in the Conservation Trust Funds statute. Colorado's lottery money is divided into three separate portions. Fifty percent of the funds raised are allocated to the state for capital construction, ten percent of the proceeds go to the state division of parks and recreation, and the remaining forty percent gets transferred to the Conservation Trust Fund. This distribution formula was established by the state legislature and could be changed at any juncture. The money in the Conservation Trust Fund is distributed among counties, municipalities, and qualified special improvement districts based upon a population formula. The greater the population, the , more money the entity receives. For example, Den- ver received $2,204,620 in 1987, while Crested Butte's share was $4,353, and Lake City's was only $882. Once the money is distributed among the eligible entities, they may spend it any way they wish as long as the - lis-6- falls-~ within thoil allowEd by - statute. In both 1985 and 1986, five museum projects were funded with lottery monies. In addition to those already mentioned, the town of Hugo installed a new roof on the town museum, Morrison performed main- tenance work on the Morrison Museum, and Bur- lington funded the restoration and construction of buildings for the Old Town Burlington Museum. All of these projects are considered to be "public sites," another stipulation for use of the Conservation Trust Funds. 1 1 1 1 r- 1 -1 1 -7- fit - 1- - ' y 1 N. , 111 lilli t 1 Even though your community may not receive a great deal of money through the lottery, it may be enough to fund at least one phase of a local preserva- tion project. The funds are distributed annually in September and typically go to the town or city council. For input into how your community's share of lottery monies are spent, contact your local elected officials. If you are aware of any other preservation projects for which lottery funding is being proposed, or have such a project in mind that you would like to discuss, please contact Christine Pfaff at (303)866-4678.