The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19960313-5Â»- AGENDA .1 4 A K ' ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 13, 1996 REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL BASEMENT 5:00 I. Roll call. II. Commissioner and Staff Comments ~OJ7 1 Q CZL- /1/ 1.--- --__ III. Public Comments 5:15 IV. NEW BUSINESS B. 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf- M (no r -/torj Â£ rj SUG an 0 /9 5:45 C. 520 Walnut - Extension of conceptual approval 311 4,41,l. L R <19 4 0 j R V. OLD BUSINESS 5:50 A. 616 W. Main Street - Minor F /j - 6:30 B. 820 E. Cooper - Amended-congptuaL- F j AA ~__- '7 7:00 VI. Adjourn /1-+42kul 3Ct Ps -i \.thr City Council Retreat - March 21, 1996 4:30 p.m. PROJECT MONITORING Donnelley Erdman Meadows Collins Block/alley 624 E. Hopkins 220 W. Main - European flower 930 King Street 420 E. Main Galena Plaza Jake Vickery Meadows 130 S: Galena 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 205 W. Main - Chisolm 610 W. Hallam Leslie Holst Holden Marolt Aspen Historic Trust 303 E. Main Kuhn 930 King Street 939 E. Cooper langley Entrance to Aspen Roger Moyer Holden Marolt 303 E. Main 520 E. Main 107 Juan Martha Madsen 132 W. Main - Asia 435 W. Main - L'Auberge 706 W. Main 702 W. Main Stapleton 525 W. Hallam Wyckoff Linda L. E. Smisek 229 W. Hallam Pihnington 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf 939 E. Cooper Langley 801 E. Hyman - Elmore ~ Sven Alstrom 624 E. Hopkins 712 W. Francis - Orbe residence 918 E. Cooper Susan Dodington Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 520 Walnut (Greenwood), expires March 22, 1995 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26, 1996 123 W. Francis (Vickery), expires May 24, 1996 406 W. Hopkins (Isis), expires August 23, 1996 820 E. Cooper (Anson), expires September 27, 1996 939 E. Cooper (Langley), expires November 9, 1996 824 W. Hallam (Poppies), expires April 26, 1996 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Â£-:33 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director D-' FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 316 E. Hopkins Avenue, Howling Wolf- Minor DATE: March 13,1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to expand the kitchen area, excavate a basement at the rear of the site, create an outdoor patio dining area, and alter the front entrance to allow handicapped access. A fence is also proposed at the rear of the property. Fences are a staff sign-off, however any comments which HPC wishes to offer at this time will be taken into account. The drawings show the proposed fence to be 8' high. The maximum height for fences is 6'. The fence must be no more than 42" high in the southeast comer due to open space requirements. The applicant must return to HPC for a public hearing to request waiver of on- site parking. Currently four spaces exist. The spaces labeled as winter season parking do not count as legal parking spaces, therefore the applicant will request a waiver of all four spaces. The trash enclosure are shown does not meet code. The minimum requirement is 20' (parallel to the alley) x 10' x10'. The building is a local landmark and is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Warren Ryan, owner, represented by Sven Alstrom. LOCATION: 316 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot O, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: Commercial Core. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 0 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with the designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a historic landmark.... Response: In 1994, HPC approved the reconstruction and slight expansion of the rear lean-to/ kitchen area. At this time, the applicant would like to extend the kitchen approximately 17' towards the alley. The existing walk in cooler will be replaced in the basement. The new kitchen addition is one story and similar to the existing addition. The ridgeline over the new interior staircase meets the existing north-south ridgeline, creating a 60' long roofline and wall plane. Typically HPC would require a change in some plane, however since the Commercial Core has no setback requirements, the long ridgeline is not perceptible. The new ridge over the kitchen area terminates in the back of the historic east west gable. There should be minimal demolition in this area. The drawings do not show the north elevation of the addition, as it will be 0 obscured by the fence. Staff has requested that this elevation be supplied at the meeting. The historic house has clapboard siding, and the addition which is currently existing has board and batten siding. The proposed new addition should match the existing addition's materials. A patio dining area, to be used seasonally will be created at the rear of the property, including an outdoor bar and trash receptacle and a required exit stair for the basement. (A parking waiver will be required.) The patio will be surrounded by a 6' high fence. The below grade construction will have no visible impact, except for the stairwell, which will be surrounded by wood fence to match the perimeter fence. Currently, handicapped access is along the east side of the building, entering at the rear near the bathrooms. Staff recommends that the access still be taken down the side of the building and through the courtyard in order to avoid removing the front door, which is historic. The historic door is not wide enough for disabled entrance, therefore is 0 proposed to be replaced with a wider door. An elevation of the proposed door will be presented at the meeting. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed changes, except for the potential modifications at the entrance, are not visible from the street. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The new addition should be differentiated from the historic house in terms of materials in order to distinguish the old from new areas of the building. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The project involves minimal demolition and minimal visual impact to the historic resource. Staff is concerned with the alterations to the front door and porch area. Preserving the proportions of the original fenestration is important to the architectural character of the house. The architect must provide verification that excavation and underpinning will not jeopardize the structural integrity of the historic house. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the minor development application for 316 E. Hopkins Avenue with the following conditions: 246-Ln 4~434Â¢ â‚¬2/ 1. >Jheige,imetarle@e is to_be approved by staff. Reduce height to a IR**irfil,Im>3* 6', with a makimuffruf42"ln-the southeast-corner. gi~c A public hearing will be held on April 10, 1996 to request waiver of four Kl) W Parking spaces. C 32 1% Minimize demolition of the historic structure where the new ridgeline intersects with the historic cross gable. ~ ~ 4. Prev\ 6~knoFttle|94&tion of the addition.At- Ulk Â¥ ~35 PThe new addition shall match the existing addition in materials. fl j - r 6% 5' Provide a section of the courtyard, showing the bar and staircase area. Maintain handicapped access along the east side of the building, entering f p , at the rear to avoid changes to the front of the house. Provide an ~93~ Deâ‚¬' elevation of the new door at the meeting to illustrate the alternative. The ~te. 9- -k. handicapped entry must meet all ADA requirements. Ci CZE,< 8. , pÂ®ly Jhat excavation and construction of the new foundation wall will not 45 148Â®kklize the structural integrity of the historic house.ad&=;44,~ A_ 9. 4-88Â¥i~ha-traSILenal.QSU[e_la_meet-zoning-reaulauons. i vozw.ir | RECOMMENDED MOTION: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: .. ....8.-â€¢,04.4 4 . I . . ' IAND USE APEXCA=CNERE ) 1=jec:t i.= HOU}UNE; (20-L'F= . .. j moject roati= 3/Â¢3 E HSPIslk\S LOT O JiLK 50 - ..- street address, lot & block I=bar,. lagal desciptint where '~prcgciate) 9 Present hing (30 4) Iot Size 5000 69.1Â£7-0 5} Appli=mtâ€¢s Nane, Adizess & micne # 751(0 E f-+D PRIMS IMCD 60/412;~1Â· RfAM PRES!Â©EUT 9 25 5 681 9 kgresecd:ative's Name, badress & Ehane # â‚¬5VEN A L Sl-BÂ©M ALS L MEN'\ 691)F' 2,12 F: AAhG 125 194-5 0 11ype of Appliaticn (please checic all that apply): c=Ii:tianal use ox=ptual SEA Ccoceptoal Histcaic Dev. - Special Revier _ - Final SEA - Final Histccic Dev. 8040 Greenline .t~ Concept:121 F{JO ~ b"~~mar 'ri=toxic Dev. - Stream Mhrgin - Final FOD Histaric Derliticn - Mct=tain view Plane - Subdivisicn - Histocic Designaticn --~Enhniniumization 1Nmct/Map AmerxhMIt GOCS Allotment. W _Vrot Split/Ict Line CMOS Ex=etion Adjustment 1) Descziptian of Existing Uses (number and type of existingÂ· strticti~es i approxin=te sq. ft. ; z=ber of bedcocms ; anY previces aÂ®provals granted 150 the prcperty). RESTARANT / c,68='FEEHKDOSE / 84'Fa- .. 6 i - 1) Desc:ipticn of Developnent Applisation k iTC,+PEN ,ADÂ© /71014 - EASEMEAJT ErÂ©8,402-Â·. Olr[DCCI~ Di All)\le PA-710 ~3 EA SOMAL. 06-E~. LO) Have you attached the following? isponse to Attactmert, 2, Mininx= Slhnissim Contents Respense to Attadment 3, Specific Sutmission Ocatents 0- Response to Attadment 4. Review Stareards for Your Application From : ALSTROMGROUP PHONE No. : 3039254578 Mar. 07 1996 3:56PM ALSTROMGROUP 312 k ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER ASPEN, COLORADO @1611 970 925 1745 7 February, 1996 21 February, revision Â§ Maroh, revlgion Warren Ryan AYANCO 92 6 5889 716 West Main Aspen. Colorado 81611 HOWLING WOLF 316 East Hopkina ZONING AND FAA SUMMARY ZONE DISTRICT COMMERCIAL CORE MINIMUM LOT SIZE 3000 oquare feet MINIMUM LOT WIDTH no requiremenf MINIMUM FRONT YARD ne requlroment MINIMUM SIDE YARD no requirement MINIMUM REAR YARD no requirement except trash utility oervice area shall be required MAXIMUM HEIGHT 40 feet MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON THE LOT no requirement between principal and accessory buildings PERCENT OF OPEN SPACE 25% may be reduced by spmcid review FAR all other uses than delached residentjal dwellings 1.5:1 ratio 2: 1 by special review Allowable FAR = 4500 square feet (1.5:1) Existing FAR 1229.60 square feet Existing FAR to remain 1056.60 square feet Ground Level Addition proposed 444.00 square feet {kitchen/stair no. 1 /cortidor) basement level not included since entirely below grade exterior (open stalr no. 2) 147.25 sq. ft not induded NEW FAR TOTAL =1600.80 squre feet PARKING two spaces per 1000 square feet net leaseable note: in a telephone conference with Amy Amidon on March 6 we are required to have a public hearing regarding parking for the project on April 13. following the prior HPC approval on Match 13. since we are reducing the number of patking spaces from the current use we need to have a public hearing to request a waiver of the parking requirements on site. Pâ€¢*Itâ„¢ brand fax trÂ¥,mittal memo 7671 #â€¢pa- â€¢ 1 "-7}r >1 rhom end of memo U. L, a.0 ,-4 m. 6448.7 Phone 4 - . - PBX 0 .-1 4 0 ALSTROMGROUP 312 F ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970 9251745 5 March, 1996 Amy Amidon HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 HPC MINCR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE HOWUNG WOLF 316 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO PROJECT DESCRIPTION the attached drawings illustrate our current proposal for the property. we would like to begin construction as soon as the lifts close for the season. The kitchen addition shown is the primary reason for the current proposal we are also adding much needed basement storage, an outdoor (seasonal use) dining area, and improving the front porch and handicapped entrance at the front of the building. Since we believe that the above improvements are for the most part not discernible to the passerby, and since many of the above improvements will be screened by a wood fence (which will be approved by staff) this project is a minimal addition to the property as seen by the casual observer and does not detract or really change the character of the property or neighborhood. We believe these are very minor detaids which will benefit the community at large and that they do not adversely affect the existing structure, neighborhood, or community. In fact since we are providing a better foundation at the rear wall of the existing house we are preserving its status and current use. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission /74 j THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directord,Â»' FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 520 Walnut Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: March 13, 1996 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on March 22, 1995. Section 26.72.010 (F)(3)(c) provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. At this time the applicant, Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Ortiz, request HPC approval for a one-year extension of conceptual approval, to allow more time for study of the final design. The conceptual review packet is attached for your review. (The design presented on March 22 was ultimately rejected in favor of the initial proposal, represented in the attached drawings.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 520 Walnut Street be extended until March 22,1997. RECOMMENDED MOTION: 9 move to extend conceptual approval for 520 Walnut Street to March 22,1997." 3-06-1996 3:56AM FROM GRETCHEN GREENWOOD 970 925 7490 P. 1 1 ~ ~ GRETCHEN GREENÂ»OOD& ASSOOATES /NC ARCHITECTURE Â·INTERIOR DESIGN â€¢ PLANNING March 6,1996 Ms. Amy Amidon Historic Pres=vation Officer Community Developmeni Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy: I am requesting m extension ftom the Historic Preservation commission for the Conceptual Approval for 520 Walnut Street I anticipate applying for the Final Review sometime this summer. Thank you for your help. 0 Sincerely, 4 446 4432 Micbad Or~and Gretchen 4Cood 0 520 WALNUT STREFT â€¢ ASPEN,COLORADO 81811 - TEL: 970/928-4502 â€¢ FAX: 970,725-7490 1 V 1--9 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 520 Walnut Street, Conceptual Development, including partial demolition and on-site relocation, special review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R.- Public Hearing Date: March 22, 1995 SUMMARY: On February 8, 1995, HPC granted approval to demolish an existing structure on the site, to relocate the existing miner's cabin, to change existing windows and doors on the historic miner's cabin, and to repair existing materials. A proposal for the new residence was presented at that time, but tabled. HPC indicated that they were not in support of granting setback variances requested for that structure, due to neighborhood concerns. The applicant has submitted a new design which is in conformance with all aspects of the R-6 zone district. Conceptual approval and special review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R. is requested. APPLICANT: Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Ortiz, owners. LOCATION: 520 Walnut Street, Lot 8 and the north half of Lot 9, Block 3, William's Addition to the City of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 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 "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: New Residence: The proposed new residence is to replace an existing house which has not been identified as having historic significance. TheÂ·house will be 2,854 sq.ft. and the miner's cabin is 281 sq.ft. Because the Commission was not willing to grant setback variances for the project, the applicant has made the building more narrow and increased the height. As in the earlier design (attached), the new residence has been 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The restoration of the miner' s cabin will have a positive effect on the character of the Walnut Street neighborhood, which has just one other miner's cottage to represent the previous nature of housing in this area. Attached is a 50'=1" scale map of Walnut Street. (The applicant is to provide a map which shows a larger area of the neighborhood for the Ord. 35 review. ) Most houses in the area are fairly low in height, although they have a fairly large footprint. The amendments to the west and south facades, discussed above, are meant to ensure the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 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 or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed development, which includes a rehabilitation of the historic cabin, will increase the cultural value of this resource and its importance as a representation of a simple, typical miner's cottage. In addition, the development does not result in any demolition or attachment to the historic cabin. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will enhance the architectural integrity of the historic structure by preserving the structure and original materials. SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85% OF THE ALLOWABLE F.A.R. SUMMARY: This project is located in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for Smuggler Neighborhood (Chapter 4) will be applied. j The special review process is mandatory, as is compliance withithe Committee's findings, because the Â·lot is less than 9,000 sq.ft. The proposed project is 3,135 sq. ft. above grade. This is the maximum allowable F.A.R. for the site. historic cabin. 3) Provide a site plan which shows all lightwells-, stairways, etc. 4) The fence shall be no more than 3'6" in front of the new house and it shall be open pickets. 5) Staff recommends that HPC clarify the approvals granted on February 8, 1995 by specifically stating the variances which are to be allowed (see attached site plan). On the north sideyard, the setback provided will be 5'. The required setback is 10', therefore the variance is 5'. On the front setback, the applicant agreed at the February 8 meeting to place the house 8' from the front lot line in an effort to stay away from the existing cottonwoods. (These trees may in fact have to be removed in the future for safety reasons.) The required front yard setback for an accessory structure is 15' , therefore the variance is 7'. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Don Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer Linda Smisek and Martha Madsen present. MOTION: Linda made the motion to approve the minutes of March 8th; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy: Dan Sullivan will be attending our discussions on the character guidelines. I have a schedule set up for each neighborhood for next week. Les will represent the HPC on the Entrance to Aspen. May 14th through the 20th is Preservation Week. The P&Z adopted the changes to the landuse code and I will get all members a copy. Roger: In some states and cities a CO is not issued until all encumbrances are paid, could you meet with the attorney's office to see *if that is something that could happen with historic properties. I feel basically people are taking advantage of the situation. Jon Busch talked about the trolley schedule and will present to HPC at a determined date. 520 WALNUT STREET, CONTINUED CONCEPTUAL, SPECIAL REVIEW, PH Amy: This is a continued public hearing and there was a lengthy discussion of the project Feb. 8th at which time HPC voted to grant the variances for the historic miners cottage which would be eight feet off the front property line and five feet off the north property line. The reason for this was to allow the applicant to construct a new residence and in no way attach the two structures. Because the miners cabin is an accessory structure it has a 15 foot front yard structure which would force the building together. One of the things we need to do is clarify the motion stating specifically what the variances are. On Feb. 8th the Commission felt it was not appropriate to grant any variances to the new residence due to neighbors concerns and gave the applicant that direction and she has come back now with a new design which has some similarities to the old one but is more narrow and taller. In my evaluation I felt there should be some restudy of the south elevation and there is not much of a break in the wall except at one point on the second level. This is a good illustration of why our variances are important. While this is certainly not a bad project at all the previous design was more compatible with the historic structure because it was not forced to be as tall and there was more opportunity to break up the mass..I agree with the applicant in that sense. On the WLIam finding there is not as good a relationship between that facade and the historic structure as previously and that the concrete pad which has been added to connect the two should be eliminated. The applicant is also ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 proposing a 6 foot privacy fence on the north and south property lines due in great part that she has very little yard space and wants privacy. I feel it has been a general policy of HPC that toward the front of the property especially around an historic structure that the fence should be approximately 3.6 inches tall as the maximum and open in character so I have suggested this in the approval. Gretchen Greenwood, owner: As an architect and someone who has tried to understand what the HPC and City is trying to do with design guidelines for different communities and working with a lot of historic structures I feel particular sensitive to historic structures as I am going through this laborious process of land marking my project which is something that I do not have to do to make this project work. I came here the last time requesting a 5 foot setback variance and the hardship for that was based on the fact that the property is between two larger parcels one to the north and one to the south which I illustrated and will undoubtedly be a duplex property. To the north has a deteriorating victorian house on the property. I am going through the process to preserve the historic building and move it far away from the new construction on the property and try step the house back so that I have a five foot setback variance which is more common in my neighborhood than the ten foot setback. The neighbor to the north is five feet from my property and the one south is three feet from me. My whole intention was to set the property back to have some space and to follow some of the guidelines that are so well illustrated in the design guideline book. It states open space should be of the size that can be used or at least has significant visual impact as a landscape area, so I am unable to meet that design guideline because the neighbors were not in favor of the five foot setback even though I think for historic preservation or neighborhood design guidelines that it is a mistake to not have granted that variance. It is disappointing on the part of the HPC that they cannot recognize what is more important for the neighborhood than perhaps what the neighborhood feelings are. I realize that it doesn't follow the rules but it would have been best for the property to grant the variance.. We now have a ten foot setback on both sides of the property. Many people in my neighborhood use their setbacks for trash and junk, storage and additional cars and that is a logical spot, which is more than likely to happen when my husband puts the ski boat in that area and that is what happens when you have these kinds of setback issues. I wanted to bring that out in analyzing a property you spend time and it is unfortunate that it could not be understood to the neighbors as it was a variance. I tried to design a house on this property without having any landmark property because the price is almost getting too high to pay because there is a zero benefit. The house I am proposing is the same width of 25 feet and it is only longer at the glass entry because in the guidelines I wanted 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 to have a clearly defined front yard and entryway. I like the contrast between old and new with the glassy structure. I have no control of what is going to be built in front of me and I am more concerned about the property to the south. There would be no design review to that property to the south. In trying to design this house I tried to visualize the effect of what could happen to us if the other properties around were built on. We bought the property for the miners cabin and it is something that I have always wanted to do. In looking at the neighbors concerns and objections that we wanted to try and meet we have moved the house into its setback. I raised the peaks of the house in anticipation of what would happen to the south of me. I want to be up above any potential development in front of me. They raised their objections and I am raising my roof. The views could potentially be blocked and so thus with this design we are trying to put the entry from the old design at the north of the property to the new design of the glassy area on the entry of the south west corner of the property. The reason for that is to keep as much glass to the west and to the south. Our plans are pushing us to live on the property to the north and to create a buffer with a deck. This building conforms to all the site coverage, FAR etc. It is better for the miners cottage that we shift it away from the new property. If there is continual objection the project will not be as good. I desire conceptual and design approval so that I can move forward. The miners cottage will be used as my office and I am anxious to get the building moved. CLARIFICATION Jake: What is the status of the landmark. Amy: Designation will be Monday night and it is the last step and it is listed on the inventory at this point. Jake: Variances are conditional upon landmarks. Roger: If the bldg. is landmarked and the person on the south wants to build do we review it? Amy: We don't but with ord. #35 all residential development will be reviewed probably as a check list. Roger: Why should she landmark. Jake: Theoretically it protects the property. Gretchen: In order to receive a variance to move the building over to the setback I feel landmarking is the best solution for the property. I can build a house on the property without seeing anybody here but I would be five feet from the building. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Everything I have ever heard from any of these meetings is that it is nice to have the separation of buildings and it is to the advantage of the building and property and open space that HPC is trying to do. I agree with that. Roger: I feel if you are landmarked you should have some protection. Amy: If we do this check list we will take into account historic structures. Gretchen: All houses next to historic homes should be reviewed. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Amy: Where is the access for the ADU. Gretchen: I am still undecided about the ADU and I want to keep it conceptual. Donnelley: Could you review with me why you split the sideyard to ten and ten instead of 5 on the north and a larger on the south. Gretchen: I was under the assumption that the setbacks were five feet and I designed it five to the north. The zoning is ten and ten in that neighborhood and also one of the neighbors went ballistic. Linda: You re-designed your house and at th4 last meeting we found that your first design was quite compatible and what was the reason for your change? Gretchen: One of the last comments that stuck with me was that I should be able to work with the ten foot setbacks as an architect. I also received a letter from my south neighbor indicating he was concerned that he might be in jeopardy and with all that in mind you gave me the message that I should go back and redesign within the ten foot setback. If I came within the setbacks I would be right on top of my south neighbor so I decided that I needed to change my potential view direction. The Board sent me that message loud and clear. Linda: Are you happy with this design? Gretchen: I would prefer to have a setback variance and have 15 feet in the front but I like the design. My husband likes the other design. Martha: I thought at the last meeting everything was clear on the cottage. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Amy: It is all under the same application but the cottage is clear. Donnelley: You mentioned the neighbors concern about south glass in your previous design but it appears that the new south L has the same amount as well as a gable that is four feet higher. Gretchen: I want to maintain a south gable and I want sun and also I potentially considered what the neighbors might build in the future. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Jon Busch: Angie Griffith is the north facing neighbdr and she is concerned about loosing her south facing sun if the applicant go back into the setback five feet. The approval for the 10 foot setbacks on the subdivision was due to the lots running east and west. I also reviewed the old plans and feel they fit in with the neighborhood more and I also realize her concern for her views. My other concern was the ADU and because the garage is five feet from the alley there really isn't much of a place for an extra car. Race Street is really an alley. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jake: I feel there is some validity for the five foot set back to the north on the first plans submitted. The idea of creating usable open space is far superior than creating long spots of unusable open space. Neither of the adjoining properties are conforming. On the first designs my problem was the north wall and it is still one long continuous wall. I do not mind giving variances in the setbacks if there is a reason to do it. In a situation with an historical structure that has a modest scale the scale of the elements of the new building that occupy the same property need to also be broken down into a sympathetic scale. What I was hoping would come forward in your revisions was a restudy of that north wall and some study of the massing on that side and possibly bring back some of the forms to the 10 foot setback line. Give relief to the long continuous plane. There is a lot of playfulness in the decks and a lot of unique things going on in materials and the decks and windows. It is a very nice design and I am sorry that you didn't work and follow through on that. Les: My feeling at the end of the meeting is that you wodld work the north wall a little and come back and we split the difference on the five feet. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Gretchen: It didn't work as there is too much circulation. Les: I would prefer the old plan if there was some way to make it work. Gretchen: I could look at it further but I need approvals. Les: We are getting designation and saving this cabin and that is important for the neighborhood. Martha: Are you staying with the new design due to the protection that you need. Gretchen: I got such opposition almost to the level of abuse with the five foot setback variance that I was not going to come back in and fight for that as it is not worth it to me. Gretchen: It is very confusing because we do like the first design and I do not want to shade my neighbor and I want to be sensitive to that. Donnelley: It appears that in the present plan the north wall is a straight plane and one of the criteria of the guidelines is that these long planes be broken. It does not conform to the guidelines. Gretchen: It is probably workable at final. Donnelley: The first plan is recommended. Gretchen: I could take the first plan and move it into the setback but I tried to work staggering the building but it just didn't work. Roger: I concur with Jake that I would rather see usable space than unusable. I would prefer the first design also. I am not hung up on the long wall to the north as the landscaping will break it up. I would object if it were in the west end. It is not a pedestrian area. Gretchen: There would be certain changes made to the old design. Donnelley: Lets see if we can do a motion that would allow a successful resolution here. % MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC give conceptual approval to Scheme I of 520 Walnut Street finding that itj meets Standards 1,2,3,4 and with the following conditions: That the structure conform to the 10 foot setbacks. On Feb. 8th variances were given 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 for the miners cottage of 5 feet on the north side yard and 8 feet on the west sideyard, second by Roger. DISCUSSION OF MOTION Roger: You are suggesting that the setbacks not be 10 and 10. Jake: Yes. The applicant is already sandwiched between two nonconforming structures. Amy: This has been tabled and Council was informed that there would be no variances. Les: I feel the neighborhood would be best served with a variance on the north side. Donnelley: If we can approve scheme A with all parts of the new structure falling outside of the ten foot side yard setbacks you could manipulate the roof form in such a way that perhaps you are turning the gable on the east side to the east and we could consider that a minor change and would not have to go through a public hearing. Les: I feel we need a monitor on the miners cottage. AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended the motion to add that the applicant can proceed with the miners cottage, second by Roger. Donnelley: Do you want to state anything about the north wall or breaking it up. Jake: I would like tc see the long interrupted surfaces broken down so that the architectural elements on that wall are consistent with the guidelines. Martha: I also agree that the north wall is OK as is. Jake: There is no support for an amended motion. VOTE: All in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carries. 232 E. MAIN STREET MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: The applicant is requesting a satellite dish to operate their business. This is the smallest dish that they can do. It is located at the rear of the structure and the dish is a little over 3 1/2 feet and it is below the ridge line and will not be visible at all from Main Street. I recommended approval with the condition that if there is any reflective metal it should be painted out. 7 t . t i 1 --- 1 , 1 1 ' j ' 5 i ' ~ li ; - j; 1 +11;!I 4 . j Iii : 1 :' r ti 1 \ ill i '111 , \ 'fifill;~'till'i':it ;. -. 1 11 1 1 i 11 1 , 1 --- \ i ?il , - -- f 4 1 1! 1 - 1 $ i i j 1 1 11 i i l' 1 1 i Â£ i li j 1 i ---- Ye 110 1 L. o il E.>< H 1 D rT- 'J' /\ lili .1 ;1 -1- <44â„¢)c\*Â·râ€¢ 69 0/*r\OH of Ho#6Â»,~ 0 ad. 4, 1 4 .. . 11 off H Frz:FmÂ·Pry' 1- Ir- 129 L.1 0 h i- I .,e - .. - a> \ 1 FP!,octri,p .. fv IwIDRIPÂ·N ' :. , .. .. . I .. .... . HK+1 -r>10 (*21 4\,08 V~,81 071 64 03 1 M,61 H '204' 1 9"16+ 2.5 brake ic R/4 41*rÂ¥*gr wi*Â» ... 1 49"47 . .... . 6 7 Â· . 1 -- 0 1 . _1.1 1 3X 4 1- 1 -0.- - 1Â£ = 412 # . 1/ U /,V \ t ka 3 11 9 1 & ka 0 C *t 4 4 AL// . 4 1 -. ' 19.L #11 401-ITH FFÂ£'rEÂ·Fry LIN E- 5 1 ' FroHT'*'92 & trms, I Me-ri Loc,Â·noN of 1241, f ,~tr' 1 11 'lf-a#iM ./1-0 , '- rÂ»Nr ' 9,*7 4*32% /* 77'& Re.R Â» Re, 0Â¥KÂ»POR A Â»9*76, NAÂ» Fl,Â»1 4 zo HIM 5 PIÂ»leÂ·M[ 00 4 11-01 O 0 fr<H I bm 'P' .... ~WK Lr~T dE (3 1 -U q IH>63 0 ial 1 - igh ( 8.1-WONJ IN -412 *12103 H 1 -44 %1051 1 HI-1 -'<lal~beldl 11 0 -1 49&1 G -.1 .. r->Crubolb u (260 . | In -d'/ aw fid Â¥ ll'dj m Ut#30(22 ......i j 1 r d t â‚¬ 1,4~208<2 3 1,10â€¢441Q 0 -4/ 044 4 g)*h CD O -LI~PRE-*L H 14-42 01211NIW c QU-1 Ck e,H./1,~a.LOIA.~ == ,%,>44.41) Xd LI U 76 6 A-CGILI'l-0/ lk_. f A Eli-2 ED d ATO - i =. I,~ _Â« , 0 18'U. - 1 +91111 - 44. i--=a 7 - A. 4==3 1 ... 0 ...4-- I -- 0 0 6 , '6 - L' 723. D>4 Ma C - 14 42:.H w.1Â·4 1 1~ Il f / j . 1Â·1 1 - 6 Â· l 0 6 k, I Nt> prM J.! 1. jl 1 + F h Â· - - ij 21 N I Ne g>f 11. 11 C -2- G LirrfF Le>/FL- Fl--22*r FLÂ» N 1/ 111 It n 0 0 89<H I Bri 'F' -t. + -- .... f.+Ip/. Uâ€¢.Â·4 *Mi-*~. r J. FLEFF.08# - - - - 7=ZC?~ 1.4. ... 0 -- -7â€¢7 -' W 7 6*'-40 - --- -lerÂ· r... - 7.-/ C - 1.1 == - 1 - .2- 1 4- : A. - '-'-*-V--Mt t=r Â· 1 =-=-1 .11 LI.,ld'.i!, 114 i .114;.111 , lili it. 11 F=- - L.-____1 * 4*#T hw -P : .: Pl b.,1111 ii Jill' 41~ ~ ~~~*0 * 177 11'' ., 1.:1; 1 1 1 1. 1 1 --4 11 6 1 . 1 1 1 .1 P , 1 . , 1,4 - .11 11.1,1 ill 11'll '1: 1, 1'' 1, i lell'i/'/ flu*il ii 111/i~!l'I '. 1 .1 1 . 1, .11:1 . . 1 -*.- *I'li . ii.lilli -. .1 .11 - ' J Â· ' 1/ . e IIi - , 11 -7- Ili' 3 1 . t~' t* 1 11 1 1 1 ' - - - 1 !dill! 1, - 1 4 1;: , 1, It 4 1 1 1 11 6 1:,Â·11 dâ€¢ii il:~1~il i ~ 1 1* I ''t' i lit i -- 1 1 ~ 1 li 1 Ir 1 1 1 1 L /1 1 6 1 ,/ il 40 0 / E- -- E. - - - --fl li 11 ~ 1 11,1 ~ } 1111 l 1 1 ,i - !'- ~ il.:1 1 i i : =9;1; I =11 1: 1 +111 :1 - I - 5 1 1 1 1 11 li'111,1 1 1 lir li ir ilillif --.I- -2:-2- -I. li i. lilli F li.1 1% . 1 . 11 1 .. ...........=i/ ... --- r li -i 8 1 - -- il! i * .1, Ii, - 11 1/11' 1;1 '. '11 :lili 1 1 11 1 1 1 -- 11, Ii.,1 1.ill 111. 1 1 1 bil 11 -1 IiI T dit dpi 1 ilil leil|.ii lill.hi i Lii'Â· -1 . 1 0 'FIHIFI-r lei 0 R VOF e L Â»- N Pb =\ 0' i j: 1.4 11 2 Pt 0 0 :H,iNIH >43 11 02 -1 e 11 4/1 ; C ff F D 1 1-/. Â«/3 /1/3 H -1-M 3 47 Iii i 2 1 1,11 1 .9 15 1 TH' 1 - 1 00 7 + 1 1 -Dll 0 1 :1 H 1 lift %! it 1 1111 0 WHI~ - 1 !Â·IiÂ·j 1 2 1 ! Ij'j! f w 11 1 ' 1 10 '' , - I ~,ri !' : Â¢1 litil'i ..1.1 I '11 ) ,i;:i'j,/i 0 0 0 ==.... - -ill --1.Im ! 1. 11 1 WEÂ·Â«7 01., EX/rr 1 0 8 0Â»Â«r E- 4 2>cÂ»-r I ovu ============================== 1/ I It 4, / + = 1 -67 U 8: ye 11 sm 1 L Â£7 1 0%Hi Ar[- 'S' 0 11:1111111111!11 : 1 C iii' il 1 i ill f 1 ili f .1 1 .1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 616 W. Main Street- Minor, On-Site Relocation, Landmark Designation, Variance Request (Public hearing continued from February 28, 1996) DATE: March 13,1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to convert an existing historic barn into a living unit. Minor development review, on-site relocation (in order to raise the bam onto a foundation), landmark designation, and variances are requested. This building is currently on the Inventory, and is located within the Main Street Historic District. HPC reviewed this proposal on February 14 and continued the application directing the applicant to restudy the proposal to raise the building 4' on a new foundation. Attached is a revised proposal. APPLICANT: Jeffrey Aaronson, represented by Jake Vickery and Associates. LOCATION: 616 W. Main Street, Lot N, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen. HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 7-702. Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectura/ /mportance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. Response: This house, built in about 1891, is a typical example of a cross gabled miner's cottage. From the Sanbome Fire Insurance maps of 1904, the house appears to be in its original configuration with one small addition at the rear of the building. All original materials and details appear to be intact. The site also contains a bam, which has an unusual piece of trimwork in the front gable end. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The house has been moved to this site from across the street, on the vacant lot where Christmas trees are sold. It is generally inappropriate to relocate buildings from their original context, although this one is at least in its original neighborhood. The bam also appears to have been moved from that site. E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. In addition, this house is located on Main Street and is important to the perception of the character of the community when entering town. MINOR REVIEW 0 PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with the designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to 500 sq.ft. or the allowed site coverage by up to 5%, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill 0 Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 5- 510(B)(2). Response: No changes are proposed at this time for the historic house. The barn, which is currently used for storage, is to be converted into an ADU, including a basement, ground level and loft. The previous proposal entailed raising the bam 4' above its current height, in order to create enough head room for the loft. The applicant feels that the loft/ study area is important to making the unit livable. Staff and HPC found that the increase in height was too significant and detracted from the building's original character as a simple outbuilding. In addition, the new height would result in significant demolition of the existing framing system. Staff finds this new design a more appropriate means of adapting the building as a living unit than was the great change in height. The pop- up will be sided in corrugated metal, like the roof, which will help it to blend into the roof form. The applicant now proposes to keep the bam in its existing location (on a new foundation) and create a "pop-up" in the roof to gain head height. The "pop-up" roof is asymetrical due to the location of a spiral staircase which provides access to the loft. 0 The windows proposed in the new roof form violate Ordinance #30, however the applicant is wiilling to accept the FAR penalty. Staff recommends restudy of these windows to be more compatible with those on the rest of the building. In response to other suggestions made in conceptual review, the windows on the north side of the building have been revised to paired double hungs (as opposed to the projecting bay window shown previously). On the east facade, the applicant intends to retain the existing doors, if possible, and wishes to add windows. On the south facade, the applicant will retain the doors and may wish to add clapboards, which appear to have been removed. Two small windows may be requested on the doors themselves. On the west facade, the applicant intends to retain the existing historic window, although it will have to be enclosed from the inside due to fire code (windows are not allowed within 3' of a property line). Two elements have been omitted from the drawings. The original proposal showed a lightwell on the north side of the building. This requires waiver of the Ordinance #30 standard which disallows lightwells in front of the building facade. Staff finds the waiver appropriate in this case since the building is set far back from the street. In addition, the east elevation does not show a roof overhang which is required to protect the stairwell and entry. The architect must revise the drawings for the meeting. The following variances are requested: a 5' west sideyard variance, a 3' rear setback variance, and a height variance to 16' (allowed through the Cottage Infill provisions). The setback encroachments are existing, but need to be formally approved since the building is being raised onto a new foundation. Information must be provided regarding proposed materials for the exposed foundation as well as new windows. Staff recommends that the existing metal roof be retained, along with all exterior siding. The building should remain unpainted. A structural plan must be submitted for Staff and monitor approval, representing the exact nature of all alterations to the existing framing. Any variation from the agreed upon structural plan must be approved by Staff and monitor prior to undertaking any work. 2. 0 Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Conversion of existing outbuildings into living units is an appropriate reuse for these structures, contributes to the liveliness of the alleyscape, and is supported by the Aspen Area Community Plan. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: Putting the structure into use will ensure it is cared for and may be preserved for the future. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff has made several recommendations for changes in order to preserve the architectural character and integrity of the bam. ON-SITE RELOCATION Section 7-602(E). Standards for review of on-site relocation. No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the standards of section 7-602(D)(2),(3), and (4) have been met. 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation: Response: The barn is being raised onto a new foundation, in its existing location. This will help to arrest further deterioration of the building. 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: This report must be submitted before application for a building permit. 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering depanment, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservatjon and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The bond and relocation plan must be submitted prior to application for a building permit. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 Staff evaluation: HPC must waive the following design standards: Building orientation: There is neither a door, nor a front porch on the street elevation, since the unit orients towards the sideyard. Staff finds this appropriate for a secondary building. Building elements: All residential buildings must have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least 20% of the building's overall width. Again, these elements are not provided on the street facing facade as access is not from the front of the property. Build-to lines: The bam is remaining in its existing location. Primary Mass: This rule was created to force larger structures to divide their mass into smaller modules. This building only has a 360 sq.ft. footprint. Lightwells: All areaways, lightwells and /or stairwells on the street facing side(s) of a building must be entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street. The lightwell is set far back from the street. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the development application for 616 W. Main St~eet, as presented on March 13, 1996, with the following conditions, allowing s~aff and monitor to verify the revised drawings: ~1. Make windpws on the no~th facade more venical in proportion, to match the historicÂ¥indow on th~ west facade. ~2. Prov* a revised elevation of the east facade showing proposed window confi~ration and overhangs. *. ~?\Frovic~3 revised elevation of the south facade showing clapboard siding 1 \ahÂ«eL. Re~ windows. 4 ide a revised site plan showing the lightwell. 5. . The following variances are approved: a 5' west sideyard variance, a 3'rear setback variancerariti-all&ight-gariaage*031ER@lowed through the Cottage Infill provisions). 6. Provide information regarding preservation of existing materials and */ , ~~ proposed new materials. Retain the existing metal roof, along with a<71 1,4 1/ 0, J 0 / 1~ salvageable exterior siding. The building shall remain unpainted62 /69 40 4 12,7 4 < 7<0 6 /9 0 0 ~0 T 0-Â·n ~-C J /19 0 4-: 0 609 hs 78 3 j t._ 3-h u< ht N K- / 7. A structural plan must be submitted for Staff and monitor approval, ~C~epresenting the exact nature of all alterations to the existing framing. ny variation from the agreed upon structural plan must be approved by Staff and monitor prior to undertaking any work. 8. e Submit a relocation plan, indicating how and where the bam will be f temporarily stored during excavation, prior to submitting for building permit. 9. 9 Submit a bond or letter of credit prior to application for building permit. Staff recommends the value be set at $2,000. 104/ HPC waives the Ordinance #30 review standards relating to building z<orientation, building elements, build-to lines, primary mass and lightwells. 112. HPC recommends approval of landmark designation for Lot N, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B (architectural character) and E (community character) are met. ELE= windows on the structure. . U 12. Restudy the windows in the pop-up to be more compatible with the other hAr~31- ~ ~ ~d-1.~ 0-t-~L//El f lu_(Olf . Olo 9. vÂ·Â·Â·' tÂ© fl J~1 11 177 631/1 OfÂ© i L k.4141 rup. r 1 K140Â«24--~462. - tike dr , F ..--â‚¬f Â»Lk . A / (SLL IL Â«-L - _ 3 6-,Â·---GL j .1 s C IVA ; r-\ 1/ It ri 6 00 44 + 4 9 0 -7 CÂ«- re . a -tu14 L 1, A k kA..ik< -~-- 24 2 0 9, 0 r Â·144 % 12*'F 7 - li 1 - I WHIrk h j \ 0,0 Ch Nullh I; ~47 -4~ 31 47- 15,Pr / 1267='F Pr 1 [th ttimmT- 1 1 11 +,/ , ~~ - 4/LRY i \Eltall'l LIt 11Â»' k f F*11:ta-- --- 1 -1 1Â», . PS- *1 t 10'/ 1,[ 12~ ti -% f, 1 .1 ~ Â£ 11 ~ 1., 1 1 i; fl' 1 1 ' 1 1Â·! ~ :i j 1 i il 1 ' 11 i i 1 0 0 14 1-H 2,1,EVA-r' PU 1/4 4 i Lo" 411*erÂ·Â·41 616 WEST MAIN REVISED CONCEPT - DRWGS JAKE VICKERY AR CTS 3-9-96 6% . r 1.. + il 'liff\,1 'i iÂ·!11 1. , 1 1 flit l' , 11 lilili 11 1 lilli 1 1 !1 11 Â· ..1. ; ilit.i 11 i III I Ill h - :i ' If ,1 1 1 111 i:,11 ' 1- 031 3 - : IIi . 4 . . -4- 4 -1'84*r - f-155'*0TI*~Nrrun W43+ 1'-00 -* - --*.- -- 114*,~- 4 6 Â¢8 WEST;MAIN. 1- 1 REVISED.CQNCEPTUAL DRWGS O ~ JAKE VIOKERE. AR/vjCTS , 1 3-9-96- ' . 1 i 1}13% 19 di 10 1 X "17.-11.:41 ill I \ -filll -F li I 11 1 . h j 11 1 -1[7/- 1 1 0 \\ li 11 P I 1 . r .... I r , , A A A ti----t 4-----1- 1- u r --4 ~ 00pll} 84Â»v,A*1 d:'H 1 - 1 4.J' + 1 0, o" 40*er 3 1 616 WEST MAIN REVISED CONCEPTUAL DRWGS JAKE VICKERY ARC7hECTS O 0 .. = -2-.-.-.-.-E~I-..-..~.-.~..-.-.-.-.-.--..EE-E~E-E~E.~.-.-.-..<.-.-..~~~-.-.~~..-.-.-.~-1-f ~-2-=~-.-..~~ . f.; f 1 11 i 1 I Ii 11 1 [f fi 1 + I 11! 1 H :1-1 1 -- 14 :Ii 1 1 1 | 1 1 4 1 1. 1 1 -1 4 . 1 A. A .' 1 1 \4'%4,-r 0996/Al \ â‚¬:44 - *Ef Â¥ 4 3/1' 949 - 4 616 WEST MAIN a t k REVISEDCONCERT-- PRWGS JAKE:VICKERY#A CTS 3-9-96 . %22:Â·1:/AN.'2:23,-3.'. 1. 1- 1 1 e.;,Â·""Â·'*hÂ·:2>.'2.dt*f>.1.2 Up . 1....16 - 11 I r A..1 igrh 13*Pre'-1 - k /%6Â» L c< --luu F'*#+1'. ' dmifitri;4977?~ blarr ( 1 41%09 4 i t 'Al, I .1 ' 4Â«112 weu, M#%rl %Â»1-r ri-.-1 Id 1/4,1 = 1LO 11 L.-EZI 1' 0*#pr*5 0 7 1, i 616 WEST MAIN:; i 1%10-96 v : : 8#V le#17 53, re 40 0 0 l JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS . . <11*fler,4 WI 041Â»w 4 w,V ~ 12>e, pig.:â€¢rl-Mut-1 *St 1/1 ---- - ,Â»re A A N 1-40~' '... ~ v v. ,# TAN L- 1,11 K| 61 1 UFDC:$0 l 2/1 HEÂ¥46,5 C il.: 0 k---g C 'Â·C /Fri L-U '1 Hev g -1499*F MA,49--1 WINâ„¢vt/ 1,141JÂ·<vy*W / ~ Bx. 3 < 4.12 ~- -NE vy #Al L ~ pvvy 6------- f ' \ A f 3 - 4.6 1 Haw -3 1 I.-0- - I.-- --1 1 WINâ€¢,4,6 4 'tÂ»1 4 1 , H Ev G.Horr -2.~ i L.._.. -- 4 9 Haw Â«(MÂ¥2Wgia...Wl PAAU -~ 1- HEW- Â¥OpÂ¥ 406714HC) 1.EvÂ¢LÂ·Â·~uÂ»1~ 1 016 WEST MAINJ /2-.TTTÂ·---.f:---21_ /'_ r fev/*13Â£7 53,12,16 0 ' 9 6 FPM 1,JAKE-YICKERLARCHIYEAIL_~ . 1 . _12- 11 1 1.3 ./*7 . 47- A -I- -Ill-3, 4 4.19 1,1+1 A ..1 1 4.0 . 1- 1 .422\ ' 1 1 r. ... I ell - ..3. 6.- -i' 1/ / 3 1 1 . 89* CANG'Â·rr Â¥27 J - HFW *+51:7 FAFF 40 0-r: i - 11111'll ... I., 9*0 -11-0 11 1 O P q! r e#*r 41 7- 0 16,BCEST_MAIN aLi *â€¢749 944'90 ~ VAICERCKERY.ARCHIXECTSLL .~ Anigilik /Ay-*LUA % a ' 9 i ...\A *TO--4 x Â·#Al-*t 45 ylll'll ~#Al -AXik'till 111111*t-lji~â€ž~A 11~10 1 1 Â»le 1 14.3 114 .%24 749~11+0 1 21!1 11Â· 4%, Â»f/ .\44Â» ! 1 1 #11 =~ Â»p 'TE 1 I , 1 A.. .r â€¢ h.-LvAL 0 0 0 2 - I. , ... ................../........I-..... 03.!ijilil lili .Ijifilf-lillillillit :Ill lili}lil 1 1 "11111111 1!1111111 . f il i l l il l i ll i l l l! 11 Qi 1111 ! 11 | 11 !! l i l D ir 1 1 - 11 - 1 - 11 1 - 1 0- AA . .. in .1 , Ed- - .2 /1 V. 2 7 lip . j '41 nok i 407 4 74~ =- 11 *A i I 41/ //7 \\ V \\ ---\ '' , 'De , ----' --*I -- ' t- --1 - -1 Afl 1[\ +7 1 A Il- r * 2-4 - t 1 - 11- 1 1 =r A. A -4 AA 1 1 4 â€¢ â€¢ 1 ' ArnaIMENC 1 Â· LAND USE APPLICXIZCN FERM 1) Project Nauc ~ Etoject Location (6' 1 G_ 6.-~ eST A/1 Al,U STE,53'i- %M BLeclo 24 1 1_ 07- Al 02.1 8,Al/n-- Al CEd TbUJA.g/7E (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal 4scciptial where tercgciate) preserrc Zoning 0 -20 W Z .4) Ict Size 9)CEX) SO-FT . 5) Applic:arrt's trame, 1kkb,g= & alcne 5 - j'G:F~F'23-4 A-A ECAL SOLI Â· \90. ED X 401-31 41â‚¬393. Co el@-12- 925- 559-4 . 61 I?ecreser:tative ' s Nan< Address & Phcne # J AÂ·,56 Â· 4 ' ulce-Â·FAA 9 35 ' AGG:,0 J 73 Type of Application (please dack all that apply) r X Chrditicnal ase ercgtal SPA - Canceptnal Hist:zic Dev. SpeciÂ£ Beried Fir=7 SPA Final Hist=Ec Dev. 8040 Gceer:line CancÂ©=al FCC) Mincr Prf<tcric Dr/. Stea= Margin - -*- - 4.-0 Â· Histocic D=cliticn Mccnin irt View Plane Sat-.tics * i~ric Cesicaticr. Trrbrm f 9 9 1 -4; 7nt-4 rn TE<*Mab Amertmest - --QIN Allat:nat Ict: Split/Ict Line -* . - Gms .FYP..Oticm . Adj t='tmer:t 8) nx:r--4~tic=rt of Pt<*":'g Uses (nt=ber and ta,pe cf evÂ·Â¥<r,4.-9 St:CUCC-Es: appr=drate sq- ft-: r=ber of bed==s: any previars apprcvals gzarreed to the pmperty)- 9 H i Lp,F ~ 'rhÂ«F) 41040'9 - Apr'ir: 41 607'70Â¥2 N re ~ 3 69 4:Â· 94: .C.â‚¬rPOHS,Â£3 (>AÂ·r:,fl,/ A.d.,râ‚¬ 2:ArÂ£/9 9) Desc=:igticm pf Develegierrt Afflicaticrt 4*N're~e,0,1 58 01,#41&1 46, 2, 8;11&,N lu . . P.V i 4 F 0 Itave you attached the following? V Pasecnse to Att:ad=er:t: 2, Mini== Subni*=ien Coatents v Res=xnse to At:m:x:hoer.C 3. Specific sutiission Certtcnts I2espcrtse to Attad=err- 4, Review Stantards for Your Application 191 -1 1.lllll RCH ITEE--f-~ TO: AMY AMIDON, HPC OFFICER 1â‚¬. FROM: JAKE VICKERY K E RE: APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE VICKERY ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 616 WEST MAIN DATE: JANUARY 10, 1996 .A; 1:FACE !10\ Onâ€¢i r H.-4 -PRING .T = 1 Â·-Â·Â»Â· , OLORADON),niZ 0. , i -It ,.1 t ; r Items referenced below pertain zo enumerated requirements of the preprir'lied application mateMais supplied by the city. (Attachment #, lterrI #) (2-1) see attached Ownefs Authorization Letter (2-2) see attached Legal Description (2-3) see attached Disciosure of Ownership (24) see attached Vic:nity Map (2-5) Compliance with relevant Review Standards: This proposal is :o convert an existing detached historical carriage barn into a detached 1 becroom ADU as indicated cn the attached plans. The proposed modifications include a new basement and loft and elevating the existing structure approximately 3 feet. This is a voluntary ADU and is a classic tottage Infill" situation for which this legisiaticn was created. The proposed ADU will have a maximum of 700 net livable sauare feet and will accommodate one or more employees or an employee family. Currently, there *s one bedroom in the existing front house and no on-site parking spaces. This proposal increases the number of bedrcoms on site to two. No cn-site parking spaces are provided for this develcpment. Pursuant to Sec:jcn 5-510-A-1, no additional parking spaces are required for development of a studio or 1 bedroom ADU. This is a small, 3.000 square foot pre-existing non-conforming lot. Due to the single story nature of the existing histcrical house an on-site parking space would significantly reduce the amentiy to the rear yard and leave little useable open space. This property is located within easy walking distance of town and is on the town's major bus route. The applicant feels that requiring any additional parking spaces would be a hardship and a disincentive to this application. The proposed ADU would be one of the best in town and offers an excellent housing opportunity to locals. It also provides a viable adaptive reuse of an existing historical structure. This application is submitted with the expressed understanding that the deed restriction placed on the property as a result of the ADU approval will be the one in place at the time of submittal of this application. Please see Items 4A through 4F below for a more detailed explanation of conformance to specific standards. The proposed work is under review by the Historical Preservation Commission. This application is submitted conditional upon HPC approval of the modifications to the structure necessary to accommodate the proposed development. (4-A) The Aspen Land Use Code permits an ADU as a conditional use in the R6 Zone. Non-conforming Lot: The minimum lot size in the RS zone is 6.000 square feet. The ICI in this application is 3.000 square feet. It is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot of record and the proposed development is permitted under Section 9-106 "Non conforming Lots of Record" paragrapn t. Historic Landmark' This paragraph exempts lots containing historical landmarks from being required to meet the minimum Ict area requirement of its zone district for permitted and conditional uses. (4-8) This ADU provides an accessory residential use in the R6 Zone and a mix in a variety of housing types in the neighborhood. It is compatible with other residential uses in immediate vicinity. (4-C) The proposed location below grade maintains open space and minimizes the mass above grade. Light, air, and egress to the lower sleeping level are provided by generous light wells. (4-0) Services will be an extension of the services already in place and are adequate. (4-E) This proposal will not generate any new employees and provides on-site housing for one or two resident employees. (4-F) This proposal conforms to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and other requirements of the Code. .kpm E D 21 \,A Â¢ - 1 34 1. 9, f CP V\3 0.-,7 - ~red,.7- C.7-k -~ (~ 1'6~,#t~~ -12=-2.44Â«.<64;*h*.- *.----...~ .&,Pa 1% 1 - + m.1 44 0 - 9, 3> \2. hv- -% CE .â€¢ : 4 . ~Pte\- A.~,6 C L/7 : b N ' \%6 f \1 5 /- 69 /7 "54:Ne=: , t'r- /4 1\ 11 Â§> M - -Â· - am*9#3 ) .1 .1 /= / M il B#**65 4/+ 12 1/ + Â·.~ ~ Mu.: V.~~A ; 1.p .~ / . -141: 1 401 -4 met Of roan ts ~ 2,~1 C: 1 4 1 ,- 1 + , -/ named on maos cr :istect in street GuIdes. Consot=on ot-0- =~r#/44491*47-x+~*,sne T - LA / U streers ana macs may min - ':V 1 Crogress n Cartan amal ~ '7*211 1-: ~630.4 A 1 \\ 9, - 4 -1>. j) 4-Ail: f,n-'*:5&:15 7*-.~~1Â£~--14~ Aspep < m Crmâ€¢ Rd (7 ,-*'~. IÂ·. 1_~0,~t I _ '45~4*~\_5~1 f W el<1,3134*1 .In#â€¢1 44.3 4 9> 2/ â€¢4.1 Â·,1....641: C -" - -1, 21 9 41. .....el Al-GÂ·HÂ·I-1 - r. / 1 -21 -t . \.5, 7 \ .lij ._ G. -VL 3 --~7 ffin< 4441 0 0.. 4 9- t , TO 1 , A 942 =** 14- 11 D#48'=, um ~tekimm,n~ Ri-Â·-d-(~~ $ : 3 Â· .Â· 4 -> Â·r * . / le--0 AL-'8â€¢1~INDÂ·Y 11.1 A 2 13Â·-4 L-/0,â€¢ 6, Dunal " 4-6.0 ..1 SL_ _ J.1.r (a~b.~.- D C . ..7 ' Ar tl 1 .*,Â¥4 â‚¬ .. ... a p, ./.7 2.*-Ma R I Â·7 .6?-1.#Â·-1 Â· . 3 Kerroe H.40- 2 2,)V f 2.2.1 A'am- 41 > A.7 P I ' 1 .....1. A ... G.1cn' 4, W..: - ; Â»'- Â·---. 8 Al=Â» G". Aâ€¢ W.#... De.Â·---2-3 As/- 2â€¢ :rlâ€¢3 Gib" M . G.Hâ€¢;.0 Nâ€¢v,- 4, Â¥ EgÂ·Â·I---bi.2493*2,1.7~* 1 -1 1 -14 646.t Â·Â·1 C.5 0.6 ..:-". 3...1 P..1-Â·P .-1 Guk,me f .-.- I #--...4 Z..1.... 3â‚¬,- 8,- 41. AL U.---2- $ (40" SL- ......Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·-Â· AÂ·: (*Ir~ > ....-- Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·--+. h. I. 0.. Â·41.4 ......... r- -A--- . P 3 4, A G 0 ~b'.271.-/26 H.I. b.. -----0.7.i k./S... -I R,-4 :.. 2. *2--1-22/34 - \9 Heu- oct........ '4*,0 -muor .-Â·-24Â· 1 S.D. .. e.' , 81.0.. Tr 4.Â· .... R....................Â·--12-4 /2/ Wl-Â· 501 0 't; St,m=a- *./.1. Â·Â·â€¢â€¢1 :, 7.-Ill: ... '4 42211':TZ/,4/ B C....0.= r. 4 M-- 11.....................-,- M peÂ»./ I.., R d......_..........F-G ; 5/,/I,/ I, G.H.7 -00., / 7.-U... A.... t.. Sh.Â»-ad If'*' -; H.,- ................._Oil- 2,0- Sm,tn St........_..._~ Sh,/I i . Ch=N. Aâ€¢ 2., ..?.al :I 4-5 *"I//4 2/........Â·-Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·--Â· Sit"/ W, 1 C.' 04AV. M I. Â·7 /lin. ................â€ž..........=.1. e.- :1 -4-4 alm-, i 1.7 :..:, '4 Nix 14 // -4 4. ..... .+-+4.-)- ... .. - - I--I C,O... 't-61/ .41-5 S./4'. C...RAL--6-7 .... .. 0-4 Saw'KE,cr '(-au.. ,ld.--2.H-4 4-8.' (44 4.5 14.. ..7-4 70 70..n Laltely R-Ie 2. 1. 1.00001=:, Plss 4.3 lilli. I ~,_......,.-,I $ 2â€¢., Â·'./. M .... I - ;,4.5 4 213: 4 Â·Un. 2â€¢ 1.1 ~ -0/Asne:0~ ~ M a ALPHA MAPS fl 616 W Â· N#t N er. ...... i'.t:KI.UL:tu'Â·,2 -' '' ~,1 7.iC'Iâ€¢L-6...1J1-'.AL- ,~lL.I.t. C-L!1 ALLEY Â· BLOCK 24 * 7â€¢-71'01' 5 30 O' /7 - .8 0 1 IL ' 434 0 i A .,U / h /th 1 fit i r .' 3 1 il i X i ~r , 012 3-reer ' /' MIC) FFAME ' /<112*- I : Ii, . i 32 - H '1,'' 4Â· '' .0';07' CALCU.-srEC- Â·:737---- 9.:-DC-Â·/9.- ~4 -5.71'Â·1' .V '0 00 f'!furt k. .,3. ' DeÂ·19 CP 2â‚¬Ae:N<3 'CLNU E-53â€¢K, 2.9 24 37/N 30+UÂ· OLLES!*12: M A IN STREET r 614 W. 14*IN *f. Noult % ''(-1 (-VI At. 14Â· CG . ~Â· C /24+1' 17 6 U.1 \ I. \ '. \ ; 9. ' fi 0 0 0 ti- OFp~.~~ ~ llc . \ 13/ t,fa,1-1 - 26&28 k J k 1 K - 2- --- NA// 0-67~r 111*51+ i i 1/1611Â·IT / wee, , 111 gre/4-1 Â»-IT FlÂ»,1 L-r--1- p v 'r e 818 WEST MAIN {1-10-96 ' JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 8$4 I!}*r 7 \.3/ 1 60+9, L.1VII.1 61_ Â· - Â· , %* VAJOAJ 1 I / 1Rkâ‚¬\ -1 | ... 1 0 -*- 1611251 Ird 04(b -!+11Â· 1-.. fÂ·-1 Â».1 C--IN Ef'**F "F- t -1' Ct .. ) (,m--: i [-1 1-3 t --' J 7- d;IFÂ»]12 40404* M-Al !/40 11 = 11/ t.7 11 ,--f--&1 41 5 616 WEST MAIN 1-10-96 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 19.22 , - 12'All''t 161 1 91 4 _31-LIFT-- \24 /1\ C~- a:10,1 -1> 14<41-14 /1\ 1 j // 1 \\ /1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 799 65*7-< \92Â« it" - 1 1/OIl ELI--1 0 1 1 9, 818 WEST MA]N 1-10-98 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS e=-1 \X l 4 --- 1 ' 1 1 -1 141:-.ELIZE_. 1 Â·22.-*.--Â·Â·- 1 AP'l . A,1 1. 1 11- 1 t 11 1 1 1 1 1 816 WEST MAIN Â·*FLI-[R F>L~15Â»741-~o J I i il-10-96 1 1 Ve= 14,11 L--rÂ·,4 ' Jt 0 1' 1 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 0 0 0 4(4 -* - N 1 \\ ,/4/ \..th. t<// '4" 1 P 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 . i i 1 1 ...- __l ... 4 . h . k. . ~. 4.41 - I- .- .. IA 818 WEST MAIN 12 ll:, '/A l i 9i ' 1-10-96 JAKE VICKERY ARCIUTECTS 1 1 / t. 4 1f 3 1 1 1 1 2 1, A.~ L 616 WEST MAIN del-H 01Â»vÂ«rod 1-10-96 1/4'I - 11-0 11 --i 0' JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 1 1 I i i i l. A - - 4 1 -1 6 41 1 ~ WriC *Ar->R[~ oF 1 1--10- 86 618 WEST MAIN %4' " = 0 1 '* D'I 1.--/7-1 o JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 0 147' J"Ud<, ~PrT k FC n 41 - , / - - -I .- 7 /Â« / 1 11 319. 3 3. 1 = a te 1 / i... 0 1 0 i -- - =0 -4 . --1 1 0 *94 560*i ah.1 .- Â·616 WEST MAIN 1-10-96 L-- O 1 ' el JAKE-YICKERY ARCHITECTS 1 . 1 fi l ; 5' 14.2 j \\I c:>ki i\\ \-c_LA_VA\ICÂ¥ 1 L Â¥ c -1 1-1A1(r- 1//.1 I & 1'00 1 2- x i Â·( 17Â· Ii.r- 0 0 0 â€¢ r 1 â€¢ r 0 0 EAST ELEVATIoN E- y I '-1 11 Y'J (y-- ... b ~Itbr ti- L 1.2 V/\ 1 1(Â·1 1 E 'XIL; 1 11'.(ti . 1 1 t . . 4% rk \ - 1 r/I E->2\ 6-1-- 11Â·d 65- UL--2324 Â·Â·.4 31-,AlÂ·J MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 9 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director 6/ FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 820 E. Cooper- Final DATE: March 13,1996 SUMMARY: HPC granted conceptual approval for the redevelopment of 820 E. Cooper Avenue on September 27, 1995 and amendments on February 28, 1996. Minutes from both reviews are attached. Along with variances, the amendments which have been approved for the project are the location of the shallow lightwells in front of the building, a dormer on the east elevation of the master bedroom, and raising the house approximately 2' onto a new foundation. APPLICANT: Wes and Susan Anson, represented by Jake Vickery Architects. LOCATION: 820 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot P, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen. FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Section 7-601(D). Development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, and all development involving historic landmarks. No approval for any development in the '1-1," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with the designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to 0 500 sq.ft. or the allowed site coverage by up to 556, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to section 5-510(B)(2). Response: The project is not changed from the conceptual review, except for the addition of an open porch on the front of the house, minor changes to the windows on the new addition, and a new gable on the west side of the new addition. HPC denied the request for a glazed airlock on the front of the house, but did not rule out the possibility of another type of protected entry. Staff finds this front porch very simple and compatible with the overall architecture of the historic structure, while distinguishable as an "add-on." A few remaining issues must be addressed at this time. The architect must submit a full schedule of exterior materials for final review. In addition, lifting the historic house is an on-site relocation, and the applicant must submit a relocation plan showing how the house will be stored during construction, must submit a 0 report from a structural engineer detailing any necessary bracing, and must secure a bond to insure safe relocation of the building. Staff recommends that the bond amount be $30,000. The conceptual approval also required that a landscape plan be submitted for final review. Finally, the historic house had a small brick chimney which is not shown on the drawings. Staff recommends that the chimney element be retained at the ridge, even though it will not be functional. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: As stated in the application, a number of surrounding projects have been substantially out of scale and character with the historic resources which still exist in this area. The proposed development is respectful of the historic resource and the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel 0 proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed project does not detract from the significance of the 0 historic structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The architectural character of the structure and its prominence along the streetscape will not be diminished. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to grant final approval with the following conditions, with any additional submissions to be approved by staff and monitor: 1. Waive the Ordinance #30 standard which disallows lightwells in front of the frontmost portion of the main facade. 2. Submit a full schedule of exterior materials for final review. 3. Submit a relocation plan showing how the house will be stored during construction, a report from a structural engineer detailing any necessary bracing, and a bond to insure safe relocation of the building. Staff 0 recommends that the bond amount be $30,000. 4. Submit a landscape plan. 5. .The brick chimney shall be retained at the ridge, even though it will not be .functional. 6. Provide clear structural plans showing how the existing structure will be retained while adding improvements to meet code. Any required changes in this plan must be brought to the immediate attention of staff. 7. The following variances were granted through the conceptual review public hearings: 0.5 feet on the west sideyard and 0.1 on the east sideyard for the existing structure 3' on the east sideyard for the kitchen addition 3' on the east sideyard for the garage 2' on the west sideyard for the garage Waive Ordinance #30 standard dealing with "principal window" Combined front and rearyard variance of 18' (30' is required, 12' is provided) 8' rear yard setback variance (10' is required, 2' is being provided) 5' on each sideyard for the lightwells (5' is the minimum required) 0 10' combined sideyard setback variance (10' is the minimum required) An FAR bonus of 500 sq.ft. Waiver of one parking space 8. \ An HPC rponitor must be assigned to the project." CÂ«U j - ~4<GÂ·--Â·9<Lthi /l.2,0/-- ~ Â¢ df,--Gul- 0 6,---k-1 C-/.3 1 1 I fÂ¥Ntut .FoÂ« tb- R+M- UJ A 4 u -uc~Â£#_~~a-1 â‚¬- -IT ------- 0 (04 A -kÂ» fox_ ouj-ul41=L 4 6 ra,u_~20 731 0-91-+4 0 9, 124' Nth*OF â€ž0- 4- AL (*AN100040Â« CKL JL' ~~ /1 - d:>/ vulÂ«LUL ., 26 0--p Â»~~_u_ L < PyÂ«.=4 0- 547--t -stu~ ~-Â»2-Ligct~tr 0 e ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 1. That the new addition be set back on the north and east side 18 to 24 inches. 2. ThEIt the one tree be removed and possibly be replanted. 3. :That a planter be retained and reviewed by Staff and manitor. 4. That the roof be studied for final approval by staff and monitor. Susan second the motion. Discussion Contractor: We can have smaller planters and one would be on one side of the tree and one on the other. Something like that. Donnelley: The placement of the planters could be at the discretion of the owner. VOTE: All in favor of motion. Motion carries. Amy: When Glenn comes back in town we can redraw the plan. 820 E. COOPER - CONCEPTUAL, LANDMARK DESIGNATION Amy: We did do a site visit'today. For standards of historic designation it meets standard B, a gable end miners cottage and it appears to be in its original configuration with one early addition and one later additions. There is not much detailing on the house; however it seems to have original materials and windows. Standard D, there are relatively few remaining 19 century structures in this neighborhood and only two historic landmarks. It is important to preserve structures like this one. On standard E community character it is representative of the modest scale style and character of homes constructed in the late 19th century and it is also on highway 82 which is important to the perception of the character of the community as people enter the town. Under conceptual development the applicant is proposing to demolish two additions which are noncontributing and the existing shed which is noncontributing, to shift the kitchen addition to the east and to construct a new addition to the rear. In general the proposed development is an excellent solution to adding the required space to the historic building. A lot of the space has been allocated to the basement and the massing above ground is quite appropriate. Two elements of the proposal need further discussion. The shifting of the kitchen towards the east and I do have some concern with this but do understand the advantage to the applicant as it improves the livability and the site is right. They want to take advantage of the views toward Aspen Mountain and the fact that the adjacent building has little open space on that side. I believe 4 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 ~he building should be preserved as it is and this is something that we need to discuss. In the new addition there is glazing that carries through the gable end and this is not permitted now under Ordinance #30. A numberf of setback variances are being requested mostly on the east low line and I have met with the property owner of that building whigh is also an historic resource and she seems in favor of the project and did not seem concerned with any of the variances. There is also an air lock vestibule to be added to the doorway and it looks like a porch but it is glazed. There was never a porch on the house and I feel this is adding detail thac is confusing to the character of the building. There are also twe lightwells shown there that may need discussion. Standard 2, 3, 4 are met. Partial demolition: The areas involved I do not see contributing. Onsite relocation: I feel there is an advantage of leaving the kitchen where it is. Lightwells are shown on both sides of the front door and this is not permitted under ordinance #30. You cannot have a lightwell in front of the facade. Therefore, I recommend they move the lightwells to the side of the building or reconfigure the bedrooms so that lightwells can be in the courtyard area. Under volume we have a calculation that says you cannot have windows between nine and twelve feel above the finished floor; therefore, the glazing that carries Ehrough the gable end violates that and the applicant has several options. They can either remove the glazing and put clapboards there; go to the Board of Adjustment who are the only ones that can waive this standard as it is an FAR calculation or they pay the FAR 2 to 1 for that space or they ask HPC for an increase in FAR. In general I am concerned of us waiving this standard because we are holding every residential project in town historic and not historic to this standard now. On the other hand in this particular design given the tightness of the lot it does something to make the new addition transparent and make them seem not over bearing to the historic house. The principle window standard is not met. This requires that the significant window or group of windows of a livingroom, diningroom or family room face the street and I do not think we would want the applicant to do this as it would be a change to the original house. I have recommended approval with a number of conditions. Greg Pickrell representing Jake Vickery, the owner of the house: I feel a lot of architects will disagree that this provision of the glazing in ordinance #30 and it will ddstroy a lot of houses. Many houses have oriole windows in their gable ends and this doesn' t allow that and it doesn't allow a lot of things that we are encouraging. Amy: We need to discuss this issue in a worksession. HPC can waive Ord. 30 but not one that deals with FAR. - Greg Pickrell: I would like to address the recommendation. On 5 he legal unit we are either going to apply for an ADU or address SPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 the housing impact fees and that is in progress. The goal of looking at the kitchen area of the house as a whole is to create a usable exterior space, an outdoor space. The client wanted the space to be interior to the property not in the rear yard but a private space. That is a goad to get an exterior space that is interior on the property. We wanted to break up the continuous wall surface and create a variety of massing and provide windows and doors to the exterior space- or private courtyard. It is a very small area. Bringing up the kitchen offset we are retaining the kitchen volume as a one story space to maintain the historical value of what is existihg there. We feel that the two foot offset on the side enhances the value of the historical property by making visible a change or a building vernacular. It also helps tc create a shift so that we do not have the continuous wall surface that we see on both the east side and the west side. We have two building situations there that have straight linear walls from the front of the lot almost to the back of the lot. On the west the adjacent building has a long wall that is set 10 feet off their property and even though it is not our space it affords us more visual space and openness for the courtyard. It also provides views of Aspen Mountain. Material lists will be forthcoming at final. The lightwells are hidden and not obscuring the facade of the house. We will have a rail that will run the front of the house for safety - purnoses. We will also vegetate that area. We would like the lightwells where they are as they will receive whatever little solar gain there is and they are on the south. We also want to keep our side yard access open. The light wells are 3x5. We also looked at moving the stair circulation going downstairs to the basement but by removing those stairs would drastically alter our circulation pattern and violate some interior spaces that we have. We have also avoided building a second story massing over the historical portion and put that mass in the basement. Donnelley: The drawings are very clear. Greg Pickrell: The small triangular space provides light and we are talking about 547 sqft. space. We have kept the gable end light source light and airy. The design concept here is to combine original historical materials and forms with new materials and forms so this would be an array of small muttons and forms. We would like to request the 500 sqft. bonus. Including basement and garage we have 2315 sqft. and our allowable is 2400 sqft. If we want these windows and we are going to have to count our upstairs twice we will be over if we don't have the bonus. With the bonus we have 2862 and the allowable is 2400 plus the 500 sqft. bonus which would bring us to 2900 sqft. Greg Pickrell: The first variance would be the rear yard variance AIA of five feet and if we don ' t have that it would require us to move 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 <<~~ the newer form closer to the historic building in which case we would loose our hyphenation separation and that is why we are requesting that for the rear yard. On the east and west side sides we are out of compliance the way the building setET. On the west we are six inches over the setback line and on the east yard we are two inches over. We would like to keep the bwilding where it is and bring it up to conformity. We are requesting a three foot variance for the diningroom. There is only one original window existing there. We are asking for a four foot variance on the east side of the lightwell. We are asking for a two foot variance on this side. On the airlock we are asking for a variance in the front yard from ten feet to six so we are asking for a four foot variance so that we can establish the glass airlock. Thanks for listening. CLARIFICATIONS Melanie: Where is the existing kitchen right now. Greg Pickrell: Right now it is where the bath and wash room are. Melanie: You are taking the kitchen and making it into a diningroom and shifting the kitchen to the other side. Amy: Regarding parking they are required to have two spaces and ~ they are providing two. Susan: The portion of the roof is higher over the diningroom than the bedroom portion. It looks like it blocks the bedroom portion. Greg Pickrell: We have a master bedroom suite which is the highest one and the back ridge is the bath. The highest is the gable over the master bedroom. Roger: In regarding the fenestration on the master window facing south what can we do? Amy: The applicant can change their design to meet the standard or they go to the Board of Adjustment or we give them a 500 sqft. bonus and there is one other option. Amy: We can waive design standards but we cannot waive something that deals with FAR. Roger: Because of the way Ord. 30 is written it charges them on FAR. Amy: As a further layer to this and I might not have been clear .~ to Jake you double*the FAR for the space every time you do one of those windows. Since you have them on the north and south it is 0 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 ~ four times the FAR. In this case I would suggest that you go to the Board of Adjustment because we cannot come up with that much FAR. f Melanie: How much would be needed to cut on this in order to comply with Ordinance #30? Amy: They would have to pretty much fill in the gable. Donnelley: There is an extraordinary amount of glass in the back and even more in the bathroom than bedroom. And there is a lot on the north and south. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Kent Moore: I'm the neighbor to this house. I went before HPC on a cottage on E. Cooper also. I looked at the plans the other day and I had the same concerns with the glass. The glass takes away that historical look. Linda: Where are you in location to this house? Kent Moore: We are next door the green/gray house. Donnelley: Thank you for your comment as we all have a lot of ~~h different issues regarding glazing because of Ordinance #30. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. Roger: Regarding the glazing I would like to know if the board feels the glazing is historically appropriate on the south side and two do you feel the glazing is not as significant on the north side of the alley? Donnelley; We should clarify that for additions, for new work it doesn't have to be historically appropriate it just has to be compatible. Roger: Compatible with the historic resource. Sven: Â·I am in f avor o f conceptual approval basically for this but my point on the glass to compatibility the glazing as proposed is as compatible with the existing resource as is this degree of addition to the parcel. I don't feel that it is impacting anything anymore than the scale of the addition. Donnelley: I am not worried about the master bedroom but the bath is an extremely small space and long and narrow and has a tremendous amount of glazing on the north side. So the bath not only will be inhospitable as a place to be in the winter its got 0 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 more than enough light and it is a very tall space. It isn't architecturally appropriate to have the glass there especially on the north side. It will be difficult to work with. Ordinance #30 aside it will be a difficult solution. The bedroom glazing is not as much an issue as the bath both psychologically and physically. , This approach can work well stylistically. With an historic , resource like this its approach to dealing with gable ends and glazing them however I feel inappropriate for the solution of the bath. Most of the glazing in the bedroom is facing south so you get a lot of solar gain. We cannot address the issue of glazing and we cannot address it due to ordinance #30. Susan: I am concerned about lightwells in the.front and to me they are not historic at all and they ruin the character of the front of the building. To me having them on the front of the building takes away the character of that kind of house. You can stand on the sidewalk and look down in and it seems very modern to me. Also a glassed in porch seems out of character to me. Greg Pickrell: Trying to generate an airlock in this historic structure is really difficult. Amy: I'd like to remind the committee that the client says they prefer to enter from the courtyard anyway. Donnelley: Architects like to dress up a dumb building and you are presented with that historically, a flat facade, door and two windows. We really have to address that as being the historic resource. Susan: That is what is nice about retaining a house that looks like that on that street where there are no others. Greg Pickrell: The other choice would be to go with plastic curtains. Les: You are going to lift the house up, leave it onsite put a basement in and set it back down again. This is the main thorofare and we have lost most of the block already. Visually from the front this should maintain it originality and I am against enclosed porches or any porch on the front. I am against the lightwells on the front. I can see moving them onto the side and covering them with grates. I am willing to give variances on the side and willing to move the kitchen as the solution is so good. Greg Pickrell: We have a snow problem if the lightwells are moved to the side. Les: I feel some modifications have to be made regarding the glazing. The rear setbacks are OK and the others are OK. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Roger: I think the basic plan and footprint is excellent. I would disallow the lightwells and the entry on the south elevation. I would concur with all the requests for variances. I would like to see a good landscape plan for the front. I feel we should address the problem with ordinance #30 and the Board of Adjustment. I feel that the fenestration particular on the master allows a certain transparency and I agree with Donnelley on the master bath that maybe it needs restudied. In a proactive stance I would like to work with the applicants. Linda: How many feet back on the rear is the indent? Greg Pickrell: 20 feet. Linda: There were comments made by people living in the house presently and they love it. I am in concurrence with the comments made about the porch and lightwells. Melanie: Because there are no windows on the bedroom side of the house possibly there would be another solution in getting light in. Sven: If the two parking spaces are part of the requirement on the drawing it measures 16 feet and they need to be 18 feet. Greg Pickrell: We will have to move the wall back and we will make the stair narrower. Susan: I am curious why the one roof ridge is higher than the others. Greg Prickrell: We like the value of the massing on the right side and it helps offset the facade of the historical. We also felt the vaulted ceilings in the bedroom would be more appropriate. Susan: It would be nice to see a model. Donnelley: I can sum this up and generally the commission appreciates the way the massing has been developed and the way the site has been worked with. The historic resource is prominent and it is the principle attraction when viewed from the street. The major problem other than the windows are the light wells. The light well on the east side back by the garage is going to fill with snow and is right next to the property line and it will be a problem. Putting the other lightwells on the south is going to be a problem because of the adjacency to the sidewalk. There has to be a creative solution into getting light into the basement but I do not feel this will work well. On the east they would receive all the snow from the roof and aesthetically when placed on the south of the resource it becomes to much of a conditi6ning factor 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 especially when you have such a plain facade. The massing and general plan should not be compromised by the problems. The addition of an airlock entry is not appropriate especially when the owners want to use the side entry as much as possible. The setback issues we can all deal with. The shifting of the kitchen to what is now the diningroom is an intelligent way in dealing with an historic resource. I agree that shifting the kitchen is the right thing to do and in order to save this resource and make it as effective as possible I agree with that shift even though it is an unconventional or perhaps somewhat questionable approach to historic preservation. Amy: That is exactly why I do not like it. Donnelley: It is unusual and perhaps not acceptable but in this case I would support it. The windows are a total separate issue. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant conceptual approval to 820 E. Cooper with the following conditions: 1. Provide information for preservation of existing materials for final review. 2. Provide a landscaping plan for final review. 3. Remove the lightwells and entry airlock from the south side in front of the building. 4. Restudy rear lightwell. 5. HPC shall grant the following variances. 1. 5' rear yard setback 2. .5 on the west sideyard and .1 on the east for the existing structure 3. 3' on the east siaeyard for the kitchen addition 4. 3' on the east sideyard for the garage addition 5. 4' on the east sideyard for the lightwell even though I asked for it to be restudied as it may not be workable. 6. 2' on the west sideyard for the garage addition. 7. HPC shall waive ordinance #30 standard dealing with windows. 8. HPC would be willing to grant a 500 sqft. bonus in order to deal with the fenestration and ordinance #30. 9. .6 for the sideyard combined variances. second by Les. DISCUSSION Jake: The second unit that is in the basement we will probably 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 have to make it an ADU and as a conditional use P&Z will probably require one parking space for that which means we will be required to have three parking spaces and we can only get two in the garage so we would also request a parking space for the ADU. Amy: If they choose to resolve their volume issue with an FAR bonus then you should probably say now if HPC is willing to grant the 500 sqft. bonus. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to add a parking space variance for the possible placement of an ADU unit in the basement; second by Les. Les: I don't consider these little mining shacks boring or ugly and I personally love them. They are the essence of what the east end of Aspen used to be. They are re-landscaping next door and what has happened with this extensive landscaping we have lost a building. By requiring a landscape plan I am afraid the building will disappear. Roger: If you require it then you can control it. You can see what the plantings are. VOTE: All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. ISIS - WORKSESSION Donnelley: We did a site visit and observed all the story polls. Sunny Vann: We would like to make sure we are on the same track before going to P&Z and that is why we are back so soon. John Wheeler: We have extended the existing wall back. We have stayed away from the back units. The four points left from conceptual one was the restudy of the free market unit and we feel we have done that and hope we have met your concerns. Another was the aspects of the tower and we changed the soldier bands and another aspect was the demolition plan. The fourth mater was the material on the alley side and the material on the upper level, brick or stone and the existing metal that is on the back. Regarding demolition the existing wall will stay in place and the walkway in front of the street along the sidewalk will be at six to eight feet high. As the facade is renovated and restored we will put panels in there such as was done with the city hall building. John Wheeler: We also supplied a streetscape elevation from the Caribou alley side which demonstrates how low it is and it will be di ff icult to see the eave lineÂ· from across the street. 12 Second by Dodington. Madsen moved to amend the above motion with the 4591*2 0 following condition: 6) Respond to the vernacular of the original conceptual approval drawings. Second by Dodington. Motion carries, all in favor. Amidon stated that for clarification the applicant has been asked to bring all the informational materials and coordinate the rest ofthe project. Odell asked if there was existing documentation of what has been specifically approved or what is specifically being constructed for "C" and "A". Amidon responded that they are under permit. 820 E. Cooper STAFF COMMENTS Amidon stated that the project did not comply with the open space requirement. 35% of 0 the parcel should be open from ground to sky and visible to the public. The new proposal is to move the house 4ft. further from the street than it is currently, giving a bigger front yard and meeting the open space requirement. Amidon noted that as a result, there are other set back variance corrections to be made. The windows in the gable end violate ord. 30, which declares that a "No Window Zone", to avoid expressions of large vaulted spaces on the outside ofthe building. Ord. 30 requires that the interior FAR be doubled. Amidon stated that the applicant is requesting a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to keep the windows for light. Amidon also noted that the applicant has proposed two lightwells, a dormer, raising the house two feet and are re-proposing the glassed in airlock. Staff recommends to approve the amendments to the conceptual, including the set back variances, but not approve the airlock entry. Moyer opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing noting that no there were no public present. Moyer asked if there was any way moving the historic structure could be avoided. Amidon responded that Moyer could make the recommendation, but it would mean the project would go to Board ofAdjustment. Moyer asked if staff had no problem moving the house back 4ft. to accomplish the open 0 space requirement. Amidon answered that staff felt it would be preferable in the original location, it would be a up to Board of Adjustments to grant that waiver. 7 Moyer inquired if the house was moved back where would it align.~~~lij~, Amidon responded that the house is slightly forward and will align with the houses on 0 either side. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Madsen said she liked the idea of moving the house back 4ft. and is in favor of eliminating the glassed in airlock. Madsen also stated she felt the dormer looked odd and would prefer some other treatment. Dodington stated that changing the simplicity of the historic house in 3 ways is too much. Dodington said she agreed with moving the house back, and would go along with the raising the house and the lightwells, but not the airlock. A skylight would be more appropriate than the dormer, however, the dormer is o.k. Alstrom said he supports staffs motion with the exception of the airlock. Alstrom stated that he liked the idea of an airlock, although he did not like this design. Alstrom felt the architect tied the old and the new together nicely, and should be given the opportunity to redesign a new airlock. Moyer stated that he concurred with staff that this is an amendment to a conceptual approval, and would allow the architect the opportunity to redesign the airlock, the dormer is almost not an issue because it is so far back from the street. 0 MOTION: Alstrom moved to approve the proposed amendments to conceptual approval on 820 E. Cooper including the following: 1) Combined front and rear yard variance of 18' (30' is required, 12' is provided). 2) 8' rear yard setback variance (10' is required, 2' is being provided) 3) 5' on each sideyard variance for the lightwells (5' is the minimum required) 4) 10' combined side yard setback variance (10' is the minimum required) 5) An FAR bonus of 500 sq.ft. 0 6) Approve the Lightwells 8 7) Approve the windows on the South side. 21 0 8) Approve dormer addition on the East 9) Deny current airlock design, applicant may re-propose a new airlock design. Second by Madsen. Motion carries 3 to 1. Dodington opposed. MOTION: Madsen moved to adjourn. Second by Dodington. Motion carries, all in favor. 0 Amy G. Schmid, Deputy City Clerk 0 9 .. , r , . r ' ' -- " 0 ' 1 I *+Il if - 1 lituarmittrt / â‚¬4 . CI 1 - 1, 4 H 11 .... *ilks,-r--ip-ef~* I 1*â‚¬9. un- - I:/1 ' r 11 fÂ·Â· f- \ . V h Hi s i.:4 ' 14.11 i.:,11 0 3 13 /1 1,I i \ 9 ,4 1 :â€¢ \ 04 f LJ\-16 ./6 Â· t: d 4- 1 7 jil 4 1 11 I Â·110 14 :11 4.'1 i.i: 1 4 4 -frn c - < ' -il 2,-~ i 41'Â·Â·Â· ,~%,9, 7' '4Wzh-Â£0Â£ iLl 1 i----2/r= C: rE- 84 - iiÂ· 2 4~ 4 It., IK.- 4 2 r -.. & j . '' 4-4 / .4 f 4 4 4 26 9 1 /*7 1 1 il ~Er===':/t --~4 . i--â€ž2229*=rer*Memr.-1 F /1.t i\ p. 2 1 /' 1 \Â¥:1 I \L..1, . IM l, 1 - . 4 ift - 1. - 1 T. =' t ...N 464 1 Â»i ' TY ; 5# - -31- - - -_ f i _ _ 2_ _ _ L -g 2-1 11 11 HY' 1 I ,/6 1 It tilt 1 1 Dd -U. 4 ;191 11 - -.1 1. 11 -. 1 1 '1 j . - a Colo N\2 ...I F57 F07 rr3: 4 '4**44 4 .-1.Nk . \ 11 ty, I 07 1 Â£ 67 1 1 . ~t- I 27 11 1 . .t 4 11 '-'-7Â·7Â·T-9.12;~tf: ~~ Â»yt:tmt= 4%;fieÂ·,-Â·'. 1 L-pi,.A.*6.*~.~f*~.~<~'~9 â‚¬f -I ./., V. 9,/4.1..../..we.Ife - I - HPC FINAL 3-8-96 2 SHEET 3 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 820 EAST COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 970-925-3660 & ..4 .... 1 - 4...2 + 4 k NÂ¥ld HOOTIA HamOU ~1J;â€¢' ~465 . 0*,4---Z4~'.' .,..4 - ..-4 4 k Â¢i-i.,i~ i . M W N ET O e Z... 1 2823 0 00 . j 0 Z. U) W OA O U) 4 i. 1../234'' . k 4, 1, b -- -- -- 11Â« , 19 - __ 4 Ir.2323'.iÂ«14#AR:F.**4~I.1#&:i:Of:yÂ·Â«.7 * 1,1 m I 112:-*WA Â·Â·Â·râ€ž+421'15,0-Â·edr, 41*3====ir; 9 'ta 1 ) 4 # 1 1 1 2 Gh. 4- If - N-- 4 1 - . 1 ELI I li 8 - 0 15 - ~.. 1, . X . 1 - r , / a 91 / /\ < \ 1 --* 1 4.1 1 - 1 / 0 \ 14 d / 0. 4 1\ I i. L -- J 1 ./ i 49 i /32% 1 < . / 4--A. C L'.111-F,2*2.#-- 1 11 UP 0--6- : \. 1 1 k 1 , 0 3. b U 3 . U 4% 8.'. * 5. .1 If - 14 I \\ 8 \ I de 1 . \ 14.1 1 4--- ---4,4-9 1 1 \ 8 1,4 - i 1 M... 1 7 M O O . / 10 1 F 14 / Sx... r ..aeÂ·stn':z-.E - "IT-N| ..- ' ~- "-' --'-.-9''Ill 4 -U Â·F IL.....1 11 1. r , -11 \: / 1.00 M.1 p 111 . 1 7 -4 1 i-' 16&:...ii,T - 1 U E L-_21 1 f \ D d - -~~ L _ -1 6 // v L- --: **.-.ik======:=16%,iÂ£~9a:dÂ·*0 phfUNF ORT.1 27324/'~1 -EI-=:;.... 4.6/.3955=:mvi'72*ek>.4,*'Tr - v 1 --# - i GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1/4"=1'-0" 41* k k $ . I '' . 1 94,4 1 CH t. 2 2 9Â¢,R-, ' $, 7 . .04... I 0 .â€ž - f 9 4. , & 010 Sl,OlLIHOHV AHaNOIA GINVP 09 9- dOOD l,SVE[ 058 NVId 11[Al'I ~12% . 0 0 . xii -- 11 t 9 L-----7 . 1 1 ' ! 1 OI 1 1 1 1 1 1 - i 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 L -1 .1 F 1. 9 1 1 -IN j. ....9 | i - 1 1 1 1 1 - 7 1 1 i F37 I 1 r li .9... \ 1 4 . 10 I j 1 7 11 - 11 M OI *02 1 F- -7112 Â·a P l 1 -Xy E, \ 1 11 41 1 1 1 - 4 ~ 1 2..1 11 n 4-------71 1 1 1 11 1 1 fl 11- /-- 9 1 1 1 / 1 1- ~ 1-U--1.-Z~ 11111 7 ' 6 1 1 +813 B i Wr--8--713 1 1 111 1/ 7 1 1 \ F.Mio 9 4 1 -i l -- 4 HPC FINAL 3-8-96 SHEET 5 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 3/ UPPER LEVEL PLAN Lip 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3 - A 820 EAST COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 970-925-3660 K. - 1, Â£ :44 -2,3 NVId MOOTIA Haddfl I . g . I j 1 1 . ..9 1 R /AT~ 11 n 11 11 11 ~4 11 1 11 i lierIZiI _ 0 f. e. 18. , 9Â· !~IVI 6.101 - 7.-9*97.0 / 1 111 1 11 1 11 11' 1 31 1 0-02,1 1 1 --06-298?Mallf - TL L~ 7 1 010 Il 1- u SOI 1/4"= _â€¢|x Merf. *Aqi --- -1-3-1697 -1 1%41ter SM. ' , 171, *ir- - -- -.1 m*Â·,Â»10~tr ( U W I f 23 TeÂ¥io &,11 -7.--. 1--4 WEST ELEVATION 1 1/4"=1'-Of. IIi OdH 1 1 . '1 - tailm...0& / \ . \ I . . ./ I I .5 ...._- ...../. I"Illizill' 0.1 . 11-1~1 -1... ---.--.- 1 --lil-.--I-- -Ill--Il---I..- . . 111 Illilljilllillllilililllll~~~~~~~~~Ij:."1l~lml~l~i~ 1,1 1 lll -1.1...1.' 1... 1 - 1 1 .. lillillillillillikilillill illillillillilll'Illillillilli~~illilillillimil. -1.- illillim ' imilliz~liglull-millillinilliliIILIHU'lililli~i ' ' illillilillailimilimilimill~illullilillillililihilifilifillillilli1ill .... lill.1.Ell.1.lit--,---il .1 --I.*.I-I - Ilmllum"-mumimmullilm- - 34 IA , 1----Ill'11,1 1.1....1.1....1.1.11'll." h ""ll~11]11111~11~"=~~~~~~~~ lai~ ---.J & mmimmumul I .lilli I L.L. Ill --4 7 - ~'ll--I-'~--li~.~' 1 - - 11 -1 .. .-4â€¢1 . h .0 --7 --I -7 99.3, '' . / I * - EME IAN E E k - O 0 CD 1 0:Z- A '' 1 1; ~ .7 4 1 - le.8 iff]~fÂ»- -~ - * -0 5111 : .fl il ' 7'', - Â· ht'&43ft >Ozi 7 JA 1 \ 1 : bt 1 7 114'.00 Z. / 1, - - lit ity#' lie 1.0,1 1 1 9/ /1 ----,- *83] 11Â£77. ft, G M, EÂ»<IH ~ --- 7 -< 1 r; 0 . fe. Câ‚¬*H 8 0 14%< / 1 1194 ~ 1.-1 1 , : Â¥ if 3544 \ 11 f- -- - _ tri/Abit- - --- '. 7'. - -- -* - -- --1 4 11 .1 1 Â£ 1-t! 4 /<J ---- \ Â»2 / --- 1 .- ,/ 4 2. 1 , 1. -%4 -2 - 1 - le-- 1 11.1 / ; 1 ! i 11 1 1 1 1: 'i ! i 'r I -1-- i ill; 11 1 â€¢ ' i 1 ======= \Au -- -- ..bi 1 L 111 1 1.1 1 Lili 44 4 43-- - * -- 0 ,1 L 4 rhp. %_ 8 12'4:det ___ F + ----5 1 I 01 49"1: I , Ill 4 IN 1. \37 bb~ .n':>*5.t~. -44 2 MerIC. f,49 r , . ~4,16- ..r------4 41 cF 10-7 Lui, , i - i-- ! 1 1 : 'F !1',1 1,/ \1,11 1 1 11!1~ f *1 ; k 1 7/ -* 2 1 /\71 -W i -* W . 'I 1, M A All i n , 1' 611 1/\ ' 11 1 , - '1 1 1- -- ' ' ' f -..--m <11 4. I.-P--*- '-----~ --+ T -- - 1 7 -- -1 1 I ,$) 2 ~1 lii, J~ * ~,il ~-, - .1 6 ~54416Â·Y_ FrtÂ· 1 , Lilli:11:11 r : 7 le'L60 --I .- ' Vt/'6144 64'0*: , t. , 11- - ----. 1 - 7, 11 --- 1 1 1 -... 11 4 11' f 11 1 1 0 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 2 11 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 -- f 11 1 /- -.i- 1 1 1 1 - i i. .''rd'46* i 4 I e 1 1 11 11 1 1 1-i 1 - < 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 '-. 4 11 f1 - 0 F â€¢k IJA Ir 1- . 1 1 M -- - -- 4 * , -,-. "*- * *'v '*'- <, -=4- 4 - --4-4 1 11 L.laa,4 4__---_ t--1 1) 1 1 --Ld -- - - .--- - - 411_ _ F Â·Â· 1 L , r i L_21 1 1 ~- 1 1 -- A IJH Ire 41 __rlÂ·fi ~TIEL-=2 --LI-I---=-- -- -- -- - Â«-4 4 ------ 0 0271- 0,1 i --1 1 SECTION A-A SECTION B-B 1/4"=1'-0" 1/4"=1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION 1/40=1'-O" 1 8 1 8 r H d r 1,1 ; 1 # 1 .j 1 1, 1 i 11 El 11 , 11, 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 ~ Â£ 1 - E ki * ~ ~-7 1 ; il t. 11 0 7 4 1 .1 1 - 1 t 11 ~ --'- - F.,11Â· - 11 1 Â¥* 11 1 O CE= 1 1 T ~ 1 1 1 J. j al..tlf -4. , 1 1 1 1-1 1 L' - \ 11 C\1 :Â·t'ji; i':1'It ... ..4 -~ : 'f !0':1 t , 11 ,% 1 [ 1-t # 1 1 ' 1 - , 1 hil 1 8 ; i '11 11 1; ~, , . .- -- . I h ... - ... - t. d '1 t 1 1 E 1,1 j. 1 # 1 i 1. t. 1 d' '' J' 1 1 1 1 !11 1 1 I I ..3 1 1. tqi T 01 ; ~ IFÂ«31 ~ 1 ' i .Â· ~ j i 11 -, 1 1.1 1 1 '' til 1 L 1 1 , 1 1 1 1, 1 : 11 1 1.-1 11 -1 1-' . li. 1 '61.11 -. . -- - - 1 11 1 i, 1 1 1 1 4 1 j .1 - 1 11 1 2 1 4 1 Z 1 2 1 - 11 . - - - - -- - . Hâ‚¬112, FUFfi. kâ€¢ 1 1 '. _ ,,f . iii , .i , 0. 1 f . -q- - -- -- 41~214119 1' '1 0 4 0 - .6 -- 1 ./. it k , . 6 -' i i : 1.11 : 1:1 1,11: 1~1 , 11 :11 :11111 ----~ Mer'k'' f,â‚¬5H--9 -1 - 4. lin. 111 -- . 1 -- '~ 11 - 1 i! Ilk Ijil [!Ii; ilt!.i ~ 11 ~1~ 1 -- 1, I,Â¢711.-(9It I ; 1 111."Ill lilli 2,1 1 11;11111. 1 - 1 111.61111 1 11'1'1111 U 1 - - 1 -./ .- . - - - ..... - .A J.~ . 1 11 FIJ I i, i 24' 1 7*-7 1 - ~ --.I -1 11 11 11 1 4 1 1 L---J IT 4 i .'11 41 1.04 4 11 -4 4.74.5, t==I d Â£ 1-'VINA . 7 leo- 47" ' Â·Â· 1 - I-- --il-- ./ 1 1 1-__: 1 11 - 11 11 U .1 - 11 11 11 11 1 - . 11 , 11 1 1 Ir I il , 11 1 1 l 11 11 1 4 11 - . 1 1 111~ 1 1 4 Il 4 19=2.-= Â»22_--1-----22-=ff =-- -- 1 -1 L.-1 1 1 . 65,*MA.rn UH r 20 ~ ~ 6.4 1 1 L_ -4 Em .: -------1 !- - -- --- -- -..- - ... - -â€ž-- - ......... --- ----------- ----- --- 4 1 81: 4, p ---1 f . 4 --1 1- --4 A cs 5 0 EAST ELEVATION ~ 1/4"=1'-0" -â€ž%. 44~* 1/Sv:a NO NS DaTIE[ CINÂ¥ SNOILÂ¥~Ia . ./3&,C; 7* , 099Â£-986-OL6 I I9IS OO 'NG[dSV SNOLLOGIS OG'IG , MGIWOOD I,SVEI 058 Â£# 133HLS ONIZIdS HMOS 00 I SLOGUIHOHV AHNNOIA DINVP 8133HS 96-8-8 1VNId OdH l 4 ill r-i â€¢ 1-5 E- 4 -- +* r -I - i , 9 Â·.4 h 3. 14 1 1Â·94+4 021 1 -r. 1 ... 11."-4. --~~I *- .1.-Â«Â«1 111 = 1 > 'f 1 1 - Â· xi k . 11 1 /654 01,- 1 1 rt *iÂ·. 1 1 l: *#*-*****Â£#1%jb I Z.pil--i Â·/4;0421 ..- 4 1-1 833 ... 1.. -37.?%.1,4. .7--+ Â· 41' - 2 1{ :. v i -< . -11 #f j 3-31 -,- J. i -2 9 4 -13' 0 ,â€¢: 1 C Pit .4 I f--1- I I I 4#A, 1 J.P.. 4 . 4 k ......7,fi; 7/:L k 5. U-*+ 0\L==Â¥== jit" *3 lit I 1* 34 IL_L tri.4 # . 9.... 0 I . :..4. ,% 41** 1.964'.i.. 0. if + 'bira'. 0. 4 i k .1 1 1, . , 2 042 F 'c -4/hfcÂ· d 42 - J -8 ~9 4 & RE + '.. i ;4 19 4. y.Â·:3 . Â·9. i Â·-* 4'5 4 13 Ad / - :r- 1...9614:,my.fl.. a 1 ... 6% 1 a I , 9 P 1 TI-'-3,1 thâ‚¬@826 Â£124 b . 23 / ---: p M, .1 874 1 111Â· 1 I R :fÂ·.% :A\%. , M 94 :r 11 1 1 - *i ' i 64....1 1 .It- 4 " i, 04.N Â·Â· '0 --- 2 . , 1 'fl=. 4.-4 ..: 'rt.t- - -,e--* Â·i.tiap ------* prim*-L# v zf**41- -4 1 4.... ./ 1 /1 n, i li ll' lil ~. 1 "1 j 111! Il ii t. W O 4- WK) i 1.4I 4 . 14 - A G 1,1 C*. 1\ 1 . 11CZI , i - i~ <'*-~ 1-~'~~- : L '% .3.W .2, .6..W + L-2, 1 u.1 1 741 u -1 1 8 1 1$'.1 U U) a .,4 b '.1-I: 4 . t! 44 1 R.1.9,.,.,/p...1 4- 3 gâ€¢'4 & 0 , a i 'Ai.... i . rÂ» . 79' 9, --- 4 Ma *El M i fl 14.3 m *4 052 + I - 4.1 - I - --- - ,ta '.2% 13 le- *>rM lit $ . . 7,.=r.4.. --.%â€ž1..:-w=*a~#*****&LE*/M 1 7,14 24 9 1= 1 C â‚¬ 4 Â·h %,. , 4 1 -Â· Â· :74 1 7. 419 - 1 - 11'FE 3 + *@*i = ..- 4 * k %' 1 9,4 14 -Imp 4,9 JI-1 r* * 1 I ' 1Â· Â· , '111 <1 8. *Pt-Â·4 4 4. .. CerÂ¥06 4 11 1 5.42 <42 2*41*14 1 16-111 ~i. f I ilig / WA 1 1 *A 11 12#-Ir 2.9?br . ./ -+21-4 .-91 4 ...4.IE,/*I'l 1-fT 37/1,0, - 1 -t ..i '| --il Â·r / - 1 -1Â· #D i #.1. . 1 14 '. 91.1.1 1% . i ==>00{j- ~~2~~ 31-6 4): E .. ,;iveÂ·~. 1 R -,/4// Mi .1-4 1â€¢%. u 6 :,5 1: 1 , 1 Â¥ r B 1. 0'. ,1 --Â·- i . i 4 2 -; 1 - 44 ! 1, -,4.. -. - . . â‚¬ 1 1// 014 14 Â£,2 621 / // 2 *M ... 1 JA . W -4 '.. .tits tic; . Â£13.34 - ? k ... ..9 7 Â·e?- L.., r-:44-h \..\1 1 1 * C /4.7 . -,Â·I:~Â·(34Â·?:4' Â· 71.r el \ . 1 ' 11:46#i . r.-9-- .:' 1 0 4-Â».k 9 'r.-l' - i -~ Â» - -- i '.1 , I f 1 . 9 | 164 A V.% 90\ 4 ,: 7 L_i > 1 0 4 4 ': + 4.f : $-1.-1.*p...794-2 . .-7 Â·*-*..h.2.r.---2atÂ»4#eâ€¢-aeâ‚¬*-*Jâ€¢Â»â€¢~Â·*Â»V'it> 1% - \+ 1 , ~~ 0- _ _j__. _ _ ~ Itt Z 1, '3 L 42 ~1- %4 W< \*=7 r - 9 wi E 4.64 h 4 1141 11/ 3.-3* 5-2 gil 1 1-1 . LZJ 91' r.Â·t PÂ· " , '' "rt .4.22 r 1 It-=*11 8Â·xtzÂ·Â·M.*R#W#*44#245 3-1 24 3 1 Â¢#7 I * -11'rA ..02' ... A Â· stÂ·24 ..+Â·% . 4,Â·WmOZÂ·L 1 4 2, 1 13 11 ' 4 lit . 2 6 : :Â« E = 4% ' P i 24 0 . 1 . 0 -----1-1- p 1 1 flI 1-7.k, 11 4.10 / ._,04*444*"Id#W#*41 Â£'-W r- \ - 1 -- b 1 3 a Z 0 4 imp 3 0 4 6 1 ii-$ 9 0ff -0- *- -0- ps . . I. . . 4 .. 1-4 NOLLO Rd ' 3491 0 - \ \ k , \ / / - iol F to - EXESTIkle ~ EXIST, BXIS'TE 4- Motvis ME NTDRAOE r LIN 1 - r -1 -J I L 1 9 0 EXISTI NC 41 L..0/ eREASE -TRAS PARSINe AND SEINER ON BRADE h/FAN+OUS S E' , , NXI'ST , ,=0904 --~ E X I 511 Ne 7 RESS' RESTAURANT ~ Ft . 12531 -4F RÂ©VOVE E \ PREP 1 KeÂ« 5%15-7, P,4 % 4 0 1/NAWK-IN GOD L. E 9 <= -- Kirche N (EXTER 1 09,) el< 1 ST Ne Intl 4 4 0 9/201/90 - - E : 1 CONS-TRUCTON AR 545 9 170-45# ADD ITION = 1 53 SQ, m., 57)41 RS '11 GO N/v: O N ARBA - 3 8 4 5Q, FT-, OUTE)0019. IcÂ»ViN~ F:*710 = 81.0, 76 Sâ‚¬ PT FIRST FLOOR PLAN -EX/ST/NG "Â· ~ NORT*-4- --- 5-rrRA95 Morvt DS M O = 54 5(2, F=T, 5%577 NITO+EN DE:MO . Ille Sâ‚¬ FF-: \ . 4 . \. 1 fÂ· I--/ 4.1 A.':LAÂ·'.Â·,Â·l]1\.Â·i''l'~*,Â·~Â·JA.W..9.......:.:.1,%\..i~.1-1-}\4.-1. .. 1 T ilisil-.==*---' --1F~z=-=~~-a=ea====s======*/AL' - 57Â».1 B NO,1- 0/4 11 SACK &/AR 31. 5-7-44 1 R, NO, 1- DoWN 33 -IZ TRASH -3 AREA 24- 0- ~- - TE ALSTROM/GROUP / 32 1 -- 312 F A. A. B. C. * 1 4 -1/1 - ILI ~M~__ ~ EN-TRANCE DOOR. - IT- NEIN SANDICAP - --2_. i -- ASPEN, CO 81611 \ 21 , llc 1.6 "1 1Â·.1.1-1 - 1/ -71 ' 970/ 925 1745 TEL 1 970/ 925 4578 FX RIDOR -9-1/-- ----. P-1-7--1 \\C . t / i. Â»I L--1. 7.21 i I 0/' EX ) Proiect .lp, - NE,NI Â·66 . --1 f NEN - 9 ~ - 6484-noN Â·1<- HOWLING WOLF 4 fc>ASS DOOR , / i I . ~Â· . CONCRETE . - . ADDITION , CAQ 19Â« 1 Nle / ' '4 f . ' 1 / 74 \NTS , S SDK date I . ./ slope . .. NEW 1 Ne 61 41 70 KEW h 1-PASS .... INOOD lili ..\ fl /2<~PNINOON 18FEB96 POR(34 NIZIN )11 r \ ---7T 1,; t ~1 / drawing no. / 1/NIN'Dor.4 lili IS.AL k EA- -- ---- -- \ 11 1 7/ C:RAIN / 1 r - r - FAvERS 1 Al 1 L sArkia-rT- i, e ipININiel, , p r 4 f Af SEASO "' I j - : 10,1/ , . I 0/9 1 A.TEE .1 , 9 .1 1--.~ 11 . A 11 .. .' 4 Â£11 1 L- 2Â»_ _ _'_ _ ---Â»-----1- -- - - - 0 ' IN .1 434' '. - - 2444 ..,2.4 . 4. J:#-fÂ·I : ~Emet#T PT: AtieAP TENCS . I & ., 311' 1:0 FIRST FLOOR PLAN -NEW CONSTRUCT/ON 1/4":1'-0" I . Â· 1~ ;AÂ· ,Â· . ':4 , i :.2 1 U 641 I.l y:/4 Lat,6 . J.*f*, \ 2.-otp ~Mut,utjM GENERAL NOTES 1. General Contractor and all subcontractors shall layout and field verify all dimensions prior to construction. Do not scale drawings. Contact Architect or Engineer concerning discrepancies or missing information. Verify all dimensions and utility line locations prior to construction. 2. All work shall comply with applicable local, state, and national codes and conform with â€¢ material and equipment manufacturers' recommendations. 3. REVIEW WITH OWNER WHICH FEES HAVE BEEN PREPAID. 4. All fees (Building Permit, Tap, etc.), materials, Labor, finishes, cleanup, etc. as necessary for the full completion of this work shall be included in this contract and bid unless noted NIC (not in contract) or by Owner. 5. All arlicles of the current document "General Conditions of the Contract for Construction' AIA Document A201 (1987 Edition) shall be part of these contract documents. 6. These documents contemplate a finished piece of work of such character and quality as is reasonably inferable from them. The Contractor acknowledges that his proposal includes sufficient money allowance to make his work complete and agrees that inadvertent discrepancies or minor omissions shall not be the cause for additional SITE NOTES implied as generally necessary for the full completion of this work. chargesor claims. The contract includes all work whether specifically noted herein or 7. Where detailed information is lacking. Contractor before proceeding with the work, shall 1. Do not scale drawings Contact Architect for clarification of missing or conflicting refer the matter to the Architect and Owner who will together furnish information or a information. decision with reasonable promptness. 2. Property lines, utilities and topography shown are representative of information taken from 8. No change from these documents shall be made without the Contractor having first a survey prepared by Alpine Survey. Please refer to the survey for this information, received permission in writing from the Owner and / or Architect. notify the Architect of any discrepancy or variation between the drawings and actual 9. Final cleanup shall return the entire project to normal for a "first class" level of site conditions. maintenance. 3. Building footprint to be laid out by a certified sun/eyor. 10. For the Owner's records submit copies of permits, licenses, inspection reports, notices, 4. Architect shall verify building location after layout is complete and before the Contractor and correspondence with regard to regulations and standards bearing upon the ' begins any site clearing. Notify the Architect in advance to arrange inspection. performance of the work. 5. Surveyor shall lay out building footprint and location within the excavation prior to placing 3. All dimensions are to face of framing unless otherwise noted. foundations. 4. Exterior walls to be 2 x 6 at 16" O.C. unless otherwise noted refer to Structural. 4 6. Contact utility companies to field verify location of respective service lines prior to 5. Interior walls to be 2 x 4 at 16" O.C. unless otherwise noted refer to Structural drawings. beginning construction. 6. Interior or exterior walls at shower or bathtub surround walls to be at 12' o.c. to facilitate 7. Contractor shall insure positive drainage away from and around structure. Notify the installation of wonderboard tile substrate. Architect whenever this is not possible. Ponding of surface waters shall not be 7. Coordinate joist placement with plumbing fixture layout. permmed within 40 feet of the building perimeter. 8. Hold all plumbing traps as high as possible. Coordinate with cabinet accessories. 8. Dimensions are indicated to the nearest 1/4'. Layout all corners square or at 45 degree 9. Refer to Structural Engineer for soil requirements at all slabs on grade and for Concrete, angles as indicated unless noted otherwise. Wood, and Roof Load, and Foundation design requirements. 2/ \*/9* GONISTQUOTION .A R.SÂ« S RVANGO STOR/ 5-7rlfi/CORRIDOR 975 54. FT, 1 +40611-,1 Ne 0,10>F 53-OgAeS 907 50, PT Â· 16101-0.7 5-TAIR 4 6.ORRi DDIR. 191 56). FT, 1 70-TAL THIS DEVE 4 1 -7Dj 69, FT <eROSÂ©) ------ - 1 .. 1. 3.17.7Â¥0,7/â‚¬?1..: 61 47 COMME 9 1 12 /141 1 1 1/ 1// 2 , d. Â·Â· ium- Â· .Â· C RAPN A+ 5 r'ASS -2 J S-TOR,Â·465 74 ~Toi WET 2 12>ANCO --- 1 "Ir 1 f 1 L r ",1 4- t. AGGESS ,. 1 13 1 / /117F 4. PER'VATE -r- frAIR Ify 1 A U, 21.9 (102.SE, FT) STAIR NO 5ToRÂ«es . AlÂ·STROM/GROUP -L- PooR --- -_. - rE.0[ ~ I= - 312 F A. A. B. C. In -1- e. - Â· ~; ASPEN, CO 81611 1Â»04.1 4 9 Â· -1- ---1- I irm -1-.1 j 'iÂ·~i j j.;.~.(~~~~14'\\~tAlleAh' 145 X*6 1 -4 .3. 0 m 970/ 925 1745 TEL 1. 1 <7 ' - 970/ 925 4578 FX . 1 1 001*9 ... *.x- 5%'T CORRIDOf i~ proiect B---=S===~c=Sne=p : <~ - .. HOWLING WOLF iÂ·' ADDITION r - . date 3 1,1 QUOR AND '' -r 1 . :j- DRÂ¥ STURAeE FOOD t>TOR, 5/VERABE 5 99Â»NICD - 18 FEB96 .. 01,â‚¬CK- IN WAD K I IN 6 1 PRIVÂ»TE STOBAGE Â·: .. a ><ID 8 >410 (EST :562, FT j drawing no. 4 . .4 A2 .. 0 FO .. .. 1 % . 1 1 0 24 Â£ JAMPS ) 1 . 4. . -11 r -/ a- _-- h,204 58â€¢45 - .. FED; 7-*A b ,. 1 tâ€¢ BASEMENT PLAN-NEW CONSTRUCT/ON 3 1/4":1'-0" 1/ j I , C.-3 . .Z... A ~tr -/ - Â· --' - 1 â€¢ I - I I. I m :/ I.- . - = 11 1 Ii- . I .-r li f - I - - . r I r . . - \ 1 ,?; -1 -il /- â€ž 9 7. 49 . 1 1 - -- - 1-0 -/ 6'- - C p e - / 1 1 1 / - / / . BXPS'Tj Ne 775 F#ENP#IN . 1 2 -__ â€ž NORâ„¢ ELEVATION - _ SOUTH ELEVATION . 1/4":1'.0" 1/4":1'-0" . IN COD FSNCE â‚¬ COURT-~BO AND . ~- I . EXTERICEL STAIR ~ /Â«SPHA.3- 541 NeLE Roor --- 0 2 lilli:{ ~ 11 lit - - 11 6 lit lilli ' 1 11 pt .[:) i: ~ 2\1000 SIC)INe i I ij j 11 : 0 U 1 - 11 26 753 70 1 NEEIN ADDI-F'ION E><1 07-ING 51-36 TO RE MAIN , /1 9 WEST ELEVATION _~â„¢ 1/4":1'-0" I , YI ft: â€¢r At ALSTROM/GROUP EXISTINe -1-0 REMAN NEN ADD TION 312 F A. A. B. C. . 1 - ASPEN, CO 81611 , 970/ 925 1745 TEL 1, - 970/ 925 4578 FX ROOF BEYOND NOOD PENCE HOWLING WOLF -prolect - ADDITION o co UFCrv*RID date NEAL K 1 -TEK+EN Â»DDI-TION FRCUM _ . ' 23FEB96 4 1 drawing no. Â©'Â»Â£2 1 '. '-â‚¬:IC ' .' ' A3 Â¥ ..ZE= 1 . , 1,Â·400[) SID1 14e . I. / I t 1 -1. i i i I ' , 1 4 EAST ELEVATION 1/4":1'-0" t / - r k 1 ' 4 4 '. e,h 1,4 Â¢ I . I Â·f j. '...3..%Â·9&4. ' Â·.,Â· , 441*9, r $ 1 1 0 . 'k Exis-riNe ed,De, 145161 ADDITION ... I . . Itt il r- 4, 41 1 /1 :- if.. 1.' r . 22: 0 ALSTROM/GROUP r . i / i ./lili 312 F A. A. B. C. 1-3 1 //Jjj-lat , ASPEN, CO 81611 /'/ 0 1 1 . i 1 \ ///////f//44 + . fer 0 970/ 925 1745 TEL //////A /lf* 970/ 925 4578 FX 1 - iÂ· fâ€¢'r. t .f /42 pro iect HOWLING WOlF ADDITION ' i / / AN0 860* REFÂ») R INC Â·~A, date / i 2% F E 8 96 .. drawing no. '4 it / // 1'1 9/' A5 I i jill 44. .'AÂ·' -'. Â· ~ .t.6 I / 1 1 1 - 4 1 4 \1 /4/92/44 - - ---lill- I.I./ ..Il...I '' 2 . i 1 2 K $ -1 - 1 ROOF PLAN AlTCH+EN ADDITION 1/4":1'-0" 'I ':4 .-ch. 1Â·r .1 Â·0 *Â·i Â· L . ' 4 3% 1 .. f \ 1 \ 0 1 / / - 11 / Â©1 [43 r no 1 NDEX ~ DRAAN NIe5 0- I ,Al Fl 96-1- 71.0.008 Fl,ANS EXIST LNe D exj si- , exisT: /\[ov[EN Iva N SERAE % aÂ«55 IMSNIT PDA N Aa BU It/01 Ne mi/EVA-RONS A 4* 61.11 LDINe SECTION _45 ROOP P>AN 1 - ex 1 37-1 *6 COURrrARD 51-EVATION:~ - 7 1 ILl g~hÂ»- EXIST'Kia eREASE 3~9Â».9 FARmiNe 31 A!\10 SEINER. ON BRADE BXI ST, _ MAN+OLES 15 5X I ST, FORGE* ___~j EXISTI*e - 1 RESS Â©EST)Â«URANT i ge Move 1 psem f 74 ~e,Â« 23><15-~, , 0 f, 1 Â©4* WK Â·Â·61 j - COOL*E R 5% 1 ST Ne (EXTERIOR;2~ 1 1 / , 3 KI-15,H/. , 3% IVAR 90 1 - gick\/ 6\(0 1-1 , 0 CONS'~RUCT'ON 749 NA5 4 4 k 1<170Â·451# ADD ! TioN 2 53 54, PT 4 J 5-54 i RS 1 COMMON AQNA - 330 M, MT, 1.1Â· p i i FIRST FLOOR PLAN - E X / S T I N G \ OUTDOOF:2. FÂ»Â¢ji N~PATIC) = 812 , TE, Si) PT 1 V i Â· 1, 2 1/4":1'-0" 5-TER495 FROOVT DEMO = 54 'Sq , FT, NOSÂ» 5% sT r 1 -1-04Â·EN De'V[ O = US SR, a-: \: 4, F. -1 1 ' 1 1 . -~,IVii.~'.1,6...,:Ii,L.1' IP,tlif.*5: '5,02-tf-~-AZ [R] F .00 STÂ».1 FR NO,1- ~ CS*iN ~ ~ ~ , fi , 5*TAI R. 40, $ DoWN 2 - v 7%2.4514 ..i . 1 1111% I - - 1 2 04 . 1 -4 AREA 4 -- .0-1 -2 4 ALSTROM/GROUP 7 1 k 4 - t . 1-3 41 . 2 1 *1 - 312 F A. A. B. C. 1. Ort/-- ; iff~~ I) : ~ Z~:5 , \ - ....1 - 1 > /3 4 ./ If-1 ASPEN, CO 81611 t ," 53-,BANCE DOOR. - Af'**t'Â· 4 11,"Vid# fl:t. 71:,1....N- /Â· Alj~~hw#Es;*47 970/ 925 1745 TEL NEIN HANOi CAP 6, ,111 / \ f t.-- I '.- ' n-l 7- -Â·r Uj. \ i . 11-,\ I'G 970/ 925 4578 FX \ K K Â¢*RIP.be /1 Â·.s .UTMOOR. + T..17--2 , 1 --Â» 14 _y >4- i ' - -DIN1 Na .4 - 1 b ~ ' - ---1--/ --.--- F--1-3[-----1 - Ne/N 755*604%11. X ex --4---641 ) prolect 1,0 . HOWLING WOLF - 7Â»SS DOOA - . Â« 1 1 ADDITION NEN 2 - 149<TION , 1 \7 . -- -1 / ' CAB. 19Â« INe )1 / 1/411\1-re 5 SONI . #7 date It / 11 71 1 I NE,61 1<17'CHEN 4\\ P ... f. .St O.Fe . .. ....1 *~23 (23 ' D" *20 18FEB96 PORCA , 41504 - >1 -- . 1 ~ ~ ./#7 drawing no. r Ill 1/NINEaN ISI,Al+ 1 -4 I _THRL 28.Al N \ \Â»41\11 Al j F 5Â«66 . - F?ASS- L *-1- Al INDÂ»4 1 1 h . BRICIN . -L. 1 - 1,1 - 0 6 51<X> 1647 ./ 1,/ .1 . .1 9 1 1 C ) il 7 - 1~ 1 6 8 064 ~ ' . 1 . \. 1 1 ATE \~ %\ 7 El 1 1 . , f 11 111, 5 4 a ~ - _fl~/foffÂ« 0 , . 1 1 / r ./. i I ~E leHT PT: ttleÂ» r=ENCE , ' *Â·07 1 /.1 P , 1 Â«?'f FIRST FLOOR PLAN-NEW CONSTRUCTION ' , 1/4":1'-0" ..4 I '42 A - ... T m f \ AL Ler ~5 .-I .... - .... 6 -AL-LA eATE 6 STAIR ~ lili lilli j 11/1 \ I / r G----42. i OUTDODA DI NINe , COURTYARD ELEVATION - EAST - COURTYARD ELEVATION - WEST . 1/4": 1'-0" 1/4": 1'-0" ALSTROM/GROUP 312 F A. A. B. C. ASPEN, CO 81611 970/ 925 1745 TEL 970/ 925 4578 FX -- -1 - . HOWLING WOLF 1ADDITION -1~~4 date drawing no. \4 1 11 MAR 92 r A6 Wl 4 1 II 1-4----14-... _ 3401< 3Â« I 1 I f COURTYARD ELEVATION - NORTH 1/4":1'-0" 1 1/ : h 7, \.4 / Â©CApD 4 SATTEN Â· b . -'' / 513'Ne G NE Al ADDITION - = J \31-7 . ... .....#- 7 - . --4.- --- V \ /0: .~ -2 (PrpICA,3 / 2. - \\4 0-1 . . - - br# i NeL*es w--3 /~ L / P Il . 1 Or - I - -- 1 1 -C - - CY:Â£ 1 :===b-*:to .1 507 - ... ---- 1 4 . a 1' z. 60 UrK-Pr*!RD MENICS - - - - 0 // \ 3 - . 9% I 4 sIX PT (1-7FICAL) - 5'2 - / - 0 7 - \ 0 36Â· I. /. '. / -__ -__-_~ - Ld 1 \11 7 ~ 1 1 0 / / -C - 1 I=1 I , L---, :.1 â€¢ eX 15-TI Ne Tt ReÂ»(Al N NORTH ELEVATION ---- - --- - SOUTH ELEVATION ~ 1/4":1'-0" 1/4":1'-0" AICE)D FENCE â‚¬ ~~ ~ ~ . I CoURTCA@ 0 AND ' EX--22109. fsT##IR ~ Â»SPH+17- 941 1%16LE ROOF -~ - . - . - , - '- N. .... 4 . -. t. 1 . INS OP s I C) 1 Wel-) 1 --1 Al, 1 1 ''. 1 'l; ' ll' 1 1/2- MAR 10 )) 1 )1 jr' lili ?1 '11 11 1 j .2- 1 1 1 - 2 755 90 1 ! 1 1 1 NIEN A D DI 710* 9>< 1 UTINe E.Â·De 70 RE Â»r'A l N , . WEST ELEVATION 1/4":1'0" ALSTROM/GROUP EXISTINe 70 REMAIN WEIAI ADDITIONI 312 F A. A. B. C. I . ASPEN, CO 81611 970/ 925 4578 FX 970/ 925 1745 TEL 14- Ci fili:.12> proiect ' - - . (1 ROOF BEYOND /~ WOOD 95\65 HOWLING WOLF 4/ 8 CoUR7*ED ADDITION 0 , , i. I jx 77 +09 date 4 0 1\- C 1 XEK 41 -TEP+EN ADDITION Room -~ (1041/'.3 23FEB96~ 4 1.111 1, '1 1 1 drawingno. PONES. FENCE g== 1 O OPEN 510/*cm A3 - P 5 - i - TJC:CD SID !43 -~ RE q u 1 R E M E N -r c-- 156#.FRD =~ 374*7--EN 1 1 Y 1 1 ~997 ~ ~_ ~ ~.~ - ' 1. 11 1. / 0 y EAST ELEVATION 1/4":1 1-0 " . i t -h Z956-QUIOE *d . QUE-GUEOE :3131. 5910 03'301Â»rmILL . '3AV (XJW#010.)'31 OZZ OC]VMC)101 N]dSV '3nNUAV SNINdOH .LSÂ¥3 90t : .8 . 60â„¢ 9Â£05-iZE,[02 :rÂ¥4 . 0665 5*EDE 1111 . WHO 00'NUSÂ¥ . Il,E 31,15 . -3AV NVMAH 1SV; OTS ZW 10019 'N 9 'W'l 5101 [7 1 lav mm *9 , Slf)31IHDMV 333!NNAD S31MVHD NOI1VAON3N SISI 135 SSE 1 YA# 4 Sid :id &|41 1 1 14 1 11- 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 0 - - Ill ' 4- -------------- - b]Â·:4 . ... ...f . I .1 - .... .1 1 - L rr k' LA--.6 t. ; .Â· u;. â€¢~i Â·j Il... :.-! --21 11 11 11 1 [-,tri.11' : 0223 1 11 0 1.,1.14 1 1 crl 1 9 ~- ----- _, 1 CZZZIZIZal'J!114[[ rl 1 \ 1 1/ -1 1 Ir===T===1/4#/ 1 2223 - 124- ---- Â»4, ---I-,PilÂ·lifiiI 12 ... i -~ , 14*11... 1 -- - 3 Con- 1 U.. ~ ~ _ 31:~' .1.i '~ fi. --Â·- 1_]~ EJJ~ ' lift:.Â·4Â· ; - , .:,ilkÂ« ' '41-1,1, 1 1 1 4 ' 11'le'Â·,-â€¢it + ' 1, 1 1.11 1.11'.1 4 1. It - Â· - Â·~ .(Hi !' ,}I:iM- â€ž ti' Â· 11*N 2 'PiÂ· 1 .l'UN Z '' kik/:'; 1 , + . dÂ®,1 1.- 91 'â€¢ ' 4 Pl .0 l,11.1 -IM,E' 1 11/' 4,14 4'.'Â·Â· i '' I .49"16. 1,1-q'*IR I. 1 A ! 1-4'11'" . Â·mi,Â· i i-,044 '.nt 'Â·- 6.9Â¢! â‚¬4 - 1~ 011101,[th-Â· ' (L-- --1,4.' 1 zEÂ·*F~}144]PWRAVe: ,Â·. L . 1.-t .i.:2, ~., .* naoil[.1 ~I:,31 .!. 715 1- 9. ,. 1 .. 1 ;.,til~} ~Â·~-~7~~~~11 2 'J' -+ iNfit; 1 1 I}01.Q':1- :-ilÂ·,Â·1Â·-4:Â· :it'ME -Â· tuii:-ijt l:i~=-m*&#WL,iki ' C UU [pv[94; 1.litpirlit}01.Â·Ut:Â·rtit r ': 2,11.I,~ f , ' W.i-: 1 Â·,Apx lt.~Hmt:GOO'the'liu Â®{i. F 'fl W i :thit~ ; i j:*- - th* IL 4 11 0.7 .: Jii-Â¢I ). 4 RP.! 21 ..1... 14 IL--idL -i~~~14â€ž Il-~Â·1~1WKyr; D,101â€¢i |LU~~ ------------ If /$-1 dâ‚¬*t@lit!9~1"itHii!.1 -" ",1 1,-1..11-1 -i 7 1.lgpt,1 r- ' 't Wr.}1 1 W '. 41 1 161 1--- *f'*tÂ· 11 7 1(4 , ...1 .1 M. -r. 1 , I...... F i.. i!' .. i---4, - r -- - 1 1 4 Â« I h !}lw'H i 1 It 1 ..[1 2-: mt.-1 tiO"h 1 Ll i :01.:,1.0 4 1 --1 4 +0.4,1. fl '1 Â·Â·n i.t:' 1+ i Â·11 i. , 12 li 1 1 1 [~il '41 KEÂ«31%00; 4 4 1-, IE . R: 1 -1 H 1 *THIN 6.. lilill 1 411 1 50 6 i. i .:, ..t:t~u 1 Whi Â·fl~j EM / :. , f.lit d I ck.. ~~10Â·{}i 4 .Â· /11' 1:- . 1.itt 2., Â·Â· 'LJ! r-n 4. *514]:.xk{1]1 , t~,i[; ,. ,.' 0 ' /* i , l_-1,1 :i~...,q~Fit.i}' . 4/Â·id~ L._J '2 '-~â€¢-.Â·-Â·IN-,13Â· 1,-Â·4 \ 1 -------------------------- i It [ . T * '1 1 1 1 2+ 1 1 1 1 i 0 1 1 1 4 1 9 1 Q 1 13 LL ... 8-23-95 SNI011Â¥ 1 ON#01108 1 1 1 C--3 14 ------*----- ------------,;ir.rotutr:Fir{Nt,rL'in?Inflm}I}1}tlit-v'Â·ifur'wij"i#FISFF}~~.433%9 - .- - 9.4 rE 14411 1' .4 E#,r,M'- ,Â·: '1 9: ' Â·Â·~ pki'+47 '611% iN 41, 4! A'li ',4181 4 ,+11,t,â€¢wi ti'iii'11{4'' "-11 1,-:4~tit[IlÂ· d , or ., 1 ' ..1 Â·1,4 71{tl~~ < J 11,1,1,1,4, 1 '- 44 -1.4 4 - .4 'i:''i-,9,- 4.~ ' ''U. '"~14. , T.L .~:-r,Â·- ~~I-~IH~i.it. 2{~~.-2 ,~~,-li~" l*Â·14iÂ®GÂ»i . ..41!I9641{.4,6;:.11;11<14 44*Frlt:ki:-:13*11_~ J' 1*,tfu-.ii; rit,1 r-/vi ,,. 0-4 511-1 rp L.'9. 2,Â· 'j 4 54!54 Â·,- -;g -:Â·L K [ittlitflf-{~-9{ti ** 0 1 4 1 rk,hj - Â· tri p,i 52- ,Â· 1, ,..}{ 1 ~P",4-, M 8-! Â·, t.~-' t: f t< .."..~ ~! 1 ~ Kr.-4 21} 11 1 1:1 $1 1#95~UGLY,4-fil iili!:-1 17: 1 1.21...iffÂ®li LEI-49421 :~ i 11-i-tlift@ 1 :-1 i41-Rili u - - R ix-: i qi< -: - : N G?H- u. 4, 4 1Â·114 k titalli t,1 ' ~ 1 ' i . ; 1 i ilt 1 '2 tt n i ~ i} 11-1 ji '! h,.r~i .145141 7.{:4*: 7/(*1; :14}91}5 0 :t , 1-4,}f<-;> Fili 64 â€ž,p-,! ,$2,Â£' Ar, i" \\ -,. Â·C 11-11 114]ip-flti. TI -11311:LE;-1 1 1'' /11 4,Â· t#Gi J' 'r_.1 14, a 1. '1 , . - -- F .1, 4 ...1 6 1 ... 1. ./ ' '1 2 yfg,ARLE' F j-~tr~LLitÂ®- i -i.1-412 ..ini.:3[!iLÂ·h Fi--i, 1 4, 1-1 4 ,_~ -1-,- '*CC,11.- 11' -6 41.41342:r L .' . e .> ''.4 :,9.1.1-11 - ...1 f ,_j 1.143 '' 11Â·.-,1...1., r,- IS 1 1 .---- id '-Â· 1 1 1 1 W /1 1 2 1 1,14.-- ..,HA f -9 1 â€ž 1 L .1 - .1 L.J LJ --1- - 1 '11 1 1 1 11 " 1 1 4 1 1 | 1 .Ilt./1! ---- :' 'ip#'t,-i i 1.4 'i Â» 11 L -1 - 1, , 1 1 h N d '-1 1 -, -_ 2 _ 2 2 2 2 -2421444+Htlini , l Ili;-,1> 1])jt,kt,1. --- - -- - - -1 t.lit:im'laillhiâ‚¬ - - - - - - - - - 41 â€¢ 1 1 Â·i - ../ /1 â€¢ Â· 1 V .... - - - - - - - - - - - -11-11.-1,441-t''rl - - - ------ - ------ 40 3 liu; i 10 9 } !-i .'[1 Â·UN'1:1.1 -_-- L.-- -------- Â·ll'' 1 :Â·, i.1 . 1..,1.1 ----- -_-_-_-_-- : 1 tj f}11{140 i f 11. : r - .- - - - - - LMAILIill'. ., f' . )4 11''I,, . 4 .1 '11 fâ€¢Â·1' 11,1Â·â€¢ 4 Â· Â· 1- 1 I - /4 .- 1. .ll... I----------I ''/'I'. 11- 1, .1 1.1 11.. -- - - . ,-1. - .... - 719 618 0 11% tr -1 4 9 4 SET I ISIS RENOVATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS PS 00 Y fri 1.-1 LOTS LM, & N, BLOCK 87 520 EAST HYMAN AVE. SUITE 301 ' ASPEN. CO 81611 . InE: 303425-5591 ' FAX: 303425-5076 ; 141 6.... 1 406 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN COLORAIX) 220 E COLORADO AVE. * TEUDRIDE, CO 81415 ' TELE: 301728-3738 â€¢ FAX: 3031728-9567 9Ntâ€¢AÂ¥110 ~ H.P.C APPL REVISED Â§01!MAIK- 11-2-95