The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19960327, 1 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 27, 1996 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITY ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Feb. 14, 1996 minutes. II. Commissioner and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:15 A. 216 E. Main - Maintenance Loan V. OLD BUSINESS M.13 5:30 A. St. Mary's Church - discussion 5:45 B. 939 E. Cooper = Unit B, Final -O k 6:30 c. _3.QQLE..Hopkiâ€¢1+-worl,se55imt *00//7 7:00 D. Maintenance Guide - discussion 7:15 E. Project Monitoring upd~te (need monitors) A. ~ 820 E. Cooper .* 3 U 4 1 ) - B. 616 W.Main- 73460 ' C. ISIS -Â·M Aa voe_ - ilogJÂ·r D. Division of existing projects 0 7:30 VI. ADJOURN r#le-lur- /061-1 AL\X . 'r 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- HistoriEF;Usk 303 E. Main Kuhn 930 King Street 93933_.Cooper-langley Entrance to Aspen Roger Moyer Holden Marolt 303 E. Main 520 E. Main 107 Juan 7339 2. c o_,-Bv U.Ah-i~filj 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 Pinnington 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf -939-E=-Cooper Langley 801 E. Hyman - Elmore 6 7 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 j 7 March 22, 1996 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jake Vickery - Chairman home: 920-3660 P.O. Box 12360 work: 925-3660 Aspen, Colo. 81611 Roger Moyer - 1 st vice-chairman home: 925-2248 P.O. Box 2013 Aspen, Colo. 81611 Martha Madsen - 2nd vice-chairman horne: 925-7470 608 West Hopkins Aspen, Colo. 81611 Melanie Roschko 0257 Eastwood Rd. home: 925-5948 Aspen, Colo. 81611 work: 923-2800 Susan Dodington 221 Midland Park Pl. Aspen, Colo. 81611 home: 925-5255 Sven Alstrom, alt. P.O. Box 551 work: 925-1745 Aspen, Colo. 81612 home: 920-7989 Meet 2nd and 4th Wednesday 5:00 - 3 year terms 7 members 3 alts Don exp. 1-97 Linda exp. 2-98 Jake exp. 7-96 Sven exp. 3-98 Les exp. 9-98 jeff exp. 2-97 Roger exp. 7-96 Susan exp. 3-98 Martha exp. 1-97 Melanie exp. 3-98 13 packets total 10 Board members, Amy Amidon, David Hoefer, Kathleen Strickland 1 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 & 0 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1 ISIS - REVIEW MATERIALS 1 918 E. COOPER AVE. - LOTS M&N 3 RECONSIDER MOTION LOTS O&P 5 820 E. COOPER - PH - AMENDMENT TO CONCEPTUAL 6 61 6 W. MAIN - MI) - ORD #30 COMPLIANCE - PH 6 ON-SITE RELOCATION 6 0 0 10 i I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 Chairman Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Melanie Rosehko, Linda L.E. Smisek, Susan 0 Dodington and Sven Alstrom present. Les Holst and Donnelley Erdman were excused. MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the minutes of January 24, 1996 as amended; second by Dodington. Motion carried 5 - 1. Smisek opposed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Smisek stated that she visited 939 E. Cooper regarding the lack of siding to complete the project. Amidon stated that she talked to the contractor and they will use all the old siding as best possible. Madsen seated at 6:30 p.m. 0 ISIS - REVIEW MATERIALS Roschko stated that she would like to see a material that isn't solid in color rather than another new solid material. The Isis is one color except for the side. She also stated that she oppoged the color and would rather see a brick shape instead of a 8 x 8. She is not opposed to a ceramic finish on the brick. From the front of the building another solid material color would not be appropriate. Dodington stated that she would like to see more color and material options. Alstrom stated that the 8x8 tile is not compatible in color or shape. The dark iron spot in the brick material is OK and the use of copper is OK but he would like to see a sample of zinc at the next meeting. The mortar color should match whatever the masonry is. Roschko also stated that the mortar color should match the masonry. 1 4 , ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 Smisek stated the iron spot brick is significantly compatible with the tones of the old brick and that the gray tile worked well. The acid down copper is compatible and would blend in with the tones of that block and the block across the street. Moyer stated that the applicant responded mainly to Donnelley' s concerns and he felt a consensus should be attained by the Board. Does the Board what the attachment to be totally modern or a continuation and blending to the building. The architects thought we wanted it more different; however, my feeling is that we need a worksession to look at more materials. He also stated that the copper material presented is not particularly historically beneficial to a landmark building. The patina of the copper is appropriate and I would like to see other materials along with the copper. The smooth 8 x 8 is not appropriate in this building unless the philosophy of the HPC is to do something real modern. Various lineal brick should be presented. The darker brick is good for a solid foundation. Vickery stated that it is difficult for him to offer information on color and material because he voted against the project. He also stated that the Board needed to give consensus to the applicant. â€¢ Do we want to see something radically modern. â€¢ More detail use of 8x8 as opposed to a linear brick. â€¢ Use of cooper vs options. Vickery stated at the next meeting that the applicant should come back with a drawing indicating where the materials will be used, particularly viewed from the street. Roschko stated that the new building should look like it is part of the old building but new. Dodington stated that she was opposed to totally modern but possibly the use of a different size of brick and color would differentiate between old and new. It should flow either by the size ofthe brick or color choice. 2 I J ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 , Alstrom stated that he wanted the proj ect to look new but he was opposed to the use ofthe 8 x 8. Straw Poll No 8 x 8 tile Color of 8 x 8-no 50 - 50 thought the use ofthe iron spot brick could be incorporated. patina of the copper is appropriate See more materials match materials with drawings. Alstrom stated that he liked Donnelley's theory but not the use of 8 x 8. 918 E. COOPER AVE. - LOTS M&N Amidon stated that the issues from the last meeting were to lower the plate heights on the second floor and that has been reduced to eight feet and the ridge line is now 25 1/2 feet which is lower than most of the surrounding buildings. There was discussion about articulating the duplex as two separate units and a recessed wall has been placed between the two units. There are two windows on the alley facade that violate the volume standard and that can be resolved easily. The mass and scale is complete for Lots M & N. Dodington stated that she was concerned about the stone. John Davis, contractor stated that he was looking at a random stone in gray. The stone will be either rectangular or square. Field stone will not be used and they intend to stay uniform with the depth of the stone. Roschko stated her only concern is the material. She is concerned that it willlook massive. Davis stated that the plate heights were reduced from ten to eight feet. Moyer asked if the railing that is drawn in stone could be changed to an iron railing which would soften the area. 3 a , ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 0 Davis stated that he liked that suggestion. Dodington stated that she would prefer to see more wood incorporated into the project. Moyer stated thatthe comments from the commission are that it is massive and possibly materials could be changed on one ofthe buildings. Davis stated that he could look at stone on the bottom and wood on top on both buildings but really doesn't want to use wood. He does not feel stucco to wood is softening. Davis stated that he wanted this building to be a different type look. Alstrom stated that some of the commissioners are concerned about the stone on the second floor because they do not want it to look like one big chunk of stone. It could be solved by reducing the stone on the second floor or by the choice of the stone itself. 0 Davis stated that he would bring a sample of the stone for the commissioners to approve. Moyer stated that stacked stone reduces the sense ofthe mass. Davis stated that strip stone is on the building 15 feet away and he wants to stay away from that. Moyer suggested that the linear stone be on the bottom and to soften it a thinner stone on the second floor. Alstrom stated that the applicant has continuous chimneys and that concept might not work. Madsen stated that the building would be lighter and simpler if the front were similar to the back of the building. 0 4 t i ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 Dodington stated that there are four old houses left on that side of the street and she would like to see something preserved of the small scale and 0 historic look of that street. Davis stated that the two historic buildings that were approved by the HPC already address that concern and he does not want all the buildings to look historic. MOTION: Moyer moved that the HPC finds the condition that was placed on the development of 918 E. Cooper Ave. on January 24, 1996 requiring mass and scale review of the development on lots M&N Block 35 has been met; second by Alstrom. Smisek asked that the change regarding the railing be added to the motion. AMENDED MOTION: Moyer amended the motion to add that the railing drawn in stone be changed to an iron railing; second by Alstrom. All in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carries 5 - 1; Dodington opposed. Vickery abstained from voting. 0 RECONSIDER MOTION LOTS O&P MOTION: Moyer moved to reconsider the January 24th motion to clarify the text; second by Roschko; All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Moyer moved to add additional conditions recommended by staff to the January 24th motion. That the applicant shall submit structural plans for lot P unit for review by staff and monitor. A clear representation shall be made as to how the existing framing will be retained and how any new members necessary shall be added. HPC expects the original framing to be retained with new members "sistered" in as needed. Any variation necessary from the plan as approved by staff and monitor shall be immediately brought to the attention of staff and shall be approved by staff and monitor prior to the change taking place. A monitor will be appointed; second by Smisek. All in favor, motion carried. Vickery abstained from voting. Passes 6 - 0. 5 a R ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 0 Amidon stated that she wants it clearly represented on a plan what the architect intends to do and if changes need to be made she needs to know about them. Roschko and Alstrom are the project monitors. 820 E. COOPER - PH - AMENDMENT TO CONCEPTUAL MOTION: Moyer moved to table 820 E. Cooper until Feb. 28, 1996; second by Smisek. All in favor, motion carried. 61 6 W. MAIN - MD - ORD #30 COMPLIANCE - PH ON-SITE RELOCATION Vickery stepped down. Amidon stated this is a 3,000 sqft. lot and there is an historic house in the front with no changes proposed. The proposed changes at this time are to 0 the barn. Both the barn and house were moved to the site from across the street in 1958. Landmark Designation is proposed and Staff recommends HPC approve that finding that Standard B, architectural importance has been met. It basically has been unaltered except for the addition in the back. The barn is in the original condition and the gable end has unusual trim work. Standard E, community character has been met. Amidon stated that the minor review would be the barn which is being converted into an accessory dwelling, a voluntary unit. The applicant proposes to lift the structure, excavate a basement and build the unit. the barn is to be raised four feet above it current height and Staff feels that is too much of an increase and too much of a change in character of the building. I am recommending something more in the realm of 24 inches. If the two foot raise is done the loft will not be feasible unless they sink the basement level. 0 6 1 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 Amidon stated that the south L has a proposed slider window with a projected bay window. The feeling is that the bay window is too residential 0 and ornate and a flat window is recommended. Amidon stated on the east L there are two doors existing and Staff is recommending that one be retained. On the North L there are large type barn swinging doors that should be left in place ifpossible. On the west there is an historic window but it needs to be removed because you cannot have a window by building code so close to the property line. There are a number of variances requested all of which are existing. In addition they are asking for a height variance which is allowed under the cottage infill program. More information is needed about the foundation, materials and a structural plan is needed. Amidon stated the site plan relocation is OK but there is concern about how high it will be lifted. Ord #30 has several items that need to be waived. CLARIFICATIONS Moyer chaired 616 W. Main. Moyer opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Aaronson, owner stated if the barn was raised only two feet then the loft could not be incorporated and the space would be restricted without the loft. The existing ceiling height is 14 feet and would be lowered to nine feet. Moyer stated from an historic preservation standpoint we need to know why we should let the proposed changes happen, other than the fact that you need a loft. Aaronson stated that someone looked at the doors and said they could not be rebuilt but he would look for an old door that would be appropriate for that period if the existing door is not salvageable. Alstrom stated the drawings do not clearly show the effect of raising the building. He also stated that raising the building is not more compatible 7 I D ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. I996 with the resource and exploring other dormer configurations could be done to get usable head height in the space. Moyer asked if there was a foundation and the owner stated that the barn was just sitting on the ground and the floorjoists are rotting. The house was moved and put on a foundation. Moyer asked what the material would be from the current ground height to the height that it would be raised. Aaronson stated that he wanted to put rock around but he did not know structurally what would be behind the rock. Moyer asked if the applicant could go less than then four feet raising. Aaronson stated that he would have to walk the site to determine if the amount could be reduced. Roschko stated that she needed more information before making a decision. Alstrom stated that she supports all of Staff s recommended conditions. He also stated that he would like to see the ridge ofthe dormer lowered. Other dormer solutions would give the applicant the height he needed rather than raising the barn four feet. Aaronson asked if it is more compatible to have dormers than raising the building. Alstrom stated that it would depend on the dormers but the fact remains that the building is an out-building and that makes a difference. Amidon stated that the Commission has a discomfort level with how high the barn is being raised. Alstrom stated that the Commission wants more ADU's and this could be a successful project. 8 I , ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14.1996 Dodington agreed with Amy's comments and stated that she felt the barn should look like a barn. Moyer stated that he basically is in favor of having barns raised but since this particular barn was close to the house he has reservations about raising it four feet. Madsen stated that she felt the four foot raise would not overwhelm the building. She would rather have the barn left intact without the dormers. MOTION: Smisek moved to table 616 W. Main until the next meeting February 28, 1996; second by Dodington. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Dodington moved to adjourn; second by Moyer. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ~ 9 I , MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director 3- FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 216 E. Main Street, Maintenance loan DATE: March 25,1996 SUMMARY: As part of the program of incentives that the City offers to historic structures, an owner may request a no interest loan of up to $10,000 to assist with the maintenance costs associated with historic buildings. The loan must be paid back within 10 years, or at the time that the house is sold, whichever comes first. Mr. and Mrs. Fred Pearce, of 216 E. Main Street (a designated landmark), wish to request this loan from Council, to put towards the cost of replacing their roof. Currently the house has an asphalt shingle roof, which is in a deteriorated 0 condition, with some torn and curled shingles. The existing flashing is not adequate to allow proper roof drainage. Damage from water penetration is not immediately visible on the exterior of the building, but interior moisture damage is possible. Staff is in support of the maintenance loan request, however an opinion from HPC is needed as to whether a 3-tab asphalt shingle roof is the most appropriate material for the re-roofing. Staff's first preference would be to recommend a cedar shingle roof, or in the alternative a laminated asphalt shingle roof, which creates some of the profile and shadow lines of a wood shingle roof. j 0 jf':6%301*J? 7-Ev,I ~.e .- 4224-<~ff.'.. 4*tki 633419PA v~.-=z9ew=21Â£*~Â£'= 4 44.49 1,-2 vÂ» 1,~-4, - 43â€¢40 i ,â€¢Â·-f,Ktf*YÂ·Ii" .2 v-jitilff.699, auf>N,%?-fff*92-t~:1~.,i,~ L '"'t ;A P. 40/,M 1.':c=z,54,101Â·7 Â£ 4- B ,$4 4 Â· ' _ , " '0 ~Â«M2/WIX'lâ€¢11 1 , *2 %*Art--/& /''m'.:A; 0*: ~V't.i>y Je~.1.3'22.7. g- - ~ ..1~ry ...... ,=293 -* .=9Â»2249 14-0*bil 4,1 ~ . 2 ' 1%' I #6'12â€¢'6 - -H Ar' 1 -Â·" re dr -4~XE>}~ 394Â·,1.24<312~94,4~~,~2 < ,<'.. . u '. -9.O - --514/143 , 1/,4.26,32.21,-1-_, A-44.G. 463 . ---I.,1.Bylli"'2*4 - -..79372' --22125.:*=--*--- 1924........ , 1 . .:.:tr 131T---1 ..0 :/4/I:kÂ·,t' 323Allill//2Â£33/% .3 :0 M. N 4.44?6?M - 2 -- _: lk.fff-fil-tit: t~r,74 # -- + , 1 , t- & . 4 9 . St,4 4 I - p<MÂ£:-#14 . & 4 . -5-:VA Â· ;Â·:3;;S,t <Gfil- i m.-t i iÂ· 3*Â·-\ -.94971 Â®0 vM'"""62*1'2Â£*4.4:"imt*gr~:.-Qje,91>.96: .' . 4 l-jyvt l~==2-1-442. *e"g . v + * . Â·-Â·tr#Â·4. .-" . 4 N' t , 1.11 514 .... / l . p- '2 :, fl- r ' 7 4 c I .2,4*~4$ I~-14 4 I Â¥ . 4:zi Â¥. 1 .0//tatv--R 474 5.:4 - -/9, NW, 26.9 .0 4 444 /////////~~.(Vf,4~6~~2*ko<x~,a.V~ ,_ =:L ...../. . ..19. - I /4 --L - Â». '5 . 3/4 1 . Flija:-1922:.92 - b 11'/'r-. /''.'l/P ....9/JirK.:Her~/'FY 4%,it? 4:433:22Â£. :4/ *4. I â„¢.4 & ..:S..:%$2~:M(&.4,49,:;T*r(~24932~-~+~<,Â£~v 4/94Â»~Â«eyÂ«USy,Â«cOILÂ»2=VAE J ..,P / 21 k- I /6*r e*+I . ' 3~~~1~t*+.vg* pr< 4 1 46% 0...3 . i ' , O 4 i*.. -. 75eft:374'*01 :3~:6:rA-â€ž-I',r~.Aff?~349.31 7-'w-Li .r' 9 :p Â· 7.1%74 * . ...â‚¬1(J~~.8*77%4'14"Qly#.21.4~~,~Â·t )2: 4 4 I + 1 . V . )33 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission *A \ 65/ 1/ Thru: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director / From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Unit B- Final Date: . March 27,1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests final HPC approval for "residential unit B," a new unit to be constructed to the west of the historic house. Conceptual approval for the entire project was granted on November 9, 1994. HPC has since granted final approval for "unit A," (the historic house) and "unit C" (the historic barn). HPC reviewed the final development proposal for "Unit B" on February 28 and tabled the item with the following conditions (see attached minutes): 1. Limit the stone to the exposed foundation walls. 2. Revise windows to be more consistent with those on the historic structures, vertical double hung. 3. Cover the garage door with siding or some other material to make it blend into the building walls. 4. Pull all stone from the second floor. 5. Bring full area model and/or drawings of prior approval to the meeting on March 13,1996. 6. Respond to the vemacular (references) of the original conceptual approval drawings. In addition to the proposed unit, drawings are attached for units "A and C," which are currently under construction, as well as for units "B, D, and E," which have received conceptual approval. A model of the entire project will be available at the meeting. APPLICANT: Sandy Schonwald, represented by Mark Ward. LOCATION: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Residential unit B, East Cooper Court Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen. . A 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. This project was submitted for review in 1994 therefore the HPC standards as they existed before the series of revisions in June 1995 are used for this review. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: Staff finds that the applicant has not responded to several of the conditions of approval, namely conditions #1,4, and 6. In regard to condition #1, the stone is still shown to be the full height of the first floor. A few window openings have been added in an effort to break up the stone surface, however, this does not address the overall concern of maintaining compatibility of material treatments throughout the project. In reviewing the minutes of February 28, the HPC had a clear concern for massing issues and the visual dominance of the stone over the surrounding historic structures. Staff recommends that unit "B" utilize the same stone and same mortar profile as has been used on the new foundation for the historic house. 0 Condition #4 required that the stone frieze detail be removed from the second floor. This has not been done. Condition #6 gets to the essence of HPC's concern with the proposal and that is the lack of compatibility between the detailing of this unit and the detailing of the other four units on the site. In examining the model and drawings for those units, all clearly play off of the traditional details and materials found on the historic structures, without copying them directly. The contemporary detailing of unit "B," including multi-paned windows, dominant stone foundation, and tile effect created by the cut stone detailing, set this building apart from the rest of the complex. Condition #2 required that the applicant revise the windows to be vertical in character, like the historic structures and other structures on site. Most of the windows which were previously shown as casements have now been revised to be double hung. This change does help somewhat to tie the j building in with the rest of the project, however, staff still finds that the windows break from traditional character in the overuse and placement of mullions. 0 Â£ I Condition #3 required that the applicant cover the garage door with siding. The intention (by staff) was that the entire door be sided, with no windows on the street elevation. This is the treatment that was used on the historic house in order to draw all attention away from the garage door. Condition #5 required that the project model and drawings be supplied for the review. This condition will be met. As an additional note, the architect has pointed out that unit "B," as conceptually approved, was a brick structure, and wished to have an explanation as to why brick was acceptable, but the stone as proposed is not. Staff's opinion is that conceptual approval for this project was clearly given the caveat that while the site plan and mass and scale of units were approved, all other details needed further study (therefore the use of brick was not given any formal approval). In addition, while staff does not find brick to be the preferred material for this building, it is of a more human scale than the stone and is a material which has traditionally been used for homes in Aspen. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: HPC was in favor of the project because it resulted in the preservation of two historic structures and divided the new construction into small buildings of a compatible scale. 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 parceIs. Response: Staff has recommended some changes to this new structure which will make it more compatible with the adjacent historic structure by reflecting similar materials and proportions. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The project does not directly impact the architectural integrity of the historic structures on the parcel. j ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: , 1) Final review approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review 0 Standards have been met. 2) Final review approval with conditions, to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Final review approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC table final approval, directing the applicant to comply with the conditions of approval stated on February 28,1996, in the following manner: 1. Limit the stone to the exposed foundation walls. Use the same stone as used on the historic house, including the mortar treatment. 2* Remove all cut stone detailing. Revise windows to be more compatible with the historic house in terms of number and placement of mullions. 4. Remove the windows on the garage door. Replace with siding. 5> Provide samples of all proposed materials, to be reviewed on-site by staff and monitor. 0 A nj 1.- i' f -41 1 j 1 - 11 -- * . 1 7... li .- r 11 -3/ -/ S.lail. ~ ...... - - 41 MAR-25-'96 MON 15:25 ID: TEL NO: #040 P03/39 - . c it l , ltv . 1 7 0 1 1 I . I . .4 -J . -~ -- ~ j.,f *-- 111111 1. .1, 1 1: Ill .1 --4.-=111 1 31 lit . . .1 1 IT I i Â·!It .......---. .I L 1,Â· -Â· :ifi i , -1 . I 13-7 i - . .=.,..11 07 i , Ne:BM 1 1 1 - 1 1 . F 1 -Iii , 1 .1 ....1- /1 1 11 , 1 -I-. -.. 1 .. 9 1 . ! i I i. -rÂ· ----- - 08 11.,71* -r- d'41 .11.11111.1 1 i 1/ 11 , . 4 i., - .- 1TTI ' al i 1 112 il ,!r -1 . --.. I j -1-1- i I i . i L --6 .-.-1 1 1~*, ':Ii,i,1- 11 /11111111'zi ' 1 1 1 1.1 11.1 1 ; 1 -7 JIii 1 -i[ d , 1.1 -- . ' ! 1 1. 1-1 ..11 â€ž lilli -- - 1 1 11 lili , I i 111!1. 11 ,;1't 11 ... 11'1.-1 lili'll.Ill . Iw 1 1 . 1 1 . ! 1 i 7-7 7->- 1 ii i i~ ~11-~, -9 1 : ,! 11 44 1 $ f 14-, .11 91 i :i. 1 1 1 : 1 j , 9 1. 1 1 Ill . - j - , 3 1-.1.1 1 i - 1.I -1lili Iii 11 ...1-- . MAR-25-'96 MON 15:24 ID; TEL thi): #040 Paz,2 - ---- .1 . A , 0 . A 1 4444ll 1 4 1. il 1: 11 1 19--7*7 1; 1 Â· i n I kÂ·TATHTe 1 i 1111 1 0 , I : 1+4 11 -TH':J34 1 + i 111.Inli :411.1 4. . 1 . 1 1. 1 1+ ...,/5/ 4 1 1 1 111 1!.1 ii . 11 | 1 1 Ji . i 'll I t 11 ' i , 1 1 Ii- . i. 1 1 1 1-illili.; 17 -.. F 1 -=4 -Â·. 11 li 11 \. 11 ..1 Â· f 1 A .. . 1 1 1. 1 1 , ill,i:; 211 i. 'i P .1 1 1 i, 6 1, 11 . ti 5.1 ji~ ., 4 2, L - : ' / 1 . i 1 1 . - - ,, lili 1 1 1.... i .-- 1 it 11 1 1 1 . .1 . , : 11 1 1 1 t -ill-... 1 - ' }.1 1.! It ~Â· .'f , ; i . li 10 :1 1. . .trÂ· 'E ~ i : 1,1; i 1 1; 1 11 1 ' ill i 12 L ! 1 111 1 , 1 It.! ' 11 . A Ei u-; VT,Tri 11 1. .: a , 4 l. 1]11111111.1 0 ------ -1 - 111......11~111 11 -- - Ii-ililliBill"imill'll~mililillill-i-lillvln~11 11.11.11 : L_]1~11-i- li'/11 1P ' dlimilm9 :-il'Efill'...7.,0/ju...#a..I...1,"*11'lle*.'I,1,"ille:lill/f--liFI'*foil'In'f.2/29:6:39::2::imili'li".3..4/'4'll"Ir' 10,~:'C,:~~,Il,4,/I~,d,ill,I/'~,/&,i26,1,"â€žI,",I.'"6~'It.il~~.I~~- . 1 + + architecture end planning WARD end ASSOCIATES ho 'Tz'_401 3&0/4 9 *â€ž9 *wn: elâ€¢n 4pua ? L"Jul k)4 RÂ¥: 439 0. '*fer. 1 ret 1Â¢6â‚¬.j 4,or nA., *S Me.rfl'Ab 344:~ hbvt re Uted,d 14* w f'~ 1&,4,11 5000 nkal,1 0 1* 4 â‚¬44 + Me 'vt,u'r~ 8/*'ad 6 ,* id,11'rj -6 a. c. 94 -'9"- Dec8,AdA01.,60** cou" * 01Â°W 114 4, 4 - 4) ?0 #05+ 84 114- -D*'*' dh* 4 0.24 0,f 4 Tli F- (,1 Ad RÂ¢196,4 c OVÂ¥ 11 dosel 7%J~6 6668Â·0 0'~0,514 my(* 9*6 2: w' 1 ' t;2(1.44/ 21148 Conâ€¢er tar,- Court, BuÂ», A â€¢ Ieuldera Cole.do 80801 â€¢ alom *40.1 901 ---50/Ted 0900 :Oil 131 : 0 1 te :ST NOW 96.-SE-ajld -WA WARD and ASSOCIATES inc architecture and planning March 11, 1996 Ms. Amy Amidon Aspen Planners 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Enclosed are twelve sets of revised elevations for the Schonwald residence, Cottage B, East Cooper Court. Per earlier discussions, we have revised the window proportioning and operation. The garage door is now shown with wood siding. We have eliminated some of the stone panel detailing which I believe softens the stone concern. Also, with the addition of windows on the lower level, we have eliminated some stone along with breaking up some large stone facades. This elimination of stone and revised stone massing I believe addresses the concern of over influence on the neighboring cottage. Additionally, I've enclosed sketches showing how proposed landscaping will further soften the stone appearance at the base. Mark Wa],1 .t MR# 1 4 R k .1 1 J /V ' Vâ€¢v f wlt,%/ 612.Â·u/ I SS If.. 2 .t : 111> P.C. Sandy Schonwald Darnell Langley j 4 j 2945 Center Green Court, Suite A â€¢ Boulder, Colorado 80301 â€¢ {303] 442-1201 1Â¥ 8, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FG i Thru: Stan Clauson, Community Development Direc From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Unit B- Final Date: February 28,1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests final HPC approval for "residential unit B," a new unit to be constructed to the west of the historic house. Conceptual approval for the entire project was granted on November 9, 1994. HPC has since granted final approval for "unit A," (the historic house) and "unit C (the historic bam). At this time HPC must also extend conceptual for the two remaining dwellings at the rear of the property. Conceptual approval may be extended for one year and for this project, staff recommends it be extended to Nov. 9, 1996 (two years after the original approval date.) The two remaining buildings should be brought forward for final approval by that date or request another extension of conceptual. APPLICANT: Sandy Schonwald, represented by Mark Ward. LOCATION: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Residential unit B, East Cooper Court Condominiums, City and Townsite 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. This project was submitted for review in 1994 therefore the HPC standards as they existed before the series of revisions in June 1995 are used for this review. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... . Response: Attached are the memo from November 2nd (the first meeting for conceptual review), along with minutes and drawings from November 2 1 and 9. The conceptual review discussion of "unit B" focused on avoiding direct imitation of the historic structures in the design of the new buildings. The design submitted for final is generally consistent with that presented for final (the architect has changed), but includes a greater amount of stone and changes in window forms. From the conceptual review, stone was shown on three structures, the historic house, the middle unit in the back ("unit D"), and "unit B." "Unit D" showed stone on the entire first floor. Staff recommends that that amount of stone may be acceptable towards the rear of the parcel, but that "unit B," which is diFectly next to the historic house, should have a foundation treatment similar to the historic house (a copy of the north elevation of "unit A," which is currently under construction is attached). In addition, staff recommends that the windows on at least the north and east facades of "unit B" ought to be more vertical in proportion, like those on the historic house, in order to maintain consistency. The historic house and bam have double hung windows. Finally, staff recommends that the garage door on "unit B" be covered with clapboards or some other material to help it blend into the building walls. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: HPC was in favor of the project because it resulted in the preservation of two historic structures and divided the new construction into small buildings of a compatible scale. 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: Staff has recommended some changes to this new structure which will make it more compatible with the adjacent historic structure by reflecting similar materials and proportions. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish'from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or partjthekeof, Response: The project does not directly impact the architectural integrity of the historic structures on the parcel. I i ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Final review approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Final review approval with conditions, to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Final review approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant final approval with the following conditions, to be approved by staff and monitor: 1. Conceptual approval for 939 E. Cooper is hereby extended to November 9, 1996. 2. Limit the stone to the exposed foundation walls. 3. Revise windows to be more consistent with those on the historic structures, vertical double hungs. 4. Cover the garage door with siding or some other material to make it blend into the building walls. . AI~C[*!ENT 1 IAND USE APPIICA~IICN ECEX 1) Project Name THE SCHONWAT.T) RFSTDENEE/POWER Punppyrna: Â·Â· - 2) Project IÂ£xaticn EAST COOPER COURT, UNIT B 939 EAST COOPER' AVENUE, (ificate street address, lot & blodc am*er<, legal rpr-ri rlticn 1.diet:e- agprcpriate) 3) Presest Zoning RMF 4) Iat Size 6,000 S.F. (COTTAGE Al B) 5) Applicarrt' s Name, Address & Phone # SANDY SCHONWALD 1717 OLIVE STREET, ST. LOUIS. MO 63103 (11/,3 1,91-4498 6) Regreserrtativels Nare, Address & E!,cne * MARK WARD, 2945 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A, BOULDER, CO 80301 (303) 442-1701 71 Type of Applicaticc (please cbeck all that apply): Corditicoal Use - Ccrx=eptual SPA -1, Ccxx:ectual Histrrr-ir: Dev. Special Review Final SEA X Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline ..____ Ccocept=l POD Minor Historic Dev. Streem Margin Final P[ID Â· - IList=ic Demolition M:x=tain View Plane Subdivisicn Histczic Designaticn Cx'fleâ€¢m f â€¢lil 774 7~ tion - Text:;/Map Amerxhect: - *CS Allatmet Ist SpliVIct line. - ecs EXEspticn Adjust=2:rt 8) rpeÂ·-iption of Existing Uses Canter and *pe of existirgÂ· structures ; PIr"rv-i,â€ž*â€ž sq- ft-; 'r,-+p- of bedroa=; any pcavicus appmvals grarrted tb the priperty). VACANT PARCEL, PART OF A 5 UNIT DEVELOPMENT. PREVIOUS CONCEPTUAL - HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. 9 ) Des=iptiort of Develererrt Aplication FINAL HI9TORIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WITH FURTHER DEVELOPMENT Â·OF PLANd AT 1/4" SCALE. 10) Have you attadiel the following? X Response to Attachmest 2, Minimum ahnission Coatents X Response to Attachmiht 3, Arri fi c Submission Ckxlterrts Response to Attach=Efrt 4, Review Stardards for Your Application '111111.1 . 1 1 . . ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: SANDY SCHONWALD i Address: 1717 OLIVE STREED, ST. LdUIS, MO~ 63D03 Zone district RMF ' i Lct size: 105' x 58.02 Existing FAR: 0. 1 1 Allowable FAR: 1,800 1 Proposed FAR: 1,800 i Existing net leasable (ccmmercial): N/A , Prcposed net leasable (commercial): N/A Â· Existing % of site coverage: UNIT B; Proposed % of site coverage: . Existing %of open space: Prcpcsed % of cpen space: , Existing maximum height: Princioal bida: 25 ' Ackescrv blda: N/A Propcsed max. height: Princinal bida 25 -' Ackesscrv blcic: N/A Propcsed % of demolition: 0 Existing number of bedrooms: 0 Â· : Proposed number ofbed:ocms: 4 INCL. 430 S. F. ADU . S Existing on-site parking spaces: 0 Â· i On-site parking spaces required: 2 (PER APPROVED SITE PLAN) 1 1 i: Setbacks i Existing: Minimum required: 1 % Proposed: : Front: Front: i Front: : Reac Rear. i Rear. Combined Combined ! Combined i FrcnUrear: Front/rear: 1 Front/rear: i Side: - Side: i Side:. 2 Side: Side: 1 Side: f Combined Combined i Combined : Sides: S ides: 1 Sides: f i Existing nonconformities or encroachments: 1 , Variations requested: hi - . j 1:. (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings. FAR bonus of up tc 500 sq.fl, site coverage variance up! 10 5%, height variations~nderthe cottage infil[ program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R.6~ R-15, RMF,.CC, and C zone districts) ! 1 f WARD and ASSOCIATES inc architecture and planning February 1, 1996 Final Historic Development Review Applicant: Sandy Schonwald Representative: Mark Ward 1717 Olive Street 2945 Center Green Court St. Louis, MO 63103 Suite A (314) 421-4498 Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 442-1201 Re: Cottage B, East Cooper Court, 939 East Cooper Avenue The proposed plans have incorporated the massing and scale represented at the conceptual review. Some minor adjustments have been made to roof lines. The footprint remains the same as the conceptual plans. Exterior stone is proposed that will be carried through on the other cottages in the East Cooper Court project. Lap siding and verticle with the same semi-transparent stain is proposed. The roofing will be all wood shingles .-/ and the fascia a two piece of 2x8 with alx4 trim. The intent per previous discussions is to make cottage B non-competitive with the historic structures. The do not intend to replicate a Victorian design in detailing, but compliment it. We feel with the proposed massing and scale of cottage B is in keeping with the neighborhood and compatible with the approved conceptual design of this project. Mark B. Ward Architect 2945 Center Green Court, Suite A â€¢ Boulder, Colorado 80301 â€¢ [303] 442-1201 n f - 22 177657 939 E. Cooper, Unit B - Final f--1 ll.audeÂ» STAFF COMMENTS Amidon noted that this project is the Langley project, 5 units, so far the Historic house and the barn both under construction. This is the free market unit on the front corner of the property. Staff recommends approval with conditions; a) stone is shown carried throughout the first floor of the building, with this house so close to the historic house, a similar foundation would be more compatible, b) the windows are more square than the proportion of a usual vertical double hung and is not consistent with the historic buildings already under construction, c) the garage doors, like the historic house, should be covered with siding or some other material to blend into the body of the house. The conceptual approval for the entire project needs to be extended through November 9, 1996, retroactive from the original approval. Otis Odell, public, representing Ward & Associates, commented that the massing of the historic structure and this building has been addressed, the plate height has been lowered at the upper floor and used dormers and gables to create the space under the roof to keep in scale with the historic structures. Odell concurred with the comments on the windows and garage doors and said that they would like to incorporate some stone on the building. A smaller stone pattern, farmer stone pattern, with greys and brown in color has been chosen. The historic structure is to the West of this proposed cottage, the front entry would have a small amount of stone, the stone on the West side and towards the back could be dropped. The applicant would like to keep a little stone flanking the garage, corners and sides. Materials proposed are wood shingles at the roof, horizontal and vertical siding and farmer stone. Alstrom inquired whether or not the model for the entire project is still available. Amidon replied that the Langley's would most likely have the model. Dodington asked why it was decided to add the stone when the original did not appear to have any. Odell, public, between the developers, owners and architect, there were some marketing and character issues that were addressed. Amidon replied that in conceptual approval some of the units did show stone, and bringing each to final one at a time, it is difficult to recall and keep the project in consistency. The brick structure that was given conceptual approval is very different from the other units. Dodington asÂ»d i? the other units have been approved to have the stone. Amidon replied that the two that have been approved and are currently under construction do have a little stone, the historic house has a stone foundation. There are three units left, the unit tonight and two in the back of the lot. 4 . Dodington noted that the historic house only has stone on the foundation. Moyer asked for clarification of farmer stone. Odell responded that it is rounder edge, smaller scale less than 6" in size, and has alot of variety of colors with greys and browns are the dominant colors. Its linear in shape and rounded at the edges. Alstrom asked what the square pieces of stone as a border above the windows, just below the eaves. Odell responded that is cut stone being used as a band. Alstrom stated that he felt stylistically this project is not sensitive to the historic structure. The cut stone, next to the historic building, along with the proposed stone is not responsive to the historic buildings. Moyer asked if the windows, being very historic in size and shape would make the house look more historic than it is. Amidon replied that the double hung vertical windows are a principal character of the historic structures that ought to be repeated. Odell agreed that the windows should be changed to a simpler design. The windows on the East elevation are double hung windows and they have a more consistent theme with the project. Moyer asked if the reduction of stone particularly on the East and West side, would be up to window sill height. Odell responded that window sill height may be a good line. There is a low wall that comes off the back side, maybe it could establish the horizontal line. Moyer asked if the North side stone on the garage door pillars accentuates the door more than if there were no stone or stone only to a window sill. Odell replied that it could set offthe door because of the difference in materials. More accentuation will come from the recess and the depth of the stone wall and the shadows the stone might cause. Dodington stated that she felt the stone is being overused, and agrees with staff to try to make this building look more like the historic house. The double hung windows tie in with the historic house and the wood siding more than the stone. Alstrom stated that he felt the drawings from the conceptual approval have more vernacular elements of rural building traditions, whereas the proposed do not. The value of the project should be in the spaces and in the place that it is created, not trying to associate exterior materials with a sales value, the priority is exterior materials correlating to value to the community and having it fit in. Alstrom requested the applicant represent. 5 4 , Madsen replied that she concurred with the comments that have been made. The stone seems to be too much, and the architecture should be simple and subdued. Not as outspoken as this building appears to me. Moyer stated that HPC dealt extensively with the overall site plan and building placements. Moyer also stated that before there are any other final approvals, in the future that HPC have the models of the entire complex and that the drawings of what has been approved. What has been approved today is the historic structure, HPC should have drawings including materials being used. Amidon agreed that in the future models of the complex as well as drawings with materials be brought to HPC meetings. Moyer stated that he would grant conceptual approval, he may limit the stone up to the lower window sill. It shows a little separation from the historic structure but still works with it. Practically it is easier to maintain. Moyer also concurs with revising the windows, and covering the garage door with siding. Moyer stated that he would also advocate pulling all the stone from the second floor. For final, I would request a list of materials. Moyer asked if it would be a hardship for the applicant to come back in two weeks. Odell stated that he felt it would not be a hardship, but if there were approval with conditions that would be their preference. MOTION: Madsen moved to continue the conceptual approval for 939 E. Cooper until November 9, 1996. Second by Dodington. Motion carried, all in favor. MOTION: Madsen moved to table 939 E. Cooper to March 13, 1996, to address the following conditions: 1) Limit the stone to the exposed foundation walls. 2) Revise windows to be more consistent with those on the historic structures, vertical double hung. 3) Cover the garage door with siding or some other material to make it blend into the building walls. 4) Pull all stone from the second floor. 5) Bring full area module and/or drawings of prior approval to the meeting on March 13, 1996. 6 $ Second by Dodington. Madsen moved to amend the above motion with the 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 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 of the 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 j project would go to Board of Adjustment. Moyer asked if staff had no problem moving the house back 4ft. to accomplish the open space requirement. Amidon answered that staff felt it would be preferable in the original location, it would be a up to Board o f Adjustments to grant that waiver. 7 1 " . RILER ATIONAL FOREST ... M. ue:, 9 Ridge of *-=-- * Red.1 /-47.2=1.2 Red Red Mountain ~ ~--2-"r'-1 Mountam , Black 2-2- ::-2:52 - A A. u Rand eh4 < 8irc:t L+0 **S26 -0$*4~ \ 1~44 -4%2 .-- -- -10- 60 - A t~* PeD, C'-3*,- 4 1 pltk~~..,0 ~0 -24 , 1 RL/ - - U>Â·4.- Rd " ,50"--R--~ ,//. . A 1 CEL- 0-\ ect Mountain ' :04 - *.44 1. , - 4 , Â· * 1 â€¢.24\LUÂ« - 1212 \\ . !1 -1=-4.=,"'- - L -----1 litkin 4 7074,, -< 112 * 4\ Green ?04 - /C. 7.2 * 5-.9>. 4 ---"---- Ir* 4- Â¥P =,7 . m. 4. .~ ' 76 al, - Ascerl ./ -- .. *-Stic./2 =.1.=.125,1.9 -9.-1 4 - 'te: - 47 . 2 2 --,-Ii' 6.,p. cr C -0 . . - . 8 g . -6 Ascer: VISC Mallam r.. Lt:. - - * Begu.2. Te: . :mmuct:'y Â£ 7 Glite,ote St -4/ 1 RC --froe center \ Tret 129 04. . C 7...6.. + 1.4... . . U 05 S-Â·ucct- 9. - 01(lahoma '41# Mf' ..Â· 4 ~:'4-LuÂ·-;2-* 2~.'~'. to or of 9,4.Fats a i-* - .U-:..44 0 (.... 0 05 = - 0 t.'. s . I b 5, 1. .. 1 4. S 22 Smuggler West 'd , Â·Â· - 9 # Â·, 7,<5 9 i 1 8'Qi&.5, 0 0 - 4 Hotel 0: #-I ..ranÂ¥.1 D ..0 '1.0.- Hallem 5, Jercme ' 7,1 ' .... 44 1 01Â¥ St Smuggier,flountaln & CÂ· >#c j C - r e .5.-/ 1 ... P .... ,â€¢e 8 4 4, MasÂ¢04 2 4% fr . * %6 11-a Sal,911, Wlf... F PARK C:. A - .. 1 4.t Z 1 Tch % C.'Der (2:Â¢ > 9 1 1=2 3 # Dur.: ; A A-a~ 49 0, f 4 U 0 : y 'Â·Â·: g , Grove M,4- 4,0 Cale 1 9- -5 2% % OARK Ave 3 Sf. 2 / 14 ./ u 3 Den St. #Â· - eÂ· P A. 41/ 3 2 â€¢ fit:,4 & .., s- i 171 g D 8 82 Q Knohood ~ ~RUde 1. 4,0.a Gre.4 Ritz & d A U Ski â€¢â€¢e. 1 . 5% ve,FieÂ· 11 Carlton ~ Sumnut & Little # Co. R. Calderwood . I. 4 Mell g 44 Ra Â· - 1 4 Â· 4 4 HOLE H~~ 9 .~ ~ Cr#*f' 4 ELORY o ## 04/0 0- t Eastwood TC... $ 04 , C.:Ire Z..eâ€¢ Vaâ€¢py, R~-cm 1 - te 6 ~ Aspen .Mourluin U 2 Ski Aria n v Â£4.7- al O. Riuer g# . 9 . - e 4- 971-LY'/1 V \*2. l Soe.4 , 1â€ž Ce|| 6 -TI'litc#/4 '944'a , HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 j 939 E. COOPER AVE. - LANDMARK - CONCEPTUAL - SPECIAL Jake stepped down. Vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Donnelley: This is a public hearing, landmark designation, conceptual development approval including on-site relocation of the historic res6urces, partial demolition and special review to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR. Amy: I am recommending approval of the landmark designation based on it meeting standard B, architectural importance, standard E, neighborhood character and standard F, community character. There is a victorian structure that has been modified on the site and also a shed barn from the 1930's and both are to be retained in the proposal. The property is zoned residential multi-family. Rather than do the typical buildout which would be one large structure with a number of units the Langley's are proposing to do five detached buildings. They range from 800 to 1700 sqft. each. ~ The historic structure will be relocated and it currently is in the center of the lot and it will be moved to the east. The shed will move to the west. The concerns I have with cottage A, the existing building I think there needs to be a little more accuracy in the changes. They are proposing to move the siding and restore the clapboard and replace windows and also there is an original addition on the back that needs to be addressed in terms of how it is going *to be demolished. Cottage B you received revised plans based on comments forwarded to the applicants and I think this is a major improvement in its relationship in terms of *form to the historic structure. Some of the victorian detailing really isn't necessary and it could even be more playful than it is and be compatible. I am still concerned about the fact that the garage is the most prominent feature as it is the closest to the street but I understand the applicants have points to mention that I agree with. Cottage C is the historical shed that is being converted and a few other alterations in terms of windows. Cottage D I recommend . not to have the heavy stone. It is not a typical or native form. Cottage E was fine s proposed. There are a number of setback variances being requested and those ar*2 listed on the supplemental sheet. Also a number of parking spaces will be asked to be waived and that will be clarified. The plroject will exceed 85% of the FAR and they have to comply with the neighborhood character guidelines. There is an historic building listed on the inventory directly to the west of this one. Impacts to that house need to be taken into 3 /4+tr, w> & 1044Â«1~U- <10 V Ul.*2...V~ cs l vl .. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOIL 2 r 1994 account. Bob Langley: The genesis of this project was for us to find an af fordable way to live in town. We are familriar with the Aspen Area Community Plan and with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines and we wanted to re-inject into this are a *ense of community and sense of neighborhood. There are not a lot of people living in the area on a full time basis. Our idea was to have a community within a community. We have three free market homes. We will be glad to work with you in anyway we can and we have tried to listen to everyone that has an interest in this project. We do feel what we are doing on the conceptual is compatible in character with the ~ .designated historic structures located on the parcel. We want to make the historic house more livable. With the revised guidelines we are allowed 7200 sqft. and the project which we are envisioning has 6900 sqft. We are not trying to squeeze this for every dime that we can get out of it. It is not as dense as other projects in the area. To our east is the Villager and to the east of that is the Chateau Rearing Fork and then on the west Mark Thai's house. We are trying to recapture the essence of the community of the town. The Brass Bed In is right behind the property. The homeowners association will take care of the property. 80% of the units will be occupied by full-time locals. We are retaining the historic outbuilding and complimenting it. ~ Bob Langley: Under partial demolition we would like to not maintain the back 66 sqft. and we feel it is not that significant and is not seen from the street. If we keep it one option would be to move the project forward by four to six feet. The offstreet parking requirement states that it shall not exceed one space per bedroom or two spaces per bedroom whichever is less. Most of the traffic that comes by is pedestrian traffic and there is presently no sidewalk but we will incorporate one. Darnell Langley: Visually when you look down Cleveland Street towards Aspen Mountain you will look into the courtyard and visually see it. Sewart Lusk did the art work and Marsha Goshorn put- the packet together. Donnelley: We should start with cottage A and we need to determine what is going to be removed from the cottage. Darnell Langley: It would be a total of three or four feet off the b back. j Donnelley: We can assume that the historic element is the taller element and you are stripping the garage and the shed in the back of the historic house and stripping a gable form newer addition off 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 the south which is the back. The demolition of the 66 sqft. is demolition of the historic resource. t Darnell Langley: With the lot split we either had to get into the setback ar cut part of the historic building off. Stewart Lusk, architect: The garage shown is on the setback line and the main part of the house is a few feet back. Donnelley: Cottage B which is a new structure is misleading. It is trying to pick up a victorian structure and it is in opposition as to what we are trying to get at. It is busier and there are a lot of added on design features which could detract from the historic resource. Bob Langley: We could go back to the original cottage B. Donnelley: You have a wonderful situation here. Tom: I like the concept of the site plan and all the wonderful amenities that the sit plan reflects but it concerns me and it has been the criticism of the-neighborhood guidelines that people are lead into doing this miners cottage vocabulary and I would rather see something different. Aspen does not presently have a miners cottage character. If you walk all over town there is almost every period since 1900 represented. In Cottage A it seems fussy. Donnelley: The buildings should be subservient to the historic cottage and should not cry out. You have wonderful manipulation of volumes and roof forms and if one took this totally as a monochromatic project and just looked at the light and shade plate in these forms you would be well on your way to success. This project Will present a welcoming picture of what can be accomplished in Aspen and what has been accomplished'i.e. rather blocky commercial situations. Darnell: We just want to give you what you want and we just don't understand where to go now. Donnelley: We are not looking for replication of past structures. Stewart Lusk: We started off with the garden court and we feel strong about that. Then you get the shape of the house. Donnelley: No one is criticizing the shape of the houses. We are talking about historic references or non-historic references and trying to distinguish between the historic resource and the newer resource and you may be'creating more of a problem for yourself j , than actually exists. . 5 . HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 Les: The process will work for you, us and the neighborhood. Saving as much of the original building is what I like to see and you have done that. The neighborhood is the scale and massing. Linda: I do not know if what I have to say will make it more clear but the confusion comes when you look at the victorian and you try and make everything else kind of like it but if you look at the group of houses and have the historic structure be the most prominent and the others taken down into a more simple structure or level. Bob Langley: We need to make it evolve and show some transformation through town. We want to set the tone for what.is coming after the miners cottages. Amy: I feel this is too complex and it imitates a victorian house and that is not the direction we want you to go. You find a common line of the things that are important about that historic house, mass and scale, rhythm and you work from that. We are not asking you to reproduce a victorian. Martha: I feel cottage A is appropriate. Donnelley: In Cottage B it is not clear what is intended. How do you deal with styling within the site. Darnell: Also the historic barn, how do you deal with that. Tom: Why can't you make them all different. The barn is appropriate. Marsha Goshorn: We were lead to believe you wanted it to look like an historic victorian, flashier. Amy: Compatible does not mean it has to look like something and it does not have to be victorian. Donnelley: You also haven't talked about shingles or siding. Tom: I do not want it flashier. Donnelley: We are on the wrong dialogue. The quietest building in the world could be contemporary. You are there in scale and massing. Don Crawford: There is only three feet of buffer between the building and I can reach that far. We need more respect for .the neighbors privacy. My major concern is the people density on the neighborhood. If this project is not designated and remains in the zoning that is now you could only have ten bedrooms above grade. 6 . I HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 In this particular designation there will be 18 bedrooms and only ' ten parking spaces. I feel it should not be designated. Lisa Miller: I live in #8 of the Villager on the alley side right , next to theirs. I would loose my light to the downstairs. I also feel 8 feet is not much of a variance. Density is a problem. I see more congestion and noise occurring. I also feel the parking is a disaster there anyway. I feel the concept is good but the density is our main concern and what is going to happen when the ~ parking comes into effect when people already park up there that work in town. Donnelley: Does anyoneÂ·know what the set back is on the Villager on the west property lie. Bob: It encroaches and the property is elevated three feet above our ground level. We have seven bedrooms above ground. Also everyone has two parking spaces. Darnell: We are also on the bus route and people will be taking the bus to get to work and leaving their cars at home. Marsha.Goshorn: This kind of development discourages the use of cars. Donnelley: Cottage D is taking something and trying to make it different just for the sake of difference. Darnell: Our concept was because that was between two barns we wanted to keep the board and batten and on all of our units we wanted a stone foundation that will have the continuity throughout all five units. We wanted it to look more like a farm house Â· because it was sitting between two barns. Donnelley: The competition comes from detailing. What is hard to understand is D and B. Linda: D and B need to be compatible with the historic structure and that is the challenge. Donnelley: We are also dealing with other issues such as designation, setbacks. Amy: I feel we are near but feel tabling is appropriate. We need 4 more discussion on how the project effects the neighbors in terms of the setbacks. One of the reasons we have three foot setbacks j is that the left the historic barn in its existing orientation. If they twisted it they would have all the room they need but I do not think we want to see that change. In the front they could move the buildings close together and not need a variance. - 7 . HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 19-93. Les: One of my considerations is the setbacks which can violate the flow of the neighborhood. f . '' Donnelley: In this particular,case we might want to rotate the barn in order to provide a better setback. Darnell: That would cut down on the parking. Tom: I agree with rotating the historic barn and it might be an advantage to turn it and get the buildings away from the property lines. Martha: I would like to site visit the property before I approve rotating the barn. Les: Saving it is my concern and if turning it is a benefit for the proj ect and neighbors on either side and you can show me -that then I have no problem. Martha: It is worth exploring. Amy: I haven't seen a structural report on the barn to see if it can be moved. ~ Darnell: I concerned about the exterior finished of B and D, what can we introduce that will not clash. Donnelley: Stucco, shingles, corrugated steel are possibilities. Amy: I feel.stucco is not appropriate. Tom: It is a non-material and is positive because it is not trying to say something about history. Donnelley: I agree with the use of stucco. Les: I also don't mind the use of a few logs. Martha: Isn't giving approval of the locations on the site for the buildings enough and he should work from that. Sewart Lusk: The historic one sets the pace. Tom: On the three new buildings your architect should use his imagination. We are not trying to guide you to make a horizontal siding or anything. Your architect should give you an imaginative design. j MOTION: Les made the motion to table Landmark Designation, .j 8 . I HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOV. 2, 1994 -".'- Conceptual Review, Special Review to exceed 85% and on-site t.,v~ relocation for 939 E. Cooper to a date certain Nov. 9, 1994; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion to adjourn; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9 0 r.1 .. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 is next door and we have got a three foot setback and have pulled back five feet where the windows are, so there is a ten foot open area and being sensitive to the neighbors the building splits right where the windows are so they are not looking right into a building. If the property were to be maxed out you would have one flat wall and you would have less light than this configuration. As far as turning the barn and looking at the parking situation it is not a prudent step to take. We feel we have accommodated the historic nature of the property, to preserve the barn, to maintain setback sensitivity to the neighbors while still designing a project that works economically and socially. There is a lot of inner action between the buildings. We are asking for an additional 489 sqft. of FAR and we are asking for setbacks on the front of 9 feet on the AH and three feet on the multi family. We are asking for rear setbacks of five feet and side setbacks of two feet and combined front and rear setbacks of 14 feet for AH and 8 ft, for multi family. The current FAR is 10,500 and we are requesting 7,200 and we are only trying to create a community where our children can live. Joe: Is this going to be rezoned. Bob Langley: I can't go to P&Z and get rezoned unless I can go through the conceptual process of HPC. By giving me conceptual you are not approving the final plan and by designating the parcel you can have design review. I have to have a project that works and is both sensitive to the historic nature of the project and the things that we tried to be in line with which are the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Neighborhood Guidelines. Amy: The back part of the lot is going to be split, 4500 sqft. zoned affordable housing and the front 6,000 sqft. is to remain RMF. Roger; Is it possible for cottage A and B to on the Cooper Street to have garage doors not look like garage doors. As you drive into the garages will it be paved or is there a way to deal with something else for that area like grass in between. The lines where the buildings boarder the adjacent properties, are they broken up. Bob Langley: They are absolutely broken up. Darnell Langley: There are some three foot setbacks and five foot . A setbacks. j Donnelley: We fundamentally gave approval to a lot of the project and what exactly should we be reviewing today? Lets deal with the j 13 . D HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 't t issues that were left up in the air at the last meeting. Amy: Unanimously everyone felt good about the site plan. Passed ' around were computer generations of possible massing etc. This was preferable solution. We are retaining the historic cottage A and the historic barn and the cottage will be restored. There was discussion about cottage B and D and what was discussed was a misunderstanding between HPC and the applicants and what we are trying to get out of new buildings from the applicants. The cottages seemed very stylistic and the Board was not comfortable with them. We wanted to look at cottage B and D further and the committee wanted consideration of the adjacent property. Donnelley: I have a question that concerns cottage B and D. Why are there three different siding materials and two different roofing materials on the plans presented today. Architect: I would like to see it all horizontal siding with no ginger breading and possibly a copper roof for the porch. I feel that keeps it simple. Use a palate stone base that has been carried through the whole project. Donnelley: My first impression is that it is a non-meaningful use j of different materials and that leads to the questions as to , whether it competes with the historic resource. Stucco usually reads heavier than wood and you wouldn't put it above wood as it - is heavier. It is also basically in the same plane and that doesn't make much sense in cottage D, to change materials just because one is below the roof line and one above. It appears that added complexity and added confusion has developed by throwing in a lot of materials. Bob Langley: Would you say that the structure as it stands is more compatible with your personal vision of what you would like to see and are we talking about exterior material. Donnelley: I do not have a personal vision because I am not designing it, I am reacting to it. The forms as a committee no one had any basic problems. There was an intent to encourage making these other three non-historic structures, noncompetitive with the historic structures. We also said maybe you are trying to read into this more of a problem than it actually is. In other words in terms of light and shade, in terms of what is happening with the mix of forms in this very tight little area. You have enough going j on. Architect: Cottage B is basically the same roof lines and cottage D had roof line changes mostly the north L without the peak and I 15 ,. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 feel that helps. The siding material we had gone over as a group and I feel the simpler the better. I would hope we could get past a conceptual on the shape of the structure and to know we can really detail this out. Bob Langley: Because we are landmarked if the forms and shapes work and there are concerns with the siding and materials I feel the committee has a responsibility to do is show the good faith in me that I have shown to the committee. I am responsive to anything you people would ask me to do and I will continue in that same vain. I; need to get conceptual approval. Amy: They are asking for setback variances for both sides, parking variances. Darnell Langley: The setbacks have a lot to do with the AH zone being so cramped and it is cut across. They alley them becomes the front yard. Amy: The historic building has now moved further forward, it is seven feet off the front instead of the required ten and that is because of the discussion about the rear addition of the house which is historic. I feel the drawings are appropriate and you still read that the addition on the back is one story although it has something on top of it. It is a good solution as opposed to demolishing it. Yes, the buildings are tight but as opposed to one large mass this is more appropriate. Darnell Langley: They are all below the allowable height. Joe: I am in favor of the project and we will do what we can to get conceptual approved tonight. One of the problems that I see here is that there is not a model. I do not know how they relate to each other and we always require quarter square drawings. I am in favor of conceptual but with the caveat that it is not final until it is final. I can't get a good feel how the structures relate to each other on the site. Looking at four different sets of elevations it is hard to see it. The model will help a lot. In general I like the plan and the idea of a variety of structures used on the site. It is difficult to review five structures at once. I need the opportunity to dissolve it. : Martha: Will the historic barn remain where it is? Bob Langley: It will be moved. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. 16 . HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 Lisa Miller: I thought the barn was going to be on the villager side. Why can't you pull back five feet on the entire side as I will not get any light and we are crammed in. On the west facing window that is all the light there is. Why can't it be switched. Bob Langley: The barn has to be moved one way or another and I am going to be living in cottage D. In order to preserve the view of Smuggler mountain I do not want it switched. Lisa Miller: I would like to see a model also to see exactly what is happening here. Martha Goshorn: If it stays where it is it would have to be moved twice, one to move it off for the foundation to be built and then moved again. If it is moved to the other side it is going to be less difficult to move it one rather than twice. Right now they can dig a foundation and move it once. Darnell Langley: I feel we have addressed that in ever way. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Les: I feel we are close to solving this and the applicant has moved in a few feet on that side which we requested. The site is tight and would explain again why you cannot move it back anymore. Darnell Langley: We took their concerns and we went out and measured every window that they have and from every window we came back five feet, we gave the full five feet. If someone came in an and what you are able to build is two monster homes you would have a ten foot setback on front and back and it would be all building from the front property line to the back and you wouldn't have that little slot. It would be like a solid wall. There is a five foot set back on the side. Also keep in mind that their ground level is three feet above our plane level and that will make a difference. Donnelley; I could give conceptual approval only on the building massing and the site plan. I could not give approval to the three non-historic structures because they have not been presented to us today. Martha: The conversation at the laft meeting centered around cottage B and D and I feel we are headed in the right direction. Amy: Everyone felt comfortable with what was happening with cottage A, the historic barn and the new barn. Not that you would approve every aspect but that you felt good about it and that B and 1 11 $ A HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 D still had problems. Donnelley: It this gets conceptual cottages B, aRd D would have to be presented to us in a much more detailed form. Roger: I could approve conceptual based on general massing and site plan and I would request a model not only of the existing and new structures but of the Villager and property to the right that it be incorporated on the model plan. I would also be willing to sit in on a worksession. Joe: My concept is a massing model. Linda: I agree with Don about the business of B and D and that they should be simpler. I agree with the site plan and basic shapes of the buildings. Joe: Does anyone on the Board have any problems with the site plan. Donnelley: We would have to have a revised site plan. Amy: The variances need to be taken care of with the conceptual because this is a public hearing. Joe: I feel this is difficult to evaluate in the absence of 1/4 inch drawings. Amy: There is the possibility at final that the variances could be reduced. They are requesting a 489 sqft. in the FAR for the affordable housing. Marsha Goshorn: There would be an FAR increase on that one 1500 sqft. parcel but it will not increase it on the entire 4500 sqft. It is not an increase over the FAR allowable for the AH zone, just for that one particular house and it is just being moved from one site to another. The Planning Office came up with that idea due to the layout of the site. Joe: AH will be three lots 1500 sqft. each and one of those lots needs the FAR bonus. Also one is under. Amy: I have been in this process with you for some time and this ' application is not complete but because I want this to happen as ' opposed to what could happen I feel OK about it. We need to j discuss at length general compatibility. Bob Langley: We need conceptual tonight because we have a P&Z 18 . I HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 0 meeting coming up. Donnelley: You will have to redo the drawing correctly for P&Z. Les: The solution is here and we won't like part of it and you won't like part of it but it will work. Chairman Joe Krabacher closed the public hearing. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant conceptual review, partial demolition and special review approval for 939 E. Cooper with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant understands that this is conceptual approval of the site plan and general scheme involved. 2. That the applicant submit a model showing this project as well as the adjacent two parcels so that we can get an idea of the setbacks affected. 3. That we have 1/4 inch drawings. 4. That we approve the variances requested for FAR of 489 ~ sqft., setbacks in the AH of 9 feet in the front, 5 ft. in the rear which is 8 feet at the decks and two foot sideyard and 14 combined front and rear yard and in the RMF parcel a front yard setback of 3 feet and rear yard of five feet with 8 feet at the decks and side yard two feet and combined front and rear of 8 feet and a four space parking variation. 5. At final a revised site plan, landscape plan and accurate representation of all materials etc. 6. HPC finds that the four development review standards are met. second by Les. Martha: I feel the model is number one and the detailed drawings second. Diinnelley: Maybe we should have a worksession before final. Bob Langley: Amy and I will dialogue about this tomorrow. Vote: All in favor of motion, motion carries. 19 . HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 Donnelley did not vote as he had to attend another meeting. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; second by Joe. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk . 20 L) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Landmark designation, Conceptual Development including on-site relocation of the historic resources, Partial Demolition, and Special Review to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR DATE: November 2, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for Landmark designation, Conceptual development review, partial demolition, on- site relocation of historic resources, and special review to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR for the property at 939 E. Cooper Avenue. Currently there are two structures on the site, a Victorian house, built in the 1880's and an outbuilding built within this century. This project involves a Planning and Zoning Commission review for a lot split which creates two parcels, one which will remain zoned RMF (residential multi-family) and one which the applicant's wish to rezone to AH (affordable housing). Three new units will be built on the site through the GMQS exemptions for historic landmarks and through the allowances of the Affordable Housing Zone Â»istrict. APPLICANT: Bob and Darnell Langley. LOCATION: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot A, Block 37 and 75' x 100' of Cleveland Street, East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen. Landmark Designation PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearings), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of 1 . historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the ( j United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The house is a simple Victorian miner's cottage with major alterations. Original windows have been removed, a garage was constructed on the east and the whole structure has been covered with asphalt shingles. The applicants intend to renovate the historic house and outbuilding as part of their redevelopment plans and to make material changes which will return the house to its earlier character. From the 1904 Sanborne Insurance maps, the historic house was a one and one-half story historic structure with a one story lean-to on the back. There are two outbuildings shown on the site in 1904, but neither is in the location of the existing shed. These, along with two other Victorian houses which occupied a portion of the land which is now 939 E. Cooper appear to have been demolished. The existing outbuilding has become historically significant and is not proposed to be demolished in the current redevelopment plan. . -- C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The architect or builder is unknown. E. 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 neighborheod character. Respohse: There are a number of Victorian structures in the immediate vicinity of 939 E. Cooper. These buildings are mixed in with some very dense multi-family development and are the only remaining evidence of the 2 . A historic character of this neighborhood. F. 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: This site is representative of the modest scale, style and character of homes constructed during the mining era, the community's primary period of historic significance. Concentual Development 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. 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, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark 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 5-508(A). Response: The proposed proj ect is dense in terms of site coverage and results in a greater FAR than would be allowed in the type of "traditional" multi-family complexes which fill the East Aspen neighborhood. However, in terms of building mass, the proposed detached units are very compatible in scale with the historic structures on this site and neighboring sites, ranging from 800-1,690 sq.ft. The attached map of this area showing 939 E. Cooper in relationship to its surroundings shows that this proposal is much more sensitive to the history of this area than many more recent projects have been. Because of the applicant's proposal to split the lot horizontally (a lot split line usually runs perpendicular to the street), the alley becomes the frontage for the AH parcel and the lot split line becomes the rear lot line for each parcel. A number of setback variances are 3 I p'C' a , - 14,5.48~u.4...-1.3:2:' . z ' . ., '- ft-/~~~~~~//~~~ I D. - -34*Â· t .1 4 ~ V ..7 ......='-91 I .. . 1654 ~ ,Ul,UT * ' . . . A /7, 3?412* 8 I $ I.- .... Â· . - - . j-.7:',-0////~i- '- 2 1 -21. 2-94. .int t. 4 . 7 *. 4 - ' *1 .1*/ .t/. A 11 . I I . I' -- . ..14 , a 1 : . zLE+Ek -il I ~I ~~ '~ '~~ ' ~ . 1 . ' Â· 'Â· Lt~'IÂ·..294,-St '4-39Â·#..; i ' 4 4 16.4 v " *. , i,< 1/Irp - 14Â·,1 - . 8- - , ... --. $ '/' ZIEIT-- '.1 rl ---' 4 - -m. . - 4 + - 9... '1.- + ,~ . 2 ... I .-' I ./ . - 4,- -Â»gr * r I w.-~ i. J 'â€¢ 1 h -Â· Â· ~ -Â·- *>fÂ· Â·12 SU- /2 4 - 4 1 : 1 4 1 --*.-: X . 0-Â® 4 1 , ... .3 'f,9-~:ir. t,".t_Â·. !4F..._~~1 J'.~~ ti~~~:~ 14 1 .. Il -- Â·: 1 *. + 5 4 - 1 1.., 1 Â· 4Â¢, . le.. 1 ~' ..4.-I I. . t Vt, /f :M. 2.-â€¢ I -t ., . 1- % ... AL)-) 1 . 21 . 1 .: -p'liHI.,-I. I... -7:. %f- A.3 ! b Â¥~ter,491 - . 4 ..r 04.-I.,3. 0 11' ..2.2,Phit 1 ~~~D41*,1 - ,- Â· 4 1 , 4-- C. P-. â€¢ 2 1 '': + - . r. ..1.k .A~-1."dilit - -/Irit -'. . Â·i i : +4, au ~k ,/ //ip..... t...:#.034Ir: 1 Hlr-7 ' 9 yÂ· D - .,9.4.032.4&-1~'rÂ·f~ ...,- iNE-J -0Â·Â·*i . 4*E- - 1 . 07' : .+i< Â· Ile--,423.-6-,lefoid,41 : tr f 22* , . U F 9,52, ~t.- r . ~t *Ny '141 - .....11 L.2 1 T. 1Â¥,PM . 1 r p 1 . t . .. .4.5 ......./. - 12]11 t===Â» -4Â· 11 I Â·- . ...t + I 1:11 1[,Fh 1-*vt.li:cle 123 1 1. '42 /0 , I . , --- 1- 4 5 . -------- ~ ... .Nt .--*.... - 4 . - *A -1 1 ; 4 ' r ' ' Â· ~i ... . . I . .. ... . - I I L . , . ... . . . - t. . D. -. ~ . Â«91 -4 9 - -12 - 7 --- 9 4 4 1-5Â·ke-A ... C 1 - $ 11 4.2. i 11 i i .4 1 11~ ] , h , - -p..... .., 1.>. i 1 W. . ... : 1 - .2 9/'.A *.....:::> + .. . 9 I. . 1 I .- * - 4*Empyrfha'. -* '. : - 9 fi' '5 1 '- 21-U - ~t~,MA. â€¢ . . u_3= Aize~ nk .- 2 . .4 .f .1-,4 re'- 1 . 7 6,- I 1 - g. /1/ a. . ' . . L . VE) 1 7. 1. ...I---4/-* V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 , 4-1214 9 7-,-- 46' -- , ~ '-'-17: 22*Â· Â·'Â·r - '-. *~ - .r Â·Â·- +~ '-1 - - -- '-- ' --J'4: Â·:d~cd f ' :I .I .1 6 <â‚¬432/â‚¬34 â€¢â‚¬ "2 , - ./4.,7 1 ..= ':..t .., 1,41. V ... .je 4 D .. -1 . ..,t ~ HAE - 2-41996. 1 ./ .5 ./2 C . 9 -I... i/ - 'lu- 6./ .: Â·.. i r.lrÂ· 9--, f -l= .. -Â·_ -Â·Â·-~32*vbe'l~ ):, 4% :~.*..1%-4 . cm* vi I ' ..r. , - .. I. . I ' I .; -1 1 ..+ u - :242.-te.3/ . Â· 21 --117 . ; ...3- /sT. tte :- i., - -er-- - . 3. . 4. ' . "ai-Â·,0â€¢Â·*ri., Imi.2 Â· 6 - &14Â£*PÂ¥4 229 - 1 I .ic-'*e it ,L . I Â·2' 4 ' A.f94*: rf~i. . 432% I. - Â£4 * NORTH ELEVATION 1 1 . u Â· -0, ft ,:L&-~1*t~Z . I. l. I .'/* IV. -0./12 v 1 -1 44, .64..1 ? * .. -~29499*242 4. I .. 44. I. 4. t i - L I 94 - VII - 4 21% .9- 4 *t - :.-:-i-F- 0/: *Â·.4 &c e . 0 ... .044, . I : . 9. r .. :17: Â·...â€ž. 4-.. -I~> 4.4 -1,--I . 'Â· r.~ L.'4:5,292-i i. r+ 2 1 4 414.fr-4 . 1-6-~12 :.Ekwt-t~,k e ?*wÂ·7 =yef ]- 4 1 .9....,.1..., :- 2,-/,A ....V.uv ,.J.N. a...6~ 1 1.~ 3 ... k , 19 -r; tr...441 + 1KS .... .32-::7&:k~v-.~.tit .4 , I:~~--, 3: fyi 'J-,4. i~:frfiÂ·~:~ 13+ 1..~.Ii.04#4.Â».f-0.-Ohdilf~Â·. ..0.0472>,U~hvc,1 -, . ,kv;*2 & . - I ' . 6 - . _ I 4 r 4 71 : 0 3.4 , 1 % . , L . , 2 : - .,1. Ir .- . . . 9 V - L . -- ... 4 - I t: . > .., tg- 7'-19%2' . 1 . F I .' I â‚¬ r. 1 - I --- -I-/*Ir 4 - '' I :E.,6/1 Â£4 , . ,%-, 1- . -1.,r '1~~2~ ~- - ' ' â€¢~ 4Â·. - -Â·,m ,â‚¬ 'L'./. 1 "â€¢ I 4 . . .4 i â€¢ r â€¢ 9â€¢ 4 . :f i-'~.~ir 1, . B d.25â€¢40â‚¬f~- â€¢ ' Â· ';T*anM ... 44..I .'â„¢1.gr'.. Py + 3 1. r I Â· e. - 4 -- 1.. t. 3% fi .- . . . . f Â·" :4, ~ + -' , .4Â»13.1.... 0 * - 1 I ...4 - *. 1 . 4 . I . I . I I. I . . . . , m . -- . - '49 1,4 4 -' . I . :1~:$*:Ihi:'IT9~' '....:. '*.=fl '..' 4.45 . 4 , .t, I Â· I ./ O 2. t . , , 4 . I.- L I - ' 4 - 4 . 4 I . - A . . I . I - S - . .... - 0 1 I I , I . - . i . I. -'- - . ' 44. , J â€¢ . L I 4 .... v , -1 , L. . 1 i , Â· -1 1 2Â· -Â· . . r.. 1 r 2 . . 1 $ .. 1 I . 1 2.-2 A. 1111 1 1: T -- -' .r . , - . I .' . 3 -i,Â·9 -4 . .: 3... 6. 4,1.96 tiâ€¢ "A , 0, ~ % _ .....'' ..4 .- Alic ..0 1, 4 1 43..,3.5 ..r 61. 4 I .... .i ./.-1..1.:2 2-5-4...Jep':--- '; .... F :..., .fr. 1...1: -3::r2 5; :.. ):' 'Â·~ :-ii ..~.Â·â€ž 9.; 1:5:0.-t -2.-43:='-*-~r:i ' LyÂ·ilkif.-.-.* 1"j E 'k... - 1 ,/~1' / 7.1*# th,+ eâ€¢r 17.1.t-, I f 21& 1. =' , ~~C. p r ' ~ 1.: 1. I:. f.1 1, ... 1 ... 1~ 24 . . --'.,2.1 .. I t. . 1 P Ly: (- 4 - ..r . -A .,2 1%*I, ,~ -~ta > . A. . :7- It - I I 4 -4/ ** .-'Il I i.-4#.I/)..$/ ./- ./.P-- t. . * ... ...1/ --t -E -- * P 1 :.. f .. -9, ./ I- I - 1 -4 Â· t# Â· -' t - C.1414' 4. 33' 543'. 164 .:. : : M:- <Nrw.-..4T :.#. f a , .-/ ' / ..,/ ./ L.r . .. *.r.... ./ . I 190,09.01 - 7 Â» 4*- .0 +.4 -~ 7 - r r~~~-2 ~6 f i 1 , 4 4 1 . -I. : ' .... . . .. =Il' '' . . t . '# 4 - . . : 1 ...A , . - 4/1 ': .'C'~'~~r.'- .2:* ; . ' ' - 14. A r. 1 V. .. .1 â€¢. + .4 ... lA ..,1 ./ .... 1 1 9 , 6 Tt 1 j , - r~- ' ~ F - 4-4 1~*Â·il~ ~l.Â·: 1;i,lF /t. 20:Â· i ..: ' i *1, . l 11 . -4 r -" W. 11 - 9 ' â€¢t 3.7 i {Ar I 6 - g< .t.-r 1.- 1 :,1 . 'rt 31 2 21'~i . I I , I . t. , i,t. . ~ 0 - , . , ; 4 1 441; It- }frk.l 4: ke . f . 4 f. : 4.2 ,.. ,- i . t. -: '1.. t....it 1 4 ii:,1 t:.1 4 4 ' . , U , 1 . $ . . . . tfit.t:.1 }.:i.'' 1 i , 1. . .It t r 'Â· & i 0 {; Il {f t' *~ L Â·,k i ' â€ž 4. . . 7 .4 P f '4 4. -I 4- - I i .. I - . 11 1 Â· 4 f ' 1 . . , 4 . . k - 4 4- ../ 4 4- . I . . . . 1 , -... r Â· . .... 1/ g . I . I - 4 9 '46 - 4,.1â‚¬ , 4 . N 9:2,10 9 - , , . . â€ž - .4 - . 1 . . ' ... I ...0 . .- , I I ... . - . l.- ....I#. - .... 811) trn:,e>. wgi 11* . I . . . nD#90299* \1 *04 - .. . ... ..9, A - ... ..1 ... 4 . 4% . P . ' 4 . . r - . 6- I - , ././* I + .' D./. , . I... . tit .1 ,~ - :- . ..6-1 1 7 - , Â· - 3*Ir-7 '.. .. I %1150 - 1 '... i . :.. , 2: ... v -~ '~-- c ~, ;-gi~4,2- 1 2 .:,~Â·, 09.4. :- '~ 52. 1 ~ 4. - -, - .-. 1- : -1,11411 -129 ~606 - H 143 - I . $... I. I , .. . . i f. . t. ' I . : , -f . 1) H 17 JÂ¢,9,19+1 2;Me :- 4 . t $. 2. . . - 4- 4 li ~--2-/ri: . , 1-- 411 -d , 1. I i ! = a -/1 Â¢ A' 945. L ',i I \1 I i 1-01 -Ul 4-90 '. \ A /2 1- .11 4 e.,2. 1 e , 4...1 2 Â·4 R . \1 7-~--R:--17Â·1.1 .. \ E- 1. ' i . 1 F..1 1 1; 11- Â«*7*~*ft ../ i... . , ..1-1- 11.- 1 - ' . 1 Â£ h -- - El ..I 49 111 1 -7"11'f-Â· 3 1 Â· 7 1 y /0"--- ' -."-1- /~ ~ , . 1, irr, 2 . 4/ 1 1/ 4-' 3-*I-**I --1--- .1 5.1 1 Â¥= 1 / 1 \ 0 . r, - /2 0 irit- r r 3/. I'll 1 D . 1' J 4- f 17Â· ...1 I. ' 77..12 - 01 .f h lry-- ---'I- I---i--I- - 4 ~.0 4 ,. ,. 2 6 1 . 13111. f 3( . , . 1 *....JJ . r - - I - i Â·1 L - 11 4 Â® 11 - 4 - 7 1 . 1 . ker. .- /1 - - -I-- . l.5* 5/0 lit -- 1 1 114 1 1 1 T L ir--1 1 ' . r..1 - 1 . , , 1 ... -.-- .-I.. , =-â‚¬--1 1 1 ' > 1 1 , 1 Â· 1 t i I , i '-7 4 , ,â€¢ - ' i 1 'bl ful=...1 , .1 1 -- r , \ . B 1 1 , 1 '' 14 i -1 1 It ... 1 . 11 -1.- t14 . ..1 - 1 I J - 1 -1 /1 1 . - -h ' 7 .0" 4 *3 $... ..7 .it f . I '. .. I r" '1 11# . + . , ' , 1.- c d. 9 1 I. ., 1 Â· Â·'1,7.14K, Â·6 - . 2.- 1 6.11 1 I ./ , , .1 .... 4 441 6 .r ' - 4, 4. .,4 . ',4 + 1 . Â·1 , " Â· , 1 . 1 I 1-1 - . .1 -11 , .. , 9 ,147-â‚¬ , -r i.Â· 1 ....7-r ., ~t. i * 01 , ~' 4 . 5.'-'.41 . =- I. D ..1. 4, ; ''#I - .1 - . . , 1 - . ./1 I . ...1..2,1....: . I . 1.1 1.1 1 ~ ' 1 ~ . f~:.â‚¬*46<j~i-,42,>61.<-:2..(3..4.1 ~t. :.5-9 ..0:9':'t:. 4 Â¥ ..2 1 - --'......:-& 61:21Â·<SIF#y.g4'7*81121'A...:.M*Irka.,124.4'..1 + .it. 2~ .a.. 4.. v ~,4 W . â€¢irMEar-= --I .... - -i :F.*%WI:~fmre -te/4.- 2.443*4~* . ' 4 . '142 :2 :-- ,r ,.94,# ,Â·.ik ru '74 1.3- : 49.6 '.fN:.9*114,0'1XJj~'v,66044;*Â·~U~JD'â€¢1041.y~ . -'. 14-'.Â·.er:wpimajtdz~INNy 991'P 1%52*Â· miÂ·- 1 I--7 -.L:tidefil- 1 'fe 16+41 / (4 M IT ...4.4, 4.6. gi t L :aN,1 11* 12:lit . . /. . ..4 -4.., : TIA. . ,./ 40 I ./ I '6 'r7-0.- . - . Â·Â·IÂ· ' Â· I Â· 0.Â·Â·Â· .A ' t . 'Lf- Sit 6Â·.' 7 - I . I , I . 4. ./ .. . -- .- TIll .... fVol Atio 1 C . . & M .,f...U,AW / - .. ./.- M 1 ' ' 4- C. .... I t.. * 4 2 dcÂ· 4 - 6 11 :.4-- Â· Â· "C. - -7 .. - I :Â· th'-â‚¬ ./ a.. Itt 1 ... ' Â·Â·r- ,:J y.- . .. .<A.,1 M.6/2,-râ€¢,-i-,1 I . .....I Â· t. ... ,Â· 14 - . . - 4. I *. - .7. :1#9.â‚¬MR,i~I~"1, -*i -i----1 I -----..-I -I...Il- 1--Ill,=- - 'it. ,, r"e -/ rv . . 2 f - Awl./LA . . i. . 9 UPERCad-. ' 4 3, . . Â· .. 4 1 %99-. - , . . 1.1~Â£-1 1 . 021 . . 1.- " , 044/ I , J .. Vt. Â· , L_-7 -1 - - + ~ , . A 0 ...8 - I /'. Â· I - - .. r . 9 J 2 - . -t f , . Il . 14 - 4: I y 6,Â£ I+-~ / -. 11 - t . 43....' 1 J . .IT. i L_=.4 ... 1. . . t . t 1 ,: 4 Â· I - ... . .1 . I. I .. - - I /.5 - ./ .- . . r .-, .- 4 - *crwri . 1.4/ - . a .- 0 4, tu , ~ I I *'- "|/ . , W<M) :Â·â€¢ Â·I . 1 ~Â· U./ - */: *C 4 2 / ./ -- 03;â€¢'- Â· et : ./1 . ~" Â· 3-Â·5â€ž r. -- U 'll -1 g.i 4 j 7 V -4 <4'44% - . . S. I . '1Â» . 7. ' . . 1. 1 . lf.' . ~..D, . .. . I ..Â»14"9='1't- 4/ '' 4. . ' - 4,1. i a . 144 .: -'.. I . ... f C '-1.-- fWEST ELEVATION Il< i .... <-~2~*4~ :Â·Â·~~4*2t:.1 1.;~~ij I 4. *,~2~{~.f ' . Yi.' wiy- 1, 3 .1.7 4 0*,4 , A:. Â·I j , f. '25, 7'fi/-1.94, 144 3*f ...,4. U. i ..... , ,. 1 . - 4.- 1 1 4%.1 i 1 t . - 1.- -- :m. -# 1 - \ I - .e - ' 0.- 4 - 32 .4 'r: ... \ *' I. ./ . .- ,/1/ Nix. 4' . , - 1 U . . a =Vâ€ž-6 : .IL .....1.. I â€¢ il-AM . 4 , -..-- 11 - *Â·Â· ' lii fiu~ggi:5; 7 . PU.~~91rf :10Â·i:fi,gpi/,----LF~t . 4Â§4â€¢,atat@* ~ h Â· .1 t.6/26/.F-/...1"ih/. 61.D~ 3 . --. 5 49.1 "f . ifi{Ifii)12&~ . . , . - t ALPJJ 11- .- A _ . - 4 il~ZNCeNNe'gimak!95*1,0 ' - Â·- Â·Â·, I .. 1 .1 . I. . .- Â»", 44 - 'J . I I. '44&/1%1'30332=WEâ€¢â€¢ewf' T .3, A <Â·1~ A -- "--11 --A 3-4# Â· -%~19.91#fro- 4521414 _"' 'Aft> 12.4 ... 1.... 1 ~" -0â€¢ni-' 1 -4:yel . Â· .. ... 1 + 1 f 7 Ark fe> - Mcâ‚¬ktÂ»1 ?1. .1 . 1 . I T-J - 1 11 U 1 h 1 r 1. , ! /- 471 i . ./ 1 1 : 7 - * r $ i ====~F :{} Â· 7111 11 - 11'I i !1 Â·'-22.-.14/2-17 ?r - 1 Â·.Â·Â· fÂ»' nch, - Â»-tr b ': - 4 V %. .-e 1 . t' .9.80â€žg . 1 38Â· U.Â· r,~12*.#*499,Â£5.9 *SFda., 1*.0 . I. U: *1 .fâ€¢-L W , I 1 D -2-42.'424. ri:-,4:..:.Â« / . . :p t/'ll 37<,4 - - -- Â» 16 .. -31"#S ie,r--1 - 0 - - n . *â€¢- - T- 4'' -' ' "/'*11, 4. Â·7. Â·Â·2Â·ar . ..... 7,7:0. S 02 9 ;37.03 :;,~ .,.9~~ t . 4 /-' . I Et. -- â‚¬... ,> R f â‚¬}j 22% 1625 -4- - -O Oon 2 4 .Â·: 76 42 .Â· 5 K 6 0 i./ 0 ~ CRO CD (36 0 0 9000 Ct;~_ .-J Â·~1 . . 4 6 u./ - 0 Ct MOVT+Wgl +6h. Â® 0 r 1 tri- 1.1 1724'11 ..SIGÂ«>&1141 1,lilli ' 1 1111 i ' â€¢ 20 Ga. (1're--Ftleteek) corr~gated 1 1 corten steel roofing Orbituthane 2~ 3 1 11 \Ed :I ,!ill; 1 1, , 0/3/4" plywood decking 0/ 2x12 roof rafters W/ r-30 ban insulation ~ illi i ' i 1 #i! ' 1 1 'Ii' If 1 11.1 . . It -1 * i # 11 11 -11 - # -11 11 IL 11 - -11- ~ - =T 1. 1 11 -11 IL .11 + 11-~*CH-- 1 1 -1 1 1 1-5 T.O. Plywd. ~ - - - - - '4 - - i Existing Barn wood siding 0/ 1 - M - i; '1 -/ i 1< 4 1 1- â€¢ "tyvec" building paper 0/ Ill 1/2" plywd. sheathing 0/ 2x6 stud wall W/ R-19 batt. 11 1 1 11 j : il , 1 1 1.1 - __ 4~ insulation. 1/ 1 1 11 - 1 lili - ---29 i - Existing barn door &track ' /4 #tic A / i I .t-- â€¢ 20 Ga. Conugated Corten Steel 1 U 1~ %44 T.O. Plywd. 11 (-te.4 W/barnwood sill . 1 - - 14- 1- - 1 1 1 i,1 1 i q! 1. - 1 1 1 t f 4-1/4 -1 1 I 1 1 : 1 1 1/: 1 1 1 1 --11 - 1 1 I 1 , 1/11 1 11 Illl,l 11; 1 1 -- - -=1 T.O. Conc. * 1-1---- _ - - OVA\-0 1 West Elevation ( U u'~1 e'V 1 21.0 utefr Lici-~ oul, Scale 1/4" = 1' 00" Â® ... 1 1,1 1 1 -1 -H 1 142 ..-73. 1 *i- 1 r..1,!flill 1 1 1 + i il l . ..r./0t 1 d + lifw 1 lilli! 1 111: 11 f A 1. 1 E 4 !11 ''14, - 1 l i '4111.11 ill '1 1 . 1 :!i-Efil- 1L f -i__ - 1 4 1, . tr 'Jilli 1 1 It .1 11 li li . f . _...L .-1- _ -__I- -_~ 1~ i' r. * T.O. Plywd [1 li " -- 1 1-- ill # 11 U - 11.- 11 1111 111 111 1 -Il ..~1 ':2 e 1 2 18 , 1.*-|L -4 04#- 11- - 1 1 1-11 1 Il i, 1 11 11 11 ' - 1 li '1111 11 11 -1 ililtil' 'i;li,~~ililili it 1 11= i 11.!1:11, 1111 11 1 1 lilli .1,!11 J 1 . , L * T.O. Plywd ' i Â·._4 -3-N ' 0. 1/ -irt Â· - I ... .11. f: b::Â·*.Â·~Â£ 2- _ 1 - A-----4 . 1 i f E----1 . 1 1 . 1 1 11 E-9-3 'I 1 1 E-Tr-7 I ' 1 1 1 1-----1 L __ _] 1 -----1 | 1 1 -----1 4 - -l 1 - -1 1 - 1 T.O. Conc. -1 -r r - 1 4- - - lifl -I'll- ------ I--0 -Il.- ' i East Elevation SCRIA 1/4" - 10 - 11 SNOI1Â¥A313 90,6:486Â·COE , 1 1019 '00 uods, i 00Â¥80100' N3dSV 1 3 3 8 19 W 3 d O O 0 1SV3 6 Â£ 6 *e.1 '10 11!W 'U 999 1 40 1 $10 01!4.0,0 eoueP!80&1 WeleH 4 r-L fa 4 , il 1 r . 11 - 2 0 1 -- I - - -- t 4=-1 -\ 4 1 - - 1 . -23=0--1 -- -2= ; J 2 - - Â» 1-1 - HIf . ti Ci 1-: 1 I 1 -- . - . . 1 - 11 11 -- -7 7 - I 1 -- 1 1 .1 - - - Irm=:11 ~ ' 11 -- a -=1 - 1~ 1 111 '1-11-_.11==11 1 1 4-- 1 -- - 1 1 .. .. .. -, E---I-i-4 1 1 -- c. : f- 4 it; 1 6 1 1 1 1 , LL - " - , L = â€ž17/L eleos 1 lili 1 11 1 11..il 1 1 , 11 l i 1 Flit .: .1 T.O. Plywd. ~6035 61 â€žO- , = "t,/1 eleos UWAGIE' 41nOS - ill - -n - I â‚¬ 0 j . 0701 1 1 917Â·Nlih Â· BA - /0/ 4- 'el ',Fa 1 1 0 VA 42 43 UU NAL /:9%111 1 1 11 Fit 'WF O.tr-703990..==Zimi| 4 I r ke> 2[12 1, < 1 0 . .1.6 - ..a- - p ' 9Â· teâ€¢4......=:iâ€ž. a n Rti= -1-/. t. 1 imflt, <1 1 *aw Â« foll /LL+A<41[li"~1, 1.v 4 5 - -. f,lit,=e-- -7-9 : 211 e 4 2 .2 11 1 +4 i 4#4.0 44.Ill, , !11 11 ;1 â€¢11~ .. - 5 1-r .- 8~; Â·: 1 Â·i i . +Lf:U:rixilikimi#limulaff# 4 il.1.1 ' *11'~SC-Â·45**Â· ...25- . D p. 1 1 1 ~ I~33*k)2'~1~ 4 t 1 ~12''l 1! 1 I ,&*- br k.mp :t 1 1 0 t-:Mi , .Â· 22-.-Il. i . 01 191 0 910 /1 0 21=1 81,Â«:jew-k f 19': r r. ..: --t I 0 L 4/- -r- f 283 4 - Â»/3 O 0 11 11 8 .11 1 - 1111.I. 16. 4 8 U Â·2%**â€¢Ut:L',11+A , 11- F2* #19&24#)i:$[ 0 a e *05, 1 1 :it #Mil.14> 15(\A 1 1 *1*'- i Â«540*14 f ...14 -4,-'i.ilt.1 6 -th"f'111 ttliftiÂ·Â·* -- Â·- - -af *A"t.tr.=I=,B-- - ' - I , . h-1 0 t U 44- Ch, CÂ»*Criw=I D. 0 ,, 00 _:*09 40131/5 /3*--11 613 f > 2, Â·Â·' ; 1 J I J 11-1, .. -Â£-=2~- Â»-1. 1... . 1 it i 1 $ gLL. . ..it,4-AN. 001. * -~ Ki- 8+11 . 9. 'M- + -91 [t-1111 [1~_1[111#Ll[[[[ 11: 8: . 5 Â»* LF.%5#j-2--4-S'-DE*,M 4 4-4 920 CO e . ...7, 1.31'irk NmÂ·*t:"2,,iÂ·fÂ»e r41f 1 t, 7~ttr-6'-?'Â«. _ 4&-1,J , ,a 't.'17-%4*U;-'~'.-iÂ·Â·It-tÂ·~~ 6 O Jarti .3 M. 1. 7"n,Â»4*""4 1 -'.4... &43I11.J# 4 5..- . 20 4,1 9 h ittift*%14..14*ijai A ,-Il 7-I.::- Wâ€¢â€¢~ *L:.. '1 . u /31 Â· I 1 *42*N -4.r . . . . T . / . ' ! - 1 . . - I 1 1 .11. - t . f :' 1 1/ Â· T--1 i 4. 0 11.jill it !:1 I.:iIi. -- j 11 21 1 1 - li- I i *i ' 1.!i:ill il.jiN : .. ..1, i ' lili:ili - .: --I .. , , 1 ..1 :1 1:.. t --. -- .. I . ii - ':. ! 1 'ji.1 10. 1 ilit i Â· lifil; i!Â·; :6 ;fil iii - -1 I : I''i & 1, I. ,t I .itil i :illi j : till i;..!ii;: Â· :ili, '. i . 1 :S .. : 4 ..il: iii i i di : I: .1 1 1 ':.i:.:1 1 il - --- -- - - - INS'rt. Ul,Ev hipnf NÂ®(* UM*,Lo &(EVPPYI 939 EAST COOPER . 0 NEW BARN E I . . -/9,/Al.42%~ -./.'.:*-/~t~.r-- ,d~J#*~~M/#rnittl/f#E~ . - #812/5/lithir~4~1/E~SigW/~~~~~~~~7&~/Sdag\ /~~ 1.1."4~v-.*Bri-v,w1:AIA .1, --A: 1,%*Â£132,&=mt - 552=m? =~M=guxi~~~**(~~iwi~~Â©p - ;93@2222ZEEEmEEZil*Imill-0 i.t'/Imill _' r-p--gimzi~N/11'1"/im/"&=1~#..:~~~~~~~ F.0.;=:,5:-.I-.Ill,i'/,;,=~= Raw'Elil -,I, 0~:-'BA::fE&.: -dn~~*+X':*e'>5Â·h -P â€¢Â· + --*--- -rd'e.m.---42--:.........I--... 2 - Â·# 4*=~â‚¬31---Â·=/8-'le.....'I...j&kill,Z:E~ 11=2~EE~~e'. i'/ ./ m -I I---1~9~-4.-El'yj: 11101-=1 Â£ ,;t. ..â€¢11â€¢; -- 2 :*Ef~Â·ibi i -1. .. ... + .. being requested in order to accommodate this proposal. Both of the existing historic structures will be retained i through this proposal, including the outbuilding, which has been of concern to the Committee. The applicant proposes to relocate the historic house to the west of the property, so that the porch is exposed along the courtyard and to move the barn to the southwest corner of the property. The asphalt shingles and modern windows will be removed from the historic house, to be replaced with double hungs. Any information which can be found on the original appearance of the structure through photos or physical evidence would help in making the changes more accurate. The proposed picture window on the first floor of the north facade does not seem to suit the other Victorian features on this structure and should be restudied. New windows are to be added to the barn in order to convert it to living space. In general, the proposal does seem to preserve the character of this structure in terms of its form and materials. The design of Cottage "B" is particularly important because of its location between two historic structures. It is the only unit in this proposal which uses a different roof form than a gable, which Staff finds should be restudied. In addition, the garage is the most prominent element of this house. It should be recessed so that the main entrance is more prominent and should also in some way acknowledge the one story element of the neighboring historic building (although it is not an original portion of that building). Both Cottages "B" and "D" also have heavy stone foundations which have not been used traditionally in Aspen. In general, Cottage "D"'s form and massing are compatible with the other structures on the site. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Today the neighborhood is characterized mostly by large multi-family developments, with a few single family and detached structures. Several historic properties surround 939 E. Cooper. 939 E. Cooper is a particularly large vacant parcel for this neighborhood. Although additional houses existed on this site in Victorian times, they have been torn down and Staff estimates that the parcel has been open for at 4 .. least the last fifty years. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not 0 detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that in general relocating historic structures does negatively impact the cultural value of a historic resource. However, the historic house currently sits in the middle of the site and relocation does allow a more sympathetic grouping of small units around it, rather than constructing one new mass similar to the Katie Reid project. 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 improve the architectural integrity of the historic house, by removing incompatible modern elements. Converting the barn to living space will require a good deal of "beefing up" of the existing building. Every effort should be made to limit the impacts on the exterior character of the building as much as possible, SO that it will continue to read as a historic outbuilding. Partial Demolition PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of the one story rear portion of the historic building. This element was constructed before 1904. 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structureÂ® Response: The applicant proposes to remove 66 sq.ft. of the rear portion of the building and to put a second story on top of it. Staff finds that the 66 sq. ft. does 5 0 .. not need to be removed. The addition of the second story ~-1 is not ideal, but may be unavoidable, given the courtyard configuration, which is a benefit to the project. The architect should find some way to indicate that area of the building was previously one story. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: This may be accomplished as described under standard 1. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The character of the one and a half story house with a smaller element to the rear should be retained as much as possible. Special Review- Overlay Zone District SUMMARY: This project is located in the East Aspen neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for East Aspen (Chapter 2) will be applied. The special review process is mandatory as is compliance with the Committee's findings. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that some aspects of this proposal should be restudied to be in compliance withthe general and specific neighborhoodguidelines. Rather than discuss each guideline (including those which are met), only the elements of the proposal which warrant further discussion are highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines have been grouped together by subject. Mass and Scale General Guidelines- 2. New buildings should appear to be similar in scale to those in the established neighborhood, or to the scale that is desired for the neighborhood. Response: Although Cottage "B" is in scale with the rest of the proposal, the windows on the east elevation (which are not very detailed in the drawings) appear to be overly large. 6 Site Design Specific Guidelines- 19. Provide a front yard in all development. Response: If possible, the outside parking space on Cottage "B" should be grasscrete to limit the amount of paving. Garages General Guidelines- 12. Minimize the visual impact of garages. Response: As described above, the garage on Cottage "B" should be less prominent. Also, the garage doors on Cottage "D" could be "divided" so that they appeared to be separate. Service Areas General Guidelines- 14. Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. Response: Little information is provided about service areas, and Staff is concerned not only about their visibility but also that * adequate area will be provided for trash, storage, etc. Impact on Historic Buildings General Guidelines-16. New buildings should avoid negative impacts on adjacent historic properties. Response: Cottage "B" should have at least some one story element which steps down to the adjacent historic building on the west. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation of Lot A and 75'x100' of Cleveland Avenue, East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Staff recommends that the remainder of the proposal be tabled to Nov. 9, after a thorough discussion and evaluation of the project by HPC at this meeting. This is a complicated project with a lot of detail to be reviewed. Additional study should be given to the treatment of Cottages "A," "B" and "D" and the site plan as described above. Additional Comments: 7 EAST COOPER COURT LAND USE APPLICATION HPC LANDMARK DESIGINATION CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SPECIAL REVIEW NOVEMBER 2.1994 . 4 1) - *oject Name ~E,NER-f- C.23OPE.2~- C Sh\>G'T 6 ..........I-- I. 2) project Incaticn 9 22:\ E C.00962- 49 P l_c-T A 24-00Â£ 37r E 75' *10(b' c<F- 0.:EfE:LAAJO 91-- Elhefr- 42<PEN Acc:>mon (I--VOF ASFE,1 Cindie:ate street acklress, lot & block 'Iz=be/, . legal descziedÂ£*1 wbeke r-~-- 3) Preserrt zcning 72'Th N 4) Iat Size j b (EDÂ£3 41 5) Applicarrt's Name, Mdress & Phone #jffhpAPP, C.COL,Aben, 9bu:E2- chÂ¥: NITgeadEA - ' 1 -R\C&*to Chou<bÂ¢-3 \B -2EEZ-Tial L rbeel-252.r?. ..COÂ· q.eass.~- Â©+AD#~p=joe -%44 - 05% \ 61 pepribli2tivels Name, Mdress * 2Â¤hs # 806. i thhizz#ELJ- 1-U::44*9 p.<b.(201 %<EF&:E, At:FER b.1\L\1- 4.Bbb-=740 --'9:A B . 7) Type of Appliaticn (please check all that apply): c=xlitional Use - ax~ptual sa - _2_ axwf19*131 His=zic Dev. 14 Special Revis~ - Final SPA - Final Histacic Dev. 8040 Greenline Oct=pbal FOD - Minor Historic Dev. - Stream Margin - Final FOD - Histozic De=iLition lecrtain View Plane N Slbdivisicn hi_ HU=ic Designal:icn Cx~nit&nizatirn JV_ Troc#Map AIDefxi=Ent -- (214 Allotment Â· 5,21"1. ... U N _ Ic,t Split/Iat Lane -7 : . \1 Gaas E.Emitfull .Â· .:4 -- I. -11.-Â·. 05 0 8) Descripticn of Existing Uses (m=65&- and type of edstire stroctures; appmximne sq. ft.; n=ber of bedcocms; any pzevia= aug:ovals granted tb the property) o... 1 5\ Ue\,E FCU-U\9 \ACH F *999 S.\ Mba-LY \ 4 50 se . 1=7 Â· . - /1 - ut> \TH E 82Â¤22534% birr \ 12.61--A. \ SAE.Ib 26 ' * 224 blI,R At 'E~H UL L.C:,PT Â· 9 ) Desciption of Develcpoerrt Application 92â‚¬%22<EloK:) CF CÂ»EN \C.T-023 Â»23 W\Â©e.ILS Car*GE ADO grbe- cur a.\3\ LJ:9â‚¬36Â·Â·. 612*:b AOS\'CAÂ· 1*UEE 400\TIONAL 'P-ke~\ 2:r~6Â» To Câ‚¬.EATF=. A Â· h,D\ - COMM\pluf-~-9 . CC*bs\'5~hoe>1 ap ATUT-AL 61= b Â¥=m:EE M A.2-LET Â£, 1 EMiPLONâ‚¬k.' PrOME- S . 10) Have you attached the following? 1 Response to Attadmerrt 2, Minim= Slimissicxt Corrtents Response to Attadm=rt 3, Specific Submission Contents - Resporse to Attact=errt 4, Revier Stardards for Your Application SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORICAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of cleanfullylabeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"X17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11-X17" format APPUCANT: 1 ADDRESS: ZONE DISTRICT: AN- Rm F 7473'. LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET) 4600 600 D ID ?300 EXISTING FAR: 600 (90 4 199)644 %% 5 ALLOWABLE FAR: 3%*AD EGO(5 PROPOSED FAR: â‚¬26 IE 8447 EXISTING NET LEASABLE (Commercial): 111& 1,& PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (Commercial): ~~- 0/4 EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE: PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE: EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PROPOSED MAXWUM HBGHT: PROPOSED % OF DEMOUTION: EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 10 lot,ZE>u EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 0 2- ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: $ 7 SEIRACKS: Af; Emr ALLOWABLE: /11* F#lf PROPOSED: a AN.Â· EXISTING: Front 10 /0 Front 10 to Front 2' /O Reac 8 8 Reac Rear: 2, â‚¬ Side: ON}*AL.0 Vâ‚¬ 4/ Side: Side: Combined Frt/Rn 1% 13 Combined Fr#Rr: 00 20 Combined Frt/Rr 4' \IFT EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks only character comoatibilitv finding must be made bv HPC): '64 .1 4/77,# AR tlrop FAR: 40* ~ Minimum Distance Between ~uildingsi / 1 SETBACKS: Front 10 Parking Spaces: C G-:; 03 2, 1 6 (7 -2 9 J Rear. G. 16 ' Open Space (Commerdal): . 0 Side: 3 . 2/ Height (Cottage Infill Only): 1 1 '\ Combined Frt/Rr.,4, F' Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): .! 6 i 1 1 9 &Â¢(114 FM' Routo Acco tu), Wk (,4 Fl . .. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~ The East Cooper Court project is designed to inject family oriented energy into the Aspen Area Community. The project will provide 5 families with free standing homes in a configuration that promotes socialization and interaction. The project is working to use the best intentions of both the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines and the Aspen Area Community Plan. It is sensitive to the historic nature of the property by preserving the existing house and outbuilding and responsive to the community concerns by providing family housing as well as 2 deed restricted employee units. The East Cooper Court project proposes subdividing the 10,500 sq.ft existing parcel into 2 parcels. The first parcel, consisting of 6,000 sq.ft. would keep the relocated historic house and R/MF zoning and under the guidelines of the Historic Preservation Incentive Program a second home would be built . For the second 4,500 sq.ft.parcel we are requesting rezoning to Affordable Housing to allow the outbuilding to be relocated and remodeled as an employee 'deed restricted unit. Two additional units Would be added, one free market and one additional employee RO unit. REVIEW STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION The Cowling Court Project meets standards B ,E and F. for historic designation. B. The structure or site reflects and architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response; The style and Architecture is a one which has so often been lost in the past few years. The redevelopment of this parcel would help restore some of the past charm to the neighborhood F. 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 ther structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response; This site represents the modest scale, style and character of homes consructed during the mining era and it is a feeling any style that we wish to preserve and recreate in the additional structures. 0 E. The structure or site is a significant f -i component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintainence of that neighborhood character. Response; There are a number of victorian structures in the immediate vicinity, mixed with the results of redevelopment in the past few years of larger structures. The Cowling Court proposal could bring back some of the lost charm to this neighborhood, which is a major entrance to Aspen in the summer. 0 1 .. 0)' 10/24 94 09:27 ID: FAX:303-920-1628 PAGE 1 October 24, 1994 Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Committee City of Aspen 130 S. Galana St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Amy, The following iâ€¢ our response to the Special Raviaw request for our projectÂ® An historic miner's cabin that has been sensitively and faithfully preserved and expanded will set the tone for the East Cooper Court Project. Occupying one hundred and five feet of frontage on the north side of Cooper Avenue, the project gita stands at the eastern entrance to the traditional core of Aspen. The successful preservation of an historic barn, in addition to the miner'a cottage,will be complimented by the addition of two free standing zingle family homes as well as a new replicated barn that will also function as a single family home. The middle third of the property will be preserved as open space to a depth of fifty feet to provide a permanent play area for the children who will live in the neighborhood. The East Cooper Court Project responds positively and specifically to the design goals for the East Aspen Neighborhood. The five single family residences are all small in scale and done in the interest of preserving the existing character of the neighborhood. Tha project is two lots east of the Ritz-Carlton employee housing project, a modular three atory affair that has a negative historic connotation. In contrast, the East Cooper Court Project wishes to create five free standing homes in harmony with the original character and intent of the neighborhood, rather than a large multi-family unit or several duplexes. The entire project will be designated an historic landmark. East Cooper Court will take advantage of the flavor provided both by the miners cottages in the area, as well as the ski lodges that surround us by employing the â€¢ame type of material and architecture. East Cooper Court will provide a sidewalk to enhance the walking experience in the neighborhood. The East Cooper Court Project will serve as the single best anchor to maintaining and enhancing the design character of Aspen'a eastern accaasway. Sincerely, , Bob and Darnal. -Agley 10/21 '94 08:58 ID: FAX:303-920-1628 PAGE 2 OC~~~,-,3. 12:23 'POMâ€¢LAW OFFICES ID,3034436478 PACE 2/2 October 17, 1994 Lul i o LaÂ»ent City of Upan Planning and Ioning Departmâ€¢nt 130 5. Galina St. Aâ€¢pon, 00 81611 28: 939 E. Cooper Ave. D.ar 1/911.. My mother, Jenny Cowling in tha owner of racord of the above referenced property, whose legal dâ€¢,cription ia iAll af Lot A, in Block 37, East Aspen Additional Townsitâ€¢ Entry, am thewn on the plat ricardid as documant 10. 108453 in bitch Book 11 at page 252 of the records for Pitkin County, and that portion of Cleveland Street lying â€¢outherly of the south ling of goopir Avenue and northerly ot the north line of the alley, lying adjacent to and vistarly of Lot A. gaid Block 37. and lying â€¢asterly of the east ling of lot 1, Block 118, Aspen Townsite' I havo power of attorney from her, and Danage thâ€¢ proparty. My addres@ 12 118 Diar Trail, Boulder. CO â€¢0302, ay phone numb*r i, 303-444-0591. Bob and Darnell Langloy arâ€¢ under contract to purchaâ€¢â€¢ the property. Z undâ€¢ritand that they ara going through thi progess of having tha property subdividad and designated an hiatoric landmark. We Bgreâ€¢ to lit the I.angley' a instituta the autborizatian proeâ€¢â€¢9 with the undaritanding that final approval will be granted only if they cloia on the purchage. r' -56 -Â£&444&Arl Janny /Coiling by Richard Cowling rover of Attorney J 0 . ASP~l~ C + h 0 -~=-21 sage a 8 teS. n=Vitage-0-7*'g .....0 a RED f WEST MEADOW BU Q i WEST ASPEN Â·P d M<Mtten Vle- Or \ 82 16( BUNNY M C SNOW . , MEADOWOOD AVH u, w 4 sne/Bu~ U, Daine Ct..a fic , CASTLE CREEK ~ BLACK BIRCH _0#-0 0- 4 JANS~AAR==nd - -am-2.0, C/2 -J 71h Sffee' _ _1 ~0= GREEN 1 \1 MUS,C Asoen i'* Tent Ahstinde M Sweet -4# \.1 ell i & 1 ASPE~ -z \SECOND/ Am Slfee, Dr -0 1 1 7; 4, e =1 liz ltd Sheet - 2nd Street 7 1 Elf f rt= / \. 10 Street 5 1 0 - __ )/.0.2,:C / 8 !0 Gcrrrâ€¢ch st LAKE Â· L791 -11- Aoomo 6 OF RED 16 RED ~MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN i I Man,cr, St Red Mo#Jaton WCQr- PCrk M. St f i Aspen hl-1 i -5 -22/'09 i i 4 i 0 0 1 + VIEW ~ H,#Ast Cr-fer St MOUNTAIN E- i i -9 .........1......... i _ 1 s.~% St U i 1*DomON OKLAHO Mountain 4 FLATS 4 i .%-:.2 iF-Â·- , r we Ene St 4 cALOWW0021 1 1 *it* 06â€¢ OcIe # RED UNCH GO~ prQI ket Park Aver,Je SUNNY PARK ' ic aÂ·hon < 42 M-ana Av.r.we 0 4 $ ASPEN GROVE KNOUWCCO MOUNTAIN 82 VALLEY TO .,0.0.0-Câ€¢ Pi= $ f 13 tl [how IN . 4 .. .. ....... I - - C Ll a 6-1- W-c s,49 L,-1-4, RLE 3-7 a 41&- Lo-1- A j A U- 3 7 â‚¬Lci57 (49 944 ~T~~ lonS'V~t Â· ~Â· COOPER AVE. N...7 ...'..r..., 4 ... ...: I , 1 , t , n :Â· '.1,1. ' .......lili. './0 ..... 1 1,â€¢CE col.,1 /O./.1/' 1 / 1.3/1 â€¢ 1 1,/0.1 .â€¢ u. .EEL ON Im ... ....1. .'.1.,C C.' ....1. ..ST..a 1..... Y&6-Â·Â· 1 ....." 1 .ETÂ¥.g. 1..... 1 - I. - 4 1 F I ....1 r- f.....TE 6. . 4 .. 6.. I . 1.' . 1 . ./ 1 , . r-- 1 14 .1\v ..1. 1. C 1,1.1,1.1....14 Bil.4...rtr' ~ - *4= 68, -a.1, 0, ...... I ..... ........ . 0.. e "..W..... 1.-I ...... 1) *4Lf. ....9...... ...,4. j . j - E Ht.E ...1 . r, NO=-21 m Ck 1 3/ . DO MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Maintenance Guide DATE: March 25, 1996 As part of Aspen's annual "Certified Local Government" grant allotment, a maintenance guide for historic houses was created last spring. Please read through the information and offer any comments that you'd like to see incorporated into the final product. This guide will be made available to the public. I . 0 MAINTENANCE GUIDE FOR HISTORIC HOUSES 0 Aspen Historic Presenration Program j 0 I. , MAINTENANCE GUIDE Over time, natural forces can have a detrimental effect on the condition of your home. However, simple routine maintenance can help preserve a building for years to come. It is important for every homeowner to identify evidence of decay in its early stages and to undertake proper maintenance. This effort will ultimately save money by prolonging the vitality of your home. Many home maintenance problems can be solved by the homeowner; others require the assistance of an experienced contractor. This guide can be used as a basic reference to locate and correct existing or potential problems in the condition of your house as well as to suggest when to call a professional. Causes of Decay The single most destructive force for any building is moisture. Moisture can get into the fabric of a house and cause extensive damage by creating a breeding ground for fungus, mold, mildew, and insects. Water actually breaks up the molecular structure of materials which hold a building together. Moisture can become an even more destructive force when combined with extreme temperatures. Gravity is another essential element in the deterioration of structures. Over time, gravity pulls on the structure of a building while the ground beneath settles. This results in cracks in the foundation walls, plaster walls, out-of-square windows, doors, etc. As suggested above, temperature fluctuations can accelerate the rate of decay. Extremes in temperature and humidity levels can cause a building to expand and contract which adds stress to building joints. It is necessary for the homeowner to identify areas where joints have opened and seal them before water damage can occur. However,it is important not to trap water where penetration has already taken place. Other destructive forces which are of concern are ultraviolet light, wind, and manmade pollutants. Ultraviolet light weakens and dulls paint. Wind helps rain and snow penetrate into the fabric of a house and pollutants such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide dissolve limestone or time mortar and corrode metals. A combination of these elements accounts for most building deterioration. In order to minimize the amount of damage over time, the source of decay must first be identified and eliminated. This requires that the homeowner examine the house as a whole, understanding how building systems work together. If one part of the building fails due to decay, it may lead to damage in other parts of the building, increasing repair costs. It is beneficial to inspect your home soon after a rainstorm, when drainage patterns and moisture problems may be most evident. Binoculars may be helpful, especially when inspecting the roof. South facing walls b and roof planes tend to sustain the most damage from weather because they are exposed to . ' sunlight year round. North facing walls and roof planes tend to have moisture damage because the matenals may remain damp longer than in other areas. 1 I . INSPECTION CHECKLIST- EXTERIOR I. ROOF The roof is the most exposed portion of the house and Nays an essential role in keeping a house weathertight. For this reason, proper and ongoing maintenance is essential, including routine replacement of materials when needed. â€¢ Asphalt shingles are in need of replacement if they are thinning, torn, the edges are worn or nails are popping up. â€¢ A metal roof may need replacement where there are rust spots or streaks, punctures, or broken joints and seams. â€¢ Wooden shingles may need replacement if they are warning or thinning. Do not lay new wood shingles over old ones. Other types of roofing may be laid over old wood shingles. It is possible to remove and replace individual shingles. Replacement shingles should match the existing shingles in terms of size, shape, thickness, shingle exposure. and wood species. For new roofing, red cedar shingles, number one grade are recommended as they are resistant to decay. For historic structures, shingles, not shakes are the appropriate material. Shakes are larger, thicker and more roughly cut than wood shingles and are out of scale with many historic structures. Wood shingle roofs are usually about twice as expensive as asphalt shingle roofs, but have a significantly longer life span. ., 7 I/.1 r ~Lr ' . . ... -.4,)18/i:+41*1$~lit#(Wriv 1 'VIiÂ·.ri~. 1 - '13Â· 94.-1'7-Â·'-i- Â¥; 2; 1-~ 4 ., - 3,4-9,4,- ~-[Â¥533491. .:3.23. 'rl: + , 0Â¥.aN * -i j. _Ii---r k. #*.Â· ~Â·fl;oÂ·JE~~ Â· 41>4}79~~ 1 ' 2...: . - - -- p ..:..5 3.lk:,4% Â»*.4.40*4'Cu 9-1'.0 1. tr 6- --...... -- .....- . ,--. ... .....x----' . *- 2 7 23.....4.2--1 .- . Â· Â· ' iâ€žAl Â».-Â·'9*,0,4W,â€¢- r =.Â·- 4Â·â€¢,Â¤.10.4 Iti/â‚¬ UtÂ·i -~ .1 - .44 22Â«1â‚¬9Â· 2 .., â€¢ If the roof is sagging between the trusses or at the ridge line, water damage to the roof framing system is likely. The most obvious evidence of water damage to the roof may be found inside the attic. Look inside the attic for leaks around chimneys and vents and inspect the framing members for water damage. Examine the roof sheathing, especially near the eaves and at the intersection of roof planes, where snow tends to collect. Look for dampness, staining, rotted wood, condensation, and insect damage. â€¢ Look for indications of biological growth such as moss or mold Surrounding trees may have an affect on the condition of a roof. Shading from trees may prevent roof materials from drying out, and it is important to check for tom or punctured shingles as a result of surrounding vegetation. â€¢ If water gets underneath the roofing material it can create ice floes, dislodge roofing material and cause the roof framing system to rot. â€¢ Leaks in the roof should be attended to immediately. If necessary, carefully cover the leak with plywood or roll roofing as a temporary measure. n. FLASHING Any opening made in a roof, such as for chimneys. is a vulnerable area for water penetration. Deterioration of roof flashing can quickly result in deterioration of the entire building. Seams between the roof and all building components such as the chimney, dormers, soffit vents, weather vane, gutters, and valleys must be in good condition to allow proper water runoff. Be aware that flashing can easily become loose or corroded. â€¢ Install top quality roof flashing when possible â€¢ Rusted or loose flashing is an obvious sign that it is in need of replacement. â€¢ Install heat tape along the edge of the roof or a continuous length of flashing to keep snow from accumulating. III. CHIMNEY The chimney needs special attention due to its high profile position and exposure to pollutants. â€¢ Every chimney should have a chimney cap, to keep water from penetrating the masonry. If your chimney does not have a cap, one should be put on immediately. â€¢ Look for brick and mortar deterioration. Spalling or cracking of the brick or loose and missing bricks or mortar are signs of water damage. Exfoliation (splitting of the outer surface) or efflorescence (presence of salt on the surface of the outer walls) may also be an indication of excessive moisture within the walls of the chimney. â€¢ If a chimney is leaning, it may be due to the thickening of mortar on the side of the chimney which receives wind driven rain. This can be corrected by the use of a tie rod. â€¢ If the chimney has had major damage, it may need to be dismantled down to the roof then reassembled. Be sure to use an appropriate mortar type, and imitate the original configuration 3 I ./ of the chimney and width of mortar joints exactly. IV. GUTTERS Gutters allow water to escape from the surface of the building so that penetration cannot occur. If gutters become clogged, this process becomes inhibited. â€¢ Make sure the gutter is clear of all debris and is angled at a slopping position so that water can empty into the drain pipe. Gutters should be cleaned twice a year (in the early summer and late fall after the leaves have fallen). Screens placed in the gutter will help keep debris out. â€¢ Inspect whether the gutters are loose, cracked, or rusting. Gutters must be secured against the edge of the roof to collect all roof runoff. Any leakage will result in deterioration to the structure below. To make sure there is no space for water to penetrate between the gutter and the roofline, all shingles should overlap the gutters edge that abuts the cornice. â€¢ Make sure that water is carried a sufficient distance away from the building foundation (see Common Maintenance Procedures V. Improving Foundation Drainage). V. EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior walls protect the interior of the house from environmental elements and bear the weight of the roof and floors. If moisture penetrates the walls, it can be detrimental to the structure of the house. A common way for water to enter the exterior walls is through capillary action, a process in which water from the ground is literally sucked into the walls. This is called "rising damp," evidenced by a tide mark left on the building wall. Water can enter the building through open joints and cracks. If this moisture becomes trapped, damage is inevitable. For this reason, proper ventilation in the walls is necessary. To reduce the initial possibility of water entering the walls, water must be drained and directed away from the foundation (see Common Maintenance Procedures V. Improving Foundation Drainage). â€¢ Check the joints between all building components for water damage. Special consideration should be given to areas where siding abuts corner boards. foundation, window frames, door frames. porches, and chimneys. All joints should be caulked. Check to be sure wooden siding is not cracked, loose, cupped or missing. All missing siding must be replaced immediately before water can enter the house. All cracks in the siding must be sealed with caulk. Proper caulking techniques will be discussed later (see Common Maintenance Procedures I. Caulking) â€¢ Make sure all walls are properly ventilated. One way to identify poor ventilation is the presence of peeling pint. If poor ventilation is suspected, the safest way to fix the problem is through consulting an experienced contractor. â€¢ Under no circumstances should a water sealant be applied to an exterior masonry wall. This will eliminate the wall's ability to breathe, trapping water inside. If this moisture crystallizes or freezes, it will cause the surface of the masonry to pop. off, due to the force of expansion. Water must be able to travel out as easily as it can travel in. ' j â€¢ If mold or mildew is growing underneath the shutters, they need to be positioned further from the wall. 4 I I e Make sure that no cracks or open joints are present at the building eaves or comices. All decorative trim must be securely attached to the building and all joints caulked. 14''',- 1%#r'ihifiallorid . . - v.-4:9 /4. i -2,-.711-- t - le.4 13- 2-Â·- '-1917>;i *:-331Â¢69'440*B'*. L -I J. ..1.6 00.r Y. , â€¢ Cracks in masonry walls are a primary indicator that settlement has taken place and that structural damage has occurred. Special attention should be given to vertical cracks through brick. Not until the source of the cracks has been found and corrected should the cracks be fixed. All cracks should be sealed. Cracks that stairstep along mortar joints and cracks over doors and windows are usually not as serious. â€¢ The exterior walls should be checked periodically to determine whether any structural damage has occurred due to stress or overload. Out-of-plum walls are an indication that there is structural damage. If the walls appear to be less than vertical, there may be need for inspection. Look for water damage on the interior plaster walls. Walls that are very out-of- plum need to be fixed by a professional carpenter or mason immediately. To check if a wall is plum, hang a plumb bob from the gutter or the edge of the roofline. A plum bob can be made by attaching a solid heavy object on the end of a string. Once the plumb bob is still, measure the distance between the string and the wall in several locations. Any change in distance from previous measurements indicates movement in the wall. â€¢ Look for bulges and sags in the walls. Although some bulges or sags may not be sgrious, each should be monitored to determine if the problem is becoming worse. Take a long 'straight two-by- four and place it vertically against the sag in the wall. Measure the distancej between the edge of the two-by-four and the wall. This exercise should allow the homeowner to determine the extent of the damage. Measure sags routinely to monitor wall movement. 5 .. â€¢ Bricks used on the exterior of a house are usually " face brick." These bricks were closest to the center of the kiln, are fairly dark in color and have a hard fired surface. It is very impollant to protect this surface, because the interior of the brick is softer and very susceptible to moisture damage. Do not use abrasive materials on masonry, such as sandblasting. Avoid damage to the corners, or arrises of the brick. â€¢ Be aware of loose mortar accompanied by loose or spalling brick. These are all indications of water penetration. Fixing these problems will prove to be wasted time unless the source of the penetration is identified and eliminated. When new mortar is being applied, make sure the new mixture is compatible in strength, aggregate size, tooling, joint size, texture, and color. No more than 15 % of new mortar mix should be portland cement. Portland cement is a much harder substance than lime based mortar and can easily damage soft brick (see Common Maintenance Procedures IV. Fixing Cracks in Masonry). , .:tÂ· *Â· 0 -- .. , 4 . - k I . 14 ,.- Â· + A.. , CA ' .. 14,1, . VI. FOUNDATION Like the exrerior walls, the foundation is extremely vulnerable to rising ground water, settlement, and stress overload. This can be identified generally through et-florescence on the ;urface of the masonry along with spalling of the masonry and deterioration of mortar. Again. , these problems should not be fixed without identifying and controlling the source(see Common j Maintenance Procedures V. Improving Foundation Drainage). All cracks should then be sealed and continually monitored(see Common Maintenance Procedures IV. Fixing Cracks in Masonry). The basement is an excellent place to identify i f any damage to the foundation wall has occurred. 6 4, Some historic houses in Aspen do not have a foundation. Others are set on rock foundations, or have brick or stone foundations. The latter two are sometimes covered with plaster. Concrete foundations were usually built within this century. 1--4 .2.-~tÂ·.zw<>.:~ EF.J'r-39Â»Â·aÂ·Â·Â·331'.Â°1'I~ . Â·C' ~" 1'.-'=--42-= i- ~~~~~-'~~-F.,-- Â· L t t'Â£ 1 77* AJ~4*Â· 9.0- 0 :4 . . .:, b . 1 2397'1 50~Â·*t~~4 ' _*Â· _1Â·pÂ·>2.-.; ~:1..Â·~.5Â».3?K'69Â»0Â·'3Â£132 'AÂ·-~ 3,&2 - 37 -n' -4-~ .6 .., 7 2.,I .9.-.7Â»03Â«49*3442 â‚¬%034;~4-4731<~ . p V+44: ... ~-~ ... ~ ~~'.,Ti.Â«3914233#f-,ts.-,iÂ·O-#wo#2Â£:'''.42â€ž*6*~N:-<#9Lf'~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~'~~-~ ~;~~~-~0 ---Â·â€ž-~~ -~ '~'~~~-Â·~31Â·Â·~fâ€ž}~.tkxfÂ»:ft 32Â·~1:*741Â·472'~ :2 -~~-Â»494,+3*2744*tie:443~<cjit*~ 2 -r-k:bl,1,,~:, ..d a .32- MÂ· Â·24 ..9 4-Â©.f:Â·:4 -77Â·â€¢'t. t~j,tiÂ·t:2 0 7, itiÂ·jfÂ·'.fÂ· + &.~.Â·~f:lf>Â·I..(~7=f..I-~ ~tr--34,1tÂ·(fr.tjfi.-.filft:13Â¢134Â·.:~trk}t;,ffilly.2. 2 ... ~f~ .. J. f .2 ~ . : ... â€¢ Be sure that the wooden sills sit firmly on the masonry foundation. The sills are extremely prone to damage if they are in contact with the ground. The sills should sit well above the soil to avoid any intake of groundwater. Assistance by a contractor is necessary if sills become deteriorated. â€¢ From the basement, any additional efflorescence can be identified as well as any deterioration of the foundation joints. If either of these symptoms are present, it is possible that water is not being properly carried away from the building. This problem can be aggravated by vegetation surrounding the foundation, sprinklers or improperly plac: d splash blocks (see Common Maintenance Procedures V. Improving Foundation Drainage). Efflorescence may be removed from the surface of masonry using a stiff bristle brush. It is usually more unsightly than it is damaging, but efflorescence indicates the presence of moisture. â€¢ Make sure that water sprinklers are placed so that they spray the lawn, and not the house, with water. VII. WINDOWS AND DOORS Joints around the doors and windows, especially at the top of the frame, are susceptible to water penetration. The window sills and the door thresholds are also vulnerable to water attack. 7 . 3*EnyfidaN+.9-542.32.01Â«:04&*4 . t. â€¢ Caulk above and around window and door frames, but not underneath them to provide for proper ventilation. â€¢ Make sure the window sills and door thresholds shed water away from the house. A properly constructed "drip-edge" will allow water to drain directly off the sill rather than underneath. â€¢ Make sure that all joints are sealed with a good bead of caulk. Also make sure that the joints between the glass, muntins and sash are well sealed with glazing putty. â€¢ A common problem with historic windows is that they may no longer operate Rroperly. OId windows often become stuck as a result of old paint or warped wood. This old paint may need to be removed and the wood sanded before the window can open and close freely (see Common Maintenance Procedures VI. Repairing Historic Windows). ~ Â·Â·' -'305*F~MUm//RM ' .." 2,0.- â‚¬Y r 1,00..~IMI'l~.~~. ' , .:A Â· St ~* Â·Â· 77....2// . 22 1---0*/IMM~//~ Â£ I. :.I ' .7: 1 1. . - 0 -1- - J IIX. PORCHES Porches are extremely susceptible to damage and therefore need a lot of attention. Since porches generally. have a less substantial foundation than the house, they tend to settle differently. As a result, Joints can open and water damage can occur. As with all other historic building materials, repair or reuse as much of the woodwork as j possible. While it may be slightly more time consuming to repair rather than replace deteriorated woodwork, the original materials are very important to the character of the historic house and contribute to its "patina. " 8 0 . â€¢ Make sure that wooden steps are not in direct contact with the ground. â€¢ Check all supporting columns of the porch. Make sure they are firmly footed on their foundation. Be sure that wood is not in direct contact with the ground unless it is pressure treated wood. There should be a vapor barrier between the columns and the foundation. The ground should be graded to direct water away from the supporting columns and the house foundation (see Common Maintenance Procedures V. Improving Foundation Drainage). â€¢ Probe the bases of the column with a knife or icepick to locate rotted wood. As an alternative, drill a hole in an inconspicuous location at the base of the column. If the woodchips are damp, there is water damage. If the chips are dry but dark, it may mean that there were moisture problems in the past. Refill the drill holes or punctures with wood filler before painting. â€¢ Make sure the space below the porch is well ventilated. â€¢ The porch floor should not puddle water and all cracks should be caulked (see Common Maintenance Procedures I. Caulking). â€¢ All exposed board ends, floorboards, rails and steps should be treated with a wood preservative or water repellant, primed, and sealed for protection. â€¢ The area where the porch balustrade meets the post is usually a weak point. If necessary, it can be reinforced with a small corner brace, placed below the top rail. . . -- - . 3 .I 3 e % ..341 7. .4 . 9.. %61, -all- -il - - --Â·' . 4 1,;,2.i I $ 0%.9 , 4, %94 Â· w. * A.4 ..pi 'A. t / il mira/a~.~ 9 */ â€¢ When it is necessary to replace woodwork, try to make dutchmen repairs, removing only the deteriorated wood. Dutchmen are small pieces of new wood notched into old woodwork. The dutchman must be exactly the same species as the original wood or it may pop out. â€¢ Epoxy consolidants are liquid which can be injected into wood to strengthen it. To use a consolidant, the wood must be dry first. Drill holes throughout the area for better penetration, and then pour consolidant in. IX. PAINT Paint offers a layer of protection aginst exterior damage. Frequent paint replacement is the best defense against environmental elements. On older houses, paint replacement will be required every eight to ten years. Paint must be applied properly in order for it to act as a protective membrane. The best way to ensure this is to have your house painted professionally (see Common Maintenance Procedures II. Painting & III. Painting Tips). â€¢ Be aware of discoloration. This may be evidence of mold and mildew. If evident scrub the area with a solution of three quarts water and one quart chlorine bleach. â€¢ Exposure to sunlight and ultraviolet rays will eventually deteriorate pigments in the paint. This may result in discoloration, chalking, and streaking. This may only affect the appearance of the building. â€¢ Blistering of the paint surface is most often the result of heat that evaporates the solvents or thinners in the paint film too quickly. To prevent this, painting in direct sunlight should be avoided. â€¢ Paint should be replaced when it loses its elasticity. With age, paint loses its ability to expand and cracking will take place. Alligatoring is the advanced stage of cracking when the crack extends into the wood surface. â€¢ Wrinkling of paint occurs when a layer of paint is applied over another wet layer, appl)ing an excessively thick coat, painting in direct sunlight, painting on very cold surfaces, or paintlng a hard finish over a soft surface (such as soft brick.) Refer to a paint dealer to choose the appropriate paint for the circumstances. â€¢ Peeling paint is usually a consequence of poor surface preparation. When peeling occurs, the homeowner must be absolutely sure it is not caused by moisture. Peeling near the foundation of a house is most commonly the result of rising damp. If peeling occurs around the cornice, it may be the result of debris in the gutters or loose flashing. Peeling is common outside a bathroom, kitchen, or laundry room. The moisture produced from these areas can cause water to build up behind the paint. â€¢ Horizontal surfaces such as wooden porches, floors, railings, window sills, door thresholds, anl wooden steps should be given special consideration. Make sure that all seams are sealed, ena grains are primed, and repainting takes place routinely (see Common Maintenance j Procedures II. Painting and III. Painting Tips). 10 . INSPECTION CHECKLIST- INTERIOR I. PLASTER Cracks in plaster walls are the most common interior problem. Plaster cracks for three basic reasons: settlement, expansion, and contraction of structural members. Hairline cracks are usually not serious, while larger cracks may indicate structural problems. Covering up cracks will not prevent them from surfacing again. The source of the cracks must first be identified before they can be fixed. â€¢ Small micro cracks are caused by poor application of the scratch plaster coat. If the wood lathe is not wet when the base coat is applied, the lathe will suck the water out of the plaster causing it to dry prematurely. â€¢ Cracks resulting from settlement are usually vertical or diagonal. Thermal expansion most often causes cracks in areas where the walls intersect with each other or the ceiling. Horizontal cracks usually occur because of the expansion or contraction of wood lath, or failure of plaster keys. Plaster keys hold the plaster flush against the lath. Plaster key failure will cause the plaster to become detached from the wall or ceiling. This usually happens around stairwells and on ceilings where there is a lot of vibration and stress from pedestrian traffic. Remember, in order to repair these cracks, the reason for settlement must be identified and corrected. Upon solving the problem, cracks should be sealed with fiberglass mesh tape and a joint compound. n. BASEMENT OR CRAWLSPACE â€¢ Make sure the wooden sills on top of the masonry foundation are not rotten or infested with insects. Take a knife and splinter the wood. If it makes a good crisp snap, then the wood is in sound condition. If it makes a dull sound, and is short and hinged on both ends, the wood is rotted. â€¢ Look for signs of termites or other insects, such as bore holes, small amounts of sawdust or frass. â€¢ Check all joist pockets, Make sure all joists are firmly on the sill. Be aware that wood tends to shrink as it ages. â€¢ Check to see if any of the joists are sagging. This should only be remedied by an experienced contractor. Sagging of the floor joists should be constantly monitored. â€¢ Check the foundation wall for signs of cracking and moisture penetration (see Common Maintenance Procedures V. Improving Foundation Drainage). If the basement is damp,il is important to make sure it is well ventilated. If the basement floor is dirt, either a cement floor or a large plastic sheet should be placed over it to act as a vapor barrier. A vapor barrier helps to control the amount of moisture entering the house and therefore limits condensation. It is important to prevent punctures in the vapor barrier. â€¢ It is important to have good air circulation throughout the house to allow moisture to evaporate. 11 1 , III. BATHROOM, KITCHEN AND LAUNDRY AREAS â€¢ Bathrooms, kitchens, and laundry areas produce an excessive amount of moisture. All bathrooms and kitchens should be well ventilated and coated with a layer of paint. Joints between the sinks, shower and bathtub must be well caulked. Make sure that all tiling is well sealed so water cannot get behind the tile. â€¢ Vent dryers to the outside of the building. IV. ATTIC. â€¢ Make sure the attic is well ventilated. If the attic is not ventilated, it will act as an oven and literally bake the roofing material. Be sure the soffit vents under the eaves are clear. Install a fan if there is not already one present. 0 j 0 12 1 .4// COMMON MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES I. CAULKING There are many types of caulking material out on the market, which have different properties, for instance in terms of elasticity. Make sure to read the labels and choose the correct type. In general, use a high quality polyurethane caulk for exterior work and an acrylic latex caulk for interior applications. Clear caulk is available and useful if the area will not be painted. Exterior: â€¢ Caulk all areas where water running down the face of the building might enter the wall. Do not go overboard caulking the exterior, since some ventilation is needed. â€¢ Apply caulk in areas where mortar is likely to fail, such as thermal expansion joints or structural cracks which are still subject to movement. Interior: â€¢ Caulking is a very important part of weatherizing the house. On a windy day, walk around the house and feel for drafts, especially around windows, along base boards and moldings. Check around electrical outlets and in closets as well. â€¢ If an opening is deeper than it is wide, it may be necessary to pack the joint before caulking. Do not allow the caulk to attach to mortar at the back of the openingÂ® â€¢ A caulk bead should be half as deep as it is wide. â€¢ All open joints must be prepped and any lose debris must be removed. If any older caulk bead has opened, all of it does not need to be removed. If the old bead is loose, cut it away or pry it out with a utility knife or screw driver. â€¢ Make sure that the caulk adheres to the substrate and that the substrate is free of loose paint, dirt, or grease. â€¢ Check the size of the open joint and cut the tip off the caulking tube to approximately the same size. When caulking many joints, start with the smallest and work to the largest while adjusting the size of the bead by cutting the tip of the tube. â€¢ Once the joint is prepped, apply the caulk in one sweep. Do not use excess caulk. Once the bead has been applied, wet a finger or a cloth and smooth it out. â€¢ It is beneficial to apply caulking right after a prime coat of paint has dried. Let the caulk dry for at least twenty four hours before the next coat of paint. b â€¢ Wood fillers are useful for filling nail holes and other small openings in woodwork, howdver they should not be used to fill large cracks because they are not able to expand. Some types of caulking can be sanded and painted over. 13 n. PAINTING Paint preparation is the most time consuming and important task of the overall painting project. A quality paint job depends on good adhesion. All surfaces must be cleaned before painting. If there is mold and mildew growth, a good solution for the removal is three quarts of water, one quart of bleach, and 2/3 cup of detergent, and 1/2 cup of borax. Scrub and rinse well. It is not desirable to build up too many layers of paint on the house. After about 16-30 layers the paint becomes less elastic and may begin to crack. It is not necessary to paint a house until the paint is no longer protecting the wood. â€¢ Stripping wood on your own can become a tedious and messy project. Start by removing any peeling, wrinkling, or blistering paints with a paint scraper. If there are many layers of paint, it may be easier to remove it with a heat plate. Use caution, so as not to scorch the wood. Protect your eyes and exposed skin. Paint can also be removed with a chemical stripper. Make sure to cover the ground the surrounding the house or saturate it with water. â€¢ Paint will not adhere to weathered wood. Where wood has become very dry due to lack of protection from the elements, paint on penetrol (an all purpose mineral oil) and allow it to soak in for 1-2 days. If using an oil based paint, penetrol can be added to the paint to help it absorb into the wood. â€¢ Sand all rough areas. Where unpainted wood is exposed, sand it to "bright wood." Finally, apply the appropriate paint or finish. â€¢ Clean off all dust and debris with a rag and paint thinner. â€¢ All scraped and sanded areas will need to be primed. The ends of all boards should also be primed. Priming the whole house is recommended if a significant amount of sanding has occurred. â€¢ Knots tend to bleed through the paint. Knots should be sealed with a coat of pigmented shellac. â€¢ To apply the finishing coat, the use of a quality brush is essential. A poor quality brush will cause streaking. â€¢ The body of a house should be painted first followed by the trim. When painting clapboards, it is recommended to paint the bottom edge of the board first and then the surface. â€¢ Paint should be pulled onto the surface, not pushed. Pressing the brush too hard will ruin the brush and cause streaking. â€¢ When removing a large amount of the paint on the house, it is useful to leave a small area unstripped to retain a record of the paint colors. It is possible to take small samples from yalls, trim and details of the building and examine the strata of paint layers under a , Â· microscope. In this way the original colors of the house can be determined and recreated if , desired. 14 IV. REPOINTING MORTAR â€¢ It is important to formulate a new mixture of mortar which resembles in color and thickness the original mortar. Generally, a mixture with a high content of lime mortar is more durable and less damaging than mixtures with a high percentage of portland cement. â€¢ Make sure that the mortar mixed thoroughly mixed until all ingredients are evenly distributed. Prehydrate the mixture by adding enough water so that it can easily be shaped by hand. This will prevent shrinking. Leave it in this damp state for about two hours then mix again. Enough water should be added until it achieves proper consistency. Usually, the mortar should have a slightly courser texture than the wall. The following technique should be used for pointing: 1. Remove deteriorated mortar and areas which have been incorrectly repointed with handtools and repoint to match existing in terms of strength, color, aggregate size and tooling. Repointing should only be undertaken when the wall temperature is between 40-95 degrees Fahrenheit. Avoid repointing in direct sunlight. 2. Using hand tools, remove mortar to a depth at least 2 1/2 times the width of the joint or until a sound surface is exposed. Remove cleanly, leaving square corners at the back of the cut. 'lil 'B ......1 211 3. Rinse joint with a jet of water to remove loose particles. 4. Mix dry ingredients for mortar by volume, combining thoroughly before adding water. Add half of water and mix for five minutes. Add remaining water slowly until desired consistency is reached. Use mortar within 30 minutes of mixing. Do not retemper mortar. 5. When joint and surrounding bricks are damp but have no freestanding water, apply mortar in successive 1/4" layers, packing it well into the back corners. Allow the mortar to reach thumbprint hardness before applying the next layer 6. When final layer is thumbprint hard, tool to match original mortar joints. The joint should then be appropriately shaped to allow proper water runoff. The shape of the joint depends on the type of mortar and the that of the original pointing. V-shaped or concave joints are the most 15 . typical. An easy way to achieve a concave joint is by inserting lime putty into a joint with a piece of wax paper between it and the mortar. The putty can then be molded to con:,truct the proper shape of the joint. This process should be completed along the entire length of the wall. The wax paper should removed before the mortar is dry.Do not allow the mortar to lap over bricks, creating a thin featheredge. This will eventually allow water to penetrate between the mortar and the brick causing deterioration.Remove any excess mortar from the edge of the joint with a bristle brush. Allow mortar to cure for at least 30 days. 22 1 2% 1 V. IMPROVING FOUNDATION DRAINAGE â€¢ Foundation drainage may be the best defense against any sort od structural damage. To assure proper drainage, all drains around and underneath the house should be cleared of any type of debris. Drains feeding from the foundation have a tendency to get clogged with ice, vegetation, or rodents. An electric auger is the best way to clear these drains. â€¢ A properly constructed slope surrounding a building is essential. Surface runoff depends on several factors such as, soil permeability, depth of the groundwater table, and the surrounding topography. If there is evidence of puddles surrounding the foundation after a storm, surface runoff needs to be improved. Any impressions should be eliminated by adding or removing soil so that a consistent slope away from the building is achieved. The grade must be adequate enough to allow water to travel away from the foundation. â€¢ If certain areas are especially prone to water collection, small ditches (18 to 24 inches wide by 12 tr 15 inches deep) filled with gravel can direct water away from the foundation. The drins si ould be oriented to carry excessive moisture away from the structure and fed into a dry well, collection pond, or storm sewer. â€¢ Soil surrounding older buildings can become compact adding pressure on the foundation wall. To prevent cracking, replace the surrounding soil at the proper grade. â€¢ The presence of vegetation around the foundation wall can slow down runoff and the evaporation process. This will ultimately increase the possibility of foundation damage. In addition, roots from nearby plants can crack walls over time while fertilizers can break up the molecular structure of the foundation wall material. This can be prevented by simply placing plants away from the foundation wall. 16 VI. REPAIRING HISTORIC WINDOWS Most historic window improvements usually involve a certain degree of paint removal in addition to the removal and repair of the frame and weatherstripping and reinstallation of the sash. The following procedure should be followed in repairing double hung windows. 1. Remove sash a. Begin by removing paint on the interior frame, along the interior stop and parting bead, to make sash removal easier. b. Remove the interior stop (avoid scarring the wood) by prying loose with putty knives. Withdraw the interior sash. c. Detach the metal springs, rods or sash cords from the sash (pin or tie the cord end in a knot, to prevent the cord from falling into the weight pocket). Note how the mechanism was attached and how it operated. d. Remove the upper sash by carefully prying off the parting bead in the same manner as the intelÂ»lor stop. e. Take the sash to work area for repairs. f. Cover window opening with polyethylene or plywood. 2. Remove interior and exterior paint a. Strip all paint from sash, using gentlest method possible (remove glass first if using a heat treatment). Leave a small area of paint intact on an original window, in order to preserve a record of the paint layers 3. Remove deteriorated glazing putty by hand, taking care not to damage the wood along the rabbet. If glass is not to be removed or replaced, sand window until "bright wood" is exposed, wipe down and continue to 5. a. If glass is to be removed and replaced, remove the glazing points and number the panes. Remove hardened glazing putty on glass by soaking with linseed oil. Remove any remaining putty in the rabbet (a soldering iron willloosen hardened putty). b. Sand window until "bright wood" is exposed. Wipe surfaces down. c. Place a bead of linseed oil putty around the rabbet to cushion the glass. d. Press the pane back into place and push the glazing points into the wood around the perimeter of the pane. 4. Apply a new layer of glazing putty and bevel to complete the seal. Wait 2-3 days for putty to form a skin. 5. Pint sash with a 50-50 mix of boiled linseed oil and mineral spirits, until the wood will not absorb any more liquid. Allow 24 17 hours to dry. 6. Prime the sash with an oil based primer. 7. Sand primer, wipe down surfaces. 8. Paint the sash with two topcoats of exterior latex paint (same brand as primer), lapping the exterior paint over beveled putty and onto the glass slightly to complete the weathertight seal. 9. Remove existing caulking 10. Strip paint from the jamb, sill and exterior window trim. 11. Create a dripline on windowsills if appropriate. 12. Caulk all seams and open joints around window jamb, trim and sill with a paintable siliconized acrylic caulk 13. Prime and repaint as described in #6-#9 14. If springs, wires or metal rods which help to open the window are deteriorated, replace with matching materials. 15. If sash cords need replacement, pry open weight pocket. Use old cord to measure length of replacement cord. Thread new rope into pocket in original manner and attach original weights to the end of the rope. Raise the cord so that the weight is about an inch below the pulley: Nail the other end of the cord to the frame. Replace pocket pieces. 16. Install new weatherstripping along the top, bottom and meeting rails, and in the jambs if space permits, using either rolled vinyl, metal or plastic strips. 17. Replace top sash, parting beads, bottom sash and stop beads, in that order, as originally installed. If water penetration is the main source of deterioration, restabilization of the window may be necessary. If only part of the wood is decayed, it can often be repaired by waterproofing or patching the effected area. An effective way to do this is by 1) drying the wood 2) treat the decayed areas with fungicide 3) waterproof with two or three applications of boiled linseed oil 4) fill cracks and holes with putty, and 5) after a skin forms on the putty, paint the surface (Myers 5). Caulking the joints around the window will prevent any further water penetration and wood damage. Epoxies are another way to strengthen damaged wood. Upon application, epoxies saturate the effected area and harden. This has proven to be a durable and long lasting wood remedy. For loose joint around the sash, the gaps should be filled with epoxy paste and closed with bar clamps if necessary. When an area of the window has deteriorated beyond repair, a millworker may be necessary to duplicate historical parts. A common complaint about historic windows is their potential for heat loss. The addition of a storm window will greatly increase a windows insulation. Mounted on the exterior, a storm window can be designed to blend in with style of the original window type, ultimately having little visual impact. Exterior storm windows were used historically. Unpainted metal storm windows should be avoided. Vn. HEATING, VENTILATION, AND COOLING OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS Ap~lyitig modern standards of climate control to historic buildings can be detrimental to the original architecture and materials. For older houses, it is important to understand what modern systems are available that will minimize alterations to the building. The installation of modern systems is often needed to upgrade the efficiency of a historic houses but may be damaging to the visual character and integrity of the structure. 18 Modern vapor barriers or the seating of operable windows and vents can reduce the life span of aging materials. Before a system is installed, the owner must determine what visual and structural impacts it will impose. These impacts should be balanced with the needs of those who will be using the building. It is also important to identify what parts of the existing system can be reused. Evaluate air infiltration through the exterior envelope; monitor the interior for temperature and humidity levels. Identify building site and the presence of asbestos so it may be corrected prior to installation or upgrading. Each space within a historic structure should be prioritized so that the most important elements may be preserved. If possible, place new systems in inconspicuous places. It is important with any system to fully understand its operation and maintenance. Finally, when installing a new system, plan for its future removal. Some measures that can be taken to improve the energy efficiency of an old house are: â€¢ Caulk holes and cracks in extdrior walls as described on page 13. â€¢ Caulk the interior of the house as described on page 13. Caulk openings in interior of foundation wall and repoint the exterior of the foundation where necessary. â€¢ Install weatherstripping around windows and doors and below door. â€¢ Install pulley seals on the weight pockets along double hung windows. â€¢ Use heavy curtains, shutters or interior storm windows. â€¢ Insulate pipes and water heaters. â€¢ Keep heating equipment in good repair. If the building still seems particularly energy inefficient after taking these steps, consider insulation. If a building interior is particularly significant and it would be too damaging to remove plaster walls in order to install insulation, the exterior siding may be removed. Install batt insulation and then replace siding. This should only be undertaken by an experienced contractor. Blown-in insulation may be a more simple solution. Masonry buildings with cavity walls do not need insulation in the walls, because of the ir space between whythes. 19 GLOSSARY caulk- a resilient compound, such as silicone, used to seal cracks. cornice- a moulding at the top of an outside wall which overhangs it throws drips away from the wall. dormer- a vertical window or opening, coming through a sloping roof and usually provided with its own pitched roof, often with a gable or hips. drip-edge- a slight cut on the underside of an overhang which prevents water from traveling underneath the edge. eave- the lowest overhanging part of a sloping roof. efflorescence- a whitish layer of soluble salts on masonry generally caused by the passage of salts in water in and out of the masonry surface. epoxy- a synthetic resin useful for house repairs. exfoliation- peeling, scaling or flaking off of the surface of stone in thin layers. flashing- a strip of impervious material usually flexible metal which excludes water from the junction between the roof covering and another surface. joint- 1) the mortar between adjacent bricks or stone. 2) a connection between two members to form a corner. masonry- all types of natural stone, brick, terra cotta and adobe as well as concrete and other cementitious materials. mortar- a mixture of an aggregate (usually sand), a binder (traditionally lime, with portland cement added after about 1870, and water, used for laying bricks or stone. muntins- a subsidiary vertical framing member in a door framed into the rails, separating the panels. repointing- the process of removing mortar and replacing it with new mortar. priming- to put the first coat on new metal or wood or on an old surface from which all old paint has been removed. sash- the sliding light of a double-hung window. j' spalling- outer layer or layers begin to break off (unevenly) or peel away in parallel layers Â· J from the larger block masonry. wood lath- a strip of wood used as a base for plaster. 20 4 ..,. e-::t *. 44 Ut-U./.22. Â¥ - Uld A-21 7 6 16%41% 3 1 6 ' 3 lili .: . f f . 1 I -1 1 . & in *1/3 1 14 / u.4 rA 1 Â· - ' . i i i 1 1 U --1 94 in . -4. 1 1 1 il Al _, (44 j ~ , :- i 1 :1 !1 . 1- --11 1,1 1 1 -1 2% p ~ ~'lili - (' 1,/ 'Â· .1-- i 11 4 --. i 1 . ,~.~~~~:tli~/dt 1 1 i i , Â· \\\ 1 1! 1 1 1 3-4-iU 1 \1 1 - , ., 1 i I i J I \1 .i i 1 / 5 -:1, /r-~up 1 2 LU 1 1 tr-\ - ---1 ./- ' r--~l 1 PJ J: 17]l-,t.f=f ; 1 ; 2 W 6 .*i ~I- u , ~ 1 4\\ fi 11, F, 1,/- 1 1- . 7- . -1 - '8044,~~~~~" 1 ~ .11 4/ LA - 4- i 271-3 Irt.j ~ i ~ - ~ 1~ A - 1 1 1 14/ 2-109 0 ; ;*; -11 ~~- ji:i i : 11 W -1 t!! 1 .1 - ; 4 . f L.lfl , i i 1 1 1 - Â£91 1 rl-%4 401 , 1 1 1 4.1 1 4 -0 1 10 / 1 10-(? 0 1,-7 -1..(UÂ·.liu . . ~11 W E*lf}l 30 7 2-< 0 , _.~ ,~1 1 1- 14 - F h ~ 11 9/11 De P, (11-1 , (re - \ 1 1\ . C (. c- ALOONJU] 1 1 1 1 'ji /,r-' ju/Â» / 0 4- ir h (11 . 1 1 lili ~ " 1 1 -t-~ 1 Â· -'~T _ ~ 9 1 ti ' tl It: 1 (. 1;Â« NA r li 13: C , 9 -- i i. -- I Ill i 1 . ' . .1 ' J O 0 0 1 . 1.- , 111 i ' . '1 - 1 : ' i U - 005 D 0 1 OIl 7 I /1 1 9 -4 . i 1 1 1 ! , . L 1 i \ I 111:j 1 --I 2 1 1 4 % - -1% r .'lilli 1 1 1 + 1 1- li - 1- Apoined' IN. Fpll . 1 11 - 1 / 4 1 1.1 &-l " 9 1111 1 'i ill I I 1 j i 1 Ill 11 ,/1 11 1 4 9 4 li , / 1 1 . . 1 1 / 4 d V Â¥/ 1 U.~' $ -.- -1 ~1 111 ~1 1 1 i , 1 1 1 -Ijoi#h--) ~ee==j~--i-,2 ~/ 1 1- -4- 111 f , 11 i Â£47 31~0- lit.-:t $ .J-i-1 --- I 1 1 i' /3 ~juu) 3 I H 1 1 1,11 1.1.-1 1 14 1 1 1 ; ;6< UJ 1 11 1 1. 1 - 1 1 1 V - ~><~. jun ~ ) , - i I 1 i - ~1 / r-\Lu i' ~ , Â· ~ ' 11 ' 1 1 \,1 -1 1~22 . - - --- k.16*r.l)*fo-16~ : 1-~ i Il I 2 ' 1 1 5~d 1 1 1 It 1 1 1. , 4 1 ' 74 11 lilli . 8\1Â»41 - 1, + 1 1 1 YI I i 11 - i 1 1 11 1 4 1 9 2 1 1 i. 1111 1 11 1 _L iÂ· 1.1 , 74Â«1 1/ //m J '1 j: t 1 1 Vy 1,1 - ./ L 11 1 #11 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1__] T 5 ~ l_ l~TT-Ff| li ' - i i~ Â«7=luu 1 / JZ 41*fW ; i L:1 1~' 4 - F \ - 1 li, . 0 ..1. U 11 1 ., A 0 1 1 /1\ I ' 1 i \ r. , 1 l Fy 111 - 1 -#/ 1 1 1 1 .---1 Â» 1 A - \1 1 1 - 1 1: - 5 . 11 1 * - -- 1, ~ 1 1 1 1 l - U~76Â·Â· 1 rv_-_Ril 4 -7 _ Lo < n Y d-TIm 0 -P > :P -0 (r 1 0 try - O 2 El VO 0 -0 22-2/ il 1 EE. 1 Egli --~~"-Fl j : T -) O -F h 3 11 I 1- 4 . #1Â»0 1 -- 0 1. 11 A. O Rl ~ 01 01 0 0 1-1 il, 32 . /7 1 .IN E T c O f. I i li E- ~ -i L - 1 1 L.4- 1 1 8 :55 P 0 -1 I [r y F 9 c ly:i 11 -- 1 11 L C 6% e 0 W ar 'ij t ' + 8 1 ED 0 1 - 1-1 1 3 ;11 1 2 - . d (111 -- -- 1 i It i + 1 1 1 ..; Â·g-: = 1 2 4 -6 2 -ir 1 -7 It Itt 1 1 '. .- /0 t.~12; L f * 4 . . :'11: 1 1 1, 1 1- 1 Â·' 1 1 3 I Â£ 1 1 1 1 4 1 :1-2 .L~ td.--1.--=.._- 1 4 ., 1; 11 :, \ :1, 1 9= L 11 ; il r ' 1, li . -Â·A 1--V ./ g . r : 1 11 j. - 1 ; 1 . i Â· / 2 1 ip & 1.1 1 .1 i Aill 1 / 1 1 1 lili -L._-1---- -E..t-Â·~E~-f"-LCZZL~JÂ·-----Â· 1, 1 1 . P=lu-4 . lilli 111 \ 1 JOB NO. DATE -- /~ architecture & planning p't F REV. 45.â€žÂ»ecp 1- 442-1201 2945 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 POWER PROPERTIES RESIDENCE --- A 9 - 85 le=90 t==b EAST COOPER COURT- UNIT B ASPEN, COLORADO i LÂ¥ A 9 -1 53 L' 1 1 , f 61 9 1 1 1 1 11 1 /il - , 1 i 1 1 111! i 1 11 1 1 1 il & 0 --1 -- . JOB NO. architecture & planning 11~11 DATE ~ REV. 45 MÂ»03.4 1,11 :lilli 442-1201 1 0 /11 2945 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 POWER PROPERTIES RESIDENCE EAST COOPER COURT- UNIT B ASPEN, COLORADO .e- 11.1 i - k 1.. \ 11 8 . lim Illjll 'Im' IA,di 4 m...1/- Im 1-lip--'Ill-&. 0 n' - Pall/.IL _ '4 - I - Â¢ I 1, . , ... 14\ + f -- --- - --- .--_-_ _---ilrid %5,4.f.-4 0911 -4 .. -I ' lili ' - ' ) 421Â«4*0/2 111 1.11 k , I ~ ' 1 1 29. 2..0 11: - - - It . b. . 4 k I ,13 1 1 147:'. 4 /014 . 77.7 -1 . r. -1 1 ti! 1 1 ':' i . i i _4.t t.1 I. .- -~ 9962Â»9-3 - - i , 1 1 :,~4 1 '. E i IL]Â» \ i ~ 1 1!It ' \ \ . 1 i 1 1 3 J i 1 1 +IF.11 1 4+ 1 '1:~ 1 \ 2 If a.- \4\ i : N lili 1 /,7 ~1 . 1 1% \ -4 // 1 1 17, =el, 0 ' i Â·N t .1 '- i It : * 2.- 1 1 1 1 It-J'.1 ~i. 6 r 1 . 1 1 -1 11 t ' 1,/7 Â£ i ,-2 1 1.- 1 1 l i 1 =-1-17- 1. - . --1. r 77 1 I J 5 ..1 If !1 1 ! '. 1 1 1 u A- 1 .li 11. 7------- --- -Tt- - 'r 1,11 lillil,-. i O P I ' C -1 ly e. t! 6 1 1 , 0 1 4 -1 0 fr E 11 7 0 n fr 3 -2- 1-~9 L 1 1/. JOB NO. DATE a ") Plill r 111 2-1000 LAY '5101,Je too p e *Al Nt re L-66 .. . 0 , . , Â· 0 4 T . 7 *~ -- - 4 --- - 1 I . .-I , 0 0 . I.I-# . = . A = . . I - -. I . I . :0 1 - . 0- D.:0 0 .... 1 .. I . I . ..... 0. . A. ... 7 . ... . I - \ 4 , . 1 6 - 'Â·~0316/ ~ ----. ' + r 1 I - i d | 1-J-- 1 11 - - i 011 1 11 li li 11 --t- 1. lili , 1 1 411 :-1-- --- 7 1 ii ' 1 - 41 1 h p 411 1 . 1,1 1 + -+ ---- - -- ------ ----- --. --------*- --------.-- -----s 1 ------------ 20? 341-XO(Of i Â«Er --trfrÂ¥4 + J ./ i K/,4..1 'r 1 I. p )LF) '' ''T):Jf--3 00)00 1921Â«4 .1. A*Lk Y' T c f ; <, Ill .C 9 0 Uu f T . tot 04.35 9 34Â« i -9 00 0 u 3.,1 . ---*----- .. I. I./1--Â« f f - 6 /1. ln>4/tr<,2 =# __ ---__- fllf -~(41-93-01-69~43000(3~*-4~0~~ ~~ - Â° 1.-rvtÂ· f -1-Â»(, h>r-Â·4 ,~ , 7 ~ h L , 12~44-t- 7-4Â·t_. .Rkitic-Â·4=24:2-i -~ .4-A-4-2 6,0iptÂ¢ji-tÂ·joib)9-~-Â© 4/3._D U 0 0 < C I. B 0., O 4 6 4.43/U. i 1 - Oa Le. ,"Ill" -1 | 1 0 0 AP-E:A W &:Ll_ ~ It 1 Ul li m. 1 1 11 - (13 0 - -- 1,2- 1 1 1, i 'll .1 - 10 E- - 1 1 1-- -1- - - 410 1 : - + m b l. 1 -- / -- v CO 1 . - , I .Â¥ - i mÂ® , 1 -,l -- F, 8,~ ' - ..... C. . +r- -7 :LI~ -31 1----1 --- 0 le 1,4 9 92 T LEVATION 1.-- . -0- 7 I + -7-1 11# -1 1-n i It <0 1 1 ----4 - . --# lili 3 - - 11.- --114:-L:46 -- - 5 0 A Le' Vt" g i-04 1 i - 1 1 i.. :IT--RT f i i J , i i 1 1 1 1 1 2 f 1 ' 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 - 1 :1111111-;il 1.-~i 11 il il .tillill 1 1 10 4 1-tur Y.5,- --- 1 1 1 . d. IiI 1 -- - 11 rmr-h o y 1 ------ ~ 00000 >C.1, ! -------.--4# al.3 1 U.42Â© 1 . 4 ? 7HCD 6+0 - U , 4 1-~3 n i 1 1 9 - - - 1 '1JJL.JLN N It 7.1 1 290Â«10Â« - -,&1_Jor- 00 i i . . 1 - 1 0 . f 0 1 1 _MA '4 0 0-}42hr i.* , - - - L-/1 Â· It -=It j l 0 V 1, 0 1 / k 11[-1-3 - -- 1 i i ~' tc,2'* Hj G,LIA r..10.1*.AIL \Vf --~.+Ii --- 4-/ r- 0 1 - 0 i I Ul . 1 li a /9 F 1 Lb =1 1 '1 4 1 1, M p-BA Id eU... ---7~ -------- ---r , 4 1 1 A 11 1 1 1 111 =12-LIE__*621331â‚¬2Â£ Â»CA L e: 1 1 1 1 1 L ./ Low e 12- r 1 ./ t. 0 0 0 I I .. /j / 1/ 'ON lor alva 'AEIH 00Â¥H0100 'N3dSV 8 1,Nn -lHnOO bl 3 d OO f) 1 S V ] mISabl SallbladOEId 83MOd NaaeD WalN30 9*68