The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19990922AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 22, 1999 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 12:00 - 1:00 SITE VISITS 616 W. Main St. 121 N. Fifth Street 104 S. Galena Street 5:00 I. Roll call II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments and project monitoring IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 4 q A. 302 E. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Residential Design Review, continued Public Hearing from August 258,1999 VI. NEW BUSINESS 5:50 4< A. 616 W. Main Street - Minor Development VII. WORKSESSIONS 6:20 A. 104 S. Galena Street 6:50 B. 7th and Main Street Affordable Hot*sing 7:20 Election of officers. :30 Adjourn DROJECT MONITORING ..oger Moyer 406 E. Hopkins - ISIS 920 E. Hyman - Veronika, Inc. 930 King Street- NPJ 706 W. Main- Goldrich Susan Dodington 234 W. Francis - Mullins 421 W. Hallam Street 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 930 King - No Problem Joe's Suzannah Reid 406 E. Hopkins- ISIS 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. ffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis- Mullin 414 N. First- POLE 920 W. Hallam- Guthrie 101-105 E. Hallam (not active) 315 E. Hyman - Su CASA Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street- Halperin 232 E. Hallam St.- Pace 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter Lisa Markalunas 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 939 E. Cooper- Langley 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg Christie Kienast 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 735 W. Bleeker- Bone 920 W. Hallam Maureen Poschman 920 E. Hyman - Veronika Inc. 214 E. Bleeker Brumder CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 34 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,2000 23 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 12,2000 214 E. Bleeker Street, new out building expires August 12, 1999 920 W. Hallam Street, expires February 12,2000 735 W. Bleeker old house expires Oct. 14, 1999 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1999 1. 117 n. 6TH St. - Coulter 2. 920 E. Hyman Ave. Lot N Block 32 3. 435 W. Main St. Lot A-I Block 38 4. 930 King St. 5. 920 E. Hyman 6. 735 W. Bleeker 7. 234 W. Francis 8. 205 S. Mill 210 S. Galena .ISIS 406 E. Hopkins 11.234 W. Francis 12.234 W. Francis 13.424 E. Cooper Ave. 14.234 W. Francis (Mullins) 15.DEPP 16.834 W. Hallam 17.2 Williams way 18.531 E. Cooper 19.134 W. Bleeker 20.450 S. Galena 21.710 N. Third St. 22.234 W. Francis St. 23.123 W. Francis 24.312 E. Hyman 25.930 King Street 26.117 N. Sixth 27.234 W. Francis 8.520 E. Durant St. .308 N. First Street 30.533 E. Hopkins 31.330 E. Main St. 32.315 E. Hyman Ave. Su Casa 33.121 N. Fifth Street ~240 Lake Avenue 920 W. Hallam Street 36.332 W. Main Aug 11, 1999 Sara 37.400 W. Smuggler - July 14, 1999 38. 500 W. Main St. July 28, 1999 39. 121 N. Fifth Street July 28, 1999 40. 121 N. Fifth Street August 25, 1999 41.7th & Main Conceptual AH September 8, 1999 42.426 N. 2nd St. Minor Review Sept. 8, 1999 43.406 E. Hopkins Ave. ISIS Theatre Sept. 8, 1999 0 0 EXHIB'iII 1 9, A Â£2-9 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Direcl Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Planning Directo~â‚¬3 ' FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation -Public Hearing (Continued from August 25, 1999) DATE: September 22, 1999 SUMMARY: This property is a designated historic landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The applicant requests conceptual, partial demolition, and on-site relocation approval to build a new commercial structure at the rear of the lot. HPC has held a site visit and conducted six meetings regarding the project. At the last meeting, a hearing on August 25th, the Coinmission passed the following motion by a 4-3 vote: 1. Eliminate the third floor. 2. Minimize the landing in the interior courtyard, and begin the stair rise at the earliest point allowable by the UBC so that the visibility of the stairway and courtyard will be reduced significantly. 3. Add an overhead door at the trash storage area. 4. HPC shall waive the "Residential Design Standards." 5. Restudy the north and south elevations ofthe new building. A revised proposal addressing these conditions has been provided. APPLICANT: John Davis, represented by Vectors/Jake Vickery Architects. LOCATION: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. Commercial Core zone district. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1 0 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan 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 by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: This house was built in 1883, which makes it one of the oldest remaining structures in the Aspen Townsite. Throughout it's history the structure has been used for both commercial and residential purposes. It is the only example of a "Carpenter Gothic" building in Aspen, defined by the steeply pitched roof and decorative trim on the front of the building. (Carpenter Gothic is the Gothic Revival style carried out in wood rather than stone.) 0 In a worksession held on April 28, 1999, the architect was encouraged to look at the idea of demolishing a non-historic addition to the house and moving the outbuilding closer to it, thereby freeing up the back part of the lot for a separate new commercial building. This would keep the outbuilding intact and directly related to the old house. The new building would appear to be on its own smalllot, a similar concept to the historic landmark lot split. Staff finds that the suggestion at the worksession was an excellent way to remove the impacts of a new addition from the historic structures. Over the course of several meetings, HPC was presented with revisions of the design, which the Commission indicated did not meet their review standards. At the August 25th meeting, specific direction was given to eliminate the third story on the new building and make other modifications to bring the project into compliance. The project as proposed is well under the maximum allowed floor area of 4,500 square feet. The applicant has identified on the drawings where modifications have been made. The third floor has been eliminated from the new structure, the stair to the basement has been moved back somewhat, a garage door has been added to cover the trash storage area, and the north and south elevatioils of the new building have been simplified. In addition to those changes required by HPC, the applicant proposes to use the second floor of the new building for commercial rather than residential space, to enlarge the existing lightwell on the west side ofthe house, and to reduce the size of the mechanical room in the basement. 0 2 Staff finds that the proposal as revised has improved significantly. There are not direct 0 impacts to the historic structure, the new building is architecturally compatible and in scale with the old house, and the site plan in general is acceptable. Further explanation is needed from the architect as to why the existing lightwell is proposed to be enlarged and why the stairs to the basement cannot be recessed further from the street than the 2' that is presented in these plans. The revision to the staircase does help to establish a ground plane around the shed, but staff still has concerns with how this lightcourt will affect the character ofthe building. For final review, the architect should identify the location for any future rooftop mechanical equipment and verify that the equipment can be adequately screened from the pedestrian view. In regard to the landscape plan, two existing crabapple trees will be removed as part of this proposal. The City Forester has required that the Douglas-Fir and Rocky Mountain Juniper trees in the public right of way be preserved and protected during construction, which shall be a condition of final approval. The front and side of the house will remain grass, but a basement will be placed under the rear one third of the site, so that any grass in that area will be eliminated. 0 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: The site is located in the Commercial Core, where residential buildings are an exception to the surrounding building patterns. These structures have proved particularly difficult to preserve given the development potential for the sites. Staff finds that the project will fit into the character of the surrounding area, where the Commercial Core transitions into a less intense commercial and lodging neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The house will be preserved unchanged from its historic appearance, and will still have a strong relationship to the historic outbuilding, therefore staff finds that the proposal will not detract from the historic significance ofthe property. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The new building is only approximately 2'6" taller than the existing house. The architecture of the new structure does reflect the era in which the house was built, allowing 0 the buildings to have a successful relationship to each other. 3 PARTIAL DEMOLITION Applications for partial demolition must meet all of the following review standards: 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish a rear addition on the existing house. Building permit records indicate that a basement was put under part of the house in 1958 and the addition was made in 1960. Staff finds the addition does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The area of demolition is not original or significant. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: This issue is addressed under the conceptual review standards. ON-SITE RELOCATION Applications for on-site relocation must meet all of the following standards: 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The outbuilding is to be moved so that an appropriate location for new construction can be created on the site. The outbuilding will maintain prominence on the site and in fact will be set closer to the street. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. 4 Response: Said report, from a structural engineer or housemover, shall be a condition of final approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: Financial assurance in the amount of $15,000 will be required as a condition of final approval, along with a plan for how the building will be moved and stored during construction. The outbuilding willlikely have to be temporarily stored off-site. STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to final approval or issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered). â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to grant approval for the conceptual development, partial demolition, and on-site relocation for the project located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue for the project as presented on September 22, 1999 with the following conditions: 1. At the September 22~efing, further explanation is required from the architect as to why the existing lightwell is proposed to be enlarged and why the stairs to the basement cannot be recessed further from the street than the 2' that is presented in these plans. 2. For final review, the architect is required to identify the location for any future rooftop mechanical equipment and verify that the equipment can be adequately screened from the pedestrian view. Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated September 22, 1999. B. Revised application. 5 It 94349 3.02 Â£ A,p }al-4/ ACTION: Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Residential Design Review SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet alljour ofthe development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to 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 by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.09003)(2). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ PARTIAL DEMOLITION Standards of review for partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that aU of the following standards are met: (Note: "Partial demolition" shall mean the razing of aportion ofany structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel). Standard 1: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration, or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance ofthe parcel. Standard 2: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. B. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity ofthe structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. ON-SITE RELOCATION Standards for review of on-site relocation: No approval for an on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the following standards have been met: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation, and The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting of a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, AND ON-SITE RELOCATION FOR NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOT K, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, John Davis, represented by Jake Vickery Architects, has requested conceptual approval, partial demolition, and on-site relocation approval for the property located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated landmark. The project involves demolishing a non- historic addition to the existing house, relocating the shed on site, and building a new commercial structure at the rear of the lot; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan 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 by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.09003)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and 0 WHEREAS, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(C) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel; and 2.Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a.Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. b.Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure; and 0 WHEREAS, all applications for on-site relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the following Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(D)(2),(3), and (4) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 2.Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and 3.Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and 0 WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated September 22, 1999, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 22, 1999, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of _ to _. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That conceptual, partial demolition, and on-site relocation for 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the September 22, 1999 meeting, be approved with the following conditions: 1. At the September 22nd meeting, further explanation is required from the architect as to why the existing lightwell is proposed to be enlarged and why the stairs to the basement cannot be recessed further from the street than the 2' that is presented in these plans. 2. For final review, the architect is required to identify the location for any future rooftop mechanical equipment and verify that the equipment can be adequately screened from the pedestrian view. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of September, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0 80 302 EAST HOPKINS PROJECT DATA 8/25/99 REVISED 9/8/99 VECTORS/JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS i- AREA F GROSS SQ. FT. F.A.R. SQ. FT. r NET LEASIBLE SQ. FT. EXIST. DEMO. NEW TOTAL EXIST. DEMO. NEW TOTAL EXIST. DEMO. NEW TOTAL , BASEMENT 1120 -221 1074 1973 1, 0 0 0 0 1 627 627 GROUND _ 1277 -221 755 1811 4 1277 -221 755 1811 ~ 1061 -190 491 1362 SECOND 792 792 1 792 792 0 - - -- -I - 1 - TOTAL 2397 -442 2621 4576 1 1277 -221 1547 2603 1061 -190 1118 1989 DECKS 189 189 .C - e OPEN SPACE 1865 -913 952 * r wk--* . c 96914â‚¬12 1#19 2 Pa-e 1 0 70 477. , P ALLEY 30,00' . i 11 2% *-lf- 30 / 5 1 1 C/) m \1 1 0 75 1 2 4 / I *&; 1 1 3 , 1 6 1 0 1 ' C \Uil 1 32. 1 V \ 1 /- D-96/------------------------ ----1----1-4 U) O Kh \11 11 Ph U \3 : C 0 1 i \ .,2 , I 1 1 i J @O 1 , N ; ; 1=-3 _- 9 1 E 1 V I., 0 1 --A Z , -- - A 46 6 0400001 1 I. rx......7 --' + 1 \ 'V -1 ------4 8 (f) emly 4, , F 7-\ f- IJL-11Br-k - 01 1+ li E 1 /1 O 1 " 4/)1 : - Brm 1 E G 135 5 45 1 i mi 2 0 M 4 r Am & 1 A 1 I 1 1 r. b 1 1 Of\11 1 1 1 1 Â·-1 4. : N l 1 F L.---------- -1 I l . 1 1 1 1 1 9-1 2 3 hi i 1/j. 3- 4 Â° AL 1 e-) 30.00 ~al 11 2 1 ///J :if U . 21 , 4 I A i % 1-91-- 9 (ju . f. Ok:. '1 4. . . '0 Â§4Â· . ~ 49 Z.{2__, ' 0 v %3 Â· 844/....Xk Â»r..2:..2'.fc,Â·14'9 Â·'N, 'Â·,Â·NW'fi . .i.*424 :' . 1 , 92'00~*4~0' "510Â¥NÂ·' '3 4 1.2.2 ."'r 1 EAS-T HOPIKINS AVE. 1> PROPOSED HO ~{INS NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS M Sll 01ROOF PLAN 302 EAST ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (97~ 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET - . It 0-41'Flo R OURT Â»X~ ~ ~d likoâ€¢100 , 45-10* 0.. 12.-101. 1. 6.-4. . - '5-10. ----7 ~V....N In _ BATHRM . /4- 6*@Alke, 3 1 16-3 A 'Pa EXISTING 5- ,~ <'3.. ~ ~ TRASH 2, - _IL ly 14110 EEC< 1 HISTORICAL OFFICE , ~ 2-~DING | ~ CORRIDOR o#SE *ovE â€¢ 1 N **2 -- EA n] iE 9 i RA,UNG --2 '.4.-6- . I I - OPEN TO 4 ILM Bul.DING 7 1 f71 Int-2- ' L.J 14 13 1- - 1 NEW RETAIL /OFFICE SP ACE POe?04 1 1 1 ~ ~ 3 ExisTNG -' 11 :. -72.07*H\MPEDED & 1 RELOCATED f L.11 Kr-- r' Pl.0,> 1 E- SHED 2 Z- UJ CO 1 z < * - *JI-,Fi~EE= Y ~/E////I~ p y-;'r 1 20.-4. , 5-2. 9-5* , 5-2. 46/3. 9-9. GROUND FLOOR PLAN (*1=-ill--rn ac 44 1 434-$00 tO'-8- 13'-ot -â‚¬-7 - 14 1 I Â» 1 F. - = 1 alâ€¢ Il / NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE " ' / 6 r 4 Â· 1 EXISTING ve er .- 1,Â·EÂ·'fÂ·:';ATED . CQUE,I 4 -7- 4--111,///.. . k.. - i 0 - 1 r.9 : , NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE ; 1. M l MEW . BEDROOM 0 1 2,-...3 --~ -' FrÂ»f *#16 z-*gr- 3 J. . Ct 6 1Â« , 1 1 1 f:. 11,00â€¢ *11 ; ; -0, val P. 080,[ , r ! A"OZ; 1 . . 24.-tr 16-4 lÂ»1) 5 ~9 1 ~43 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN Fl'-2 5 10 FEET Â· CIAUGLIST I. 1999 - MPE '8 K - F i NORTH . - '1 ALIOUST 4 1999 < 17 1 3 1 /GUS, 23, 999 - //C 9 F 4 10 5 U -A3 6 12 9103.LIHONVAHEDIOI NOW M O H 1SVE ZOE 8 00'NadS ~ oatisc)70~ SNV-Id k10013 .. . 4 30'-0 19.- 04 1 6Â· 4-81 5' 9" 3000' le 10 3 1 -,7 - -4 0 7 1 r- 0 - 1 g i 0 9 1 i f -----e- i V ' , \1 , A \ )-4 1 1 *U -0 3 jf, 1- i 1 1 - 0 \-X a , R 0 , 1 Vt.t. 1 + 1 6 1 + 1. J ki IJA Â» FLOOR PLANS 302 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO ASPEN, CO 81612 (970~660 NEW ADDITION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET bl001=I ON003S ... Ir.. 1.~ i: 4 'U ti -1---I........9.---I----..... Nm 1 U) m u , 4. i , r------------. i 1 t O 0 -I , 1 L-311 -~ 1 \ - L Ocr 1 -1 1 I I '--I-- ./.......Ill *. -- 1 11 2-'Il.--1 1 1 J.._U. lili-v li 2_- __ _.LJ--I-L-1_L.LI_L_-11 ANIHIH 1*11Illili 1--11- 1-El*t~~EmirE-1--1 jil --f 1 1 Trmr[FITATI /-- ----- ----1------------- --- 11 -- )- L iLl L. 1111. i - - - - - - - - . - mialmgal, - - 1 [mETTTEFTT ------ 1 ------- "Mmmimm - ./Mil 1 1- - - - - -- - 1-rr-rrr -rn-r-r-r- - / 3--_ - - SiI-u-__- _* _ \L * _ 1 - 1 11 1 I , 17.- 1 LE-_ \ IM#*â€¢19_ ht - -- 1 * 7-23 /?LE 0-3. 9 T#------- /;40.-C - 0.-34 ------------------------ 49__712--7--1- - - ----- 8 3% --- iÂ§* ------~--------------- btr- --- ---- *AA ,~ ., . ,1> 2:41; 1 :.?.7 .7. 4 St:jits ' Â·,94' Â·:'44 . Â· u *Â·A?:24*re'l L , l: e,4:t.~.'.~?.4.~9â‚¬ '%?th,Â·â‚¬(~Y.â‚¬Â·1Â· '242.U' '! Â·'**3492Â·040:'~A.Â·.04:>â‚¬>9 -Â·~ Â» EXTERIOR NEW M i ION VECTORSpc / JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS Cn ELE\4~ONS 100 SOUTH SPRING SIiET 302 EAST HO~INS ASPEN, , 1.0RAD0 ASPEN, C0 81612 (97~3660 SECOND [Â£7EL 4 4 444*67#46., ~' 61( 6~ snonv ~ 64 12 b -44-1-17757.'*7Â· *i - â‚¬P + 4/-2:- '..14:Â· Â·-4.J *31. 4/# .... ....4.23 - 3.- 1 1-,&1. u 7 - c.i : 36 0Â·Â·Â· Â· Â· â‚¬; 9. d , 2- .i1Eut:* T.k.. 24....Â·4* 713. '. /: -r#:r â€¢ . I /,-g : ..1 . Â· Â£ *2 e .Â· 1. 4/...1.44 *3.4.f.. 1&2- . . .r. . 0.%.9 . t r . 5.0 . ./.- i.:6 . Â·4-. p.- Â·C Â·Â· 1/. 26' I .6 , r.. ..4:i. 3 -~~ .:/2 *~~.?. 14: 4 6 -LA- ..t-7â€¢ :i Â· . Â· -Â· tek . TH 27 >27 Â· ~ 1-_i , 1 - 1 11 fÂ·e #6 11 1 1 ill' 1 220 3, = ~co,o LIE~ \5 SECOO LIVEI gen. 2 --0 0 -3 0 1, m d E- 1 1 _ CROUIM LEVEL SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: SCALE: 5 01.-/Xma-=Tm !0 ~=r-Ii-'9 0 ) 0 /\CH 1 44 l*,0 If 3/ ul 1 Autll 4. - 2 AUGUS I. T. -llc 8 A6 Â·Â· -2 51 '1 910311140HV AMB>IDIA 3>IV Nouiaav 2% S NI OH 1SVE ZOE 210lk:I31*3 099.) 29 9 00'NadSÂ¥ 00Â¥B0100'N3 e Â¥ 90~SiNROOiSOOBO~ SN 099Â£i~026) 2/9/8 OO'N3dSV 1~9 ONIHdS H.LAOS OOK 00Â¥H01 f O'N3dSÂ¥ ( S1031IH0NV AUYDIOIA 3>IVr / odSkl0103A NOI CICIV AA3N ..NIION J.SV; Â· ZOE SN B %.7 44+ ./ 5 : Â¢'-4&4*1*3 61.1.62~ , t Â·'.71 ~ I t.''ll.:144*MW)/Crit.VA., : T..~iÂ·+9*7Wyâ‚¬g . ' 1.,1. 1 1 .1 iII 0 . 7 t E Ei i f F Tr Â·Yt 'ik:.i} ii.f. Â· 1 e i . 4 1 1 : . U 1-1-1 7 H. 1-1 U H U- i Ifi Al 1- 1 1 , - 1 1 - ; 11 m#77917 1 - t -L-I r jÂ· I F 2/2/,111-1.i... . 7 r --0-11-1 1 1111-1 I. i ..].2,~ O :-- 1 0 M 0 -1 1 1 1 , 1 . 1 1 \ 0 0 60 51Â¢ i! m 1 [-Ill-1111 6. 1 r 1 J -Jr ' 1 I lill i Trm-r . 117=] il-JI]I].1.1Illj Z 1 ............. g 1-1- 1 Ul 11 E-- ~1 11 S 1- 4 -11 4-Ii- -- 1.- 5 J go-1 2 1. i 'l'. , 1 1 4-~ .... -74 11 6 . .0-'0; .0-." .0-.01 0 e 0 Al Ill{'1;.'.â€¢:.flid.9,11Â£.%0139.1..I . 1 1 . 1 4.0 1 ': 1%: i.:443 , '~77. , 0. 0 6 659 033 N0I1Â¥A313 lSBM lhIn % CO '/ 2 ar 0 .&30 O O Z 1.-(01!12 - O 0 z aa 0B m r--1,~Ing- - â‚¬1. to i L_1 -4 !2-3 t 00 U QZ- LU CO Z< SHED SOUTH ELEVATION SHED NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION ~ SCALE: SCALE: SCALE: 0 1 to 0 1 10 FIL-1 . A 7 1 1 m-M 08 nEEN' m D ~fmm# 1 2= =912Â¥ . _E*%3%%%%~_____~_~_ COURINORTHELEMATION COURT_EASIELEVATION SCALE. SCALE: 69\4642 01 18(99.71 LU 1 4.1 -IP 7 2 AUGUM 11. 199 - HK 8 3 4 1 A8 5 11 6 1 9103.UHOHÂ¥ Abla>IOIA El>IV HOIB3D(3 09930:29:8 d-U OH 19Â¥31 10Â£ SN0 1-Pr - EXHIBI~13 / 1.21-94 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 1 THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director | Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director CPN> 7 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 616 W. Main Street- minor DATE: September 22, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to make modifi cations to a historic house and carriage house at 616 W. Main Street. On the old house, the proposed changes are to alter a flat roofed area, to install a skylight in the same area, to reroof the rear portion of the building, and to replace some clapboards. Additionally, the applicant would like to replace two existing windows. On the carriage house, which is an old structure that has been remodeled, the applicant requests HPC approval to add a new window on the north side, upper floor, for emergency egress. APPLICANT: W. R. Manclark, contract purchaser. LOCATION: 616 W. Main Street, Lot N, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: The property is zoned "O, Office," and is a designated historic landmark. MINOR DEVELOPMENT No apbroval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards (Section 26.415.010.B.4) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to 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, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) 1 square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the 0 Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. Response: At some time in the past, this house was moved from the site where the 7~h and Main Street Affordable Housing project is now proposed. It maintains its original footprint, except for a small addition at the rear of the house, as indicated on a site plan, modified by staff. The applicant proposes minor modifications to the house to improve its livability. In regard to the alteration of the roof over the kitchen, this appears to be an original element of the house or an early addition to it, therefore modifications must be carefully considered. The applicant proposes to increase the rake of the roof over the kitchen to improve drainage. The area is also to be reroofed with metal. The existing roof does have a slight pitch to it. In reviewing the photographs with the Building Department, they feel that additional information is needed to determine the best way to effectively address the problem. The exact dimensions of the area need to be provided, as well as the slope of the existing roof. More specific information is needed about the proposed 0 new roof slope and the overall surface drainage strategy. Staff does not have a major concern with installing a skylight in the kitchen since it will not be visible from the ground, however it may be a source of leaking given the shallow roof pitch. In regard to the windows that are to be replaced, both windows are original and have been turned on their sides. In the dining room, the window could be returned to its original vertical position, but the owner is worried about having adequate wall space for furnishings, etc. The kitchen window is more problematic because of kitchen counters. Staffrecommends that the dining room window be restored to its original position. In the kitchen, the window could be replaced, but it should be the same size as the existing opening to maintain the proportions of the building elements. The window could be an awning window with some division of the glass, but with fewer panes than the one proposed, which is out of character with the house. In the carriage house, which is an "Accessory Dwelling Unit," the applicant wishes to create a better way to exit the upper floor loft in case of emergency. This loft is to be used as office space and not as a sleeping area, therefore no egress windows were required by the UBC when the building was remodeled. The applicant provided a photograph that has a proposed location for a larger window indicated on the north side. There is not adequate room for this window without cutting 0 2 through the eave of the historic carriage house, which is not appropriate. Staff has provided all four elevations of the carriage house for HPC to review. (Note that windows are not allowed on the west side of the building because it is only 1 foot from the property line.) This area ofthe proposal needs further discussion. The last issue discussed in the application is replacement of a length of clapboard. The building has all original siding and detailing. There are penetrations across one clapboard where blown in insulation was installed in the past. Staff recommends that this board be approved for replacement with one that matches it because the metal patches where insulation was added do not enhance the architecture of the building. No other clapboards may be replaced without further review. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There are several historic structures in the area and the property is part of the Main Street Historic District. The proposed renovations are relatively minor and will not impact the character of the area. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The project will not affect the significance of the house as a representation of Aspen's residential architecture of the late 1800's, or the carriage house as a historic outbuilding. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Response: Staff has concerns with architectural compatibility as noted under Standard number one. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) 3 â€¢ Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review 0 Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the review with the following direction to the applicant: 1. Provide further information about the existing roof above the kitchen, and the proposed new roof. Specifically, identify what the dimensions of the area are, the existing roof pitch, the proposed roof pitch, and the overall surface drainage strategy (where will run-off be deposited?) 2. Determine whether a skylight can be added to the existing kitchen roof without creating additional leaking problems. The exact location of the skylight and a cut sheet of the proposed skylight will be required. The skylight must be as low in profile as possible. 3. Restore the dining room window to its original position and vertical orientation. 4. The kitchen window may be replaced, in the same size as the existing opening to maintain the proportions of the building elements. The window could be an awning .window with some division of the glass, but with fewer panes than proposed, which is out of character with the house. A cut sheet of the new window shall be submitted. 5. The HPC should discuss and provided direction on other means of creating an exit from the loft in the carriage house. 6. The applicant may replace the clapboard where holes were made for blown in 0 insulation. The replacement board shall match the profile and exposure ofthe historic boards. The contractor shall not damage or remove other clapboards while installing the new one. Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated September 22, 1999. B. Application. C. 1904 Sanborne map showing house in previous location. D. Current survey showing newer construction at the back ofthe house. E. Elevations of the remodeled carriage house. 0 4 EXHIBIT 4 1 2321-2 ACTION: Minor Review All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet allfour Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan 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 by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. F, 16 .1 [(6] ILC~z] 1 9-4j| / 1/ i 11 1 - - - Lf---11 11 11 9, 1 6 4 3 1C.(700) 12 L 816 800 24 737 7/4 7/2 03 ' ' 1 ,~ b. A 11 14 -6-U = == = = ==== = - =- = = 0= 4 W. MAI N @' ~~ 1~050/ ~lw Ilot Â¢f- jr lm:akt,7 vjÂ· ~ Â®r Y (419) 815 81/ 725 1< ar " t- 23- 07'' A ge'. r vi - , 11 ---- 4 CD 7 0~ D * D A D * '0* D - - 9,1 1 111=r -777_ 7-122/ I IrcE. F.I<i.*0 1 --Trj g L-1 k '1 \ 1 /1 13 1-*17-- k . 1 . -Â·11 / U.Z_ W.2. -1-- - Ff- ; P.1 E Â£ -....5/.492%5 1) 9- l' ~ : 116 0 U-4.1 t. F, 6, 14 1, - n 7-71 tWim TV ~ Fi--.- r--- 1 1 1/.1 i |?62r-iÂ·-;r~><~306: E-Fil, x . to f 03.><4 4 19 ~ N 1/XI, * 1 ./F i /1/1 1 - 1 ZE- 1 911 1 1 K, t.-M. N. 1 O, P. 4, A. 5. 1 Not 1 D 4 \ 0 ~ ted \ 1 9 ~49'ty,â‚¬1- 1 Ag \ li-11*j \ 115 iye r: g # 9 . k>f 116$ F --- 9 .2,4. ' 1,17? 1 beli 1-I7711 1 14 hi t 20 108 1709 W. HOPKI NS AV. 31 - -1->bâ‚¬::2 4 i i 46 U ,}orn Cist/L/'~ 2~ --- 11 . & --i- 1-11 ACCESSiON N r DAb + 1 \ f t' 1 91 4 C tor N 1 O 14 i ji 24 1.2 '_- - - 3~)00 so.Fl .1/. Uâ€¢,1 04 OVERHANG o 2 AREA 5,1 7 m' 1 r U' W ne' 1 3 w. 1 1 40 65 - I >> "Im .. 010 / 91 i O L---- W 10 - 1 10 TV Eutc 19\- t.~lk= >r /fit /2 4=1 3 / \T.O. j /b 9 k 5,5 40 4 0.- 0 LOT 0 LOT M / GAS METER c 44 4- :L- -- G REMOTE WATER 4. READ 1 ~JORY WOÂ® 9 FRAME IA,940V,4/ 43 HOQSE, V I CTO# {AN OVERMANG 1'' .,rÂ· \ 0 4 - r 146.0'5 12 n. AÂ·. i 40 , 0.2' HOUSE 0 1.7 L . Â£NC r 157 PG 56 NCRAOCHMENT AGREEMENT %1 V RY .4 6. ROACHMENT 0 27Â· N 09 0 \SK p ADDRESS ' 6\6 5~ 29 \ A , 3 ALOW CONC WALK 26\29 ., 4 O On 30.00' N 75'09'/f'W CONC. WALK e 9 %2 8ACK OF CURB *6 L* ID Â©j 4 MOUNTAIN RESCUE BUILDING r. 1 31 P 0 . .. --4Al-VA,515- ~ tiLISE 0,4142'rt C.â€¢et, trn-- 22224=4, - nu,5,6- ExteÂ·r-,st rlÂ·rl- /0--h = VE.1.49 l.4*10,-1 t111- C.Le *et KI Cele- 6.-F' 12 . A . di . .,1 11 , 'rk C CL.2. -9* ep ) 16 + Wp Pps(-I/4 wel* urpalL M-12. â€ž.-----.-7/ 04~ 1 1 ~L--- 2.2. PP -Mt, M l ; ; I ' -~ !''Â· '- 1/ - 1*T/(10â‚¬.,SUSâ€¢1*PING PEC ;412:â€¢ f WMPOU+4 -- ' ' Â»1*T: liA-- ~-7- wo Co=+15*.. eps - NCR W.T 11. ..i: . '11. 1. 1 1 ~ 1 ,,1 N, , e.we- cwpot,-1* Ple-H*CHÂ·49 :. , 11 1 - lili/\\ 21 1Â¢i.14 1 L. 1:i'.11 '' F -.- 2-2. WP 62*s-â‚¬-9 , 19 1-4- Wo T-*S,s-IM -4 1 ': ; *,11 Â· i~: 1 ~ -, ~ - 9 1 -r.67. Fl- r; I :.: iji~i=!!i i 1-Â·L'-: /104 6646â‚¬:AA w/Ex,Â«A 1 t., .11 1 :. ; 1 11 2. r C c.ut- 4'9Â£1'400 140 60Â¢.rl \ C.â‚¬- - -6 t];~Sk ~ 6101~6, AS u 1 i, i -RE<.p 0 1 1 4 . 711 '53'' 3 . LI .0 , 1>'. 4,Wo ,~-Al . -7 1 1.0 '95*2 7 ;.1 - ... T.ot- I .: . L'K--- -- - _ i - 2-2 - . - f -\~<d - H 11 1, it B g .Â· i i 4 ..SE -- ---Â· -- - f. -- + -- - - -.- P>1 NEÂ·61 44- --- ----- + ... r.z==:=7 I \4 ---, 2 r -1 AU,56# HP W/c:-e 1 -=54*7 - - -- - 2/- ut t.t p **< -- ----- - - -1 7 C Mrl. Â¥UAH,4 UJ '~ --- 127- - U~ ' 1]1 - . ~-LE -2< 2 WP 1,01 M = -\ - le 4' - '0-IMAâ€¢tÂ» 12*â‚¬'p,/~211 ... . - ~ pÂ·Â·----\ 1<+ WP -rAM -4, 5 4 ~ 4 5 2 122 4 -0 4 32 ,~ "141.61 WOW 6--- '- _-_ _ __ i .0 1 Â¥ 9 12-â€¢4*IN rEC --- - -- - -3 -% Ij k T ZIE , SALWAdrit -2 i 4 HYS 1 -__ +11,46*6, *_~.i' Izeue=.â‚¬- eitri. - -- - 241 ~ . 19 ------- --- - . =-2--31 , - t. - - T L f.0.R:two 17-- 7 imt-7.- 7.1 . 14+4{ill 11 9 Il_ 4 "# i i . _ i 1 C lili / 1 - ,,~~ f*L-vAG.& i %*flifk- ~ ~ ~ ' 1 E - - 6/211Â·14 2 ~ B.41Â«'4 6121 Hdr. REPLA,6 . 1 1 F ttij ( L t*LBE. pt- 6/ B.1.#irkr 1 3 -2 1 NEW 24- 1 2- WA-terieLEÂ· | T 1 1 1 1 23.It W C> 1,4.â€¢:TÂ»CrM.L.E. tr> 1 -S -O 2:4/. 1 IE31d i 11' 1 1 1 1 . i - - -- 0 -_4 - . , .: :,0 Â·blÂ·,86 1 1 12- 21 2.3 ' 7 1 1 L------------ --------- a 1-1*GT- M.LFâ€¢/.:rloN Now-TH *Le>~*T'01421Â·4 ./'' r: 0, 9 62 4 .2. I el h 940Â· 1'-O. ,Â· 42 4% 1'-8 14 . -1 .3 1,-W. 2 b 1.Â· "i A. ' 4 /Al - ~1 rAI - UL Of ' '~1_t_. _ *J' LA! 8 - 2 56 i Id l Xâ€¢a= re. ..,2 1 ujw/~ly 743Al:11 2 Al-:TlEWATIONâ‚¬â€¢ t Avorrw,A APO Gerardus H-Van Moorsel Architect 610 14. MAIN er. ASMEN OR A4 9.: 0: ia . P.O-Box 3474,AÂ®In Co. 81512 1*2- -leÂ·FÂ¥12-EN' AAZONÂ·'66â€¢A 1 PATE- 6 '1'5 -1 C. - < .:474. ~ 3*:23 -. 0 . 11., tej F 45.6.>.*er E. ~ 1Â»666. b< 10Â«r,s, tift e.1962- C.... 1 Mn- 4-Â£12- 0 ) )lin* el C'Re- 4-F 1461â€¢J UFFbs Fl-A:â‚¬- 20*14 281%+6â‚¬- *6 2/4 0. 4/ h -- 1-07* FÂ¥-Fl VE 5/ - 10+ Gaf t. RWAA < 4.-t A-~1,4 ~ -4 - Mt PLUE- 1 wi#col-/5 k _ .- - ~ 9/t~'-. -~i- z< C Wp wirÂ·Ip,6-4 112.trl Z4Â·1-42- -1-*,4 ~ 1. 1 ./ '1 16 //fr Â»4 /7 6,1 //-1--n I ..1 + WI) 1*hs-'A -- 2- S wo WC>w -rÂ·CAM Art [1- >." I . lAp Hf. 1 1--- 4.4-1' ~4 i .11 -r.'. FL li rte.1,4 1,44- Ws> =,*LugEL*fili~F .,as.. 1 H ; J 1 1 01 1 - $4 3.00-&- 1 1-..x-#tLlkA.D~, AL# Re 12 +4â€¢S A 6,6,2.. 64%W ) , -) I . 2 wp d.2-,4,6 -te-'Fl : 11 1 .--r. 4 -1-T- 1 t.â€¢Cr. c.L.A.obl)-4,5. FWÂ· Ht Â· 1 C 4 11 k '22*1~ R & =.1 H*44 0 D Tk In NEW drAEDUE. P./.SH i L ' '.; 1 I T-,1-T 3 1 T- ' 8â€¢qqr'A Wl 1.jaz.k- t , -r--7 -- *it /*- lat,Ace. 4â€¢Ip,NA IN ~40-1-ME.,41-*1-1-1 -ro - ,. g.â€¢PP 1Â¥ 01&+4Arletr>â€¢rW,4 -----~~ r , C ... 4 r. - /,41 v.x>ll r K.-P - i Q ~ -T:/ rl*UP !- iii .: % .1 4 4 7Â·SyrEE 1 1% 1 1 -0 0, rl- . 1.0 9.- : BA<,Wr* Wpw u- 1 Flul*& #,4,4014 0 - -1 -7 11 5 MTL- 12.-F f 10 1222.tÂ·1.IN~ - i d..14,1/+L OW- _ _ ._.m Â· ~-n H - W E.61 SHE-P -- W 21 > --- + 0 - 5 -4 - ' 't AiÂ·,-r-1~ Pk-e- --4 -~- NEW 2/12. - ~e - L------11' 4, - , 1 e Â£ 3 >1 1.. =el,61 H N 1 6-4-redc.-rÂ»64.C. UP -4.- - , 1.4- As> 1121+1 - Â£ 1.*+*FK H Ft. ~ - i I r---1 z.---_- - e,Â»ri C:De I i ~---- r=- 9 ,, ar 1Â· 14. _. r- 2#162 lil"'lilit 1 4041.p .1,0.4.-. -- - I _Â·xtrÂ·r,3962-- =:=======trt t.,5 -!----- - - --- 0 - 0 .- i' 1 - x [ 7--36 --1 -1 I r I J~- /-Â» b : 1 1 -,r -- -1,1 NEW 6Â·40 97'"-~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 .. / 1 41-I W PW 5 1 & 4/ 11 \4 1 +1 1 1 -23 1 ----- 2- 2. LAUÂ»1'ejeÂ» 6 1 . 55.0 +4. 4Lw-t=â€¢g,â€¢IL- \UJ/, -| V r 1 1! ./1 1 i 1 - | | 1- 4 / / 1 1 4 W T I 2>2" wipc. . z.>G =*.- 1 1 â€ž_rt / 1 1 72 6 t.6.1,0. -4 / 1 .1 1 1 -1 / to N I i~--------'' 1 1 1 'r', a.Ae,, ~ 1 -I /' -k -r:L~SLAL 4 - LE-9.- ____ --_ T ' 1 ..*GF.7*-*p, Sol-Prl-1 El--E>Â·/ACT--1014 **06:1- E-LE-vA-Op,4 /* 1 0\ dj - J 1396 : 1~ p. p [B@ W ~ .71 18;JA\01~ a. 5~ A - 2 1996 ~ J.'i ~ - -Al.:rE=,noNâ€¢b Â£ APP 1-noN Ac>u Gerarduk H- Van Moorsel Architect G,14> 1-1. rt*IN esr. A.*Fiuu, 630. P.O.Box 3474.Asp- Co. .:81612 A3 't>, - -1 6 . 616 W. MA-IN iv{AIN- STREET OFFICE i RESIDENCE HISTORY, IN-TOWN BRAND NEW - 100 YEAR OLD CARRIAGE HOUSE And 1833 VICTORIAN HOME ONE LOT - 2 HOUSES / I - .....I - f.Ul ..... - -- ---1. -- LEE . 1 7 ./- , 17 U 1 5 -P J I . 1.J , 1 9. . i : 1 ;i â€¢"f'flii;; 4414. - .. 1 . ; , , - ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. project name G /G lo. MA 1 9 2. Project location 6 IG (015. MA,9 1 A~ Pet) G 4,6.64=1' C 01 1- (*43 Bâ‚¬-crk 2-4 Le.T M (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning Rts,Dehe,AL;~cOM*MltÂ«CAAL. 4. Lot size 3$0 59.-ft. 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Qi R. MA OuARk 126 W.FAMcil , As Pen - 920-32.-82 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number SAAAd- M * S-- A Ster 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD X Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. A Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliULot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the p r o p e rt y ) RE s c m e w 1 - 1 A L - 6 2 5- 1 - RA L- r wo r S abiL ebÂ¢O Roe)*AS IN fieSID,CNES I, 1 BeloADch A,O,\A, APFPOk /9Gt AOIA 900 0 9. Description of development applicatiork:;,t r;~..ge ,;L a.,~6,5;;E~,.4,.4*.st> -AA,Â£14 A,MA-1.use, 4%fu,64 41Â£1/0/ 84 31)2 i,4,4 -'.4.----- 0 1.,15"T,1. th G \AcaGo ~ 06ulb' - 06 Cle.-, 141 kn4411 ~64â€¢ a*Le.44 w / k.-a-1 neeÂ» 42â€¢4407 74 *LI sAe,Ab t A'rL-t/U&*'f'â€¢Â»t, J#iil JA84~14, LL;6.1 t~~lf 4 10~0~1~JC~,~0-WrÂ»+ ~ *,-824. Â»49 4- Aou 2 *,-0 41-v Cp-~24,- *Â«Apt- 4,UELO 1 U. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1 - Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachment 4 . 11111111 1 I ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: MANCULK Address: 616 w. M A i A~ A s P.:11 Zone district: 0 Lot size: SCDOC) 50Â»1-. Existing FAR: , Bo 1 -se ..P+. Allowable FAR: <2400 JO. Ft. Proposed FAR: Wo C,WAe,CLF' Existing net leasable (commercial): k.15,0 e PropoBed net leasable (commercial): . ORE Existipg % of site coverage: N }A Proposed % of site coverage: 41 F Existing % of open space: Al~A Proposed % of open space: Â·61 'A Existing maximum height: Principal bldg:Vn cwA.le= Accesolv bldg:Ak, 0,45=R Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 4 v Accessorv bldg: Proposed % of demolition: k / 1 Existing number of bedrooms: 3 0 Proposed number of bedrooms: 3 Existing on-site parking spaces: Ort On-site parking spaces required: 0 Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: No CM<*GE Front hi o Cw 40 G i Front: 00 owl/0 6& Rean Rear: Rear: 1 Combined Combined Combined FronUrear: Fronurear FronUrearl Side: Side: Side: ~ Side: Side: Side: Combined Combined Combined~ Sides: S ides: Sides: \ 4506447 Existing nonconformities or encroachments~12:6VE (11â€¢AJA 411 6 0,0 GMS-i- SI,0â‚¬- (LANCIAARK' brA-rub < t-ktal\W[-lbÂ¢~ 1~01'R fbcOU, Ef~CArâ€¢MÂ·e 88 &429- Atic. R Eq u la.Wâ€¢~BwT. Variations requested: 0 okier (11PC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft, site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the 0 cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) ~ ATTACHMENT 3 General Submission Requirements 1. William R. Manclark, applicant 2. Street address of the parcel 616 W. Main Street Aspen, Colorado Legal Description Pitkin County, Colorado Block 24 - Lot N 3. Attached (Amy, I owe you these papers and will give them ~ to you when I can get them from Escrow). 4. Vicinity Map attached. 0 OF= y.-* 1 18 Community Pages Â©US WEST 1998 14Â·' Aspen Street Map U 0 6, \ 7 1 1\1 ./--/--2 T \\41 f A 9% 1% N~ 0 f *203244 9 98. . t-tÂ·# A ' t40. 041. 80, 4 1. .90 1 - 4JK742~Zi ff- ~.144-\1~\,\7~~7 4~ % 4 3 0 ika , 0, ~ago/nco R,y 3/ 944-4 ,Afountain view or $ 01 -~ 0 *- 2~/%4 *-e,A---h~\ 0 0 be Â»4& 12& 1- 4 4 - 1 'Fs-Rd K.# t - SOoâ€ž, 1 ~444-- <74\..29,41 /,23" -Bunnr Ln lili P, < 19 > Sn*Bunny Ct , 2 2 1 1 - 5!5331* 1 Â¢'.,f/% Salvation ~'â€¢â€¢ To Airport, Basalt , \% C Aspen NÂ·~ \2 h A - & X.. 00 9 9 Institute ------- Hunt f N ico 3 1., 0 +2 re ; 4. / 1 :4 / Tent j ~5..~,Eood Duck Â£.0 'VZ~ 1 2 5 1 4 - 0 Music Y' y \0 i , I!.f /4 7 o i J 1 S fdf-y . L' Â·Golf Course .4 1-0 1 < /2-4/ ~~P*-Â«*,i-11 -~\ 5--- U . #%9 04 f 1% - -- 1 1 044 %. / #Nk-*l ./NU. >4~, 44Â£+1: 0 C \ , 4â‚¬, *glk-*23 ; 9 / ' .0-Â·24,4 U ~|~ Maroon Creek Rd , \297/ 34424. )4 51 1 High : 1 (:4-- ' 1 ly;,2 6,Mit(:7 A.<% Shouthiv j School f a Â¢ %\1 fi .2,9Wl'Li Â»Â» 1 -1 -14 6,cisi i #10/ 8 1 * ./ 4 4412 ,- . 1/1 st 8 / Â«01 ~Â»lt f i . 1- il il '41 49 ~ To Maroon Lake ~; Sok.I735â„¢*Â» ' 10 1 LUNPeÂ« *ltia k ; 0* .HY , 9,44* 0 1 prlmrose Pa 0-9 1 -2 (/0.15 ; 7444.-e S h.....0, .R k -.-...... ill.r-1 j F *-*.3 , e. f * & f f :ey~ Â·, 44.cs i~-Â»~~ uke#*r -2,+LZ Mal' c*kiÂ·.9 14.1~ 2 Au APL--227.71-1\ +4 *,rdrkspur Â£n ; 3 ) Aspe -*--4-*f~,~,= A f ~ 1 " ~ Â¤9* 1*-sy-~*tizil West Summit 9 I C j\. f 4 i.,L w. /0/,0/W"&/AwebU-1 . 4Â» P .. To Ashcraft ./AAAâ€¢A Map Â©US WEST Dex, Inc. 1998 uppld 4 J ..4 0 puvi j ATTACHMENT 4 1. Survey with Enlargements (See Attachment). 2. Photographs and copies of pictures from catalog. In an effort to make these pictures more meaningful-1 have included these pictures in our proposal where they relate to the discussion. 3. No Change 4. Discussion of our proposal (See Attachment). 0 0 383339 B-787 P-55 07/13/95 03:29P PG 5 OF 5 AttlY Â· :COCK 24 K l Â· 34 i < /l/A 1 1.. . . . .. 1 44911 f ..,tfo,es câ„¢nnc='â€¢ &. 9352â‚¬E MAIN STREET . r.& M 3*7- At lE Y BIOCK 24 - .1 7- - - - , - r- IÂ¥ /0 f E /0 4-f \ 17,/1 ' K L M O 1 . , I l 1 - ./ 0. :Tes,CriifrI. 'Ai i i 1~;. 1 1 ' i /4/7 4 , 1 1 :, //l# A 1 i 93 - 1 1 .'.==W=11'//La- i. . 1 ./ f.10.-1 0L MAIN ...T C r..1 1. Description of our proposal. 0 It is our desire and intention to maintain the Historic Nature and Characteristics of these 1888 Miners cabin. Any strengthening, insulation etc. shall be accomplished from the inside of the building. A. Residence. a. We are respectfully asking to be able to correct three (3) areas of the residence. 1. Correct a malfunctioning flat roof area over the kitchen. 2. To install a skylight over the kitchen Area that will NOT be visible from the street. 3. To replace 2 windows in the rear portion of the house: (a) One in the kitchen. (b) One in the dining room. B. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) a. In the ADU we would like to provide a safety a escape/rescue exit from the third floor. (Presently, there is NO safety egress). 0 1. Description of our proposal. It is our desire and intention to maintain the Historic Nature and Characteristics of these 1888 Miners cabin. Any strengthening, insulation etc. shall be accomplished from the inside of the building. A. Residence. a. We are respectfully asking to be able to correct three (3) areas of the residence. 1. Correct a malfunctioning flat roof area over the kitchen. 2. To install a skylight over the kitchen Area that will NOT be visible from the street. 3. To replace 2 windows in the rear portion of the house: (a) One in the kitchen. (b) One in the dining room. B. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) a. In the ADU we would like to provide a safety a escape/rescue exit from the third floor. (Presently, there is NO safety egress). I . .&.~<~h"~'~~~ . 41 ... G iR 11 I h 4, 4 11. Discussion (Residence). A. Malfunctioning Flat Roof. a. Background: 1. The existing flat roof over the kitchen area is located at the base of two steeply sloped gables. (See photo) 17 - ' Â·0% .9- .*, , Â·Â· ~ef. Â·r Â¢y . 4 e ... k 1 9*Â·d: -9 -a ~h 2 \: . ~ .32 61 i >Â·:- ~- 6 <09 3.3.-4 gh 1- 1. i 0 - 6 34. 1 \111 4242. i.b t \ 66 2-4-4 2-4 . 1 14221.%212 - 0 -- J,#F -- .-- . ....u-* - --> . . I i * 2 4 ieÂ¢ .. E - . .6 ~*rÂ»Â°.4~. , , 1..., 4 . . " ...9 .: i 2. Fundamental characteristics of weather tight roofs are EFFICIENT DRAINAGE. Water, snow and ice lingering on the roof can be destructive to the roof materials, and will eventually find its way into the building causing further damage. 3. Radical changes in roof pitches like this one are susceptible to leaks because drainage is slowed or even trapped by the flat roof. 4. Water damaged walls, especially on the North wall of the parlor--which happens to be located below the transition in the roofs from the steep gable to the flat roof. Below are photographs showing the effects of such poor drainage (North Wall). 1~_, I .,F' 2. 3 f.. N 1 i 21 1 -4 11 1 / V 3 b. Our proposal: EAs-2, WÂ·ag- STEEPLY GAOLEÂ© 2 rioop. 114 0 ocr U' '~ c:,urrx-l S-r~aeLY GASLED RooF j~ . 1 474 k // iLl i 6/ 11 1 9 Nouo A L.16 0 El x 1 - I /- -3\ 70 2,=. W 4 2.elk -1 ----- - - -- --- 3 MAIN / -7- 0\ Rfip-- fdoor A) . PLAT SUGHTLY S Lo FED UVATER, AAECT-60 5kow L CiR ACCUMUL ANE 14â‚¬:RE. Nogrw CleÂ· SEE Pwo-ro GRAPH GPO ERÂ©Â©r OF -r- 1-1 \ f PÂ¢KE. SE~N-CATION ~\10 10-TE< PitILA AE - Stlt\)11 9,100\.0 ACCL\AAV.lAT70O oveQ 170204 AKGA -51Mll-44 De~stâ‚¬,K)~ 1. Presently, the existing roofs have reached their full lives and need replacing. (a). We would ask that when these roofs are replaced that we would be able to carry the slight slope of Roof A (above) could be carried southward to the base o f the East/West Gable (area o f the kitchen). - See Roof B in the above drawing. i (b). After the Repair ., r L 4 i : il // i // il It \ \ f~0 605 EQ \ RE pRI RED Nlaw Ficer \ HCLAT 'ROOT . Roof A 6 (c>. This imprbved drainage would prolong the life of the roofs as well as the interior walls. Decrease maintenance and monitoring and decrease water leakage into the structure. (d). This slight increase in slope would NOT be noticeable from Main Street for two reasons: (1). The slope is minimal. (2). The new sloping roof is hidden behind the East/West steeply sloped gables. 2. Because this roof cannot be seen from Main Street we have thus maintained the historic nature of the structure. 3. When this roof is replaced-Roof A and Flat Roof B-we would also ask that we could make it a Metal roof. As stated it would not be visible from Main Street. i E. I -- 73 - -. - - r- - 7 , -1 1 -- ,- r -1 - 1 4. When we change this roof(metal) we would like to install a skylight over the kitchen. (a). This skylight will be placed behind the steeply gabled East/West roofs-thus will absolutely not be visible from Main Street. (b). The slight slope of the new roof will also hide the skylight. (c). Landscaping will also help hide the sloping roof and the skylight. B. Replace 2 windows in the; Residence. a. Background. 1. These windows are approximately 2 feet by 6 . feet. 2. One window is in the kitchen and the other is in the dining room. 3. These windows were originally installed vertically-that is 2 ft. wide and 6 ft. high. Sometime in the past they were rotated 90 degrees to their present location of 6 ft. wide and 2 ft. high. i .ra. 11621*' d. 1 /~F , lay 177 4. .. j L . 6 1 1 1 't 1 . a .. - I -- .. e .â‚¬,4, t.2. . r ..r , 4 1 I ' ) .,t f- 2 .1 7-; t. 7 4. They are presently non-functional. 5. Presently, they take up so much wall space there is only minimal space for kitchen cabinets on the West wall and minimal space on the East wall in the dining room. I , .... 1 .- .e -1 1 4 j . C .- . 1.1 4 9....6/ 6. These windows are located far enough back from Main Street that they could be changed and not affect the characteristics of the building. /:Pt'* 1 1..'Al j ---==-- . b. Our Proposal . 1. We would like to replace these 2 windows with two slider windows. (a) Each window section would have 9 lites (b) Total in both windows in each room = 18 lites (c) Measurements of the windows=3 feet high and 4 feet wide. 0 Hardware Selection /=].icâ€¢]ii, Fluill,aÂ£2,- 1il. Sash Lock 1 1-1 1- 1 b f m ~_9121 10 EN[Itif'/ L./From Wall J . 1 WIDE XO OPERATOR UNITS Mai Opg. 34 (914) 4-0 (1219) 5.0 (1524) 6.0 (1829) Rough Opg. - 3-0 1/2 (927) 4-01/2 (1232) 5-01/2 (1537) 6-0 in (184Z) Frame Size 2-11 1/2 (902) 3-11 1/2 (1207) 4-11 1/2 (I511) Lit 1/2 0816) Glass Size 14 3/4" (375) 20 3/4" (527) 26 3/4" (679) 32 3/4" (832) 3/2 // fÂ· 22 1 - Â«F S N IGL3624 IGL4824 -- N 00 2 6 1'.tj -+11 , Ir-Â«-1 r-r--11 Ir=--ILLILLB 17imi 3 Ir--1-Ir-'-Il \ 1F-7-~1[-ppi 17 r T--~ -1 \ r - - L.1'1 \ LUL=11 1 LLULLU! ILFU=_i_-_la 2 2 E E - L.L_i IGL3636 T -EL#836T IGL6036 * [GL7236 *T 49744_H LICA FF-~fl i mE 111 1 11 â€ž IGL364Z IGL4842 IGL6042 * IGL7242 7 22:Re BEEN 1 V-V- E 111 1 12 EA: 25=0 [GL3648 T [GL4848 * [GL6048 * [GL7248 ' 4 4-0.- Elf ~ - 249 f Eld - -i l-_1.j Lt_j 1 IGL3660 IGL4860 * IGL6060 * IGL7260 * '4, T=Tempered (optional) * These windows meet national egress codes for fire evacuation. Local codes may differ. Note: XO operation standard, OX operation optional. Standard Glider grille cuts are available in patterns shown above. 1. f. 4 -4 Â¥ 1- 2 1- 1 1 Â»fil ~-- ROUGH OPENING - AW 1 -FRAME StZE - - 1/2- .1 - - 1. 1/2" 0 Z klk* di F 0 0 ~Â»Â»=Â« iN x x 3 11 10 a Â»* 4 3 3 1/\/\%11 4307 3Â»*I_~, Ul*/ \'/\~ Â¥, 11/ 4 40*=J,9=LM,- U 9 164'.i., 1, T t...44-2 1- ~~)-1-7 th---1 -4 + 1/4 6--~MASONRY OPENING- 4...43â€¢ 2 .*Â·1 I 14 Z 1 WIDE XO OPERATOR JAMB DETAIL RD;r' r 0.-0 Details and Elevations not co sco! HEAD JAMB & SILL DETAIL * 4;Â· . i R* 4- , dbi*, Â·. 40. (914) 2-0 (610 1 3 4 (908) 1-11 3-61/4 7) ' OPENING - 2. Because these windows are 2/3 of the way back on the building from Main Street, changing the windows will not distract from the historic character of this miner's cabin. 3. Landscaping along the West side will also make these windows invisible from Main Street 111. Our last request has to do with the ADU A. Background: a. When the ADU was built the third floor was designed as a non- sleeping area, which allowed approval of the plan WITHOUT AN EMERGENCY/RESCUE ESCAPE ROUTE FROM THAT FLOOR. b. Even though it is not used as a bedroom, my fear is that if someone was upstairs (spiral staircase) watching T.V., or working at a desk etc. and a fire started in the kitchen below-a person on this top floor could be trapped (especially if they watch TV like I do and sleep 50% of the time). c. Egress windows by code should be a minimum width of 20 inches clear and a minimum height of 24 inches clear and a NET clear of at least 5.7 feet. d. NONE of the windows in the upper floor study/bedroom of the ADU are suitable for egress and or rescue. B. Our proposal a. I would like to open a door (narrow) on the North side of the ADU-3rd floor, above the alley. (See Photo) PRo ensÂ£ o Doolk 1 1 0 6 6 Â¢\ - '- 1 4* 1 \ :/ JA..W 1 ~ ' 10 i k- 41 .1 7%- A/,Al#.wrjzillillillill'. . c. This door would act as the emergency egress route. d. A narrow balcony with a removable safety rail would be provided to prevent someone fro m accidently exiting the room via this route. '424'4.-,Â· Â·ip.Af . 4 LE 12 1. .A 5 01*471 ~ ti : , f-, jt,~~'' t.~ L .-1. 4. '46Â·t'' tâ€ž/2 191%6-3. --3 4 ,/ ... 4 .. 14- 4 ....,3 - 321 1. -- tÂ· f . ..4.â‚¬* 4 (this Photo is a picture of such a balcony-this balcony is narrow and it is built right on the property line (alley)-Aspen St. and Bleeker. The balcony we propose would be at least 4 feet in from the rear property line. 4. A fold up escape ladder would also be provided. 5. This door would also make it possible to move furniture in and out of that floor. Presentl~, with A 6 F IRA L 21, 1 the only access to that floorA it is pAy*Ally impossible to get furniture on that floor. AS LONG AS I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION MAY I PLEASE ASK THAT BOARDS SUCH AS WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE PICTURE BELOW BE REPLACED (THESE BOARDS HAVE TIN COVERING HOLES WHERE INSULATION WAS BLOWN INTO THE WALLS). AS ALSO CAN BE SEEN, SOME BOARDS ARE SHORT (1-2 FEET), 1 REALIZE THAT IT MAY TAKE A FIELD INSPECTION TO MAKE SUCH A DECISION. MY FEELING IS THAT IT WILL MAKE THE HOUSE MORE ~ WEATHERPROOF. - 4.1 .-~/ pili2'9'Sl Li ';il=Â·-33*-.*,1.-lil.---4 1 r , -- .... . 01 4 4 -5 /1 .7 1 b </ K I , I. , Â¥. -. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION! MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director 3/11] Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director..*O il (17 - V FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 104 S. Galena Street- St. Mary's Rectory- site visit and worksession DATE: September 22, 1999 SIJMMARY: Some time ago, the rectory building at St. Mary's Church was sandblasted. This was at one time a commonly used method to clean masonry buildings, but it is now understood that abrasive cleaning will actually bring on significant deterioration. Sandblasting takes away the hard fired exterior surface of the brick and makes it act like a sponge, allowing water to penetrate into the wall. The National Trust for Historic Preservation's book "Masonry" describes the following results of sandblasting: 1. Damage to and often destruction of decorative detailing or texture. 2. Removal of the hard fired exterior surface of brick or terra cotta or the hard skin of stone, thus exposing the softer interior to weathering and rapid deterioration. 3. Destruction ofpointing and joint details, leading to water penetration. 4. Roughening and pitting of the surface, increasing the possibility of water and dirt accumulation and causing rapid and uneven soiling as the masonry ages. 5. Damage to other parts ofthe building because abrasive techniques are hard to control. The church is concerned with the condition of the building and has asked about appropriate ways to deal with the problem. Staff recommended that an expert on historic masonry be hired to evaluate the building. Diane Travis of the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute did a study and her report is attached to this memo. The HPC will hold a site visit at 12:00 p.m. and a worksession at the evening meeting. The recommended repair procedures from the report are: â€¢ Coat the building with a new skin of old-fashioned cementitious stucco. â€¢ Demolish the building and rebuild it using new brick. â€¢ Through bolt a steel angle to the base of the wall to act as a shelf angle for a new brick veneer. 1 Staff recommendation: The procedures recommended by Diane Travis are dramatic 0 alterations to the historic structure. Staff has consulted with the restoration specialists for the Colorado Historical Society. They find some merit in the concept of using a cementitious stucco to address deterioration at the foundation level, but are concerned with its application on the whole structure. The stucco recommended is a historic treatment, but will significantly alter the character ofthe building. The idea of encapsulating the original structure under a veneer of new brick is in violation of the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards" in the opinion of the Colorado Historical Society. They conclude that a variety of treatments may need to be done on the building depending on the deterioration. In this case a clear masonry sealant may be advisable to stop the brick deterioration, however it must be reapplied every six or seven years, making it a long term maintenance commitment. The purpose of this worksession is to introduce the issue to HPC and to look for further direction as to what actions the Commission feels are appropriate or what further information will be needed for a decision. 0 0 2 1--163-57 1 --Wili MOCKY I'liIN i't'r-2,~,t\IRT lN 740 P01 AUG 18 ' 99 11:12 ... Post-itÂ® Fax Note 7671 Date pages' post-ItÂ® Fax Note * of 7671 32-** I;&86 â€¢ Â¥~ ~ :- Jeffv=-â€¢4 -}W~'Cof From ,-0904. IQ,Kika nom Â»*04Â·Â»075 Co./Dept. 0~* ~~i;2766'Va CO. Col[)ept 5Â¥ "47/10 3 **A ;Al 0 Phone # 110/103 -4 {61 Phone ff -* 419 /421-7131 7" 3 AL-9 9 1-1144 Fax tt 170 14-2.3 - 15-2<9 Fax 0 tY-912 1 414 - i.tg Fax # Â»31411-0114 -I-- ----Ill- -----I --*Ii- q--- MASONRY REPAIR OPTIONS for THE RECTORY of ST. MARY' S CATHOLIC ASPEN, COLORADO PhA MAX w.aÂ« re Fo r t. Fulk kerolk ( 601 Â»- p>it 996) w1 I \ bo twuil 4 047(M 60~â‚¬Ut . 377 DIANE TRAVIS Technical Director Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute 0 +303-691-0121 ROCKY MTN MASONRY IN 740 P02 AUG 18 '99 11:12 Site Visit to the Rectory of St. Mary'Â§ Catholic Church Aspen, Colorado Rook. Mountain On site July 27, 1999 lNSTITU7i Historic Preservation Officer Architect Amy Guthrie Jeffrey Hancox Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Robert Trown & Associates 130 South Galena P.O. Box 6820 Aspen, CO 81611 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Phone: 970/920-5096 Phone: 970/923-6131 Fax: 970/920-5439 Fax: 970/923-2599 OMnÂ£128-Rem:,antatixe Matary Consultant Cindy Northway Diane Travis St. Mary's Catholic Cht.rch Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute 104 South Gatena 1780 South Bellaire, Suite 402 Aspen, CO 81611 Denver, CO 80222 Phone: 970/925-7339 Phone: 303/691-2141 0 - Fax: 970/925-1889 Fax: 303/691-0121 Cindy Northway, the secretary of St. Mary's Catholic Church asked me to come to Aspen to look at St. Mary's Rectory, a 110-year-old brick building in Aspen located at the corner of Galena and Main Streets. She wanted my advice on restoration of the brickwork. While I was on site I also took a cursory tour outside of the Church, located half a block from the Rectory. The Church and the Rectory have withstood more than a century of Colorado weather. The Church has been well maintained and needs only minimal repair and preventative maintenance. The Rectory on the other hand is in sad shape. Someone sandblasted the building a few decades ago and seriously damaged the surface ofthe brick. They turned a dirty brick wall into a clean brick sponge. The harsh weather has taken its toll on this hgile brick. Portions of the window jambs are dangerously eroded. Parts of the jambs (near the wood sills) are crumbling. Without immediate attention we might lose this structure. I consulted the technical experts at the Brick Industry Association (formerly called the Brick Institute ofAmerica) in Reston, Virginia (703/620-0010). l also called Mike Schuller of Atkinson-Noland, Inc. (303/444-3620). Mike is a structural engineer who specializes in masonry construction. I also showed photographs of the Rectory to Bud Barr, the local ProSoCo representative (303/753-6525) and Mike Dickey, the ProSoCo area manager for the western states region. ProSoCo is one of the largest and oldest suppliers ofmasonry consolidating products in the United States. 1980 South Ballaire Ii/'llval. CO 80222 Fix 303-891.0121 Amitate 4 BIA, NCMA, AIA, CSI +303-691-0121 ROCKY MTN MASONRY IN 740 P03 AUG 18 '99 11:13 . 0 MASONRY REPAIRS to the RECTORY Water is the number one enemy of masonry construction. Water which penetrates the brick rather than running off is a real problem. If a masonry wall is saturated and then gets frozen, the expanding ice , crystals in the wall cart fracture the brick. You need to figure out where water is getting into the wall and stop the penetration. Although there are some areas where the mortar needs attention, by far the most pressing problem at the Rectory is the raw, absorptive condition ofthe sandblasted brick. You need to replace the water..rcpellent skin of the building. There are several ways to accomplish this goal. Recommended Repair Procedures: 1. Coat the building with a new skin of old-fashioned cementitious stucco. Start with a mechanically attached wire mesh. Use a high.iime stucco mix that will be soft enough to be compatible with the original brick. This approach salvages the mass and the materials ofthe original construction, but obscures the original texture ofthe brick. This is the most cost-effective solution, but it also has a limited life span-probably 25-40 years. 2. Demolish the building down to the foundation and rebuild it using new brick. This approach gives 0 you a new building which exactly matches to old building. It is, however, an expensive replica, not the original. 3. Through=bok a steel angle to the base ofthe wall to act as a shelfangle for anew brick veneer. This - new full-depth brick skin will look good and will last well. Since it is separated from the original wall by an air gap, it will not erode the ftagile original bricks. You need to conduct rests to determine the best way to fasten the masonry ties to the soft brick wall. (Call Mike Schuller for advice-303- 444-3620). You will need to install the new windows to cover the edge of the new brick veneer. Interior window trim will need jamb extensions to cover this gap. NON-Recommended Repair Procedures: 4. Do NOT cover the building with a coat of elastomeric stucco. This new coating system is not breathable enough for your antique brick 5. Do NOT remove the outer wythe of damaged brick and replace it with modern brick. No - manufacturer makes a brick as soft as the original brick. The differential pressure between the two layers of the wall could eventually destroy the softer, original bricks. 6. Do NOT glue an outer layer of thin brick to the face ofthe building with a parge coat ofmortar. The modern briquettes, although only 3/1" thick, are harder than the original bricks in the Recrory. When they begin to peel off On a couple of decades) they will take large chunks oforiginal wall with them. 7. Do NOT treat the failing brick with several coats of a consolidating product. Three preservation experts looked at my photographs of the Rectory. All three felt that the brick is too deteriorated to be saved by consolidating products. Once the bricks are repaired, you need to install new gutters, downspouts and windowsills to insure that 0 the new brick doesn't get saturated with water. +303-691-0121 ROCKY MTN MASONRY IN 740 P04 AUG 18 '99 11:13 4. I PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE on ST. MARY'S CHURCH Repoint failed mortar joints where water has caused the original mortar to turn to powder. I saw only a few failed joints inmy quick tour ofthe building. Donot go overboard. You do notneed to replace all the mortar joints-only the deteriorated ones. Be sure that the new mortar matches the original mortar in both color and strength. Using a mortar that is too strong is worse than using one that is too soft. If you send mortar samples to The Collaborative in Boulder (303/442-3601), they will run lab tests and will come up with a compatible mortar mix. Apply a penetrating coat of clear, colorless, breathable masonry seater to the top face of the stone windowsills and the stone ledges in the masonry piers. This water-repellent coating will help the soft sandstone withstand slowly seeping penetration from snow or rain. Use a silane or siloxane based product. Apply it with a low-pressure (50 p.s.i.) sprayer. Replace the soil around the base oftlic building with a 4" deep, 24" wide bed of gravel. A bed of mediuni sized round river rocks would be ideal. These stones will minimize the splash of rain and mud which is staining the base ofthe building andprematurely eroding the mortarjoints there. A coat of silime or siloxane to the base of the wall would also protect it against water penetration from snow ckifts and rain splash. Be, sure to clean the wall before applying the sealant I noticed one place on the brick fence at the back of the property where water is leaking into the wall at the joint in the metal cap flashing. A line of silicone caulk should stop this deterioration. Check the building once a year as part your annual maintenance routine. Look at the building about 4-6 hours after a soaking snow or rainstorm Dark patches on the wall will tell you where the water is soaking into the wall instead of running off. Give these wet areas a closer look for signs of masonry failure. Keep the gutters and downspouts in good condition. Make sure thar the ground at the base of the building slopes away from the church, encouraging the water to drain harmlessly into the street.