The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.334 W Hallam St.HP-1988-10.-47 HP 334 W Hallam, Conceptual Approvai ---=~ - 3 3 If 4> 14 6* , ~Ft le tof z 1 ilit (000 69- 1 0 - 0- 600 (-r r - 3 1 f â€¢ 74 .At''t,.. File Pocket f Red Rope MADE IN MEXICO ~ S. \ f Â· 24 0.5... Â¥ 1974: ir' 4 3 A % 4 .Bmm 1 A A r 1\\ -- Flanit - . ASPEN' HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE ' CHAIRMAN â€ž. _ nATF APPROVED - =_ 6. PARKING OPTION UB" CONDITIONS 1 . AN_Ey A.Bli "r-1,|r. infu *. . I f r ..1. 1 . /.' luu FROM THESE PLANS M 19 .- 103 REAPPROVAL I . -- :NEW 145(33 POK--cH -~- I. . - . 0 0 FiÂ®R - 4,/ . 0 I . _7.1-74499*_1 4 t A - l'Â· \ 04-4=44-27 v 'U D \ 4--1 1 < _~ 5 Â»ETPA<> 14 1-1-Il Li_~~~t~_ - .. + 1 j - 'JI %/ F , 41 - -pit 90 8*IFY , : w DRAWING INDEX 4 +. PHA&EC)Nd cÂ».R[Â»Er HOUSE L / It //t// 1 1 I ~L-----/,/, /\\\----- , SURVEY 1 -\ - 1 r Al.1 SITE PLAN ~1~7 'Jr ~-~33;'-- 1--49//14 14- T+JI- REMOVE 0 '.Ii.*W Coll.STFUC* 1 0,1 A2.1 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN ew'vre (Aff"- -5.I~EA' ik ~--- 1-1 NW *1Â«6E /11 A2.2 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN 4-Â» /\. A2.3 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR F'LAN ~ A2.4 UPPER' LEVEL, FLOOR PLAN /1 \ Ey]06. p'!v~. 1 1 Ill --57 7 A-.2 EXISTING CARRIAGE HOUSE ELEVATIONS < AB.4 CARRIAGE HOUSE ELEVATIONS - P 1,3 1 A4.1 - CARRIAGE HOUSE SECTIONS & DETAILS A 1 -0 \4 "4 ' 14 1 I 1 4 r iÂ© 81 FOUNDATION PLAN 92 FLOOR FRAMING PLAN _ lwO zmper 1 01 83 ROOF FRAMING PLAN -P-ousgr-- 1 z 58 0- 1 11\11 0 5 PHASE Two .~l -1 f. 1 a */00 0-1-- 1 1 li .C 4,- 1, C. A , 2 i--\1- - th. DCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3 Alf .1 A 1 p,-0 87*15~ 0 9 '/ 14 f 1.1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE. I-N \C 1 AREA: PHASE ONE - A - 635 f B - 635 1 1 10 ' 9*T 840 'c / TOTAL - 1,270 ' PHASE TWO - A - .111- c - /'1 11 b X :IE@* 4 fo \ / I -4- 0- 1975'09'11"< 01?01 ~~ INk- F - -1&15 Issue: 60 8 - JMYâ‚¬42-310 H - .91- 9-'2Â·31 4114612 ge/leW I- *SO b Â» L - *Et> 3,2 85 0#t ME vls/773 2 - TF Â·46 H Po 128/'teW M - 294 55 34,1, Apr Movt j N - le, 8.5 1.17 58 P l-120 PE ~ 7, PE.49 / 0 - 9.1 0 p - 845,1 RN t. 2,15 TOTAL - 3521 " MANLA/4*TFFET â„¢E PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWIIG ISONLY TO GRAPHICALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL. NATURE OF THE WORK. THE CONTRACÂ· GENERAL CONDIFIONS TOR $ FESPONSIBLE FOR CO11*NING DIMENSIONS. AND SELECTING FA8RICATION PROCESSES Al[) TECHNIQUES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS --m"IN/7jm'/1/ j SHOWN BY THIS DRAWNG ALL Â¢Â·1* I ll'.lih 01- THE Cllk'RE'MI Dol Unt:14 I "'3ENEHAt CONID JY .I UNS OFÂ· THI: CONIRAC I FOR 1 UNT,t 1<1 JI .1- IriN" , AIA DIJC.t.jill: 1:11 A:81 (1987 EDI. r 1 1-IN I , SHAI 1.. 1.11 1 *,if- 1 01' 1 1.1 1 3 SITE PLAN SPET ]F [CAt ifIN, Aft lili Rl t-'LIRI PARI Or 111;. CUN,HAL f DOLUMI:Nlt,. ASPE" v#Ir'*Â·fRESERVATION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ~1 1 29) i DATF D 'lf Â· er APPROVED 1< DEmED ~ CONDITIONS Scale: 1" S 10'-O" ANY DEVIATION FROM THESE PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR REAPPROVAL 14ft AUL edp, All d 1968 WILLIAM JOHN POSS ~ f ---3,;VaL DE'/Â£7.- -//Â£*Al'll' A 1 - A A 64$ j .. . it ~ 22 WOOE EMVWIMe brUM I 191.4 4 -- - 23 EFOOB EBVWIMe brUM trfÂ· ~.*. -rt-f=Â·nÂ·- Pie ~~ F Â·f 2'.::.: 2I EORMDelIOM brUM Ve' I CUBBIVRE HOnaE 2ECIIOMe V DEIVITB 1, *-- i ALLEY - f 4. b & : %89+Wor>0 20264 VE.4 CVWHIVeE HORBE EFEAVIIOMe - -. 02'3 EXIal IMe CUBBIUGE HORBE ErEAelIOIA2 -. . - t mot.Â«Glf . . - I FrEFF TEE MOO 2. 1 In VE" 4 nobEE: FEAEr EFOOB brVM _ _ t--- \ 9 L + yETPAC, 19 l. v ' 93" 2 COMEB FEAEr EFOOB breM EXIal IMe 2ECOMD EFOOM brVI/[ .: 0 Â£ It 1.3 4 f 14.Gll. 7-/ PB,. VS' 7 EXIalIMe EIBE31 EFOOB h.rUM . 0. . m y ~ ' 151*~lusE tÂ« phy DRAWING INDEX 1 PHASE ONM 1 1,41-7 1 1 d Â·..,. 0 r i'.1 .. .3 en~51*. -. . .. i 19 ; 06,3>' --1- --- 1 4--- rdÂ·,r i : â€¢i 2 2. EMOVE | 25* ieÂ·reÂ· GARMN~ 1 / 1 '1 l --9 04 *1246 a / 1 Â» 1 -\ 11 c E"46. Â»IVE L r-- 4--2 11 / 111 0 / 1 1 1 L__- 1 A 1 4 3 ul a /- - 1 4 0 1 1 -0 1 J I -6.-6. ..4- TWO DREÂ£ 1 1 V'% in - Regyph #1 > 4- 1 . lA# 2 t'..: PHASE TWO 17 VOD 0 - I. 1 I *400 1 1 1 1 0 4 Ft-11 - 1 1 2 - . -1 -, OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3 x le,\ 1 1 1 6 y. 7/ U 1 jib~P fOFC'D~ , 9 f 21\V it ~ < + CONSTRUCTION TYPE: DI-N 1/ 1 AREA: PHASE ONE - A - 635 B - 635 4---I A\\/ 1 5 -70(-2.07*64 TOTAL - 1,270 41 Â«4_1 & PHASE TWO - A - _1Â£1- Â· 8- 146 1 5 1 ~ 1 . N\ c - _3*69 0- D - .1&2QL 3,2 330#t /<Evls/573 F - -1415 Issue: OLD 6 - GAM66-310 1.,2Â·SU 0014% Feview 0 0 I- 2.94 J - _37,5 2.19 Â·88Â¥190 WBAe*/ K - 2 82.75 ~Mb. M - ..2:24 5 5 Â·60 P 01Â· APKI'OVAL / 4 N - 648.5 5Â·17:0 *00,25 **,3 PEr/11 ~ P - MA'65(1 Flit. 22,76 f- 0 - -21- 4%Â· 1 TOTAL - _3322â€¢- AA >LAM\ *TA FET L - ------------ 4. THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWNG *SONLY TO GRAM(ICAUY <' DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THEWOM< IME CONTRAC r. TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING DIMENSIONS. AND GENERAL CONDITIONS - SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF . CONSTRUCTION THE ARCH,lECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY , VARMTIONS FROM THE 01'ENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING ALL. ARTICLhS Of -1-HE CURRENT DOCUIEN1 "GENERAL. CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT FOR. CONS~[RUCTION", AjA DOCUMENT A201 (1987 EDITION), SHALL BE BART OF THI3 Â· SPECIFICATION, AND THEREFORE PAR F OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. SITE PLAN 4 'fÂ¢ $ -4,-G....~4...-/ 84(42*- 4 k.~ I Â· ./ 3*..4'. 4 1 6.,iÂ·f $-' -.1 Scale: 1" s lai-Oj' 1 4 1 2 I All 3- 3 T 44 I KD -r,fl.%.~~9* . Â·Â· *. ..~ ....~ d.-I-â€¢ 2-L. _Iâ€¢_21-1. . - 1 69' 1 *f .2../p f I Ke f d i /2 '157 7 'b J 1 U Â£,/Â¥Vt PLAN i . , 7. i Scale: /4 1,11= 11 -oil A21 Â©1988 WILLIAM JOHN POSS 6, IF t 334~ WEST HALLAM ASPEN COLORADO WILLIAM JOHN POSS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE a PLANNING 605 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 303 925 4755 , .. . . ilim *I'llill'lliwlllk . 1 1 .. I I. 75. ....... ...1 J . . Â¢ :.1 . ... I. * I. ... 1 .. ... F , ~.*Clti~~4: 4 ..4.49 4 N 1 e *tj -7 /7 Â£ 1 p r NT Ght 1 FLOOR 10-1,441.K. 7. 6*009.9 -- f*00 9 0 74 4#Â» PLAN - 1./01 \ p :f.1 e; i. - Scale: ]411== 11 -oIl - 1.1- A2.2 7 9,0..: etc. 334 WEST HALLAM ASPEN COLORADO 4 WILLIAM JOHN POSS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE G PLAJ>INING 605 E. MAIN STAEET ASPEN, CO 303 925 4755 , i . . .f 1 ' 1, 1 - I ,: ........ 31Â·'f Â· ~14:' 15 . 0 1 -IN PHASE ONE ./ i ' (944 l C -4-- 4 : 6 . I 1( 1 - : X~*Â· mrÂ·Â·Â·-C,/i _ /Ar---Â·-17 ......â€ž-r ./- - - LO .=r.. - Â· THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWINGIS ONLY TO GRAPHICAUY e t:= DEPICT TNE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WOM. THE CONTRACÂ· 3 ISPESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIF#JING DNENSIONS, AND -4 SELECTING F/RICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE AACHITECT SHALL BE NOTFIED OF KNY VARMTIONS FAOM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING 160. 1.99 1 6 +W f 1.- 443' 13 I LOWER LEVEL ~.................................... FLOOR PLAN Scale: 43- IL.1/1 A2.3 Â© _!flge.WILLIAM JOHN POSS ................m..................................... ...... 9 11/ pz/, 1 j/+0 '07 k/" 4-3 4% 9.1. M V V L,-J 1 MALLAM ASPEN COLOAAOO .. WILLIAM JOHN POSS ..- & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE a PLANNING 605 E. MAIN STREET ~ ASPEN, CO 303 925 4755 .. . A . I Z . f - 0. 5- 11) , .. .- - I -' .. A - ff- b . . .. . = 1 ..9 0 ip' 0 . 1 :r , . D: 0 e. . 0 - -1 - - / . Â· IA 4 ' 1 ..0. , 1- râ€¢ . Â·b .'11 - 0 14. 4. 9 (1 I #'Â·fi . 4 2 4 1 #74 ............. FpHASE ONEÂ· f . .1 ' 't U. . L 11 tn 4 rri _ 3 3 1 .1 -4 â‚¬>1 - b . m t'. . f = , RE PURPOSE OF THZ DRAWING IS ONLY TO GR,APHICALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK. THE CONTRAC TOR S RESPONSIBLE FOR COMFIR-18 DRENSIONS, AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY m VARMTIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND COAD.IONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING. f e. M 04, UPPER 1 11> 1 ' f - LEVEL 20"3" (V. 1. F.) ~ FLOOR . -- - PLAN ' 't-D C .. Scale: /40'1- 11-011 A2.4 9 11 50 WILLIAM JOHN POSS .~ .................. #.c- Tr 1.7 V I.....*5.7 2 .. WEST HALLAM ASPEN COLORADO . I . J . . . WILLIAM JOHN POSS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 0 Â· 605 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 303 925 4755 . . I , 14 A. 8 ... . 2 2 ' . ... k - - -11--- . .. R h I 86.â€¢~ . 7 D I = I \: / - e m A -. 9 1 . --. tH - A -Ij 0 A, . I 0 0 4 2 1- - 1e 0 it - . t, $. . I I. ' I r 4*h# Â·941. .4.4 % 1 4, :.le: ft, .2 11.4 I ' ./ /. IM , 'NA.. A. ...1 1,4,~ : *Â· 'Â·f 1~- i .'~rn , ", :. 4; vt.~ .04490.-4,46 -.Â·,in,ts ,' ~ Â£, ~Â· 54 479=,44:.â€¢4 i r :1: Â·,â€¢' 2 *' : I .,4 "4:40 *Â· g.>0 -,3 0-â‚¬9 ...'I I. D * '-7 ''IJG'EÂ¥.' . .. .0 1 0 .0 334 .1 Â·/. '4 â€¢, ' 1 0. . D . WEST 1 .. .. D D ID'. 1 HALLAM ... ...1 - - . 1 L 1 0 7 ASPEN . 01 0. . 1 : '/' '1 , . . ..1, D ... 0, . 1.1 ., = gÂ£ COLORADO 1 e , 'll' 1 .t .. * .4 , , "' râ€¢ I i 2,1, , \ e 1 .4 ' ... . ... ... .1 ....: 1 1 -4 . C ) , D " 1Â·r -- - . a ..h . . 0 WILLIAM JOHN POS .' y . '4. 1 .. . .. 2 1.1 1. , 1 1, 1 ---- & ASSOCIATES , D . 2 . , ARCHITECTURE a 2.4 -Â· .. I : 2.1 4 1 . 1 2 1 , .l: 1 - , PLANNING ... 1.Al . N . 1 2, :. .4 1 '.4 'N ' 1 605 E. MAIN STAEET ASPEN, CO . .. : . ..2 . ...6. 1 1.4 , 2 303 925 4755 0. . . . . 1 00 I .. r. 0" .2. 0 17 ~. 1 - 1. 1,1 . P . 0 1 . . 1 ..1 1.1 1 1 :â€¢ Oe~ â€¢ .0 . 'M 1 1~â€¢0~. 0 I . 1 * , L 1 ........1,/1. , ... . 1 .1 , h.... 3.0 . . t . 0 ... . 1 1 . I ..... .. ... '' 4. ... ... . ... , 2 - . I ,@ @1 1 I . 1 , , ... 4 : . .2. : 4 '., I .1 ' Â¢ 1 ./ â€¢ â€¢Â· Â·1â€¢ ... .:. 4 . .. . I '1 . 1â€¢, 11 . g.,0 - 1 ... 0 1 '. .1 @. 2 . 0.- + 4+ 1 , . 4 1, Â· 1 ..1 I . , : 1 ... , 1 . ...:,0 . 1. .4 ... . 14. . : . 4Â·,eli . Â· I. . '. I;, 1 . ..1, ' ....'â€¢ ' . 1 , â€¢ . . , .. 11.4 - .i. + I ' , .1. 1.111'- .... . , 12 . .. . 1. : . . 11. . 1 1 ... I I 1 ... , ...1 ... 1 : .. I : '' '-* , 1, 1 , 1. N .. . 1 3 4. 1,1 Â· .. - 1 . 'I .'.4.1 .. . I . .. ... . . .. .. . - ... .. 0 . D . 1,"Ill'll//0 . -.. ---.. =- .:. .. - 4. D . 1 . I j 4 - 3 . .. ... I .0, ./ A . 0 . 0 . 00 0 0. . 0.0 0. .... ...... . lilli I . .... . . 1 .. ... , /4. ... . '. .~ . . DO . . ... +J, 0.:'I . D. 0 .0 . ... .:1 . D 0 ,0 0 . ' lA . . A D. 10 ./ 0 . . 0 0./ D 0 ... I. '$. . 0 . 1. 0 .. 0 .... . I. .. . A . . 1. .... 0. I ..1 I . 0. D , .... 9 ,;: . ,~SK.iÂ·#NAL.:,1.157,4.4.+ ' 3? er,7, ~ .; ~A; 1 ~~ Â·: .~' ~ ~ ~ ~.i ~ ~ ..C .31 e, J [. 4 -/- I '/1 '4 ~'-' 4.h ..17, '. - A A . I . r. - I-. I 11 . - -. - -. . - I -** 1 SHEAZ / Elatir f 41-01 1 9 al 0-- 4 -'f ; 1 + 1 2/--L- 1 n I 71 1 11 11 \\311 1 11 -1 P/1/ 1 1 6 Il Il ~f 11 A-r. Lvwcz 9 lal '- 1 >t' 11 61 11 11 > 1 ~L----1 L---~|| p 0--13 -1 El- - 11 - 3 11 U 2% 12 6 1710.6. 4 0 '11 1 1 -4 rUC-=- --/< - - -j 1 9 . > Â·i f I. ~~ 2% 12Â®old"0.6. . 4 3 ~ 1 -- 5 7 t 713-2*12 1-1, Issue: 1 11 N 1 11 1 , 1 . . 1 . Il 1 . 1 1 11 1 C 2* 12 e 12"0.0. 0 1 ~2=4 - J 0., 1 ... A 1 11 PLAN NOTES n 11 11 1. 0 or 0 COLUMN BELOW ' r 2 ~ or ~ COLUMN ABOVE \ 6 4 64-IE,< _~ L 5HEAe THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY J 4-00 4 -00 3. JOIST BEARING DEPIT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE CONTRAC- '00 . SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND 7ECHMQUES OF TOR IS AESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRM~G DMENSIONS, AND 4. 3 JoIST HANGER CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE O#VENSIONS AND COND,TIONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING . s. --_rErÂ· s STEP PLYWOOD/FRAME 1 4 i 6. i ' ' 1/2- PLYWOOD SHEAR PANELS FOR EXTENT INDICATED. ~ SHEAR I PROVIDE 10d NAILS AT 4- O.C. ALONG PANEL EDGES AND " X-xx- 10- O.0. ALONG INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. NOTE: MAY FLOOR 12 1 1 SUBSTITUTE SIMPSON CWB 126 PER 3 L, F, PLYWOOD, 1 6 FRAMING 7. [XXX-)0(-] TOP OF BEAM ELEVATION PLAN 8. 1 '* INDICATES OVER FRAMING~ 9. ALL SUBFLOORS TO BE 3/4- T&6 PLYWOOD 61.U-NAILED WITH Bd AT 6- 0.C. ALONG PANEL EDGES AND 12- 0.C. ALONG INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. 10. ALL COLUMNS SHALL BE 2-2x6 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE UFFEE FLOog FleAMI 1144 FLAH Scale: 11. ALL HEADERS SHALL BE 3-2X10 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ;411 = 11- ':01 12. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.CONTACT ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER FOR - Â·Â·St 03 Â·29' 65 DISCREPANCIES OR MISSING DIMENSIONS. All/.4///.1~Ni Cl:.%-'40 ~ -ft $ .9/A'-26Â£2* -l 11 THE DEPI TOR SELE CON VARI SHOM R F P S .-6,4.u? , I Â· /4 /'Â§Â·fr . . 3 4 ' L ,"' I I. -I/Nl.e;%4./. 4..4 '11Â· r - 1 L. 3. ' 1Â·JnyÂ·*94 J tIN 1-~Â·.JUU & 44 Â· Â·~, 'PA -44*VI 4-4. J.lk,r 1 44</ 4&4 ': 1.45 c. . .1.42.12 - :Â£Â·I't'(*Eft.Â»61t~.4 A .7..4/43: ? 6 * i -C>Â¥44:pt. ID, C . 1' - L I ./ * . . 4 1 K I I. 4 1 . n I 1 ... 4 , .. - . I. .. le. e - 0 $ I. - -4 - A / 1 r~L 4, 1 ~ .. - . . . m ' AL Al ,:. .- I. ' . . . 00, I . 0. .. 0 ... D .1 0 ., ..'. 6,0 1 I. 1 ... . 0.0 ; 0 . mill**1*11 1 Â· 1 Â· I I . .DO . . 0 . .. , I . 1 . 0., 4, . , 4 . D . 0 .... .4 4 J I ./1 D.. ,.... 1 D. 0 ....... D 0 Â£ 1 r. : r r Â· 45 + p A ' v. 8 . p /2 ' M' 4. 1"4.~i=,btlt, 1 . 4 1 - â‚¬ 334-- . ===. WEST P. HALLAM ASPEN 0..6 COLORADO -1 - l R. ... /4. - 1.'. 4 --m--11 ----- -.-Ag ...06 WILLIAM JOHN POSS & ASSOCIATES AACHITECTUAE & PLANNING F71~: 303 925 4755 605 E. MAIN STAEET ASPEN, CO -- .... .. 11===11*1.........1- mâ€ž*m - .~: --- ~~L - ,, .~111111.11'illillililliall. ....â€¢mm ----lailil I e - M . .1 . 1=11 .....i/lillillim.4/. - IL_--in=~M .1.1=1.lillillilill,il'll'/Il.lilli ~~~~~~~ .... . ... I......../ Immi:/Ill:lie'll...ill.lililililililililililli -1.1-"--'---":=-- .ill. ili'iii . .... 1.1.11.1.1 ... rl M" Imli"irs/- k .. --1-12 ]I = 1*-~1-~ 426. ~ vf 'l. ' . . I I ' A 11 .; k.Â· . A3.2 Â© 1186 WILLIAM JOHN POSS dal.' /4 ----- g HALLAM ASPEN 1 COLORADO WILLIAM JOHN POSS & ASSOCIATES AACHITECTURE & PLANNING 605 E. MAIN STAEET ASPEN, CO 303 925 4755 ..E# ..B - A ... -. 1 . : 1 ... 1 1 - . 0 0 0 - 1 . . .. 6 A . - , I 14.- 41. .* '. 44 +4 . S . 1 riLâ‚¬*43?4~44 -3104.*.It't:-141 e:., '. 4 Ap ' 6 I F.'. '. & i .// m.l y &,~ 4 ts/3152* cÂ· b .9 . ...'2'9: 1.-'1.. ....4...V ...b. 41.*.I , 9 1 4 11 1 11 '0 11 A I .794*f 1:4 01. + ., . . 21 <~~3 )*r 31 '988 ~ ~ ~ ~ 41% 19/ 1. . A. 1 0.1 : A >*ia j ...... -#l / ill /j; .Ad' 91 44 \ 334 . r /1. ( =- 6 - - I WEt - A4. 9, - 4 - . - - - Â»72- 1 - ' 1 ' Gr- NOR -riT ~ - 11 11 11 - 14' , --l 1 1 1 - - Issue: 4- - ---- 42 -ALL,L 212 66 #FE, *"Bw -1 0/ 1 - - - 1 1.2 38 RE , 22:7131 iD #ik. 5.27Â·se i.ti-FNAL- + 1 1 1 1 1 1 , - #1 1-1 T / \ 1Â· CARRIAGE HOUSE ' g -~ -- - 1 !1 7-4- 1 i ' ' 1 1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWÂ®IG IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY PHASE ONE 0 Â«T - 1 .1 DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK. â„¢E CONTRAC TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OFIRMNG DIMENSION& AND i CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHILL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AN{) TECHNIQUES OF ..6//1/ 1 SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING VAAIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS 11- Elf-1-1- I.-1 --1- -14 MAIN HOUSE ELEVATIONS 42.= 4 -rrIrÂ· ./1, PIM./4 r WEST It. Scale: >41!= It. oil ~~ N 1,1 A3.3 i ~ 1 Â© 11 88 WILLIAM JOHN POSS Awl. l 1 4*â€¢445-Â·- 4.,4*8 -0 KEY I fla.ff' .1. Glu-lam Ridge Peam--See Structural 1~*r: 2. Wood Shingles (Machinâ€¢ Cut) t 1 '... 3. 3/4- Plywood Sheathing 4. 0 IS Felt 1 5. 26 Ga. Galvanized Steel Drip Edge * * 6. 26 Ga. Galvanized Steel Flashing 7. 6 Mil Vapor Barrier - Typ. 9. R-30 Batt Insulation m 1 1 8. 1/2" Gyp. Bd. - Typ. 10. 2*10 s O 24- o.c., Rip Raft~r . .- I- 1 44.1 4.1 - Tans to e 11. 2*6Â·, 4 16- 0.0, fs 12. R-19 Patt Insulation 13. Sound Batt Insulation 14. Knotty Pine Random Plank Flooring 15. Victorian Casing - 11/16" x 5-1/4- - by STARK LUMBER CO. - Paint Grade ' 16. 1*6 Wd. cap - Paint Gracie Fine 04 ne - Typ. at Doori & windows 17. Wd. Handrail - 2" diameter Â¥ 18 Classic Ba,e - 3/4* N 6-5/8" - by 19. Horiz. Narrow Clapboard Siding to .. Stark Lumber Co. - PAint Grade Pine 0 - Match Existing 1--20 Wood Trim to Match Existing - E .Â·. Mirror . 22. Tile 7 4 n -PELLA" Wood Circlehead Window [without brick mold / head and A- . 1 -- .-I 6 ----139 the existing housb jamb). Use trim to match that of ~ ~ ~ Â·â€¢ / 24. .PELLA. Wood Traditional Double-Hung - Windows (without brick mold e head and jamb ). Us, trim to match that 11Â»-1- ~ ~ , of the existing house. -. head and jamb). Use trim to match 25. -PELLA" Wood Cagement Windows with Muntins (without brick mold I 4 11 il that of the existing houl. , the Mal n House Wood Columns to Match Columns of Wood Panel Door- - Typ. 10 28. Caulk 29. Insulating GlaH - Typ. f l\ 30. Fireplace - HEAT,LM-OR TD36B - ~ 3, 31.. Wood Mantel 7 0 33. KOHLER Mendota Bath ll 32. Shower Base with Ti le Covering and Corner Seat 111-111 1% il 34. KOHLER San Raphael Watpr Guard Toilet 1 In-A I 35. KOHLER H- Sign Lavitory lili 99.. - - - 36. Clear Gia*Â§ ShewÂ«r Doors by KINKEAD 37. Shelves -Paint Grade 3/4- Pl ywood - ---.S with Solid Pine Edge . --38. Cabinets 24 Glass Shelf Over Painted Plywood Over 2. Support - -- 11 6414 52-3.4-6+ 40. Marble Hearth 41. Paint-Grade Plywood Soffit 42. 2 x 12Â·s 2 12" o.c. 43. C/ner Block - 1-1/8â€¢ M 5-1/2- M _1 1 ~~- - 5-1/2â€¢ - Paint Grade Pine by - 1 SIL 'EATON VICTORIAN MILLWORKS - Typ. - at Interior Door & Window Ca,ing, - 26 - 1 . -- 44. KOHLER San Miguel Water Guard Toilet 2 - t' 45 KOHLER Farmington Lavatory 46 EMisting Wall to be Removed. 47. Wood Stair with Carpet Runner 1IP=::li~===81-1.---- ~ 6~ Â·from Wall , ~ Lâ€¢minate Countertops - Typ. 49. Line of 7'-0 Head-Height Â·r 51. 1-3/4" Panel Oak Entry Door with i - 1 S'ass Insert in Top Panel 6050 1- 1 . 2 3 lili 50. Threshold - 30 DO 52. 1 Â·3/8" Four-Panel Wood Door ' 53. 1-3/8" Wood Four-Panel Door with Louvers st Pottoi Half-- Sliding Door Hardware --- DE -- 54. 1-3/4" Four-Panel Wood Exterior 1 - & ar l,pvÂ» rip, 91/Â· Door 55. Furnace for Gas-Forced Air tbat-- Design-Built by Contractor A . 1 84. 1 42 ''0" 1 1 56. G., Water Heater 57. Garage in Phae Two 59. Wood Porch - tx4 Docking ;ver L d 58. Fireplace Chimney Pressurt-Treated Lumber Supporti 60. Roof to Mtch Existing Roof Over 1 - Entry Perch at Main House 61. 2*80, 0 12" o.c. A Packing - Typ. EAST 1 62. 1/2" H 1/2" Pin, Quarter Round ~ 63. ' 1.2 Shelf Support - Paint NORTH -- 64. Built-In Medicine Cabinet 65. Glas, Mesh Mortar Board for Tile 66. Puflt-In Bench - Paint to Match .Â·tubicle Shelving 67Â· bill - 1* Pine with Half-Round Edoâ€ž A 4 -- 1 , i------ MATÂ£511--13*1,9-FÂ¢16 , ~ -- - ---- ---------- 1 ~ /21126* *lei 08-F - - Issue: 50 ft/------ 7 2 1, - 12&*RE.-22% 1|1 - 2.-2...2211212&Â£.21Â£F -1 611,3 3ULPING IPE ,. It- -1 , - t>M 30 4-r 1 1 / + - > 1 4-1 - - 10 ---- - , 1 4Q 60 Â»z.,bee ,"3930 -4/60'4*-~ W -=ID--3*99-ZE- 1 E 2 ------ 1Â«He I.* â„¢E PURPOSE oF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICAUY TORI IS RESPONSÂ®LE FOR CONFIRMING DIMENSIONS. AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES ANC) TECHNIQUES OF DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK. THE CONTRAC r\ I CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY 3 Â· s,low,layâ„¢ISMIWIG VAAIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS 27 '- K 1112. ---- 71 1.f -.i-.--1#<-I#.-*-i--1--- 1 1,4 , rEARRIAGE--1 j IHOUSE -- --- 4 i~ p ~ . - 1 ELEVATIONS | 4 14 1.6 1,02.0 +670*162--- 1 -i I --Th- * _~lyr_~keEE_____41===~=AL m~ . 41 0, 100 1- 0 11 ~ 1'- 414 -1 I 4 4 - - ,# t-L . . Scale: 4 11= 11,6211 L .m lit 1- -- -F WEST 2 ---- ------ --1 1-- - ---7 -1 _SOUTH j ... 4 / ... I- -1 , .t.. . A3.4 -42Sm~mm Y * 3 v juvi - .. . . a A- . . -. 4 - I . - , :-j t 2~77\ 1 1 -- -22-44\ - ~AX 227 :%XM- 1 1 1 i --- --.--- - Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 In [nt]-d 1 L-4 1 2 r 1 1 SOUTH ELEVATION l- 0 11 2- i Issue: 1 i I 3,2- Â· 96 REd sor, 10 +0 NO --NceD 2,062 F SH)11Â£91,Es TO Ar2-14 6 0, 28 Eff-'U Â·P { /4.14_ C .. Ex 1 5Tll-le' 1-- ------- EXISTIÂ» ttlELJOKBE --- +*- - ---Â· . eAVE 9-1/1 -fo *ATE.ft EX'Ef" 11 -% 4/11127'0 1 7,1/4 7 /ATOH EVID-b, J Â£237724 -r 1 11> 1, ) 17-7.lic -- 'r - 1 1, ,--0- - HEW 60'YROOM ,40011- OM 49 LE:* Firt. FLOOL ' 1 4 1. - 11 1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GWHICALLY 4â‚¬ 1 DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WOFK. THE CONTRACÂ· TOR S RESPONSIBLE FOR COWFIAMING DIMENSIONS, AND t> HO[Â©11, HARMOW , 1 PrbÂ©>60 SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHIECT SHALL RE NOT!MED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS -1 9 6 1 -/ l 11 \16. 1, ..H -2---'~~~ 59%9 10 Â«0%51Â«b -T/t SHOWN BY â„¢IS DRAWING 1 / .1 9.1 4 1 ! \\ MAIN .--1tHOUSE 32 -01 1 1 1 ~1 1 --4 , Ler LE Ve, MIM.FLOOM 11 11 #183/%/4 '00 Loll .1 , -- ' El-EVATIONS i EAST ELEVATIONi 1/ 11 It /19 Scale: <4 # 1 -6., . - .1-' ALLEY ~~~ A "'Mg fprhAh ..4 ! O KWER RZE 411-) . .-5 ' .r.* 2375'00/11 'C Et)(212 0 1 9 7-7%31 1 4 oil. BA (Â»Ae'*rF'LE, 12-' ePEEÂ«) * / / 0 // U' OrA. CIA,WnE J ~ 82' 91'REAP ~ kV' rt Ar, c:ryÂ·Â·./v / 1 . 3 to 00 20 40 50 FT DEARING ~ FOUND CKY VENUMEN-i- t4(It-t-MdlN U-CK. 4,3 'ICÂ· jOUTH'A'EN CORNER bl/CK 42 1 t.1(74:.&.1247 DRO CERT; rii@NI2 KENEK , MER[eY CENT-\FY Tl-tg ON CCIDEER !9, b.'SY WAE h.lACE UNIOCK 41< 51JPER'v le>eÂ·N or re )CK 49 C ITYC'f/AS)FEN, Flil<j>4 COL:Â·NTNI COLOWEE) ,TOKY \Â·bOD MM,AME HCLÂ©[L ANC) THE IWO Â·XEN' T. (DAMAGE *AÂ·'EME fOUND ID !3[2 LECKED ENT-lKE,Ly 2 tÂ©UNCARY Or 11-1[ /'eOVEL DEOCROED FIEDPERD 4 r 1[REDN. rHE. :-DCATC>t 4 AND T >IMENOIC>NY> CrALL UIEND\ LMEN,75, E,45[NIENTb, KOiDOr'NAY IN OR ritÂ©~614 12, MIC /Ar:E) Er .C'RC,AC]flklENTE tlf<CR{jJ A,~Of,Zi /ARE 'ACCL?Ft.Tt 1.3 .fi t:ITâ€ž17: lOU 4. Â·I:-b. , â€¢2 L. w 'L.4 Â·. 4415 t. FÂ©CK 20*4 j 'Â·IE-F, AN,.:ilp â€¢ Â·T ..L.~-'. i: Ath- 1-Â· :2'i' . Ck'I. 54 -1. COAD CENTIFIC.Â«rE F. M~KMNIZIE, HE-KE.1501 CERICF-1 THAT TMID )MATEL'f DEFIC-Tb /i *U<Vel f'EK.FOR.ME-D 19 5UFERV!51061 ON M/NE.H 15, flaâ‚¬ OF ., KM, 51-OCK 42, Clâ„¢ AND TOWNDITEL ., COLOMPNDO ' Â«-9,1-4 KA,/ NrY-14 JMVEfe- INC. 1359 : CZANCEL F MrKENZIE >1, 19 66 L.9. 20/51 , 'S 1 , 1,1.le . â€¢ L ~'U rÂ·Â·f.Â·Ski# 'Â· JOO NO. Y CUENT; ':-SA 40 Â· *,Aftâ€¢ '.~Il I - \ - . 1 0 . 4 .. . . 0 0 .0 -I# . . 0 0 - - 0 .. . - - â€¢4 %41,4 .%12 I . .. I . . - . .. . 0 - I . 0 6. . -1 -0 6. 0 0-/ I . 6 -90 - 0 '' - - I. 6 C'*: ..LtÂ·Â·r.Â«, - .66 - , 4 i, : i <*ff,11 Â· +A ,.,1 . - .. LIDi, I ;2*49 , -29:~~Â·"~'.:.64.3040*04'. '. .' " Â· ALLEY ' 4 --/ O Fr,NER Ft;LE ' 3ET .*07~5000110[7 9502 C \/// /// 'c,OA'rK -X+ED UKER / 6 , 'r,2 leo H N M 3~ 6*K?@c t , [Imi-- 3 1 1 1 LO O 5 to 90 ix) Dot-1- 4- f L OCALEI #-01 34 i 4.55 5*,513 Of- BEAKING: FOUND> CITY VENIUMENT NORTHULS 1 1 OCRNEA Wl-OCK 43> ID OOUTMWL5T CORNER DIOCK 42 1 TOUND CITh' Mal,MENT 0\IK FORA 1 ' 12 9 1 0 199 4 ?03 OURVE>(CK,5 - CEFi-lEoNE / 104 - 1 10 // 1975 / ~ r L JANÂ£5 F REER, HER[BY C[KnrY THATON OCTEÂ©[R 19, 'O CONC. RAD I / , 91% 1077, A DUMVEÂ¥ v\Ae kiADE UNDER MY aFERVIDION Or LOD 11 - ELEEK 49 I t K;L,tvt, Ml,OCK#9 0~TY OF,eFEN~ 11T1<414 COUNTi OOLOM[Â© /// a ),050 Clfimelrt , ~ 7 /04 1 , f FITY([Mflbl THE -PUD 6Â¥OKY *600 rIKAME HCUOE Â»C) 11-IE TWI) .X,KY i A / 1 1 â€¢ GA . *00[) fleANUE eAKAGE WEIKE fOUND TO BE LDCATED 04TIMELY / ,~ '~ ' ~ ' 14- _ WITHIN THE EOUNC,\RY Or 113[ AOOVE [DECK\EED PROPERTY Ae er-OWN HEREDN. TME lOCNON AND DIMENOIOND OFALL 1.-1 . / BUL--DINGSt *11Â©V'EMENTO, [ABEMENTbt KIGM15(Dr W/Of IN / / 1 1 / 1 1 i ' 5 VIDENCE OR KNOWN D MEL AND ENCRCNMMENTÂ© rh/ CR Chi Pr /0 // ' i 8 1 . 1 TMEIDE FREMIDE,5 /\RE ,ACCUâ‚¬ATELY O*1VN. / /'Â¥*Ci OTC* , ,/r 4 1.Â· \&00[> FRAME. ,.Â· ' ~ 1.0 OM. 2 10 Opi f) /Â·' . rOUE>E- 4 7~ TIâ‚¬!CO QÂ·. 1Â·U#AGENIN F .JAM&5 r KEOCK LE>01&, ./... + Â¢ NO/EMEEK ID, 1877 I: .,4. ---Swizi/"#*:5 MOOD , ' 1/ I ; LS dHED 4 f k / j / , i %-,h- 2410 . 4 - I ... . , / , , 1 ...Ii *CCED FEDÂ·.CE .Â·tÂ·* 4'> 4 1- I " --60Â· 1 wce[) f:UKeri Z ./ .F ' h' 1 15.1 1 / 1/ 1 .1. 1 NOTES : i 904 i IOCM 1 -1.1-3-_-14-12_-4-i 6[_r. BET KEEAR 1*;TH TELLON' f'Lj\BDC 09 L,25.9184 4 C' ,>13 CITY keN,' rOUND CITY MCINUIVIENT - 5$ ,r aby , \./ 1 1 1 11 Â£23 K i i LOT L LOT 51 'LOT N LOT O LOT p 0 - F!~Â·4[D N 7500' i i"*/ 00(72 , der j CITY MON MALL_AM 5TRECI 4 r .9 , . hÂ· C~Y hAON P~ L 0 1 i i , 6 i fiDCR 4,3 ~ C1TY CF ADi?EN 1 1 . I TRIOD MAN/43[MENT 6URVEYED ty<IE J ; TITLE : ' JOE> NO: 77 07 ED. 20X 1-730 DIet-1-[D DKEE' 10 00Â·77 er. T/.5 IMPRO/EMENT OURVEY CUENT; JA002*80ht'/3 ASPEN COLOKA[)0 81(311 REVISIONÂ© OATE; er: , LOTO AL,KA, BLECK 49, Â·Â· .~ 005- 025- 0385 a"Mai ,Â¥.1.Pi~ cllY OF,A'SFEN . . -'......#.'a- 'Al ./.Im.-- Â·14.yA : 'll 1. . : :e I.â‚¬'.1Â·140,J'. 1 9, 1 . d 9'Â· 1 ~ 3 1,190 IttED___DIRECT . . 4- -- - I - A- . - J ALL 07 # 13%712/7 61 ~Ef - - 0, i, 1,1 Â·~11,Â·"I 't,-01.1 ELE*AEÂ·--fdf r ber. BAEE. IT. ; . a A . --4-<- -... . . f 2 -~1 â€ž, i MÂ® 91 H'jit,')'th~ Fet 'Mer g.:71 TAC CAF-R'. 1/#Ar- 1 #6 1)4+ 1 4 1 -- ./--t ~,1, 1 I .11 -. i... ; 043/ i - :i Ub /9 . J 10* AeÂ«p. rÂ·'lle. 3 6 ===-3 1 1 f#91 11 : % eÂ£,-TY;~e K 0161*41(7â€¢ t ' * 1 1, tilt ' 11. #--22- 4 ' Z d 1 *A - I /2'- 2 Â£50,01.) ./ '. -,/1 < =. 6 - -- ---Â·Â·-----. - KE,ld F+Pit - ..i. 4 Cte>Fâ‚¬> f j- ~7 e-21=~7-- - --I.-I- -i k . -------- i i 3 3*U 2 1 --' -r 1 .d ' 4 ~ i 3- --P --1{ le 1 'i. h =7.2 - ) 1 O -3.-3 7 - - A F , 1 An -1 11 F'Â¢10+1 3 th lp. .. i 5- -I 1 - REf I , .p. r_~ ; f ...-0 0- 2 21 1 - - -- t 1 1 PI El -3 4 . 1 7 11 1, k Â·*fl ----_ _-_-- . 4 1 1 1 - - 0 4- 94 ALS 7/ 3- CWT= a .i U ..._ ' , . 4 Â· to i 1,1 il . : 1 1 -./ 8. -26 't . 1~~ 6[ 3 1 1Ek/*A#53 1 . 1 > . NEW ' ' d i ; b:JA Â£>FAce&51 U i i *11\ il 11 1 I 1.- 9 1 4% C / 1 .. 1 It:,1 f. > 11 \ -- f- ./ i , 1 ' - I Issue: 30 i . .e 0 0 3,7 rj>~NE,% 2*/((FA 1 /12 r' 94 4 -CO V ---Lâ€¢-V &1 ' I il 0 , 14*-- 4 (FI __ -1/ -I 1\ 7 .r -- '94- 1. 2.-\2 ~22 a-t] ~' i.~ 4 4#: 0,14 i \.1 A HALLAM AMENUE THE PURPOSE OF IHIS ORAWK IS ONLY TO GRAPBICALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE CONTRAC TOA KS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRUING DIMENSIONS, AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNOUES OF ' CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDrrIONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING SITE PLAN Scale: Â·" s lol-o" /\ i.....k=...I- *4&. lam ENT / â€¢er *i- h. 4 A A .-- . 11 I .. Ill-/ T i - , *2'- 0,4- Â· Â· I . r . - . L , 4 '16 11 . F:' .* .~ 4 '~4' ~ FÂ·: '*, ~3E;~r-â€¢ Â·'+ "'v'~~ ~ i ~ . 1 ' H . i 5 'il ;Bit'%' : 00 1 : -41'llitil' 1 !.,11 ':It! 00 1 + 1 1. 44'E 141>j,Â»1 1 VI 3 ~ rd,r -1 !11}Illi;i 1 8 i i lia , ' 1 $ 1 Il ! - ' 21' 1 ': $ 4: i Â© 1 1 :'i~ill; 1 0 -1 1 /1,0 4 f & p 1-===- - i I ' i ~ I 1 4 . t ' 1 ri - F. 1 21 -4 .El '11 lil 1-4 r + L, 79 n -1 ==6-41.- ...... .- .l-flL~ --~ i 1 . - T 111 - 11 -11'./ . 1 ! A 1 : 1 ..1, 2 i -W 1-11 11 . ''' i 1 >71 I 20\\1\ , , 0 - 9 24" i ' 0 11 1 11 . 12.11 41 -1 11 \ , 14 -- \ 7 -'1_1 1 ; , i III Â© \ 1- 1 . 11 6- 4/4 4*f 0. op:' . it 1 1. . 1 ' 7, -*Â· --7 reâ€¢ O-Â· f A ti - r +1 0 + 4 /// il =%4 1 f'/4, 1 1 1 . i 1 3 ., , 13'rf FPUPer-1 A . 11 r 1 1 0< A- -- fu!+ Fl,1.;f2 1 4 _ _.-KB,>pl > F.:71* 1 I ; 4/ 1 11 1 , 1 1 W 1--11 11 . 1,1 4 - 1 1 --- 4 Z Â· , I,1 . 1 - . 11 - . r +1 1 '---- 1 - - ' I. ' ' ' I -= DELI~LFy:F,2 it-=-2 --2-1 - L -4.j - -1 --2. . 611- f 11 , O.> 1-14 1 2--/ , , / 1 1 .ir----- --Â· ---- - -- --11 4 Issue: 522 . 1 - 2Â·12Â·88 Hft REVIEW . 30,>f-Â¢204 4 1 0 - 1 -1 1i t Â»Â»AÂ»- AOL,6% 1 T 1 07< 4 4 i: 1 4,-10 itil- 0 ; p L &11 . 1 C â€¢ i - , Itt fl i i < THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING G ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY DEPICT â„¢E GENERAL NATURE OF THE WOF*. 7HE CONTR40 TOR IS RESPONS*LE FOR CONFIFÂ¥NG DIENSIONS. AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM â„¢E DIMENSIONS AN[) CONDITIONS SHOWN BY â„¢IS DAAWING -- a . r 4 1 4 ' Â·Â· b. VrA,IFY 1 1.1 FliÂ·l_o 145 - , .19 - - -EXISTING - FIRST 1 . 124,2. FLOOR I 7 4 1.-1 '3 \/14 F: 1 {44 f i .29 f Â» 6:02. h H PLAN Scale: 74"= f. 0" i A21 = 3 1988 WILLIAM JOHN POSS Â· ~ a . - . - 1 W /1 - r -74 0 1/ 11 1 1 L 1 1 #3Â· r 2 rj re 5 b f f.7- 4 k R j S *p 0 5- - 1 11 < 11 ' SECOND FLOOR , 6 Â»01-1 105) â‚¬2>d a b~ ~~ PLAN / Â·r \9625 Scale: ~QI-"- Ti o" .-Â»el -- A2.2 T- 334 WEST HALLAM ASPEN COLORADO WILLIAM JOHN POSS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 605 E. MAIN STAEET ASPEN, CO 303 925 4755 I . 1 '' 0 ,.:, 14.2 1 A 7 . -1, . . ' 1 0 - 1 1 1 - 4 - lili - Â£ f E~ UNS!Â°ACSÂ· 4 RE W 1 1 l i J 1 1 i .. 1 FIE+J 1 BA~a-- I k 1 Â«--1-VAL>OrS-- 1 - 1 Al,evs I i Â· '4 - - Ii--~.- - I E -*ST LN 6 j -\ j 1.. -23 -1 1 40 1% -4 . KIT-CtiEN ~DiNINc- . -~ i ~~ ~ ~ -1~ L [Â»Er' :/My[-1) Eti ~ Ve W . (EK.fr iâ€¢}63 El - f -- 1 7-- 1 IX' r / -LT-5-34-Ft-1 c * 4/ - 22 ltdop t- 19-9 of Â£ U -=-T BATHÂ· 049 -~UE.Zh- i 4 m i urr--1 J 8â‚¬:DiaeD M 1 7,4 '13Â£-R. -t jpl Ill\\ - -Utt_._r 1 -1 E --*----#--1 El- 2% 171[-151- Eli b 1 1 29-1 ~i 1,1, tf ir- p. ENTRY_ ENTEE.TAINMEATh---- ' ' Uf St-TT e 516 Nf:Â·k} (~ES+*9 (337<.961' tâ€¢jeo 1 1 Â· - _VEÂ«TIBOLE _. 1 -fiew- 1 1=44 3 - VE 1_ 12 9 Llf fil?-idiL#Let r , LAT),3/Mkf- 1 1 t 7-rT-1 -~0-+ ---r r 1 )/ Wl O 1 11 Issue: 52 1 51 0 93 LM,knt- en,1099 --4 13 E- EZIZEZZ~ -- __1 0 - L--+----,-_--1 . 1 --YE-*Et- - -- -- -- cdÂ·*3 -PL kel:*A'I 1 . E.*Ted I 2126â‚¬_ 14*W tâ‚¬>der-(96 - l L F1: 6 ,:w *51 r lial 'All P 1- 11 1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING NS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE CONTRACÂ· TORI IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING DIMENSIONS,AND \ SELECTING FAIRICAT1ON PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF . CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE OIMENSIONS AND CONDITONS ! Â¢~, SHOwN By THS DRAING CÂ»Â« Ft 5--2039& 8 202*- LOWER TE Coe 6-rk..001~et) LEVEL FLOOR - - PLAN Scale: ~n !'-Cil A2.3 1 1 1 ~.58_WILLIAM JOHN POSS f Â·44 , A A . j 1 --1-1 1 - 1 A - <' 81,695 Ffir . I . 1 1 % L - 0 I M. 2,3 A SPAAE ---1 - ! 1 i j It .1 -. - i ~ r-J- -7 1- 4.-1 - 1- 4 ~ 4230 MrÂ¥ Â¢9 - 3 01 - i 9 0 966â€¢,h- ----1., M., 6â‚¬:Oceâ‚¬> M Bte,EtÂ© M 3 511 04-1- j*F_ 1- 1 L==ful , >1 Mi 74 11 / 11-4- r Â· A" M.TRIL.El~ i | HAL t. 8.:Th i . 7 1 -141 3 (.3 1 11 -Lf c \4 r/-3 - r=-1 , P*P,Upopt. 2. ~ ~~ ~ ~ -1 \ li f.- T -: 2.Lin : -- t- -- =7 1 -- r - 1 ft) * PLâ€¢.49,4 .\3 / FaiR 71 6 - .-- M. L.*4 s dire -I----- 797 -- 1 1 ' I r-- 79 -.1112 0 *=a d#*1441 i IK L+DW; w 1 1, ~_*~ ~1 r- 1 ' tt= 1[Trall 1*F. OF.oe M 2 - =1 3 x A --3 2 & 1 7 - 4-4 BMI-*4 rn . 11 4-- 80[*Ct,1 \ '7 1 ,-1,--D /* . /33- '/116"D'.Ea'-Il.j:derrr--- / Â·--r 4- 2-4. I 0 00 .1-- -1 T- - -- ' j~ r - 00 OW-+- -1 - 1 1 4 j AB MIL Issue: eD 1-k-- Kircae,) f r-3 1* _~pijf 1 .4 1--- r 1 t---4 | 22,54Â· rip; R.5/.W 1, â‚¬, t.+ rn h..F ' - Fir Jifh~I , ~ ~tlit- 1 1 1 Nal Frx-14:1 IlAM, . ~ ~ 1 1:[0 1,4 6. 1 H -rucit> j 1~ \bo 21 0 44 t_-1 8, 1 Â· --iazu~Et---7Ezzil- A I Z*-- - - < - 9 1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING ES ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE CONTRAC TOR E RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMiNG DIMENSIONS ANC SELECTING FABICATON PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF â€¢ CONSTRUCTION DiE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VABIATÂ©NS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING - UPPER LEVEL L_- FLOOR REcoASTROCTâ‚¬O PLAN 211 11 11 Scale: /7 -= 1 -6 1 - A2.4 Â© 1190 WILLIAM JOHN POSS 11.1 -1-=3 /Â· - +1- - 44---,= 1 .I - peootz*nve OVT H - )-- 44 - -_ - 1,15my *MINDLE FOOF -- - r- r' 13 %-F--*- 40. SH lk'QUE: siloILI6 -e ~- -.- --% I /2 -1 .. I LEt . 9.9 - -- - -; -- 4 - -. - A - . / I. -.--* - f~lf]~~Â«~f-Ji ------ ~A~~ ----- -- ------------- . - lin' 429- ------- - ---- - ------ . - I NATBOW 6 l.Â»FeÂ£53â€¢147 HP. 4~ _~_________ ______~_ ~r--Â«iri' ~~~~~ ~_ ~ -W= Â» 1 U -11-0 1-- ----- -- r TEr---7 111 L -- -- - 1 -I - ---20 010 0 /1 \4 4 4 l-FPEÂ» 1-646 /-1 - ----- 1- 1 - ----- r~ u-ir-0-11-u- ~- --1 1831' JIL' Â» ~ *~~~~~LI~1~~f --f-- ~-_j~---_--~~~~~ ~** ~ -i~j~-Lut Â«~ff__-f-iojoj~ --~ IJ --- 1 Â»=d-7459 - - _ Cr32'Ve - -- - --- I ---1- t--6 __ 1 -I- t rEE 7 1 1 /414 '41 - Plve,ONI,9 T-1-08:4 , Issue: Â©p _r--- 6 bal i tr'Â° i~~/1Â«_ -L ///r ' --- - - --2--=- 1,JAMP '51+1 \16UE FOOP -------______,,~ -i // - -1 - // - _IL-Â·-ZIEr - - 1 1 1--- --2-2 1 fz~ -3+-6z-2-27_122222-2--41-7272_-22___ __Il Cl ---1 1~ 1,1 Ki- -9-~ 1 1 - ---- 4 1 NA *O IM 06,2 150,42.0 @009 â€¢blpt#b Pin====i- -zr--1 1 .11 1 -- 011 1 i 1 1 - I 11 - IÂ«litinÂ«Â»--- /*- Â»- --------- ------------------- ----I - + 1 / 9 / - ----i-~ - - \11\\ : - - 1 112 ELEÂ·v. Loqi.bÂ»p- - THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OFANY TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING D.ENSIONS. AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES oF DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF â„¢E WORK THE COMRACÂ· Â·-- 16|000 TK.IM- VARIATIONS FROM â„¢E DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ~ SHOWN BY â„¢IS DRAWING ~ 0 -- ---- -- - - 1 - 1 EETING-1 ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~1 -~Lff>fÂ«iflul~ft ~~~__ ~I . 1~ 1 ---Fill !111~ Ill-7 --F-0- ----11 111 -d 1MAIN I HOUSE ELEVATIONS ELEN, 10/*oil r Scale: 40=11-61 NORTH WEST =77--77-InÂ»777Ful 49 FEB 12 4798 ~ J G*El NT.- 3 Â© 1133 WILLIAM JOHN POSS 1 A 1 , AA . *.Â· .e 4 I . - - I 4 - .... 0. /41 # , h ti -- U 1- < Vi -- I - .ABO RMW Â¥06Â¥Â·- - ! f il f [LE==f - 9% 11 --- ------ \%& 1-- Tctte=~~ - --- - -- 9640894Â©> 9 UPIT.16 --- ,- --- + 4 - S-#--It-- -- _- C,Pl'09< 1 i 7 --1 1 4 - 1 1 SOUTH WEST '00, X 3 , \41 < Issue: 69 , $ 1 2Â· Il *01 APU BEVEW r' 'fl// ' 1 8 _41 -_ 1 t -1 7 ---p roll IN -- - - + i -com===- woop TAR 4 E- . SELECTING FIRICATION PROCESSES ANO TECHNIQUES OF H E ~23 1 r.,BBLPW c.-APES*22 THE PURPOSE OF Tms DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY TOR IS RESPONSBLE FOR CONFIRMING DNENSIONS. AND DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WOAK, â„¢E CONTRACÂ· 1 -- ~ ~ ~ -- - - - - VARIATOIS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS 4--t--2- -- -- CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANÂ·r - --- -- SHOWN SÂ¥ THIS DRAW)NG - -# ij [EXISTING 1 CARRIAGE +IOUSE 4 ' ELEVATIONS EAST , - NORTH 1 g- 0 ~ 1 --I----% Scale: /4 =1- y ---9-1:7*-17 1 - FFB 1 2,309 11~ A') 4 Â«Â« '-f: ]4% 1 *- k.4-. - â‚¬:yisr~i~*0,,6--1,- -p NEW A 3 _ n Â· A A t - Weop 9*+1)36(-G- " ~Or - -- ~ 4 0,1 1 \\Â« 1 - /// A. -. #// 1 F14= ==Il='.=I-=-4- =44.~47# / r - - ' /*14/ ! I - . I - - raer ~ . 0 I hic.//4*fr H -- C xÂ»â‚¬ Â¥.AÂ¥* =- 1Â£--:-f y - 1 71 1 ~~AJ 6 ~ ~~ ''* 1 -1, .1 , 11 1 1 1 , 1 / L- 92-1 2-1 1 ,1 1 1 I 1 il , i '' il 11 ,r 1 _ _ -1--=l[1~ Â· 1 0Â»\ l Fh.- 1 11 ' ' f---- n .th 1_L_ It -------- -- 6 1/ , ~ -\,Â»t /1 fÂ«=2-=Â« r 4/-hi -1------ Â¥ -------. -- ..--- --,--- -I- 6 . m:Er- =:*' / +~2-2-1.- k. Â»117- i- Ti'/-~71 -- -I -- 1 "- " 1- 1 I - Ir-1,Â·irTI- T.F=-4 1.--U=*~ 4 14 = H j.J i.1 1; , ' - t---" ; i ILE,lti . NEW Â£1 1 L-- UlÂ·- 1.-4-ILJY '-1 L i'k- 1 6 60 Â£ 494,8- 1 1 F= L- Rew 1 - 2 li 1 1 :3 411 1 t 1 4 , r. . -- - -- f - 1 1 It -. 4 0-~ - tz 11 1 1 tr-Â·=r-=-4.-=-4 i -1 1 1 ...1 1 1 ---li. 1 11 - 9.-------4--- ,â€ž4 -- -.-- - -L--_- 1 , 4/1 1 i â€ž - - 0 Me,1 63 6 0 -1- H 1/1 \ 1 A 7. 1 0 /4 Â· 1 1 - I /- , NOW < 1 7 6451-1â€¢/6, --t m M . Extertâ€¢Â·16 <<_ 02.1 El 12Â£>e>F=5 -<2 -A 66.YOBO \\ d f/1 1 - 6 2_1 f . Issue: 1 /1 f i .--- 7 1.4.1 5 -Cl, /OXÂ» 24 12 i 1. 1/1 2 N e W weo o 4543 \4\ $44- 1 106( 6 $*,rr 4/* 1-D M Ar! -c* \*4& l, f i 44/ --%~ "-- 6 â‚¬2'.:15(. i*6 ilf t 11==71 . 00 1 -I \ 1 ~,r/,r . 1174/ 2-- 1 1 iT- 1 -- . F=411 . --.// L_-Ii iL- _--- .1 1 U--- Â· r - 1 1 11 4, 1 If . f - I. 1 1 IL*- A- 'Ill '' 1 U Il 1 1 '1-01 11 P --- ;- L__11 1 14.-1 1 NEW NAreow 11 2 r. LA f 19. A e C> S I P i â€¢46, EGAL:-6//t t. -m ==11 -- IL --1 - 1-- -4 Tc. r,Wt-Â£:4* 6,4â‚¬;r~,36 - 4 - THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GAAPHICALLY - ~ ~r- Â·- Â· - DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE CONNIe r - TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOA CONF IRAING DIMENSIONS. AND SHOWN By THIS DRAWING 1/ 11 ,==~/=/. 1L.-6 - 1 13 9 SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES ANO TECHNIQUES OF CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHiTECT SHALL dE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIKTIONS FROW THE DIMENSIONS ANO CONDITIONS -11 1-- - -1 re-3 4 111 I .- - I U--- --4 r-'r- -- - 7 MAIN 11 11 1 1 1 .--- Nf-W WOOD TPÂ·19. -- - 1 - 21]L HOUSE - 10 Mâ€¢ktl 61<.iS i 4 6 ELEVATIONS ) l===A 11 PER-2-4 ti 11 Dit- - 1 --- /1 !'6'Â·Â·Â·67~1 k + NEkl <---j Scale: 4% 11. OIl p IN'*8 29 T V h -T \O 0 l l 1 ... . 9 0 FT M M L. a V h T 1 0 F A3.3 Â©___2~WILLIAM JOHN POSS . 4 A A i 1.199' HT. + 3>22-z? cr 12 itzae . MASâ€¢CD RE,-7 64*4;46387 To - --t t4,â€¢Frcâ€¢H -R+AT O N ------ - *Xest-â„¢36. 12â‚¬9lgeâ„¢-0 - - NEW WOOD 51+-iâ€¢16UR --I-I-.- - 5Â«11 . 2 ----- - 1/14 - - --- Reer TD MATE* ax, Isri,~6 pe-c.cilg Ar ige c.Or wrl I - 1 4- I . CAH,/16(-0 Sl<11Â»6 17) Â»E{754 . - I Fulâ‚¬7496 I -irr'--1 ~1 -7/1 . - -9 1 T-r J Eli 1 -=11 f 1 HÂ®00 112.ir/\ TO I -r----1 ,-I 1 1 ------ MAT-â‚¬â€¢4* E-,Ued- i r.1 G 4, \ U 1 1-11 -- Ili 0 4 L - 1291Â»090_n r- 1. 2-tri + Le-Ob -1 - - -rj-- rf *~~*~~ ~ ~ ~~ r ~-t .rn. -11 I . â€¢1. 97-- N.+F.F.r,W C..OT , ~ 1 L j E - -- -- lairÂ»' - C.L.Al' 2Â£1,/42â‚¬3 610 C )36, F -7 1 17, rl*Tr-*t 29 Kisir i â€¢16, 1 r' ti . ~ 44 1 1 1 L M F. 1- T L Al --*1 --%- -- ---r--- 1 1. )231!~9,4.128 y -4 -(37 T W L & V A 1 1 6' A 2_0 9 T M e. 1 - u v,Â« 3 1 r ls, 1 -- +---1 +-==Et - '- -,-I--- ~ - _ ...9 iN 4Â·97 . 2 34 , ..4\ 1 Â« - :1 ,1 Â¢ - tra PAT\\.1,> c.-gr- a 4. ' /Sâ‚¬'29// f I :2#:. 1 Issue= -- - \F,7104 WD, -5*thÂ»LE SleihhG #61,5,10 // \2\ A- 2 - 1Â»90 1 #fil t==Fi=--- 21% / 4 , llÂ».5 ff, ,Tf---T-FT---*1~ 7 20. T'F-IM TD ! M. AFT (* 07*. 141-'1,36 -41 1 1| 1 30LD-(-1---=~zZL; I:firiT# 1, A-W-,3-14&L104 1 t k>~327 F. F. 4-! f brl' - - l!7=lia, ..1. -- , 1-11 - 1~ ~ jpl IÂ®+4 ~ i Â©_-, # SE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GAAPHICALLY NAP:,2 oN cur . DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK â„¢E CONTRAC -4'e=-ual TOR LS RESPONS]BLE FOR CONF1RMING DIMENSIONS AND 2 4 , LiI26'/f T- -$-1 1 - - _ SHOWN eY THIS DRAWING -- C.L.Ae @66â‚¬0 610,0, - VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS rONSâ„¢UCTION THE APCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY SELECTING FABRICATION PAOCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF . rb MATE*4 6*16T-1106 fir;-In j z:= n.+ 1 CARRIAGE I f'f' 4- rL Oit HOUSE --h-+ - --ti ELEVATIONS - -- - 7 -i Y- . P| 0 E--1 H M Le,VA. 1 LON 52 1. 9 V A -1- 1 /7 K 1 11 --- - Scale: a = 1'-2 t A3.4 Â©_119_WILLIAM JOHN POSS A A . . . ~ltyÂ¥' HT. 13*Le" cp 1240* I . I. 1/ \ / A -./.. ill-4 t - / ti-li -- 0 . - . .- J 7~ -- ly - r ir ly--- a."-el* N-l E ~Ef 1 1 *P 1 . ;1- le~ 11- 1 - =3 i -11 'Â·1 1 .44 IC -030 r.-4 1 L r.p, 4/012 7// 1 i Â· _f ZI ' - 1 . es j 11 l . If. A- 1 1. e O U -T M 0 L W VATIO P..1 UPÂ·*T 0 1/ u VAT 10-8- ......--......--------I.-=.-I-,-I---*I--Il-I.--I--9--.----- ~_ _ Issue: 62 --- 2%81 I Â· 09Â·88 9 FG 2...i~Vi 5161 . 4 - f .. 1 -4\ A xs*==9; ME Â«tÂ»Es/ IF===, i i--1 1 1 1 it . --_11 1 4-- -1 4= W -er +105Â£:7* RE PUAPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHIGALLY Â· DEPIC THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WOF* 1Â·ME CON'mle TOR 6 0SPONSILE FOR CONFIA-6 DNENSIONS *C SELECTING FABAICATON PAOCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY ==== vAAITIONS FROI THE DIENSIONS AND COIrTIONS 1 , -- j SHOWN BY â„¢IS DRAWING 1 f i r===1 11-I CARRIAGE -2. 1 -b=====h f.===10'F== HOUSE ' _ L ELEVATIONS I rr + 6,90 1 -1 3 - 1 -- m - Scale: /*il= 1 1 -0 N o te. T M r. L, e. V h -1- 1 0 N . , p A 471- M U w Vt>\3 lo tl -3 - 4 2 0 - Aâ€¢ ix. - I . 7=I I . . A - . 't== f 1\ 4 /-, 1 d M M . ~ - .-1 _ -1 . 1 - ,/111 1 1 (r. , L_ - r-- Â·--,.' r . h 1 :r /--1 - - 471 /94% *41 ~ r , ~ ~~ ~ Â»d~- 1 ~ 0 - l 4 7p-)M~*# -- . 1 - .1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 -11.1 1- - - q - _1<LJk- 1 ! -Ir -d 1 -= 1 E m 1 F. 1 1 1 Â· 1 -'1 - 1 1- . 327_Q -K-- 1 GOOT Fl 0 4 9 VA-[- 1 0 r-1 3 4 wirls}we 1 P A eT e L i vAl 10 H .-/ O 4 f - - Issue: 266.95 24 Â«," -,9 - --- 11 -4 %Â§. r 1 lill r /1 1 7 - -4 ., 4 - - :NOIn * 4 Â·c -- E i--- ==_i~ '03/ 1.-07*1 1 A 0 0 L 1 I Ill -i lu, . 1 1 *27 - 4 L--1, 1- -- tin- -1 K 1 1 - m - d . P PURPOSE Of THIS DRAwlÂ«3 J ONLY TO GRAPHKDALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE CONTRAC TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COIIAMING DNENSIONS AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AC TECHNIOUES OF CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL dE NOTIFED OF ANÂ¥ VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS 6. 1 6 SHOWN eY THIS DRAWING - - 1 i--4 r- + 1-- 1 t 11 1-*-1 MAIN f El- 1 - 1 HOUSE | *===. 1 ELEVATIONS 1 11 4- - l 11 Scale: 4 = l'Â·o" L 1 N r le- T M 9 L, e V h T _1 e.la 34 * 09 T Ip L #B v P~ 3 \ 0 8 L.4.1 mr- ~8=--9/.-I=.- 1 1 f - -//.'/.' tr--FM .-I......@-2.-6Â»=.-- --2~ . -- I THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING ES ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY DEPICT 7HE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK â„¢E CONTRAC -9 TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONF-ING DIENSIONS. AND ~ CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL dE NOTIFIED OF ANY SELECTIC FABRICATION PROCESSES AW TECHNIQUES OF VAAIATIONS FREW THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING UPPER LEVEL 671Â£Â© 12 Fl 1/Â«32_ Â·H ..3 U '10Â· FLOOR PLAN !" 1 U scale: 9 =' 4 t 334- ~ WEST HALLAM ASPEN COLORADO WILLIAM JOHN POSS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 605 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 303 925 4755 .a . l 1 1 e % - 0-711 e D 1 It 0 - r -4 1 - 1. - 42 m bill ~ - f . 1 9 - N - 1 1 9- .. 1 - ... 0--i 9. 7. - . , 011* W...'....=..me= r - 4 4 1 A. 1 .-- . J 7 - Â» .- 4 1 0. I . .... -- I . A - . A /-, 11 - 0 1 . 1 - IL/1 i) Eli 23 7 l - 9 . .1-1 lul 1 . - -En - 1 2 1 L 0 0 ot-1 C J f \ 0001 1 â„¢976 _11%*4 t=:tL 12% r 7 1.31 7 0 n 0 - - ty -1 44#4.41- 41 # r--7-r---- 7, Pti] M i : 3, t:'~1*'e k' i./ Â·Â£7'%. *Et=k 1 j 40 T < 1 /E.I.*fl''F :04/4;'. ... te/.4-----P -14/ - rn-- 7 1~-3 U R- 1. Issue: 11A 1@1 7 k lili /. 1 2, 549. ONk.rta. eM C 115till 1 --I.. *1_2222/*8/332/IIEEEH.* ' 2 00 HIPS RE:VIEW iâ‚¬ 1 5 - 4 * PYWF H 7 0657/3 --1--*---I.*-*-I. 13 1 - L,/ - I. ' 40 . Â£ 1 ~~__ THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICA *-- DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE COT 1 - TOI IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING DIMENSIONS AND - SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIOUES CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL RE NOTIFIED O VARIATIONS FRON THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDIONS . _ _ -- SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING . LOWER 6>~/\Ff.te 1 Â« 312. Hcl~Uto,/P, LEVEL FLOOR ----- ~-%--Ill---i--I---~ PLAN Scale: 43 = i'.0# 9...I--Ill-//*- 1~-li~-I-~---~.~ . t. A A A . L .. - A . L - a ALL EY .-. A - - .fm.f,37 l-<Ate . 1 - 1 .t_UEE= 1' . 111,1111111~1111 1 mir +AW 6 ~ Reâ€¢,L YA;ZO ber e,Ad*- 06to.*T guaÂ®{) SA62.12 /&52; I -.- He 0, --- - /73 1 - - ~ i ij j r - < -412 to' geÂ®?D. MIN. 0161-Aâ€¢446 , 66-r-wee N BLDGS. r 1 dv[ 9->N NEW *Ne- 11 ~ 2-04 1 1 0 ' ll I '1,/A FOOFS Â£ULLLih==6615 :Ti -L- 1 -.. Â·id Y N.-6 -WEESE' . i A rm__ _ -- - - -~ - \0 -* M i Al- 41 A+L// ZAMIL ~111 111 7 ..,11 1 ..---i.--/ 1 -- to ..0/ 111 . - 1 . 1 lili , lili ./.I lili lilli l.0 - 20~1224/#Mimim#*t= 1 , Â· - 1 - 1 1 1 jIT 50 4 SFAC.6 0 - - - -1 DZ c c- n----_ - -_f* 1 li ill 'i <l ] C IZOO pms 1 1 1 11 1 . 1 0 - I.-- 1 1 i 4â‚¬41 . Â«--f-3Â» 0 1 1 j- 0 4- ' 1- Issue: 1,4 5,11 0-- - - I =r- - j -Â·r: 7 1 -3 2Â·31 01,448% tevieW I Â· 29 Â·85 i t 28/'tew X5- A Â»2 MAIL 41 Bex U ~_~_~0,~*,,4 - HALLAM AVENUE - - THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY -- DEPICT â„¢E GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE CONTRAC TOR IS RESPONSELE FOR COIFIRMING DIâ€¢ENSIONS. AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES At TECHNIQUES OF CONSIRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL RE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARRTIONS FAOI â„¢E DIMENSIONS AND CONDIONS SHOWN BY THISDRAING SITE PLAN - Scale: 2' s nt-<p" 1 l j 9-6- - 47 HP 334 W HALLAM HIST. DESIGNATION 1 SIGNIFICANT DEV., DEMO. OF CARRIAGE H. -J J~ - m I 334 W. HALLAM ST., CONCEPTUAL~a~ ~_ ~ 4(1'lly APPROVAL & HIST. DESIGNATION Â«2_ i 6 n 09Â«P~ " 5/20 /7 1- j Allillilly 2 - .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Articles attached FYI: Rescuing Outbuildings Technical Preservation Services Briefs: Appropriate Scale of Greenhouse Additions Entryway Alterations in Carriage House Conversions DATE: ~ April 26, 1988 ~ I have attached three interesting articles for your review. The Rescuing Outbuildings article appeared in the current issue of the old House Journal (excellent timing!), and I feel it is very good. This leads me to ask for feedback from you on beginning a project to inventory specifically outbuildings. The other two briefs I found interesting and useful. They come from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and have been included for your review and general use. They are not necessarily intended for specific use with any current project, although the information may be useful in final review of 334 W. Hallam./ 4 Technical Preservation Services ~~ Preservation Assistance Division ~preting National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. ( Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 81-022 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: APPROPRIATE SCALE OF GREENHOUSE ADDITIONS Issue: Greenhouse additions to historic building are sometimes used by developers to obtain additional floor space or for passive solar heat collection. NPS does not discourage new additions to historic buildings under certain conditions. A number of projects that include contemporary greenhouse additions have been certified for tax purposes where they have been proposed for non-significant elevations and have been compatible in size and scale with the existing structure. In addition, their construction should not involve demolition of significant historic fabric or obscure significant architectural detail or features. Greenhouse proposals that do not meet these criteria may jeopardize certification of the project work. l- Application: The proposed rehabilitation of a four-story Federal style structure included plans for a wrap-around greenhouse to be built on two of the building's three 1 elevations. At the end of a long row of wharf buildings, this structure projected prominently into a square near the center of a downtown historic district (see illus. l). NPS determined that all three of the building's elevations were equally significant, and therefore it would be especially important that the size and scale of any addition be sensitive to the existing structure. The developer of the building planned to convert the first two floors to a restaurant, and several hundred square feet of additional floor space would be provided by the greenhouse (he sought no solar energy benefits from the addition). The initial proposal submitted to NPS called for a two-story, lean-to greenhouse whose roof would connect to the building just below the third floor window sills (see illus. 2). NPS determined that the two-story height of the greenhouse would dominate the four-story facades for which it was proposed, thus violating Standards 2 and 9. NPS suggested that if additional space was required, a one-story greenhouse would be more compatible with the scale of the building. A one-story addition would obscure only the ground floor of the building (comprised of storefronts that had been altered several times in the building's history) and would leave the upper three stories unimpaired. Such an addition, however, would not be a recommended rehabilitation approach. The developer responded by presenting a slightly scaled-down greenhouse design, with the sidewalk depth reduced and the height lowered from the third-story window sill line to the second-story lintel line. By reducing the size of the greenhouse in this way, the developer gave up some seating space in a second floor balcony which had been included in the original design (see illus. 3 and 4). In arguing for their revised two- story design, the developer and his architect maintained that all of the greenhouse .. 81-022 would be glazed and that only very light framing would be required to carry the stoped roof, allowing a person on the sidewalk adjacent to the greenhouse to look up through the glass and readily observe the historic brick wall above. They argued that a one-story greenhouse would require an almost flat roof because of the relationship of ~ its height to its depth. In order to carry the weight of the glass roof, therefore, the framing would have to be heavier and would, they maintained, obscure the view up through the glass. NPS did not agree with this assessment of the addition's impact, and in its letter of denial to the owner, stated: the scale of a two-story greenhouse would dominate the facades for which it is proposed. A one-story (design) would not have the same overwhelming effect-from either a close-up or distant perspective--on the existing structure. In appealing this NPS decision, the developer wrote: ...we believe the sloped roof of the greenhouse reflects the line of the existing roof of the (building) as the one-story design would not .... The configuration of the two-story) canopy, combined with sensitive lighting will high-light the components of the historic (facade); a one- story addition would intrude upon and obscure the significant features of the (facade)....The dramatic alteration caused by the proposed greenhouse addition will have a positive effect on the...building. At night, "suitably illuminated," the greenhouse becomes invisible from any sight line, and the facades of the...building are dramatically revealed. After reviewing the facts of the case, the hearing officer sustained NPS's denial of certification and, in his letter to the owner, wrote: I agree that with illumination of the facades of the...building the greenhouse would be nearly transparent at night, and that the facades would therefore "read" through the glass much as your elevation drawings depict. I would hasten to point out, however, that the drawings overlook the reflective quality that glass possesses during daylight hours. As a result of this quality, I believe that glass in a greenhouse is not a neutral material, "virtually invisible," as you maintain. It is a dynamic material with bold visual qualities very different from the red brick of the...facades. (These) visual characteristics ... would make a two-story greenhouse less an invisible addition and more one which would stand alone as an architectural statement, competing with and altering the historic character of the building. The hearing officer reiterated to the developer that a one-story greenhouse likely would receive certification. In a resubmitted application, however, the developer 81-022 eliminated the greenhouse entirely, proposing instead outdoor seating on the sidewalk during the summer months only. Upon receipt of this new plan, a preliminary approval ( of the developer's proposed work was issued. Prepared by: William G. MacRostie, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 'f./ 01 "#.i, t 81-022 . 5~ III' I 1. Corner of the Federal Style build- ing for which a two-story greenhouse ..tilt ' have run half the length of the facade was proposed. The greenhouse would at right and the entire length of the facade at left. A- 1 . : ...1. 111 1 in --- Ral .-/ ...4 -Â·i rV ...1 M H..M. M M r-1 - 5 41 kil - Ah. liM ;47 . 91 ' , 1 0 -r-- 1 1. 2. Initial design proposal. NPS deter- the building. 11 IFFFii - T -i- 73 mined that this two-story addition would dominate the two facades and overwhelm . 111 41.-- C Eâ‚¬~ F-1 - LtzEZZIUd__~~~1 L EN' imf 19;i-~i--lf 3!EENÂ®.E B l rÂ«1 -3 7- 11-11+ 3. The developer's second design pro- posal reduced the height of the green- 3% 4 -1-1 -i j- 2- D house to the level of the second story window lintels. NPS continued to with- hold approval for the project. Utuu, GEL =~ZZk Eil** Mia)Â£ F- M fÂ· mi- ~-i N ** 6 "EMEN 4. NPS suggested a one-story green- EEM EME not have the same overwhelming effect ~ house, similar to this, which would -- ~ -~1- ~1-4-1--1,4 4.4 4--, pl-rn ~ on the building as the proposed two- ]1 1 1 EE=, E story addition. 5cp tEll Â£101 11!-ti Bi~ A Technical Preservation Services ~ Preservation Assistance Division ~rpreting National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's c Washington, D.C Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 82-025 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (conformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (conformance) Subject: ENTRYWAY ALTERATIONS IN CARRIAGE HOUSE CONVERSIONS Issue: The rehabilitation of historic carriage houses into usable living spaces often poses difficulties for owners undertaking such conversions. These structures are often more modest in detail than the main house they serve, and generally lack architectural features such as window and door surrounds, elaborate cornices, and high quality brick-work. Nonetheless it is important that their essential form and integrity be preserved during the course of rehabilitation. Doors and openings are frequently the most distinguishing features of carriage houses. Owners, however, often find it necessary to modify these features for the following reasons: to allow for privacy, for adequate light and air, and for more efficient access into the interior living spaces. Owners should be concerned about the possibility of violating Standards 2,4, and 5 by damaging historic fabric or severely altering the integrity of the structure through the use of inappropriate infill designs. Additionally, where original or historically significant doors have survived, they should be retained rather than removed, and the sense of opening should be preserved. Projects that fail to retain their "carriage house" character can result in denial of certification. The following project provides an example of the mitigating circumstances that existed to enable the approval of a particular infill design. Application: The owner of an 1840 carriage house in a historid district rehabilitated the structure for use as rental units and upon completion of the project requested that the work be designated a "certified rehabilitation." The two-story brick building had been constructed with a balcony across the second floor and two arched doorways that opened into the interior carriage spaces on the first floor. In 1934 the structure was converted into apartments, and wooden doors were installed in the arched entryways. These doors were not original elements of the structure nor were they significant to the character of the carriage house. The rehabilitation work performed by the present owner, according to the certification application, included refinishing the interior woodwork; repairing existing wood sash, doors, and shutters on the balcony level; paving the existing gravel courtyard with exposed aggregate concrete; repairing the balcony elements; and replacing the wooden carriage doors with fanlights, sidelights, and French doors. 0 - 0 . 82-025 The regional office determined that the project did not meet Standards 2,4, and 5, primarily due to the infill designs for the elliptical-arched doorways. The denial letter stated: < Our office would have suggested, had the application been submitted before work was begun, an alternative design solution which would have incorporated a simple, contemporary entry into the large garage doors to 'scale down' the openings. The regional office also expressed reservations over the apparent replacement of the balcony balusters and the extensive amount of paving that occurred within the courtyard. The owner subsequently appealed the decision. After hearing the appeal, the decision was made to designate the work as a "certified rehabilitation." Although additional balusters were apparently installed on the balcony, the hearing officer determined that the replacement features maintained the simplicity in design and austere detailing that existed prior to rehabilitation. Regarding the courtyard space, the new paving covered the existing gravel surface, but its appearance as an informal courtyard and not a formal garden or patio was retained, preserving its historical and architectural integrity. The major source of concern was the infill design for the carriage house doors. The hearing officer agreed with the regional office that installation of fanlights, sidelights, and French doors was an extremely formal solution for adaptively reusing the existing doorways. A more appropriate approach would have been to design a doorway that incorporated as much of the character of the existing fabric so that the doors are able to maintain their original definition and historic character. Nevertheless, because the need for light and air in the first floor spaces was dearly established and no historic fabric was destroyed, the architectural elaboration of the doorways was approved-although not recommended--as an acceptable treatment for this particular structure. Prepared by: Christopher A. Sowick, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-025 ..MT n.. . - . i. 4106.- '- 8 , 6 i m ....gjj./.../....... '.7'347.-t '16â€¢ 4 ''Â· . - h. .1. :7â‚¬h:i. *47*3AÂ·Â·-*FJ 3<(~~ ,fif~ 74 1. Carriage house prior to recent 2. Completed rehabilitation rehabilitation. This view incorporates showing formal infill design, repaired 1934 changes, including interior balcony railing, and paved courtyard. atterations and wooden entrance doors This work was found to meet the Standards. in archway. *11 -- uu ,~ p 0* ~.%4.-44*.0.%#PIr'.'*t#&4Â·~49~#2<4.:.~~i .- Â·Ar.2'#.--II~'I~Al:Eff,63:.,~:f'.'*-~,~'-*~-~-%~*'..A:-k,mjokÂ¢;2-~D.i.raF,:I.:4.8:69*r.~<: 1 t 're. ;67â‚¬46*.&1**32â‚¬:ff#,-51#23616 -- 9.-yA Â·. Â·.Â·.ye:c- :s:.:.s ,-.....:. 0 5.42Â¥3.99*t'Â·04/42<i-3iA*&543.-<:tv> .Â».9'Â·2*4 , : lfÂ©393%35*419'-j. *-.'#..~ t/..- = ,4~.~..--YP:<.~'~~LIP*:~.2~~..'2':~..~:~:53:?-'t:49:47Â·I-:...2,4.,;*kD.'f,:i<''.,i~~:-,Â·.:4 :,.Â·:,c.=-:-,Â·:Â·Â·Â·,o; Â·~Â·, :I 1 --,Â·i:#-7*5d4NW--*jfa.44%3}-I~ *jit#W.'tall./2 V. - nlrh yr S#EMOO, 41 / f .1... 6.1 - -Â·- *'....: P ..444*;j.6 PIt >11.' u- - CILDIN -ful - 04-'-'22:Â·1: I â€¢ 1-~ Â·f:*r,.LierM.KÂ·, 0;1 i N/,5.41. 1 . In':30.Â» Â« n t.2. i.-9...:~~.....4.1 ..4.1.ltr:r:.99-,4%;*<'.*fjÂ·~iR~:i~iÂ·~itrti-'t,4 --4Â·' .fi..066<1.,Â·.'Â·0 ~997. ;7Â· ,-7 4'Â·:i Im......1-â€ž.~1- .4.Â¥4Â·yâ€¢'Â· .pi, '-R , ,-~- 4.--.:24:4.929033143%%496;3%73.1-\# .tyl-le- -Ne-95*O / p . 1. 51:4 . At#-'.)3~fÂ·.'<:Mit) itf~Â·.23â‚¬itt)1*3Â¢k.j ~ ~ -~=rni/&*Px,p/**#21M//8 -,1-5 686/fo -i.'~2,:Â·:':Â·Â·-Â·n-Â·Â·.3.â‚¬;Â·94Â·..Â·'Â·iguttlÂ·:~ 12~<ffRÂ·~-.dull';4?2:<Nh724Â·M.>..St:irÂ·-~2:;13..bosub'Â·. 44#41.'i Â· Wm:3'75*' ,Â·~~:Â·' Â· Â·<~- Â·~ Â· ~:-u- 's~ -'. ".155.1902-.5-'04' ~1.-r-ti,:f:k.Â·~~2Â·79'7914&*6-26Â·:7 j~fÂ·,-<'5-4.:'t. pinÂ·b.'Â·,.%,<R@j*,214..~>., : i --Ag'*W 424,3<Ii,Â· r.,.fiÂ· I';.tilit.962,*iÂ·4.-p.:ij.f-6 ."i,'v.,",2,1~F,eETId. A...;i*:-2 'I:.v'-:,Â·.7.4~.; 3.:fiff.Â· -.AÂ·Â·I..4 Â·Â·r,f*.-r..:?Â·192~ MUNMME~*eSEÂ»arit 1 ; r t. ,.4,,re au,g:'09Â·':F.tRÂ·f.5*63,.',15Â·..":. ~;.....I- :.:IS.W.....:A,~;4.l'Â·.'U T-ii:., . lam#~emitjaNiâ‚¬-7399- - - . --1. 1%: 1/9./425'WJMI. Â£87lil<ARE,fZ2:'a'-Â· -; F 1 . GE U .4~ AS:,2.*i, f AMÂ·-Â·Â¢ 4, : .5 + .-$1<9.9 'f - Â·IZ~ Elk.43Â·.~--:â€ž.,1 .3. r. Â·Â·2~ ~:-,r. Â·n.: f 1 j...â€¢ 0.Â· Â·Â· )EtÂ»*8-Â£ , Â·Â·'.r"16. 2*eti 2.1 t' Â·the:- 1 >230 -i uer-z. PMHO-4 r* .-7 1 /691/Ii-t - --- i ~.14*KE 0, Fl'"12.- .--)-/.'.-..#A/*Wil/B ma - m -ru. --Ill'-Il=lili'.....I-. â€ž'-r ==Pmee=GE, E , }*33274*4L1:42<yaÂ·e; J.Â°2{,>47 2, 0 ., - ..7 -2 ..ak - . 1 9/7 4 v . ~- Â· 29 Â¥Â·. I Â£0 - 4 p. -- - -p. 11*- x * r U b 1 - ,re;, :. .. 1*LM#2wd#Y*Â£)VB#ZAPV)324:i--21Â·'4.422*.-226 Ld.A .- I X i.-i *6~44Â·~4 Â· --- 521%841"~?~Â·-f.ri fs'&.15#~:9-:5-~. i.' , Â·Â·... c.:.3-344-2Â¥j?691-2.3/~ 1 , -,Â· -i' -r.~ 1.-Â·. 4Â·â‚¬w.11-24:..-(5.::--1-."ilivs.4.~:.~~Â·2.21-*57*-94%.913444Â»ff**jgi~i~ ~; .J-UrkÂ·-.Â·94'1-2.1Â©ft-4Â· itâ‚¬~ 2~2:93994Â·44â‚¬0.9-uÂ·yis,EX--3&-Â·;21>%..10Â·?.R.kl:*Â·2247*te.fri.$,fid; -- -p---I-.-----I#/la--Ill#-W*-'---*-*-'' 17 riends kid me about all the weekends I devote to Service has a professional preservationist's interest in out- ~ my obsession: resurrecting a neglected family buildings, as head of the Williamsport Preservation Train- 0 ' homestead in Pennsylvania. I must admit, I spend ing Center in Maryland. For his work, outbuildings are "an AL a lot of time working on the main house. But essential part of the historical context of a homestead or they've yet to catch on to my other mission: bringing back farmstead." In historic sites, they sometimes stand aS the the satellite structures - the outbuildings. I can't whack only evidence of an economy and way of life now gone, away on the main house and watch it improve, and at the In some areas, too, their construction is a rare record of same time ignore the tool shed, the summer kitchen, the early immigrant building methods before ethnic tech- well house, or the tractor barn which are also crying for niques were homogenized into American ways. John Bruce maintenance. Dodd, a restoration architect in Layton, New Jersey, has For me, outbuildings are the homestead or farmstead. grown to share the same views. In the course of preparing The land and service buildings that support the main house a government report on historic structures, Dodd inven- are what give the place history and context, setting it apart toried hundreds of "O.B.s" (as he and his wife call them) from suburban dwellings. In the days before plumbing, owned by the federal government in a project that covered refrigerators, or central heat, the outhouse, icehouse, and the Mid-Atlantic states and several years. woodshed did these jobs for anyone living outside of a As I continue to work on my outbuildings, and help other city. Twentieth-century inventions have made these "de- people with theirs, I've collected a kind of two-phase com- pendencies" obsolete today, but I feel a'stead-house would pendium of ideas and techniques for saving them, Some ! still look naked without them. You may not have livestock tipS are my own discoveries, others are common knowl- for your barn, or need a milk shed to put cream in your edge or borrowed from different technologies. None Of it , coffee, but knocking these little buildings down or letting is complete. Also, I've limited myself pretty much to the benign neglect eat them away will, at the very least, take wood-frame building, because this is by far the most pop- away the sense of dimension you feel when walking around ular construction method, and is used even in structures your grounds. made of adobe or stone. Again, what follows is not com. I'm not alone, either. Jim Askins of the National Park prehensive, but it's a place to start. 38 MAY/JUNE 1988 1 . ' STABILIZATION J.'I+**t.&//34Â·fb-*Ill/4,/&*e"'.&31*2%99&9 Solon (who works in ~Delaware Water Gap National 1. The situation I come up against is: Yes, I want to throw Recreation Area) says that windows and other portals 2 some money and effort into that tool shed, but a new roof where light penetrates will warm the inside of the building, i on the main house has to come first (or we'11 have "running circulating the air and minimizing the negative effects of 4 1 water" in more than just the bathroom). When faced with dampness. To maintain this natural system, windows ! this clash of priorities, I do as much as I can to stabilize should be covered with clear plastic, not with opaque ma- i or "mothball" the outbuilding so it can resist the elements, terials such as tarpaper or lumber. Ventilation for the es- and prevent it from slipping past The Point Of No Return cape of trapped moisture is usually not a problem with the f (to be discussed later). simple, loose construction of most outbuildings. Still, never i Making the building watertight is usually job number seal them SO tightly that interiors cannot breathe. Â· one. Water inside any wooden building causes lumber Ground or runoff water is the third source of water , problems, from warping and splitting (where the wood problems. Neglected outbuildings most often sit on ne- i expands and distorts) to rotting (live fungi eating away the glected building sites, and the growth of plants or a shifting I wood). Water gets in by three avenues: of the landscape will channel melting snow and rainwater I Rain is the most common source ofwater. Unfortunately, into the foundations instead of away from them. Outbuild- ~ outbuildings have a long history of being roofed with eco- ings are notorious for being built close to the ground or i nomical materials - wood shingles or sheet metal on open into hills, and this only compounds the damage runoff nailers - and then being forgotten. Once a few shingles water can do. Stabilization may mean digging culverts to blow off or the sheet metal rusts through, rainwater runs channel water away, or regrading foundations temporarily, in along the nailers and supporting framing, and rot starts. Once the invasion of water has been halted, the next job i Eventually the weakened framing and roof will collapse is to make the outbuilding structurally sound. This stabi- i under its own weight, if the burden of snow doesn't bring lization is, once again, just to help the outbuilding hold its it down sooner. own against wind, snow, or its own weight. Structural prob- I Stabilizing a leaking roof, then, is a top-level priority. My lems vary widely (and each has its own solution), but I technique iS tO attack the problem with the most cost- make much use of shoring when a building is in danger effective means for the moment, while keeping an eye of collapsing. toward how a permanent repair will be made later. Cov- Buildings that teeter on their foundations like collapsed , ering the entire roof with plastic, tarpaper, sheet metal, boxes, or walls that bulge almost to breaking, are candi- fiberglass, roll roofing, or tarps is a valid technique. Making dates for raking shores. These are beams erected perpen- watertight, localized repairs with, say, leftover asphalt shin- dicularly between the ground and the sick wall, at 60 to gles is also worthwhile. Your goal, for the time being, is 70 degrees, SO that further movement is prevented. I use to simply keep water out. timbers (such as heavy pieces of construction lumber or Rain also can enter into walls through broken windows, small felled trees), and set the ground end on a block in missing doors, or openings in the siding. These should be a well-tamped "notch" in the earth. The wall end is posi- closed in with the best means at hand, but interior moisture tioned so that it supports a structural member in the build- should be considered as well. Historical architect Thomas ing (like the plate the rafters rest on), or a large board *Ty ('73.4*tÂ¥ .,7,-.'â€žM=,MeelaOm~91â‚¬%2ill32724*~3=..=/*/Rear=REL-au=NaRL)*ovr uÂ·-- .'- -Â·-- â€¢ . r v I . t 1- 1 1 12 7 -- -, nÂ¥. A . 4% .g 4 9. 1. W . 4 22 21. .. 1 hy- ' ,- Â·,@ifi~Be-25. , ' -14- 1.7.~ra.&- 1... .Â«C 1. . + V , ~ 4 , r --1.&81%MW)Bgr - - " - I ' . 4,0- . 4 3-,2 4./ ? .94 b . 4' 022* $ 9. f p ' 1 4- :.6 . 721/W - 9, 4 1. -7 -r - 72 . *k. 1 1 . 13 .,..i' -/ m#*~ - 2:m.:- 2,1,: .Â». - - " ---nÂ©,4,1**'-i --,neuu--- . 31 Tbe entire building may need work, but stabilizing a leahy roof is tbefirst critical step. THE OLD-HOUSE JOURNAL 39 .. work you know would have to be done. For instance, that ~ 1 /1 1 .J - tool shed I want to rebuild probably has several hidden , problems, but at the very least it needs a new roof, a door, 1 and a paint job. The calculated cost for these materials j alone comes to $580, so that becomes the minimum figure ~ for the project. Now ask yourself, does that put it over- i I. i-/mill,lilli#..f; 1 ; ' .6 . 4 Â·1 J'C spend, I can extrapolate from this base by adding another 1 1 budget and out of the question? If I have the money to , c 30% or so to cover unanticipated supplies. If this is still [ 1 OK, I get a handle on the labor by doubling the materials ' 1 1 7 4.- cost - a very crude equation for estimating what I might b 'll- .1- US_-79 â€¢fÂ· -U-_ i Ir-Ir *3r:,di._ i pay someone else to do tile work, and another way to look i at the scale of the project. 1 nailed across the wall as a cleat. Two mating wedges on If the outbuilding passes either of these tests (and I'm 1 the ground end are tapped together just until the shore kind of a softie when it comes to grades), then I figure it c takes the load off the building - no more - and are hasn't slipped past The Point Of No Return and become a inspected regularly for shifting. candidate for salvage or firewood. t Dead shores are vertical beams used to stabilize dead REPAIR IDEAS . (vertically acting) load problems such as broken roofs or Neglected outbuildings are case studies of what lack of y walls with missing foundations. Shoring here is also be- maintenance can do to a structure. It may not look good. tween the ground and a building member, with wood On the other hand, outbuildings are usually simple, work- 1 blocks used at both ends of the timber. For dead shoring, aday buildings that respond quickly to a little attention. t the wedges should be inserted at the top of the timber Their unsophisticated construction actually helps in slap- t and, again, be tightened not to correct the problem, but ping them back into shape because they lack the interior L just keep it from getting worse. Jacking-type steel columns 4 1 4**1 also work well, and any dead shore should be braced with .Ds>*1.1â€ž1 I .\ . lumber so that it can't shift or fall over. The third priority is to keep critters out. And by "critters," .. d-::&=J<*./ Il I mean vandals, rodents, and insects. Vandals have the big- gest potential for doing damage to an outbuilding (i.e., %tl~':/7, r â‚¬2 .:- setting it on fire); fortunately, they can be discouraged by securing all the openings into the building. Use of bars, grates, or spaced planks of lumber will prevent access i *, 46Â£=,-.===--0-1-c--=.7 I 1 1*87 through windows while still letting in light. Rodents do Ulim m-/ .V ; i -Ir J.--94 less damage, perhaps, but are harder to control. One trick is to nail chicken wire over holes in eaves or under foun- ' dations - anvwhere there is evidence of entry. Insects, ...../.:.'' such as wasps, are the peskiest to keep out (especially when 1 they are determined to live there), but the hole-plugging walls, multiple rooms, services (such as plumbing), or even , technique helps keep them at bay. floors that get in the way with many major house repairs. j "THE POINT OF NO RETURN" . .Â· i ~%me*%*302209**4:MWm&&*g" Some say, "If you don't have a roof and a foundation, I'll stabilize a building to buy time for the day when I have you don't have a building," so these are the two areas I i the money or manpower to invest in it. I have learned, attack first when rehabbing. 1 however, to put enthusiasm aside and evaluate whether ROOFS . -22*'326*39*43*3~209Â¢95.*Ege**132312}9322-%22325*29'-'~â€¢r~'90'"Â» .,e % - -0.k.,2, k t the building is worth working on at all, or what the scale I use the three-fifths equation to evaluate the condition of : of the project is going to be. I've come up with two methods a roof. If less than that can be saved, the damage very likely i of assessment. extends into the support framing, not just the roof covering. c One method is an old rule-of-thumb for fire-damaged This means it will be more efficient to remove the entire j houses: If you can salvage more than three-fifths, it's worth roof anyway to make repairs to the framing. t rebuilding. Even if you're not planning a complete rebuild, Damaged rafters can be replaced entirely if the roof is ~ C such a guideline is good for evaluating the condition of a removed. Barring this, they can also be mended, sistered, i building. If investing less than tWO-fifths in new materials or flitched. In mending a rafter (or any beam), sections of ~ 1 and effort will produce a sound structure, you're probably identical lumber are placed on either side of the weak or I not throwing "good money after bad." If it looks as though broken section, and through-bolted to effect a splint-like , more would be needed, you're in the realm of a "labor of repair. In sistering a weak rafter, another length of lumber love," and a completely new building might be more eco- as long as is practical is maneuvered in alongside it, and : nomical. then both are nailed together to share the load. Flitching The other method is to estimate a dollar figure for the employs metal Mitch plates to strengthen weak rafters. They 1 40 MAY/JUNE 1988 - 903/ /06Â¢249(m d sum<,â‚¬L 9 â€ž0114/908 Â·01.Â·1 /â€žd.V tq cipautv w, sotinc,H u,o.#pami.idÂ·19 Nosmqo?f Â·d st,ulocu.,(q survwum m i it j, can be used like lumber in the mending method or in- *AL.. A. 44 0 1 serted singly between sistered rafters. L ~ FOUNDATIONS AND SILLS E Â»Â·%*tâ‚¬&,*3%*WÂ»Â»9â‚¬~44Â¥449Â«/14 s ~ Large outbuildings such as stables and barns may have e l substantial foundations by necessity; smaller buildings typ- . 4Â· 1-1/0A 7.-4 ically get by with much less. As mentioned, the classic *Pic ? 1.... 1 - :*.7,1%b 4 ..1 0 outbuilding sill is only inches off the ground, resting on a r i - base of perhaps a few courses of roughly mortared or dry- . 4 i : ..4 -1~.~'~~irs v'#:I ' 11 laid stone, or maybe just a few strategically placed boulders. / - , 7 . ... , 14 I s They seldom extend below ground, so frost is their biggest .- :, \,~19 A * it f enemy, heaving and shifting them over the years. Luckily, 133,-149Â¥#62Â¢ k i repairs need not be elaborate. Collapsed foundations can I be renewed simply by relaying. Other cases where settling 9 il ~ has occured can be made level again by adding a "fudge" new silk 5) drop the building back down and nail it to the it 1 course of shim stones. new sill. a 1 The condition of a foundation and sill can often be de- WALLS >Enet.33*23'.4 01'29#de*3%@9**eÂ»&"1'4:'+7:,4â‚¬92%(2*3%*172#*COK,4,0 termined just by looking at it from inside and outside the A problem that plagues all small outbuildings is twiSting building. To see subtler "creeping out" of the walls at or leaning of the structure. Because they're built simply ,f ground level, use the picture-frame technique. Cut a true and rarely stand more than a single storey, they usually L i square or rectangle in a piece of cardboard (or use a real lack the diagonal bracing given bigger buildings to prevent picture frame), and view the building from various angles deformation. In reviving an outbuilding, your aim is to I. i through this "window. Framed within the right angles of straighten the building to plumb again, and to brace it in the window, out-of-plumb walls, creeping silk and other some fashion so it stays that way. r f shifts in the structure suddenly become obvious. My technique calls for using a sledgehammer and a block-and-tackle or a "come-along" (a self-winching tool consisting of a hook, cable, and ratcheted spool). Once the f 4.1/5/* 333~Â«\ sill and foundation are as fixed as the project permits, and while the rest of the building is in its most stripped con- dition, I attach the block-and-tackle or come-along between a suitable anchor (such as a tree) and the worst-offending corner of the building. By tightening up On the tackle or come-along, I can gradually pull that side of the building into line, checking as I go with a level. It is a step-by-step A#,7:!-Se. process: first tension on the corner, then coaxing the wall ' further by tapping it at various spots with the sledgeham- mer - tension, coax, tension, coax.... If I have to do major sill or foundation work, I wait until Once the corner 'is as close to plumb as possible in one I've lightened the load by removing unsalvageable roofing direction (and often a little more for spring-back), the new i and other defective materials, Then I proceed with any position can be secured by nailing a brace at 45 degrees jacking or levering around the base. Rotted outbuilding to the corner from floor to ceiling. Few buildings twist or , sills are very common in my experience. Their close prox- lean out of shape in only one direction, so there's usually [ imity to the ground subjects them to runoff water, splash- more than one corner to be trued in this manner. Each back from roof drainage, and wood-eating insects like corner might need to be aligned in two directions (the termites and ants, Occasionally it's worthwhile to splice in planes of each wall) as well. Once the walls are square F a new piece of sill if the damage is localized and the wail again to a reasonable degree, the new roof (if any) can be is long. Be aware, though, that adding joints to such a put on and the rest of the building revived. critical member tends to defeat its purpose. On small build- Relocation is an interesting closing idea that has more ings, I opt for replacing the sill along an entire wall, par- possibilities for outbuildings than any other structure. For ticularly when it can be done with a single timber. small buildings, the same no-frills construction details (like 1 (Changing sills is also the time to raise the level of the primitive foundations) that aid repair, also make moving foundation above 18 inches if termites are known to be a them to other sites very feasible. In the last century, rolling ~ problem.) I also use pressure-treated lumber for the re- a henhouse or bunkhouse across the farrnyard to a new ' placement so (I hope) the job won't have to be done again home involved little more than logs (as rollers) and a team while I'm still around. of oxen. Today, the same results can be achieved with The project goes surprisingly fast on many small sheds construction equipment like a truck and a heavy-duty and houses: 1) Jack up the affected side, much like a car; trailer. Movingis awhole areabeyond repair to think about, 2) knock out the old sill (it usually falls out); 3) clean any but it is one more technique that can be applied to the **A.~ nails out of wall studs and posts; 4) trim and insert the same end: saving outbuildings i: u:./â€¢ - , THE OLD-HOUSE JOURNAL 41 Illustrations by lbomas P Robinson Reprinted froin Houses m Ameria by abel Fay Robinson 6 'lbomas P. Robinson, 1936, . AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 8, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Minutes of February 23, 1988 III. Committee Member and Staff Comments IV. Public Comments V. Monitoring of Projects VI. NEW BUSINESS 2:40 A. Historic Landmark Designation, Demolition and and Conceptual Development Review: 334 West Hallam St. Trish Harris VII. OLD BUSINESS 3:15 A. Conceptual Development Review (Continued): 300 W. Main, Alterations and additions Scott and Caroline McDonald VIII. Adjourn .. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall February 23, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Charlie Knight, Augie Reno present. Nick Pasquarella and Patricia O'Bryan, Joe Krabacher were excused. Charles Cunniffe and Zoe Compton were unexcused. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to move to approve the minutes at the end of the meeting. Georgeann second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Steve introduced Roxanne Eflin who will be the new staff person to HPC. Steve: The last item in the packet is Elli's roof top diagram of how the swamp coolers had been moved. As you recall there were two alternatives: One was to move the swamp coolers up to the top roof and to the back. The other was to sort of shift them over and they opted for the second alternative. There is a small discrepancy, one of the ducts on the Mill Street side, the east side of the structure does make an elbow joint to go in and is somewhat visible. The applicants did that without prior approval. Heidi Hoffman, Hagman Yaw Architects: I think that was approved as an option at that meeting. Steve: The duet was approved to go straight in, not come further out toward Mill St. Bill: How accurate is it to the drawings that are represented here Heidi. It is a 30 by 30 duet. Heidi: It is very accurate to what our mechanical engineer sketched up at that meeting. We could mitigate some of the shiny duet by painting it. Georgeann: Thinking of the views from the Jerome it would be good to paint the duet and minimize it. Charlie: Have you started with the placement of the restaurant equipment. Heidi: Pinions Restaurant equipment is already up on the roof but Sushi Masa's is not. . HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Charlie: I thought Sushi Masa's restaurant equipment was to be reviewed before being placed on the roof. Steve: I have not received any plans yet. Heidi: We were left with two options from that meeting: The first option was the two smaller pieces of equipment up on the top and the second one was the duet work pulling back into the shaft and because it was duet work it was lower and less obtrusive. Charlie: Alternative #4 is very explicit and shows two directly into the building. Bill: Should we have them come back and show us the plans of the restaurant equipment on the roof. Heidi: I thought the Committee had viewed the building. MOTION: Augie made the motion to have this issue put on the agenda at our next meeting for review. Charlie: Can we get presentation for Sushi Masa's equipment too. Steve: Heidi we need to see the plans for Sushi Masa, it needs to come back to the Committee. Heidi: I can suggest that their architect come in and show you their equipment. Charlie second the motion. Bill: All in favor of studying the mechanical equipment as presented at our next meeting say I. All approved. Motion carries. Bill: Heidi, we would appreciate you coming back at our next meeting and also notifying them that we would like to see the plans for the equipment placement before it goes up which has been happening on this job all along. 1 Heidi: It is not our job and I was going to have Wayne Stryker contact Steve. Bill: That is fine. 2 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 MONITORING PROJECTS Georgeann: The guidelines are in the process and they should be printed within another week. We will be under our budget. 300 W. MAIN ALTERATIONS-CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Caroline McDonald: We have explored all plausible avenues. The main reason why we are locked into the airspace that we are in: There is a 15 foot set back from the alley that is required and we have to go in front of the Board of Adjustment to have a variance for a five foot setback. If we don't get this the project can't work. This is a duplex zoned lot that affords 6500 sq. ft. by code and we have a 3500 sq. ft. usage. We are leaving more than half of the lot for open space on Main and Second St. Bill Ness stated that he feels we need a six foot off-set from the dripline not to disturb the roots of the tree and any excavation would disturb the trees. Blue spruce have very shallow roots and they spread out considerably. The height at the first meeting was critical and minimum blockage from the carriage house was essential. You didn't want a higher roof elevation over the log cabin blocking the Elisha carriage house characteristics. These were reasonable demands and we don't want to block the sun to our neighbors to the north either. Expansion to the east toward Second St. we again have the dripline problem from our largest spruce tree that is 125 ft. tall. We have eliminated a skylight. Pushing the southern exposure back on the addition would knock us down to 1200 sq. ft. of living space and that is unacceptable. Assuming the B of A would go with a 2ft. alley setback vs. the required 15 ft. setback is pushing it. 5 ft. I think is all we can ask for mainly because we have the existing nonconforming shed. On the Main St. or the southside we reduced the glass look on the second floor by using wooden french floors further broken in half with a balcony railing. The roof has a two foot horizontal offset. The deck has been reduced and replaced with a low sloping roof. The stairs exit to the west and we will need a variance for that. Going to the east side of Second Street the addition of a large dormer sets off the old from the new and breaks the roof line. The North side, alley side, the massing has been broken by the addition of gabled bay windows and horizontal siding. Bill Drueding: Do you have a parking plan. Caroline: We have off street parking. 3 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Bill Drueding: It is one parking space per any additional bedrooms. Scott: We have four bedrooms so it would only be one more space. Charlie: Is the setback to the Elisha house conforming again. Scott: Yes. Charlie: So you are only asking for the alley. Caroline: 1700 sq. ft. Charlie: For clarification: You have french doors on the new addition to a deck and the second floor is a recessed deck on a slanted roof. Are those doors or windows onto the deck. Scott: Those are doors into the deck and the stairs go down the west side behind the carriage house. Steve: This is the first time that staff has had a chance to look at these except for the south elevations. I'm not sure that they have met all of the concerns that were made by the Com- mittee. Bill: What is the procedure now. Steve: We are trying to create something to give another motion of conceptual approval that is more definitive. I would hope that this meeting will go in the direction of general comments about the design concept and perhaps it would take one more meeting to get to that point. Bill: What are the other concerns that were issues before since not all the other members are here we must represent that. Steve: I usually make it a policy that reviews the submittal to the Planning Office with sufficient time for us to review them then come back to the Committee. In this case it didn't work out that way because there was an attempt to have a sub-committee involved and the timing was such that the McDonalds are anxious to get going with this project. I would hope that whatever results from this meeting would be something that the McDonald could work with; then make a submittal that would be timely so that we then could do a formal evaluation for the next meeting. Charlie: I had made the motion at the last meeting that we designate the structure historical provided however upon the approval of the addition, otherwise they didn't want it desig- 4 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 nated and the motion is conditional upon the Boards approval of the addition. We need to review the addition as best as possible. If we can approve it today they would move forward. Georgeann: We may or may not be able to make a final approval today but I do think it would be valid to get the Boards reaction to the changes so that they will have something to work on. I don't think we have to wait for a memo from Steve. Bill: I would prefer more documentation on an approval because it is quite lengthy and costly to them. I think we can give them direction but if we could have everything documented by the next meeting it would be appropriate. Steve: The Committee should look at the motion Georgeann made at the last meeting and find out if clarifications of the massing; the softening of the features; the elimination of the dominant character of the porch and steps; the consideration of the additions location both the east elevation and the south elevation and the roof pitches. If you are comfortable with this I would think that you would want to make specific reference to these plans and give conceptual approval. Bill: Scott will you summarize the materials. Scott: The two basic materials are the lapstrake and 8 3/4 by 8 3/4 timbers for the log structure. The idea is to have this a natural finish and let it weather for a few years and then put a sealer on it to match the original structure. The window trim would be an off-white stain. A very simple color scheme. The stairs would be out of 3 by 12 timber and a wrought iron railing. The roof is green pro-panel and the flat section is tar-gravel. We wish to have sky lights only on the flat section of the roof just to allow light into the rooms inside and the maximum height above the tar and gravel will only be about six inches. Bill: I'd be concerned that a six inch curve might not be high enough for leaking water. Scott: I'm confident with the sealers. Charlie: What is the railing on the south elevation. Scott: It would be wrought iron also. Charlie: What are the windows on the first floor. Scott: They are divided one pane windows. It is difficult to get the four panel thermal panes. 5 . HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Bill: Georgeann will you report from the sub-committees work. Georgeann: The sub-committee was divided between making the materials on the addition similar or different. Scott has kept the colors the same. The view from the Main St. elevation is pretty much what the Committee was comfortable with, that it was a quieter elevation then what was presented the first time. We looked at changing the addition out in different directions and felt comfortable with this one. The back elevation: we talked about having a sloping roof but after talking with Scott there isn't a real good way to do that and he wants to keep the straight back but he still tried to incorporate the gables visually to break it up because we were concerned with the look of that back elevation. We also talked about the windows. Answering Charlie's question of divided lights we talked about dividing the windows to keep the feeling with the old building but dividing them into a larger pattern so that it again would look like a new part to the old building. In most cases Scott has followed the suggestions of the sub-committee and in some areas we just left without things being completely resolved and hopefully we can resolve them today. Charlie: On the first floor the logs are three sided and curved round. Scott: No they are four sided. Georgeann: Is this the new logs or the existing. Charlie: The new. Georgeann: We talked about three possibilities: one to have them exactly like the old, two sided; or we thought if he did it with the four sided and straighten sided logs that it would have a little bit of a different look and he has also incorporated some of the lapstrake. I wanted the squared off logs, Zoe wanted it exactly like the original and Charles wanted it to be cedar siding or something. Scott: I'd prefer the stud wall on top. Steve: I'd like to look at the square logs to get a sense of what they actually look like. Georgeann: The thought was to separate the old from the new. Some architectural comments: I like what he has done on the Main Street elevation. I like what he has done on Second Street except I'm wondering if the new part could be pulled out just even a foot or our classic two feet to separate that longness. Whether it goes in or out I'm not concerned with. 6 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Scott: It would be better out because of the finishing problems associated with going in. Georgeann: I think the gable is fine but it seems like an awfully long gable but it is the pitch of the roof next right next to it on the existing building. I find that the horizontal windows look out of keeping with the rest of the building. I would make them all larger windows in the dormer so they would have more of the proportions of the other windows. The west elevation is fine. The alley elevation while it is a tremendous improvement over before, I still don't like the resolution there. I like you bringing in the two different materials because I can understand you wanting to keep it a flat plain. The two different materials does visually lower the line of the building but the pseudo-gables that are just plastered on there I don't know..that is a boxed out window. I'm just not sure if that elevation is resolved in my mind. Bill: It is an improvement over what we have seen before. I agree on the dormer and the window should be more square and a little more vertical than horizontal. On the North elevation which is the alley elevation I feel the dormers are not really dormers and it is really a "look". It would be better if you had windows more in keeping like the west elevation. My approval would be conditional on studying the materials more at the final submission. Augie: One thing that troubles me is the relationship of the addition on the west to the Elisha coach house. That is a significant piece of Aspen. We are putting on an addition and not respecting it. We are going way too far out in front of it and too close to it at the same time. I could live with either having to build the addition back even with it so that it relates to it or further away from it. What you have done is a tremen- dous improvement over the last time. To touch on what Georgeann talked about on the east elevation it would be nice to have some differentiation of really what is the existing building and what is the addition. The roof being in one plain you kind of loose the building. I would agree with Bill that they either need to be dormers which means to move the roof and give it a pitched roof or just put in square windows. Caroline: If you look on the alley side the front part of the original cabin on the north side is set back a little. Bill: Could you indicate where the Elisha carriage house is on the site plan. 7 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Scott: The Elisha carriage house is about another ten feet up, With four feet it lines up perfectly with the eaves. Georgeann: If we could push the addition back another two feet..but unfortunately he needs that space and he doesn't think he can get it from the Board of Adjustment. I certainly would like you to try. Steve: The Elisha carriage house is five feet from the west property line. Georgeann: So the two buildings are five feet apart. I would like to be able to push Scott's addition further back. Steve: There is a role of HPC to make a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment. Bill Drueding: The Board of Adjustment can't give a variance unless HPC has OK'ed it as historically designated first and a written recommendation. Bill: Have the owners of the Elisha house been notified of how close they are building to the carriage house. Steve: There has been no notification. Steve: In the last memo staff comments hit heavily on the roof pitches in the sense of keeping the scale of the different portions of the structure both the length and to some extent the fenestration as well. The design concept with utilizing fairly significant two story flat walls is really not an acceptable and compatible design. On the south elevation a two foot separation between the two pitches really doesn't accomplish much. If that is the 12 x 12 pitch it could be continuous and it would be the same but then I would like to see some kind of gable end to it rather than come to a flat wall to the east. Dormers could be used to break up the massing on the alley side. Roxanne: Hip roofs were used extensively and a low hip may fit with this, some kind of pitch instead of the flat roof. Dormers are not appropriate with the era or the log cabin style. I am speaking of the north elevation, the alley side. Charlie: Are the stairs on the western elevation within the five foot space. Scott: Yes and we would need a variance. Charlie: On the north elevation I like the attempt to get light in there and make it a good living space especially since 8 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 you are now coming close to your neighbor. The wall is cut very interesting in detail and makes it look like a house and not an addition that is stuck onto a restaurant. On materials I'm not so sure going to a four sided log won't give you a kind of warehouse look; maybe a three sided log with a soft curve would match the other rounded part of the log and soften the look. I think they would be so uniform that you could distinguish the old from the new and yet get the log cabin feel. By the time you put lx6 siding on the second floor and an 8 foot square heavy log on the first floor that it is going to look too commercial and not residential. The new windows toward the Elisha house should be a true divided light as the esthetics would be considerably better than the window chosen with a plastic mullion. I know the expense is greater but in keeping with the theme of the original house the overall effect will be greater and more pleasing. Bill: You can get insulated true divided lights. Charlie: In your attempt to protect the visual part of the Elisha carriage house and the gable, you can find your ability to change architecturally what a lot of people would like to see with possibly one solution of a small overhang for your fire- escape; put a small roof line on so that when you saw it, it looked like this was the original house and then there was a shed roof line put over it. That may be more variance than you would be allowed. If it were long enough it would probably function to keep the snow off of the back stairs which won't get a lot of light. Georgeann: In our motion I would like them to try get the addition pushed back another two feet from Main Street. I would like them to try and go to the Board of Adjustment and see if they can get that. HPC should strongly recommend it. A four foot setback would be much better than a two foot setback and it would break the roofs more and protect the Elisha carriage house. I hear Roxanne's and Steve's comments on other roofs but in the practical limitation of their living space we can live with this kind of roof line. Charlie: I think we should consider there is a neighbor to the north that deals with that alley and there is going to be a large ) addition and it is going to run almost the length of the lot, two full stories, flat wall and I think it is going to shade that area quite a bit and I think that five feet will be asking a lot of that property owner. If I were living there and somebody said they were coming back an additional ten feet with a two story wall I wouldn't be pleased. Georgeann: On the internal plan part of that is an overhang on the first floor of the southside. I'm trying to determine if 9 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 there is a way we could push it back another foot without having to push it back to the rear. Scott: I did push it back two feet on the second floor. We have ten foot wide bedrooms and when you start pushing on that the rooms are getting too small. Georgeann: As I recall you were going to have an overhang and a sidewalk and possibly that could be a little more shallow. Scott: There is a two foot overhang built in there now. Georgeann: I know you want that for shade but is that a possibility to shallow that a little bit which would make the break between the old and new stronger. I was trying to look and see if there was anyway to satisfy people; Charlie doesn't thing we should encroach on the alley more and that is a valid consideration and some of the other people felt that the new and the old building should offset further than two feet. Steve stated that 2 ft. would hardly have an impact. Georgeann: So no one else is concerned about the offset but me. Augie: I'm not concerned about the offset with regard to the old building, I'm concerned with the offset in regard to the carriage house. I think 2 ft. is enough if you are looking at the building as it is but because of the neighbor next door that is my concern. Georgeann: They have a right to build to the building point but if they can build out to within five feet of the carriage house you would like it to be pushed back a little further. Augie: Either further away from the Elisha carriage house or further back if they are going to keep it that close to the Elisha house. Bill: I'd like to have a motion. Steve: My thoughts are to have a gable end facing the south in order to have some fenestration there and extend the roof line over to it and have dormers along the alleyway so that you have more of a deep orientation of this whole gable roof line. If it went up a little higher than the original house I wouldn't think that would be a problem. Scott: The only problem is it starts to use our square footage and we can't loose anymore. 10 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Georgeann: That to me just makes the addition more dominant and more busy. We are trying to simplify and make it quiet so the old part of the structure stands out. Steve: It takes away the boxiness of it which to me starts to enfold the original house. MOTION: Georgeann: I would like to make a motion to have Scott and Caroline McDonald to study the pitched roof design suggested by Steve Burstein. No second. Motion dies. Charlie: At this point I feel we should ask the applicants to review our comments and return. MOTION: Charlie: I move that we designate the structure to be historical provided the addition is approved by the Board in its entirety both architecturally and with materials. The applicants are to review the last meetings minutes as well as this meetings minutes to review the Boards comments. Augie second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Steve: For clarification would that motion then deal with designation rather than conceptual. Charlie: I'm providing that they are still designated provided the addition is approved by the Board both architecturally and with the use of materials. Steve: There are two steps, designation and conceptual. Would you then need the applicants to come back for further clarifica- tion of their conceptual proposal or is that done. Charlie: I'm trying to keep the designation effective for them provided that the addition is approved by the Board. This is a continuation from the last meeting because we were not satisfied with what was brought before us. The Board is rather splintered on all this and we are very vague except that we want them to come back for more approval. Bill: We have had quite a few comments but we just aren't quite there yet. Caroline: Can I get a written recommendation to go to the Board of Adjustment. Georgeann: I don't think you can until we all are satisfied with the design. 11 . HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Scott: I agree with you on the dormer. I would like larger windows on the dormer and I would prefer not to use the gables in the alley elevation. I will pull the employees living quarters out a little bit to off- set the roof. Bill: I agree with Georgeann if you could move it back a few feet on the west we would take a look at it. Scott: I'm in favor but Caroline talked to the Board of Adjustment and it has to be a hardship. Georgeann: At that point we could write a letter stating we recommend this so strongly that we are creating a hardship for you by asking you to push it back those extra feet. Steve: I would like to suggest that before we schedule the next meeting that the applicants do have something that we can put into the packet. Caroline: Can we go ahead and try for that two feet from the Board of Adjustment Bill. Bill: You don't have approval from us yet. Caroline: If it doesn't work we will have the either or pushing it back the other way. We have to go with a complete set of plans. Georgeann: I think you have to have our approval regardless. Steve: We need to talk about that as there is some interpreta- tion in the code. Bill: Caroline, work it out with Steve and see what can be done. MINOR DEVELOPMENT-513 W. BLEEKER, BARNETT HOUSE-PORCH ALTERATIONS Welton Anderson: The latest set of plans approved had some inconsistencies primarily on the west side of the building. The elevation shows a porch and the plans show no porch. The porch was not continuous along the east facade of the building, it turned back in then urned in again and then there is a gable over the french doors. When Hamilton got approval the porch was on those plan. The second set of drawings were somewhat schematic and it was not really clear, in any case on the east side making this a continuous porch is going to make for a much "happier" east elevation. The west elevation showed a porch in 12 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 elevation but no porch in the plans so the solution to that is, the ridge goes down and it looks like a porch had been cut off. We would continue the ridge down to its natural termination gives you about a 5 ft. porch on that side. That porch tends to break it up. Charlie: Is that porch lower or the same level? Welton: It would be a continuous porch on three sides. The west elevation would have gables over the french doors and the windows would stay the same. Charlie: What does that do to the setbacks? Welton: The HPC code allows for setbacks to be varied for historic designated structures. This is also a request that the setback be varied by 6 inches. Bill: Are there any other changes? Welton: East side porches at south and north extended due to kitchen ceiling not working inside. Siding and roofing was replaced. Windows were replaced. The windows are colored glass vs. new windows with leaded beveled glass. Optional roof peak was not done. The west porch has changed; french doors are in place as originally approved, not as amended on 9-22-87. Current flashing is cooper and the drawings say flashing was metal. Copper is metal and copper will fade and turn brown. We can treat the copper to age immediately. Georgeann: I'm wondering if this house should even have historic designation. Steve: The house has changed a great deal and the only original portion of the house is the front of the house and even it has changed. I think that it is a house that still has some significance. Charlie: This house has been changed extensively especially within the last two years particularly in the front. Georgeann: I think it ought to go to a notable or be a #5. Steve: Either it is designated or it is not. Charlie: There is such a large expanse of straight line that I almost feel the porch should come around. I don't know if it really needs to infringe, whether it is six inches, on the property line in as much as whether the house is historic or not. 13 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Whether the porch is 4 1/2" or 5" the house has gone through so many changes. Welton: There are two reasons for approving the 6 inch encroachment: one, 6 inches is not noticeable; by making this less than five feet we're recreating or reproducing the same kind of why did they do it this way rationale of the front. Another reason would be the geometry of the ridge. Charlie: Six inches is not very much but it is becoming an issue with our historic buildings and this particular building had a bay window and then it appeared that there was a granting of the west wall being moved out to the length of the bay which still allowed for a porch but now it's moved out beyond the length of the bay and moved out to the building line at the back. It is now one wall that runs the whole length of the west side. It seems to be a continuous manipulation of what had been approved. The setback sort of says that is where your building should end. What happens if the front porch is extended; is there a setback variance needed for that? Welton: I don't believe so. Bill: Basically you are asking for approval of the additions to the porch on both sides. The other question that has been raised is whether there have been enough changes to this structure to whether designation is still viable. The Committee approved many of these changes before; how far does the Committee go before it feels that the house has been changed. There are two issues: do we want to approve this; do we want to restudy the designation. MOTION: Augie: I'll make a motion that we approve the amended changes to the Barnett residence at 513 W. Bleeker as presented by Welton Anderson. Georgeann second the motion. Bill: Could we amend that motion to include that any other changes be brought to us before they are constructed. Bill: Do we need to add that the setback will be encroached in the motion. Steve: It should be stated in motion. AMENDED: Augie: I would like to amend the motion to include that he is allowed to extend his setback by 6 inches. 14 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Georgeann second the amended motion. All favored. Motion carries. MOTION: Georgeann: I would like to make a motion that HPC restudy historical designation of the Barnett residence. No second. Motion dies for lack of a second. Bill: Could we get a set of updated drawings as the house is being constructed now. 334 W. HALLAM-PRE-APPLICATION, HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND DEMOLITION OF CARRIAGE HOUSE Bill Poss stepped down. Trisha Harris: This is a proposal for 334 W. Hallam St. on the corner of 3rd and Hallam Streets. This addresses 3 key objec- tives: historic designation of the property; demolition of portions of the main residence and the carriage house; additions to the main residence and a new development for the carriage house. The structure was built in the 1880's. The important historic factors of the house are the ornamentation, trim and architecture of the silver mining era prevalent in the 1880's throughout Aspen and the victorian essence of the structure with the steep pitched roofs. The fish scale ornamentation and bay window that faces south which is Hallam Street are the essence of the property of an historic nature. Georgeann: Could you tell us of the recent changes. Trisha: The gables were original and the map of 1904, the Sandborn map, indicates them. The gable that runs north and south along Third St. is original also. The shed roofs on the east and west elevation are additions. We went under the crawl space and there was no foundation, just floor joice resting on dirt. The basic house, the L shaped crossed gabled roofs are shown throughout history. The house is significant in architec- ture and social history. It is associated with Eugene Wilder who was one of the founding partners of the Aspen Lumber Co. back in x the 1880's. It was his house at that time. It is also sig- nificant socially as inside it is an example of traditional family living at that time. Mainly we would like to demolish the rooflines where you can read the old additions, this would include that part of the building north of the main north-south gable and north of the east-west cross-gable. On the new east elevation we emphasized the gable vernacular. We would then have to rebuild and we would like to 15 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 reuse the existing foundation under this portion of the house. The addition to the house would be to the north side of the house which we feel is more compatible with the structure and would increase the size of the house. We would do different roof lines that were more in keeping with the main residential structure. We also propose to demolish the existing carriage house. We have looked at reusing the carriage house but the structural engineer stated that this structure is unsound. The roof will not support a 75 lb. snow load and the foundation underneath will not support the loads that are needed. The floor structure on the second floor is inadequate also. Right now this carriage house is not habitated by anybody. Georgeann: Was it used for habitation. Trisha: It was remodeled in 1965. Steve: I believe it was remodeled to add a bathroom. Trisha: It was remodeled to be used as an art studio. Trisha: We have a 9,000 sq. ft. lot and that qualifies us for duplex zoning so we want it to be habitable. We are proposing putting two bedrooms and a garage in the structure to make it a true carriage house. We would essentially be rebuilding the whole structure again. The third phase would be additions to the existing structure. We are also taking an advantage of an incentive to add more square footage to this house which is not normally used except with historic designation. With that we added a green house on the east side. We are doing that as a transparent addition not a closed in addition. The greenhouse is not making a big impact on the house. The clients wish to enlarge the kitchen and dining area more so with that we added the greenhouse. With the main residence we are going to restore all the ornamen- tation along the south side around the bay window. We are working with the State Historic Preservation on how to restore all of this ornamentation. We are also keeping the fenestration to the historical look as far as the double hung windows through- out the addition. We will maintain the same size. Our new carriage house proposal encompasses two bedrooms, kitchen, dining room and also an enclosed garage. Right now parking is difficult so we are proposing the one car garage. You would go in off of Third St. into the new driveway to the garage. There would still be room for two or three more cars in the driveway. So we are taking a lot off of the parking off the street. We are maintaining the same roof line as the original, 16 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 the 12 by 12 pitch but we are lowering the height of the ridge to make it seem what it is a supplemental building to the main residence. We want the main residence to read as the primary structure of the property. We are coming out onto Third St. to the limits of the property line with a front porch. Steve: The Sandborn's map shows the footprints of an addition in the same location but it notes that it is a one story. The key issues that we pointed our are the carriage house demolition since it is an original structure. The carriage house had been moved. Trisha: The carriage house had been moved from the far northwest corner. Steve: The other concerns are pointed out in the memo. Roxanne: We had talked about the very large birch which would have to be removed with the addition of the greenhouse that matches the one on the exact opposite of the facade. Trisha: It is the cottonwood tree that is very close to the house. Steve: Since this is a national register caliber property alterations should be to that same standard. If you agree with that we may review it a little more strictly. Trisha: It is not designated but rated #4. It was considered by the National Register but it is not on. Steve: It was considered eligible but the owner chose not to. Georgeann: I think it was rated #4 because of all the changes in the car port etc. Charlie: With all the changes why do you want designation other than perhaps to encroach on the setbacks. I feel there is going to be so little left after demolishing one of the structures and replacing it with something considerably different. It's basically not what I think we are after for this particular 1 property which I think is very attractive in its present state and had a great deal of impact to the west end community. Augie: I think while I understand the structural problems with the carriage house that I feel there is probably a way to save it. I would rather see the windows more of what the existing windows were. I don't have a problem with you removing some of the additions that were added onto but again if you are going to add back on I tend to agree with Charlie about the historic 17 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 designation part. With your proposed coach house vs. what was there if for some reason I did go along with demolition which right now I probably would strongly not, I think the proposed coach house looks too much like a "house" and not like a coach house and I think it would detract from the main structure. Georgeann: I agree with Augie on the carriage house, you have turned it into a charming little doll house but it could be restored or rebuilt in a way to make it look like a carriage house that had been created as a living quarters. You have a main house that is a very simple house. What you are putting on with the greenhouse, with all the extra windows and gables you are getting carried away with your victorian detailing. If you would consider the original west wall that is very simple and it work well. I think we that many changes we would be reluctant to designation but there might be a way to simplify things so that the main house still remains the important feature. Augie: Are you going to continue national designation. Trisha: Not at this time. In regards to the carriage house we are maintaining the exact same lines that are there right now. The west elevation we are maintaining the same roof lines and just making some modifications to it. Georgeann: We are not uncomfortable about the garage. Again you are turning this into a little house and it is going to look like two houses on the lot. Maybe you don't want to end up with the elaborate windows and porches so it still becomes the carriage house feeling. Augie: I like the U shaped driveway but I doubt if you will be able to do that as it is two curb cuts. Charlie: This house is 2900 sq. ft. and is going to 4900 sq. ft. Georgeann: You are overwhelming the house. Trisha: You are saying we are totally changing the house and I don't think we are. Charlie: You are leaving so little of it; the additions are so great and so grand to it that it is totally changing the nature of the house. I like what you are doing and feel all the elements will come together but it is not in historic keeping of what is there. We would rather see what is there kept there with minor modifications. Roxanne: This was a working man's home not an elaborate house. 18 .. HPC MINUTES February 23, 1988 Charlie: We have that in all our houses, people come here and would rather have an elaborate victorian. Steve: I would encourage them going in the direction of designation as it is an asset to the City. It is a fine house. Georgeann: If the additions were simplified and made quiet so that the original house would dominate then you might be able to get designation even national designation. I'm a little leery of the greenhouse; that again is overwhelming the whole thing. Steve: One thought maybe if the greenhouse was on the addition part and not on the original house it would be more acceptable. Georgeann: Also if it wasn't curved and made a little quieter. A more simple greenhouse. Augie: I don't have a problem with the location of the greenhouse because you can tell what is new and what is old as long as you don't change the windows and doors that are on the old. Georgeann: That tree near the greenhouse is very critical. Pushing the greenhouse back partly whether it still stays partly on the old or all on the new will be one way to save the tree. The tree then buffers the view of the greenhouse from the street. Trisha: The tree is a very old tree and questionable as to whether it was as stable as some of the other trees. Charlie: The Parks Dept. will core it and see if it is a healthy tree. MOTION: Georgeann: I move to approve the minutes of Feb. 9, 1988 and April 14, 1988. Augie second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. 5:00 Adjourn 19 0-0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 334 W. Hallam Street, Designation, Demolition and Conceptual Development Review DATE: March 8, 1988 LOCATION: 334 W. Hallam Avenue, Block 42, Lots K, L and M, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval, with request for carriage house demolition and re- placement with a new two-story structure similar in size. Two additions to the main house, an older partial 2 story addition to the northwest and a more recent two story addition to the northeast would be demolished and re-placed with a new addition. A greenhouse reaching 13' in height would be attached to the east side of main house. The original window on the east elevation 2nd floor would be replaced with two windows. SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Refer to applicant's letter of 2-16-88 (attached). HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: 5 PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: The applicants are requesting HPC's recommendation for historic designation and conceptual development approval at this meeting. The applicant's next step is review by the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain their recommendation on historic designation. City Council would then hold first and second reading of an ordinance to accomplish designation. Applicants are also requesting partial demolition of the main house and entire two-story carriage house. A com- plete application must be submitted as stated in Sec. 24-9.5(c) Procedure for Review of Applications for Demolition. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Director the HPC shall hold at least one public hearing on its consideration of application, with public notice posted on site and published in the newspaper. Written notice must be sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the property. It should be noted under Sec. 24-9.5(a) Demolition of Historic Structures that "No demolition and total removal of a Historic Landmark or any structure within a "H" Historic Overlay District or any structure rated as a "4" or a "5" by the HPC...shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the stan- dards of Sec. 24-9.5(b)(1) through (6). .. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: On February 23, 1988 HPC held a pre- application meeting with Trish Harris, as associate of Bill Poss and Associates, Architecture and Planning to discuss historic designation, demolition of the carriage house and partial demo- lition of the main house, as well as new additions and develop- ment review of the entire project. The memo from the Planning Officer for that meeting listed 12 issues for HPC consideration. As a quorum was not available for this item (Chairman Poss stepped down) discussion with three members included: no interest in the carriage house demolition with recommendations for rehab development, toning down architectural details, aiming to keep carriage house facade as close in design to original function as possible; moving proposed greenhouse attachment to newer main house addition, retaining all original architectural elements and restoring where possible; retaining large tree in east side yard (not possible with proposed greenhouse addition); simplify architectural details of entire project. Applicant's representative stated carriage house is unsound structurally per findings from Theodore K. Guy Associates, PC, Structural Engin- eers. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Standards for historic designation are stated in Section 24-9.3(a) of the Municipal Code. The standards for demolition of historic structures are stated in Section 24- 9.5 of the Municipal Code. The development review standards are stated in Section 24-9.4(d) of the Municipal Code. Reference to both the Aspen Historic Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation have guided staff's comments below. The Secretary of Interior standards seem especially relevant because the property was determined to be eligible for National Register nomination in 1986. Historic Designation Standards 1. Standard: The structure or site is commonly identified with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The home and carriage house are associated with Eugene Wilder of the Aspen Lumber Company (one of Aspen's oldest establishments). 2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: Constructed c.1885, the front elevation of this two story home is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small panes of stained glass. The quality detailing throughout the front facade and its highly visible corner location, make this entire property exemplary of Victorian 2 .. residential architecture. Please note that a nomination of this property to the National Register of Historic Places was proposed, and it was determined to be eligible. In addition, the home is featured on the cover of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element. The carriage house and simple fenestration of the east and west facades of the main house blend together well. Carriage houses are commonly found throughout the immediate neighborhood, as well as in the adjacent "Hallam Lake District". Most are original and have been renovated in such a way as to maintain their integrity yet be utilized for modern uses. 3. Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing charac- teristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: The Wilder House embodies the characteristics Of the gabled "L" with Victorian detailing elements, identified in the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines", as an historic architectural style in Aspen. 4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The Wilder House was constructed from local lumber and may have been built by The Aspen Lumber Company, established c.1880-1882, according to Barbara Norgren, preservation consultant who prepared the National Register nomination for this property. The house displays a high degree of craftsmanship which was available in Aspen at the time of its construction. Through careful restoration of the original elements, this house has retained much of its original integrity. Demolition Review Standards 1. Standard: The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. Response: The applicant is requesting to demolish those portions of the main house that were additions to the ori- ginal structure. The additions include (a) an earlier partial two story attachment to the northwest of the original main house and (b) a more recent full two story addition to the northeast which flattens out the newer roof line. No evidence has been submitted showing unsound struc- tural integrity to the main house. The applicant's architect did note verbally that the foundation under the earlier addition appears to be very shallow and did not 3 .. extend around the full perimeter. The applicant is requesting entire demolition of the carriage house. The attached engineer's report states that the present carriage house foundation system extends down a very minimum distance, possibly 12 inches, and that upon further investigation a new foundation system may be recommended. The report also states the original roof frame system is functional yet is undersized for todays load criteria, and recommended a entire new roof structure. Also, the report notes that the existing upper floor system is approximately 25% of the structure required and a new floor system is recommended. Evidence Of proper main- tenance of the carriage house has not been submitted. As stated in the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, (Structural System section): "Recommended: Repairing the structural system by augmenting or upgrading individual parts or features. Substitute material should convey the same form, design, and overall visual appearance as the historic feature." In our opinion, the original carriage house possesses considerable historic architectural significance and warrants being upgraded with structural foundation improvements and siding replacement as necessary. The removal of the shed roof dormer added more recently would enhance the structure. 2. Standard: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Response: Renovated carriage houses are commonly found throughout this neighborhood, with a variety of different uses. The subject carriage house is very large and original to the property, complementing the main residence, and could provide enough square footage for a garage and living quarters as proposed. The Planning Office strongly recommends the applicant to reconsider the feasibility of rehabilitation and reuse of the carriage house. The portions planned for demolition of the main house appear to be newer additions. The northeast addition changed the angle of the original roof slope; however, the demarcation of the old gable and addition is clearly evident. The carport between the house and carriage house is also to be demolished; it is of newer construction and has no historic significance. In general, it appears that either the existing portions of the house to be demolished do not lend themselves to being rehabilitated or those portions do not possess historic significance. 3. Standard: The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. 4 .. Response: The applicant states the unsound structural condition of the carriage house makes it impossible to move. In our opinion, on-site preservation of the carriage house is preferable and would prevent relocating the structure. We believe that it is reasonable for the applicant to pursue relocation to a new site if on-site preservation cannot be practicably carried through. Neighborhood compatibility of the new site would then need to be examined. 4. Standard: A demolition or redevelopment plan is submitted which mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood. Response: The applicant states the part of the main struc- ture planned for demolition is in the middle and rear portion, and will have minimum impact on the character of the neighborhood. Also the applicant states the demolition of the carriage house will have no great impact to the neighborhood. Planning Office comments pertaining to this standard follow in Conceptual Development review. Carriage houses in this neighborhood and particularly as complimentary outbuildings to larger, main residences are important to the overall character. Numerous carriage houses are found reflecting their original use although renovated for modern use. We consider that demolition of this highly visible carriage house would be a loss to the neighborhood, and that the redevelopment plan does not mitigate the impact of that loss. 5. Standard: A demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact the proposed demolition has on the historic importance of the structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: The applicant states they find no evidence of historical value for the existing carriage house, and that the partial demolition of the main house will have no impact on the historical importance of the original structure. According to the 1904 Sanborn's Map, the carriage house is original, however, was moved slightly to its current location. A footnote made on the National Register Nomination by Barbara Norgren stated that, due to exterior changes made to the carriage house it was non-contributing; however, after further discussion with Barbara she informed US nominations may be amended and she may find the carriage house contributing through additional study. Given the general prominence of the carriage house on the corner site - particularly visible to residents and guests using Third 5 .. Street as the primary route leading through the West End to the Music Tent - we believe that demolition would negatively impact the historic character of this neighborhood. 6. Standard: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of the historic structure or part thereof. Response: The applicant states the proposed partial demolition plan for portions of the main house will have little or no impact as the original portions with the greatest historic significance will remain undisturbed. The Planning Office upon review of the proposed redevelopment plans find changes proposed to the original east facade including the windows of the upper facade and lower level, not in keeping with the recommendations in both the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines (pg.55) and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Every effort to preserve and repair existing windows should be made; they are very important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Also not recommended is changing the number, location, size or glazing patterns of windows. The Planning Office also finds the proposed demolition of the carriage house to be contrary to the Guidelines (pg.51). "The traditional residential pattern placed barns, carriage houses...and other support structures at the rear of the lot at the alley. Buildings on alleys have an importance of their own, and give alleys a special character. Pre- serve... wherever possible historic outbuildings." Conceptual Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the proposed addition to the main house is mainly compatible in character with the original structure in its location, massing, height and roof forms. The development is not compatible in the following areas: 1) The proposed window changes on the original east facade are not in keeping with the Guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and should be preserved as is; 2) Removal of the very large cottonwood tree in the east side yard is contrary to the Guidelines (pg. 49) which state: "In alterations to existing buildings and in any new 6 .. construction traditional landscape patterns should be maintained."; 3) There are pros and cons to removal of the northeast two story addition. The existing addition can be argued to be most compatible because if maintains the basic "sal.tbox" shape; it is simple in detailing and doesn't draw ones attention away from the front facade. On the other hand, the original east facing gable end has been enfolded into the addition, and would be restored through the proposal. A cross gable would be extended north at a lower height. We conclude that the proposed treatment has merit and is appropriate. It may be even more complimentary if further set in. 4) Greenhouse additions are discussed in the Guidelines (pg. 59) and the Planning Office recommends this addition be sensitive to the historic original structure, placed where it Will not obscure the details of the primary facade. Every attempt should be made to insure the greenhouse addition does not become the visual focus of alteration to the house. By attaching the greenhouse to the newer addition (rear section of the east facade) these results could be achieved; 5) The addition of the upper facade bay window on the west (Third St.) side is a great deal more elaborate than the original historic elements of this home and tends to overpower the historic quality of plainness of that facade. The front facade is the focal point of this home and all attempts to retain this main visual appeal should be made. A more simple approach would blend better with the original architectural elements of this home; 6) Window sizes and shapes on the addition should be further studied to achieve greater consistency in the design concept. The proposed new carriage house design elements are not in keeping with the Guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Planning Office recommends that any new development proposed for the carriage house, if demolition is approved, retain the original look and feel of this outbuilding without the addition of elaborate detailing diminishing its original character. Please note that the applicant proposes to locate the new carriage house in the northeast corner of the property, entailing further encroachment in setbacks. We believe this is less appro- priate than utilizing the present location as the carriage house would take on even more prominence in relation to the main house and streetscape. 7 .. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is con- sistent with the character of the neighborhood. Response: We find that the proposed development is mainly consistent with the neighborhood with the exception of the greenhouse addition which (as proposed) is a new element not common in the neighborhood. Also, the elaborate development plans for the carriage house are not consistent with the historic neighborhood character in our opinion. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of the structure. Response: As the applicant states in the proposal the new development will enhance the value as they will be main- taining and restoring the original portion of the building, which demonstrates the lifestyle of the original owner, an important family in Aspen's history. As previously stated, changes are proposed for the original east facade which will harm the historic integrity of the structure (windows). The new carriage house proposed is to be used, in part , as a modern carriage house (one car garage); however, it is the Planning Office's opinion that the proposed demolition will detract from the cultural value. We are concerned that the degree of ornamentation of the house speaks of Mr. Wilder's status in Aspen and that the imposition of a high Victorian stylization is an inappropriate interpretation. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated structure. Response: The applicant states the new carriage house plans complement the proposed historic designated structure, through the use of similar materials, roof form and scale. The development plans for the main house will enhance the original structure by setting the new walls back approxi- mately 18" from the existing east and west facades. The ridge lines will be lower on the addition to de-emphasize, which will allow for the prominent identity of the original historic structure. With the greenhouse attachment on the east facade, as proposed (and as previously stated), architectural integrity will be lost as window changes are to be made. Original fenestration is an important element to retain in this structure, and the Planning Office recommends the applicants redesign the greenhouse attach- ment. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Designation: The Planning Office recommends to HPC to recommend historic landmark designation of 334 W. Hallam 8 .. St., Lots K, L, and M. Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen subject to the condition that no changes be made to the original windows and proper maintenance and preservation of the original facade and architectural details be accomp- lished. 2) Demolition: The Planning Office recommends approval for the partial demolition to the main structure, encompassing the newer addition only. We recommend denial of the carriage house demolition as we feel the owner should be encouraged to save and rehabilitate the existing structure or examine the possibility in more depth of moving it to a compatible site. 3) Conceptual Development: The Planning Office recommends to HPC to give conceptual development approval for new additions to the main structure, subject to the conditions that the following changes be addressed in plans submitted for final development review: 1. The greenhouse addition shall be redesigned to be as inconspicuous as possible, with no damage done to the original historic structure. Attaching the greenhouse only to the newer addition and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building shall be studied. 2. The west facade upper level bay window design will be further studied to result in a design more closely resembling the original fenestration of the historic structure. 3. Further stepping-in of the east elevation addition shall be studied. 4. The cottonwood in the east side-yard shall be retained. If it is demonstrated that the tree cannot be saved, a landscape plan shall be present showing transplant- ation or a new tree. 5. All new materials shall be identified. 6. Structural analysis of the house sufficient to assure that the proposed alterations and addition will not undermine the structural stability of the original house shall be submitted. 7. Detailed plans for repair and maintenance of the original house and replacement of original materials shall be submitted, including but not limited to treatment of the front bay windows, siding, and roof. 9 .. NOTE: A new set of plans received in the Planning Office on March 3, 1987, after this memo was prepared is attached. As of this writing we have not had an opportunity to examine them thoroughly and make comment. re.334WH.memo 10 D# ~ -wri-. C,u ts 1.-cO r- - I- I ' ' . '1- 1.:, .- f , 1.-1, Th I 11. , ~ and associates 2 605 EAST MAIN STREET % Fl--_ P.j ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 TEL (303) 925-4755 _ZCMÂ£9-2, Â· March 1, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Elfin Planning Office , City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval 334 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K, L and M City of Aspen Dear Roxanne: In light of the remarks we received from members of the Historic Preservation Committee last Tuesday, February 23rd, we are making some minor revisions to the plan we originally submitted to your office on February 12, 1988. We have decided to not demolish the existing carriage house, . but renovate, rebuild and repair it as necessary for habitation. We are adding 4'-0" to the east, so that it can be used as a two-bedroom dwelling unit yet still maintain the appearance of a secondary building for the property. The carport will be enclosed, with the drive to the structure remaining in the same location. We have simplified the e ki - Â· _erlor of the main rtesidence to more closely associate with the understated elegance of the historic structure. Please call me with any questions regarding these revisions. Sincerely, Project Manager PH:dem md 19# e â€¢ 01, MAR , 3/988 9/14 lu. Ut____~l0/ ~ and associates 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: REVISED 3/3/88 ZONING R-6 Lot Area: 9,000 S.F. Existing House Floor Area: 2,907.6 S.F. Proposed Addition Floor Area: 458.4 S.F. Proposed Total House Floor Area: 3,366 S.F. Maximum Allowed Floor Area: 4,580 S.F. Existing Carriage House Floor Area: 1,144 S.F. Proposed Carriage House Floor Area: 1,280 S.F. Proposed Garage Area: 9-:fr. S. F. Maximum Allowed Area: 500 S.F. ing Site Coverage: 2,090 S.F. (23%) Allowable Site Coverage: 2,700 S.F. (30%) Proposed Site Coverage: 2,635 S.F. (30%) PROPOSED DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURE: Total Front-Rear Setbacks Proposed: 45 Feet Minimum Allowed Front-Rear Setbacks: Feet Total Side Yards Proposed: 40 Feet Minimum Allowed Total Side Yards: â€¢ 25 Feet PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE DEVELOPMENT: Total Front-Rear Setbacks Proposed: 53 Feet Minimum Allowed Front-Rear Setbacks: 30 Feet Total Side Yards Proposed: 11 Feet Minimum Allowed Total Side Yards: 25 Feet With regard to the encroachment in the Alley and on Third Street, we are utilizing the Variance Setback Incentive allowed with the (Proposed) Historic Designation. ff> 334 WEST HALLAM 1 ..... CO~Oq'A"O WII-WANI JOÂ»1. -S~ 6 .....,ATES A./.1.ECT- G â€¢4*NNNG f.0/4.7 95'tt'â‚¬A~ ST.~E I :303 lit 47VS \ it> 2*4 11 0 Wi/311lll]_ 1 31 1 4\/k T~L 1.. ___ 11 i. 1 95 n. 1 t W 0 F %20-31 ~ 9 0-1 1 /1-23 L . - 1---1 33 , 1/2, I . /1 ..... .. .. 32tD-t -0,Â», 1 MALÂ·lÂ»M Â»*Ioteâ€¢ IncnE 1 r. SITE PLAN Pl. ....1 11 10'Â·0 ,>-123152%2 1 92=22- --- Al.1 /_122./.In-poss 334 WEST HALLAM --N COLOAACO WILLIAM JO.. DOS' 6 ./.0/1/7/8 BUN FWM rr---1 1 I I[11 3 ]33 2111 -97 PMâ€¢al _ 19*+IH447Nlfâ‚¬l 1 1Â»79 929 . . - *- 11-LuZ- cÂ¢*91 23(44794 F.:it -- /A , r-1 LZEr)_rudu. / 1 1 - 1 Ln L _-1 1 ]1 -M~ 94- 1--U.180 _-/63 1/4 1- ro I. 1 9 Z . ..r- ...1/: C===EIES 2 ;2Â·eâ€¢ Â·19- 44/ 3,/ W/N///Twrt Z=----'*/V;-- CO 00 - LOWER Â°-1 A2 LEVEL 04 FLOOR PLAN .0.- 4= Aol â€¢232â€¢u-I....s 334 WEST ~ HALLAM A.... COLO..00 W'/6-le#ip.. A.C.iÂ¥/C..AE 6 PLANNING 2*:'Gr STAEET 303 925 â€¢7SS ~--1 ~ pe 62 0 1[ - 1 Ent- 1 1[ 6*-T Npr#A Tr 1 1 11 r F. it t-EFiTR' EIM# 1 /1-rt=~ 1 Call.101 14.-- 8.-t;5- 4 4.1,1 11 wi- -4 h 706,. ~4\. 11.31.-1,4 0.1[=ilt- i Wtv'"i'0~11 :4 lut- 11 1 3 i 10~ g 0 A gh 0 11-7 r- -t 1 :smNEre--11 _ - r~-z*42 FIt / -Â£â€ž391122- n- @20, Ri = - n-, - 2-111-Â®--11 A Elli) .- 1â€¢~uâ€¢ W ' 2 5+ ...- al- 7-F.1 -4LL*l_-iÂ· 2 '2Â·- 4/ I 9.1~. 424 1-- u /T , _ 4-lk--Â«-1 2 -%- ' r.91 UPPER -2 0 CO LEVEL 7- ~ FLOOR v.. _ PLAN 8..,eÂ· Al juâ€¢ tri A2A Ici 5 \ O-Zit...t.â€¢...Iss -2-3 1 ..:23_-1 LZE. 334 WEST HALLAM A.... COLOAAOO wiL,-M.,0..a,- PAN 4-'-P aMINOL. br ......'... AACÂ»TECTUAE G PLANNING BAW ST~~ET 303 925 4 755 3< _ H i 98- 3 < f HAIÂ£80/v C.1,â€¢â€¢fÂ» 0421* 4.trÂ«, i 11 1 . Tft j U ~ 'l 3% ' v 92-4 -Mfil~ I n - 7-1 rm-t-F -11- - p.w -5Â£4Â£-E=L REL - 12 1 1 _223- kINÂ¢fr Â£7 8 SZ,1.0,0 -A/ - -4 - ~ le-U.1 7:60:1 4%, - -4 1-- 2- -88@Q- JR ~H Ir--lip-115 1 /494- '.21,4.00 6.eÂ·e W:/ 0 *..ap **10 -Â« -11 .--37--- JUi I A#=:IL --â„¢ R r 1 HOUSE cr, WipeT ELEVATIONS 4 - 34'L IL â€¢' A3.3 ...&.....10-POSS 590)d -* -nâ€¢-I 1 . Er--*-<-6.52/ \ ...09 6/0 /1 \0 31 3 1-/1 *-AO/4 1 jl./'01 1 4 44.7 SNOUVA313 \\ m -- 111 11 3SnOH 4 ,J 1 (93 NIVW -4**** ID j 1423 ; 0 1- Wo=Nns 0 .u,7 V CJ t-401146â‚¬Iiâ‚¬I H 1376 t - fi F 4~ 11 j e*,Ad,- ,#'â‚¬4'.'79 /u'/,1.- .=-' P. 1 BLI .,9- I V LJ -/ 334 WEST HALLAM aSP.- COLOAAOO [.3 - WILLIAM .10Â»,N 1,0- 6 AllociATES AAE-UnCTuM G PLANNING ./ 1 I KA:*.STALET 100 .7--1 303 Ses 4,5. i g 4 _MeuL 0 /7 r------ -========---I - -------------~~1 - --4 BOOTH h'MiT 8 1- â‚¬ - \4 / / ' 4 1.-U. 52 2 188 -t ./ I. 0 2Â« fo~ : 2 88 4/1. I._ , / 7-I r 1010>r il~77=f \ lennE BR m =2 &#EE=l-*2 - CARRIAGE 1 7-9.-111 HOUSE FAST - ELEVATIONS Ne<-TH _ fo .....741,1 Â·3 It. A34 ._!lm.......0., piss b# 0*4- 0 OV-L F FEB 12 1% : 7 IL l.., 11 ~ and associates 1 ---~ - - 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 February 12, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval 334 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K, L and M City of Aspen Dear Steve: The purpose of this letter is to present our concept for the above-referenced property. Our program is as follows: 1. Obtain historic designation for the property. ,P a. Obtain permission to demolish portions of the residential structure. b. Demolish the car-ri age house. 3. a. Obtain approval for the conceptual development plan (addition, enlargement and restoration) of the house. b. Obtain approval for the conceptual development plan of a carriage house, incorporating both a garage and dwelling. Mr. Steve Burstein February 12, 1988 ~ and associates Page two. The following outline addresses all the considerations for this review process: HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS - Re: 24-9.3(a) (1) Historical Importance The principal residence is associated with Eugene Wilder, who came to Aspen in the 1880's and was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, one of the pioneer lumber companies in Aspen. The house was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber, and might have been built by the Aspen Lumber Company. (2) Architectural Importance Architecturally, the house is significant in that it reflects traditional Aspen character and the Victorian style prevalent when it was built. The stained glass bay window facing West Hallam Avenue is unique to this architectural style. We find no evidence of architectural importance in the carriage house. (3) Neighborhood Character The prominence of the site (Third and Hallam) and structure is important to maintaining the neighborhood and community character (the neighborhood consists of several other Victorian houses of similar- scale). We will demolish portions of the main house and will conform to the STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION, Re: Ord. 11, Sec. 24-9.5(b)4-6. (4) Impact to the Neighborhood The part of the house planned for demolition is in the middle portion of the property and at the rear of the house away from Hallam Avenue. Because of this location, the demolition will have minimum impact on the character of the neighborhood. .. Mr. Steve Burstein February 12, 1988 ~ and associates Page three (5) Impact to the Historical Importance That portion planned for demolition has little historic importance in that it is an addition to the original house which changed the angle of the original roof slope. The demarcation between the old gable (with fish scale shingles) and recent construction is clearly visible on the east elevation. We will also remove the carport between the house and carriage house. This is newer construction and has no historical value. (6) Impact on Architectural Integrity The demolition plan has little or no impact on the architectural integrity of the structure because those portions of the house with the greatest historic significance will remain undisturbed. We propose to tear down the existing "carriage house" and rebuild a structure that serves the owners more as a true carriage house, incorporating both a residence and garage. We base this total demolition following the STANDARDS FOR ~ REVIEW OF DEMOLITION, Ord. 11, Section 24-9.5(b). (1) Structural Soundness The existing carriage house is not structurally sound, although it has been maintained by the owner. (See encl osed letter--STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION.) (2) Rehabilitation of the Structure Because it is unsound, this structure cannot be rehabilitated for reuse as a residence. (3) Relocation of the Structure Also, this condition makes it impossible to move this structure to another site in Aspen. .. Mr. Steve Burstein February 12, 1988 ; and associates Page four (4) Impact to the Neighborhood With the demolition of the carriage house and carport, no great impact to the neighborhood character will occur, except for the removal of an older, architecturally simple barn structure. (5) Historical Impact The demolition plan will have no impact on the historic importance of the main house. We can find no evidence of historical value for the existing carriage house. (See enclosed Historic Evaluation.) (6) Architectural Impact Because of its location at the rear of the property, the demolition plan will have no effect on the architectural integrity of the main house, whose most important facades are at the front of the property. Regarding our proposed addition to the house, we refer to the CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS, Section 24- 9.4(d)(1). (i) Compatibility The addition to the house is compatible in character to the (proposed) historic designated structure through its similar proportions, roof slopes, and the materials used in construction; i.e., narrow clapboard siding, wood roof shingles, and corner boards. .. Mr. Steve Burstein February 12, 1988 Page five I and associates (ii) Cons i stency with Weighbor hood Character We are also reflecting the character of the neighborhood by matching the style of the (proposed) historic designated structure and surrounding houses; i.e., we are proposing that the roof slopes with gabled ends match those of the existing structure, and the windows on this proposed addition be of similar type and size to match those of the existing structure and keep with the character of the neighborhood. The design of the addition is subtle and does not overpower the house or those neighboring structures. (iii)Enhancement of Cultural Value This development enhances the cultural value of the (proposed) designated historic structure; i.e., we are maintaining and restoring the original portion of the building, which is important in demonstrating the lifestyle of Aspen's families during the silver mining era. The addition we are proposing is demonstrative of the lifestyle of today's Aspen families, yet shows respect to and complements the former historic era. (iv) Enhancement of Architectural Integrity The restoration and addition to 334 West Hallam generally enhances the architectural integrity of the house. We are setting the -new exterior walls back approximately 18" from the ex j.sting east and west facades. We are also keeping the ridge lines lower on the addition so that it reads with less emphasis as you get further back on the property. These will all complement, yet allow for, the prominent identity of the (proposed) historic designated structure. With respect to the DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INVOLVING (PROPOSED) HISTORIC LANDMARKS, Sec. 24-9.4(d)(1), we address the following in our development of the carriage house: .. Mr. Steve Burstein February 12, 1988 Page six ~ and associates (i) Compatibility The new carriage house is compatible in character with the existing house located on the parcel as well as other houses on adjacent parcels. It has similar roof slopes, gabled ends, wooden clapboard siding and corner boards. It is not overpowering, but is designed as a subservient and compatible structure for the house. (ii) Consistency With Neighborhood Character The new carriage house is in keeping with the neighborhood character. The smaller scale of the structure allows it to read as a carriage house, of which there are several on nearby parcels. The neighborhood is older, and it is not uncommon to see a carriage house which complements the main house. (iii)Enhancement of Cultural Value The new structure will function as a residence and true carri age house (single car garage). This does not detract from the cultural value of the proposed historic designated structure, but rather enhances it in a true Victorian style reminiscent of Aspen's silver mining heyday. (iv) Enhancement of Architectural Integrity This proposed carriage house does not detract from the architectural value of the proposed historic designated structure, but complements it and keeps with the style of the hause. It does this through the use of similar materials (wood shingle roof, narrow clapboard siding). The ridge height of the proposed structure is lower than that of the main house. The roof form is a cross-gable, similar to that of the main historical structure. It is set far enough away from the main house (10'0") to allow for its prominence. WI .. Mr. Steve Burstein February 12, 1988 Page seven ~ and associates If there are any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, 4 V .i.'.-I.. -. 77 --- Patricia Harris Project Manager PH:dem Enclosures -43*.-/ i'li.''A JAN-21-ma THU 1~1 P.02/02 R.= D .. Industries, Inc. January 26, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 334 W. Hallam St. Lots L,K,M, Block 42 Town of Aspen Dear Steve: Acting as the owner Of the above referred lot and as the applicant Marta Chaikovska of 334 West Hallam, 925-2272 - I hereby authorize the following to act as my representative during the HPC review of the above referenced project: Bill Poss & Assoc. 605 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel. 925-4755 Kind regards. *- 2% Â«.04 / Marta Chaikovska 370 Brook Street Elgin, Illinois 60120 312/931-5430 E.>Lo C.,14 42_ 0 (Jiar nb IF HANCIS \ 1 I , W. FRAAch j . XI. frfÂ« 0 / f i.'-*..1 41= ,?L-L. 1 4-71 C J XJ - 1 h 40 1 ) 7893.0 x ij 'f@ ro X E-1 X - -X ~f/~h.\2 b O ~[3 11- 11 - til -n-a 141 X x KNY' .1 4 g'i K,diI-4 6148,11 -\47/94 - l ) 1 10 // L 334 r-Â«1 32*_ ~ 1 -- A 1 3\ E--3 1 -<.5-1,~-~-~x-#-4--9-j 9 9 C- Al-w,hÂ« L -1 \U Al I A AA\ .. A----- - tÂ», Ir Lr-1-1 pli i 1. \jil q t, U: 1 19 1 .21.\i..~i H f 10 3 ~l -- -LZU~i-t-1 / 7 Â« 1.1\ -----,t----2----- ---/ ~ -473 7 'ii. \11 ./ / It \1 \.. ..1 1\. f g 1 1,11 1 L- 1 -----110 Itt :1/11 -:'F-=.1,1 11;1 1 + ...=12==*=d ! 1 4 1 ~~330.*7.-7-#im 1 4 ! 4 9-Â·:-----71â‚¬~~ i 4 ! I i .'1 i 1 4 : 111 / U: 11! 11# Â·i - U , r./ I,, l +7~~ --';-4 <14-=: .2:... J! ..... 1 I 4 ' ! 441.. 7. ..2 4 1,1 Â·b 14 ,Â· 11 :.. 1 :1 4 -â‚¬-- - -_i~ 3 - 4 ... i.b.. 1,1% ?IR I 45;.----39,4, h . .il -- ij C_ nr --.. il- 8 - '3 3 t Â· 0176(ll 1 011% - ~--Pa-sEE=~ fF----.......---.--- 00 U li j 1 3 11 11 U Z 1 11 11 1. 11 1 + dll 1 A 11! d 11; 1:-1 -1 I u <.4 - 1 !11 1 r---. 4 1 T~---49=6-i- -:39 1 --mmu--511 1 1% -u I~ >4 1 1 Â·Â· a.:_:21 FIL-~ ...I.:- , ..1 Er----IT â‚¬3, .Fe---*.-4 5, 1 8 .1 1 ;; K -/ 1 li :11 E 11. ;1 / 1 y 14*.----4,1 1. 1 4 litâ‚¬ba--:-iÂ·Â·:2-E ,, .f'.9 ' 1 i; 'L_--I.JI , *>~ Â·Et ' 11 it, 161 .1 1 1 1 13/44 t.4 1 2 Id , -v 1,44 \... 1 9.\Â· 1 ,6 1 .... 1 i .' 21 ' ..,4. \.\.1?, ' 6 f....1 1. D.V. 1 3/ji R iii / 1 1 4' / r 1 . , . ..7-1 .../ -11 1:. f - U 1 1 / 111 .. -17 1 \ 1. , I 1 '4 - 1 . / :1 9Â¢3 f 31'03 iÂ· 0 740 ~ fÂ·y.!g-t~Â» r F Nf.-1.- It .r .1. 1 1 f#. i fit-3-_Â» -Â»E 721 23=-*Â«t f -2 L.....1 1- ; 1 E-- 1~ 1 1. 't tt -f i 1 Ilf-21.4 1 1 , 1 i 1 11 4 4 42 4-1- 4 , ;ir , . 2 1-A-0% rÂ». h t=f. 24.1 4.-:--ph h --==i ---- / /> 14\ !~ ... \ 1 0.-J' 4 \\ 1 4-r /22 t. â€¢â€¢ 21 1 21 11[---Â·Gi--4F__-iTI-=i'#1-11 3 ....6-7. --- A Tt/*i- Tilf--=41. ff i it /. b ; Â·:i .. 1 11 #1 111; r!! iÂ·jl i ; 3 : 1 III . 1 LA< fs 1 .1 11 0 i:t Fil Ii: il,! il i i AL 1 i i,1.- -J i j.: r : :, UL Â·Â· : Â·:~ + C. .6- W 1 i ' , r Â· L -- 619:Â£4<t - 7 , : .r Vv\. 41Â» 4~-r S-< fy!Â£ -t..f- -ir- --, ~!591 9*5 17 i Â· , : v ... 1 , ' r : 1334 1WES1 ~HALL~ AmPIN COLORAV WILLIAMI & ASSCI ~ AACHITEC~ PLANNI~ 605 E. MIA -1.11~ li 11 111111/111'll -~---Mfoll m 4â€¢0-7 = 0 -4 .-1- . ,%9;Â·.ts-1---=17 ..7 IP. 1 4.,2 p 7.1,11 1, 1 't-- -F ; ... r- -. n_L ; 1 1 , ........ rÂ· 4 rÂ·ltÂ·Â·Â· ... ! i . .r 11 . e 4/ 14.. ... 11, .. 5 ... K iÂ·:It , ' L 1 1 . 4,- 3 1 Â· 92 . 4-7 - -1 -4 0 ' ,$11 - 2 L ,,0 , ' t' 1Â£ l. 18-7~ 1 z 2. 44 1 1 47 'f #31777#~pkeift. -i ! Â· 6 11 1 2 9,\ -Ul , 1 . 2 , 1 1 . 1-,- -... U ~ , 1 Â· ' ' ,; --:-'* "6 :Â·1:I--'I, â€¢. ~ 0 ~ i < 46:l }LLM~.-4-=--4.â€ži I U. 1 4, V... -9 li i ' 1! li 1, !! F h g el 1 1 ..*... 0 40 C 4-- r .. -Â» /11 9 El 4 i 17 \AA 14- 1 1 1 liz/ 114\ 1 - 11 T W - Et-- ! i i 11 11% iii 1 ! 11 9 ffi '1 1 J i 1 --J J 1---[1--d li . h 4 N-EL_==401 i.11-7-.lia - - /2.---9--Lit-- -71 232%5==g -1 --I - -2 Ir _infE-1.-Ir=~ 3-Tf re -40 2 1 1 -/-- 1 i ' +1- -1, : t J LL JL_ 2--c --.4. 1 11 11 ~ --.--- - ---CZ_ _I-- --222 u.:.-1-12.-2--11-=Y C Ukk b CLSe 4-)-t-&-4- 17 1 Art 1 -7; f,>, ..- 1 ..MY>7 8.-- tyÂ·r'-r'..r 1---4, ityâ‚¬ .it â€¢t 9.,4211 :441.tk~e57 1-r 424 17 41 TWAT ON --- 1 toer-tâ€¢Â» 12â‚¬940â€¢>~<-a 4 W 6 6rl Sul.â€¢16Â·:419 - 1 42.... 7 2.2 ..... 1 1 1 4 1 r :r) Mc,1,7,64 extsr-:â€¢,6 1. .- ,.55?7' i 1 ,;59 1/ 1 74/ tNt 4 1 AC 45-r 5,19 0,4.7 wr 0.\ le*â€¢(.0 910;A'- Th Â»'4(64 ~Â© \Ct ~- :ST-Â£034 ' ; 2 f ---,721 -~---11-* 1 1 11 ~1 f I 'l , S. 11 4 /1 4 11. 1 11 2 11 i 11 4Â£4 7: 1 '0Â·0,0 -Tlk.iM TO i Â·i !! 11 !8 4:66* â‚¬3-,-16-t--trÂ·16 .- 1,4, 14 iii qi H 12.1-/ 91 : '7~ - t;; , . jfi , 111 1 ' ' Ii; lit 11 11 1 L_-41 : 1 61; Â·, , 2Â·=-4Â£ li I r--1 - -I-. .1.- - r-u--S , A-41= i i ' M FT 4- 1 r._ . 'tt i qI Ii, 1 Â· 42.5~ 1 Ii,11 1 F I NMe.â‚¬-4.4 ce--r - t~ .. . 11 1,~ 2- e . 1.li-Â· f 1 B it 1 4 14 4., . i; 1 C.GAE' 2Â£-*2Â£3) Ste:Â©G I i 1 t. . t j . -rr MA-rr..1 5KiST-i,Â·16 i 'i , it li 1 '1 1 4 1; f i / 1 2 :4 (1 + 1 k. t= --:.4 Al J I 1 ---- b j 1 , 75Â«1-526 /-0 Â»34 --1 - k + CICivv + a-St 63- e 'EL 4 t Â¢ /1 ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS CONT. ARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLS LEGEND DRAWING INDEX . PLAM 1:'abtic laminate RBL rubble qone TOL tolerance (TOP OF La2651 -' - 334 451.0' NEW OR REQUIRED POINT ELEVATION l(~. BUILDING SECTION ~ SURVEY plate ' t SYMBOLS USED AS ABBREVIATIONS BUR built up rt)(*ing DIAM (0) diamele, Pl- SFG ,afety glass T&G tongue and groove ~ ~~5/ REFERENCE DRAWING NUMBER ~. AO.1 GENERAL REFERENCE u L angle BBD buHron boa 1 DIM PG piate glass SCH #chedule TOD lop ot Jal) 1 dinit,nwcin Al.0 SITE PLAN - ~~~~~ PWD p'Yw,(*id SCN - 5creen T.O.91[,L. top 01 Iteel centerline CAB cabinet D.4 [It FÂ·n.M 4 ~ WALL SECTION OR ELEVATION A2.1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN t To K too (31 wall C channel CAD cadmium DIV Clivlf.,[,11 PT IN)int SNT - REFERENCE DRAWING NUMBER , . HALLAM CPT carpet (ed DR (1(IN PVC polyvinyl chloride STG beatIng TB towel bar EXISTING CONTOURS A2.2 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN /406 penny ELEVATION NOTED ON HIGH SIDE 1-1 1 perpendicular CSMT c a hement DA doubleacting Pâ‚¬ porcelain enamel SEC HÂ·dion TR tran.Â·(lm /~h DETAIL 14 plate Cl caN! iron A2.3 UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1 ASPEN DH PTC pest-tensioned concrete SSK fervice .ing T tread ~%1 REF.Â¢NCE DRAWING NUMBER A2.4 ROOF PLAN 1Â· NEW CONTOURS COLORADO double hung .â‚¬45- ELEVATION NOTED ON HIGH SIDE round CIPC (ad-in-plaae cor'-rete DTA (Ic)vetail anchor pcÂ¥ pound, per cubic foot SHTH .heathing TYP tvt,/Cal A3.1 NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS PFL pound. per lineal foot SHT bheet UC IiiderCut ~TE>-1 TEST BORING KEX A3.2 SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS 1 CSf cast stone, DTS (lovetail anchor slot PSF SG .hiÂ·et gl UNF ~ ~e) 1NTERIOR ELEVATION A4.1 BUILDING SECTIONS 1 CB catch ba.in DS {3(,wn 55)()lit polind b per square foot ,].. un|Inlhhe{1 ABBREVIATIONS CK calk (ing) cauil (ing) D drain PS' pound. per .cluare inch SH 411(Â·H. .hekÂ·,ng U R m n.,1 . . --- -~--- LEVEL LINE KliTI - A5.1 WALL SECTIONS 1 f. A8V at)()ve CLG ceiling PRB (I r.1 n Ixi,,rd FCC precabt cont rete SHO .hore ((IL (Ingl VI ,-iolm (ed) A6.1 LOWER LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 1 AFF above finished floor CHT ceiling height DT drain tile PFB pretabricate (d) SIM sinitlar VB wl.or barrier 4 ASC above susbended ceiling CEM cenient DWR drawer PFN prev inihed SKL bkvlight VAR varn,05. PROJECT NORTH A6.2 UPPER LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN i " a ASSOCIATES Â¥C access PCPL cement pla'st" (fortland] DWG VNR (MAGNETIC NORTH ARROW A7.1 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS ROOMS - Â· ~ 14 drawing #cneer ACFL accefs floor CM itinieter(s) DE drinking fountain PSC pre.tressed concrete SC .011,1 I ore VRM vermMulite ~ ~ PYINDOW TYPE USED ON PLOT SITE PLAâ€¢e ONLY) A7.2 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS WILLIAM JOHN POSS AP ac ce<., panel Crl a 91 IC , DW (junibwaiter PL F.rcilk,fly line SP w.nili,root VERT 'erlical -6.---~) COLUMN REFERENCE GRIDS - DOOR NUMBER A7.3 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS AC aC<,w,t,Cal CT rural ble E F eath in e QT quarry tile S â€¢,outh VE vertical Ar.im [ 0 ) OF MORE THAN ONE DOOR PERAOOM .A8.1 DE'r.AII~S ~Â· ARCHITECTURE & I - SUB LETTERS ARE USED) PLANNING ~ ACPL acbw.lical plaster CMT ceramic, 'aic mle) E e.141 RBT rabbet, rebate SPC 9),]( â‚¬'r VIN und 605 E. MAIN STREET ACT .194 tical tile C H 5.D chalkboard ELEC ekÂ·clric tai) RAD r,id,ux SPK VNÂ·.iker VAT vin,1,] 4)cÂ·.10. tile DASH AND DOT ~ CENTER LINES FLOOR LINES IN ASPEN, CO ACR ac rylic plastic f CHAM chanifer EP elearic.11 panelboard RL rail ling) .3' SPL %1)t.I 1,11 VB und 11,- . ' EXTER'OR EL~ VTIONS, PROJECTED LINES DASH AND DOUBLE DOT lINE- 303 925 4755 ADD addt,n(lum CR chri),Â·mum (plate .') EWC elec tric â€žÂ·ater cooler RWC r.linuater (on(Iii{:or SPEC .pet,Illation {41 VF und 1,11,ric . PROPERTY LINE. BOUNDARY LtNES ADH adhe.ive CIR c irc le 7 11" SQ .quart, VT und tile lÂ·Iâ‚¬Â·V.ttll)n DOTTED LINE-- â€¢~1~- ----7 -l ADI adiacent CIRC LIM uniterence E FV ('ll.\.11{ I RFL rellec t led, 411'el (or} S5T .|.1,11|t'- .trel 1% SCT .,11-()1 ---------------l'-- Hit)DEN LINE ADJT al u 41.181{, r'p Clâ‚¬'ar (anci,1 '41)"gent & REFR . /'IT|*Â·r.]tor ST[) ~|.Ill(|,,r,] WTW . a 11 1, i '.al , I AGG aggregate CLS ... U C fNc- ent low (life) REC regi'ler STA ~!all()[1 WH .all hung BREAr. LINE-Â·- KE air conditioning COL C (}I umn El.< equal RE reinA)rce Id), fing) ST 31(Â·el WC nater < 10Â« A v v TO BREAK OFF PARTS Of DRAWINGS ALT alternate COMB coml)inati~in EQP equipment .CP reintorced uinrrete pipe STO 't{)*,lk/â€¢ WP .alâ‚¬/prooling ; AL aluminum COMPT compartment ESC rka latâ€žr REM remove S[) blorm dr.1 IA GLAZING CALCULATIONS ANC anchor, anchorage COMPO corfii)(14,lion (composite) EST estimate RES re'lltent STR .trut t.ral WS ..ik'.toq) AB anchor 1~olt COMP compress (ed), (ion), (ible) EXCA exc'. , , RET Il'Illr!1 SCT Vructural Il,14 title WWF nt,Idâ‚¬,1 wire labricÂ· â€¢' -- - -- - - - ---= MATERIAL INDICATIONS ANOD anodized CONC c c >ni rule EXH A hali.t RA ril/rn.lir .US .1.Â·IllÂ·(1 W ned 1 .1 WINDOW SQ FT GLAZING QUANTITY TOTAL SQ FT APX approximate C,AU concrete ma.unry unit EXC e.1.ting RVS reltÂ·fhe (.Cle) SYM ..In"tr, tic jl) WHB nherl ImmrdÂ· . Â£ A 7.3 -1 7.3 ARCH architect (ural) Cx a)nrieition EXMP rwanded met,11 plate REV rejt.ion 141. re,wÂ·(l SIN 9'ntlit'tic W uidth. uide B 5.3 3 15.9 AD area dram CONST con.trudion EM t'.P 11%.lon |)011 RI-1 nkh: hand SYS ..tem /VIN .ill(1{)',4 Acoustic Tile C 8.3 15 124.5 lili ASB a %1* %/(,4 . 'T (011|Inij(H.ls Or ((irittilie EXP t'\IN)/l(l RC),v r,i:ht 01 n .11 TKBD t,I kl. 'ird WG wired d.~ D 10.0 5 50.0 ASPH a~phalt CO, (/Itt./'t ((,r) EXT i \1#Â·ric}r , R ri~,i,r TKS 1,( btlip W'Al \Â·, ir(' mÂ·,Ii brick-: E 8.9 1 8.9 AT 15$,hall tile CLL contract limit hne tXS r.tr./ 'trong RVT rl~ el TEL kit'1)11(,ill' W'O nithou' IF 8.3 2 16.6 AUTO automatic CIT control loint FS face brick RD root drain TV 1(Â·ItÂ·, I.(,n WD G 15.3 1 15.3 2,1.' BP back pia*r ledi CPR copper FOC laaÂ· 01 icincrele RFH rool hak h TC terr.1 L citta *)0(11),r.e Firebrick Elful ~ BSMT ba,ement CG corner guard FOF RFG Diting TZ terrazin Â»+T Mirking point H 3.6 2 7.2 t.ice 01 :inish Face I 2.2 2 4.4 RM r<*~ni THK thick tile,41 WI wrought iron '111111/ BRG bearing CORR corrugated FOM lace of niah<inry RO THR thre.hoki J 1.1 2 2.2 BPL bearing plate CTR c.()unler FOS 1.'( r 01 'tud' rough oirning BJT bcci toint CFL i ounterfli.hing FF I.â€žtory linish RB rul,her I).1.e TPIN kilet partition Ceramic Tile K O.5 2 1.0 BM bench mark 05Aff) CS countersink FAS f.,wen, fastener RBIT rtilibiÂ·r tile TPD toilet p,uxer dispenser L 20.0 1 1 140.0 Concrete: BEL below CTSK couriter,unk ;crew FN renee M 23.3 4 ~ 93.2 0Â¢T between CRS course (s) FBD fiberboard ADDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS : BVL Ibeveled CRG cross grain FGL .' berglass Block 54 427 f - BIT bituÂ·.nous CFT cubic foot FIN finish (ed) ~ f . 5 8.0 8.0 DOORS BLK block CYD cubic yard FFE finished floor elevation . BO bottom of ' Cast-in-place . I ,5 2 5. 1 BLKG blocking DPR .per FFL finibhed floor line BOF bottom of. footing , i . & Precast 41 ' 6 7.6. 1 7.6 - BD board DP dampproofing FA fire alarm 11 20.1 1 20.1 EXPN expansion BS both sides DL dead load FBRK fire brick Lightweight & 12 18.1 1 18.1 BW ' HR hour If: 18:4 2.1 . both ways DEM demolish, demolition FE fire extinguisher , TOC top of column I 13 18.1 1 18.1 C I & 0 bottom DMT demouptable FEC fire extinguisher cabirÂ®t I brick DEP depressed FHS fire how station TO CONC top of concrete Ear -n: 14 7.8 1 7.8 Â·v J BRZ 1)ronze DTL detail. FPL tireplace TOF top of footing 11%~tram BLDG building DIAG diagonal FP fireproof TOJ -. top of joist Disti...rUEd TOTAL SQ.FT. GLAZING = 566.2 ' UBC Uniform Building Code - Undisturbed ir/t//-47 2 / p./1 Â· \ TOTAL SQ.FT. ENCLOSED HEATED AREA = 5278 3%03*3**3 f 11#1 FRC fire-resistant coating HC hollow core MMB menit,rane Glass . 566.2 = 10.73% OF 5278 Â· * FRT fire-retardant HM hollow metal MET mrtai J - . FLG fla.hing HK hoek (s) MFD metal floor â€¢jec k,ng Insulation: F HMS flathead machine screw HOR horizontal MTFR metal furri~g FHWS flathead wood screw HB ho>e bibi MRD metal roof dec-king FLX flexible HWH hâ€žt water heater MTHR metal thriÂ·.hlold B.att, Loose, ~-0242~-4-,9222/1 ZONING INFORMATION FLR floor (Ing) INCIN incincrator M meter (3) FillÂ·-Blanket 4 Fico floor cleanout INCt inc lide ((11, Gng) MMI millimeter (9 ' PROJECT LOCATION 1 b FD floo. drain ID in~ide (i,anieter Al\Vk millwork . El c L. 3 : FPL [loor plate INS inwlate ((11. lion) MIN mininnum 334 W HALIAM, ASPEN, COLORADO i FLUIR Ilurirt'4( ('nt INSC insulating (,intrete MIR -irr(>r <~ '; 'i 1 & FIT liu,h joint INS[ Illwl.iling fill MISC mic eli,ine, â€ž14 ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION , j FTG 10()ling INT r/",(ir At()1) moclular Extruded ,Â·*-Â·+ Â·,Â·,-Â·, LOTS K, L, AND M BLOCK 42 #24*14.N ~ FRG Icirge(f 11 K inte k)Â£ L Mt [) molding. mouiding Pol yst yrÂ·ene t.,11/,tttilti.6 LOCATED IN THE R6 ZONE j FND foundation :Nlht irltâ‚¬Â·rn li (Ii,itc} MR mop receptor FR frame (d), (ing) INV iii,crt MI .:ount (rai. {ing) CITY OF ASPEN Resilient FRA tre.h air Irs If'/1 J. Pt' ./(Â· MO\' minal)1(, Flooring lile FS full vic. IC j.initor'. c ki.el MULL m u hon LOT AREAS + 1 and associates 90.02' X 100' = 9002 SQ.FT. . 1 FBO turni,led bv others IT loni NL nallable Metal: FUR biri'(1 (ing) IF lomt liller NAT ..u.1,1| 605 EAST MAIN STREET FUT lullite J Joi~t NI n'( WI . -, 5 DUPLEX IS A PERMITTED USE WITH 6000 449'44 4 SQ.FT. OF LOT AREA CA g. Mr, gauge KCPL KeentÂ« aÂ·ment Dia,ter NR 11(J[Â·.cÂ· r(Â·(11. tre),1 0- 9 -7 -1 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GV .galvam,ed KPL kick latiÂ· NRC (303) 925.4755 Gl ':ah ,intied iron KIT dchen NO%1 nom!",11 .'.. .... 4-, - '.......+.1, . I *SETBACKS Â· Â·TEL. Cp galvanized pipe KO knix kout NMT n,im, lilli( FRONT AND REAR ARE 10' MINIMUM EACH WITH ' ' ~ GSS galvanized Merl sheet L!31 N north -i. A COMBINED TOTAL OF AT LEAST 30'. SIDE lai)/4 t. COMBINED TOTAL OF AT LEAST 30'. 1 Issue: GKT gasket (ed) LAB laix,rator\ NIC lilli'(,W'/1 Scale i , ,.,i / YARDS MUST BE 10' MINIMUM EACH WITH A â‚¬DC general contract (or) LAD ladde, NTS mit ti, 4(.itc GL glaÂ», gl,wing LB lag I.4 ,It U BS (~11~{ 11,1. LAfl OC .'" "T" ,< Steel Small r GLB gia. 1)1(x k I.uninaltÂ· [(1 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT = 25' , : i.L GLF gl,M fiber L A \, 1.1 ~.~ t,)1 \ op (,1.':.. 1 -JOI & Sheet> EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT= 24' GCMU 21.wed c (,ncrele nia.(inr, utint. LH k'it han(1 OrG .PtÂ·.,'. Scale (Struct. , NEW CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT PROJECT ABOVE i GST Al,17('(I Vrli( Air,3| 11!(' L li nkul (-)| (4~'11 + iâ€ž1.2 : GB grab bar D light orr ,)1)1)()hllt -Plaster: , EXISTING STRUCTURE t GD 64.1(le, grading E light control OPH oppo~Ite h.ind ~ l 1 - GRN grant LP hghlproof opA 01)1'll'!c .lirt,I{ Sand, Cemen#, k*FAR ALLOWABLE= 4,080 SQ.FT. GVL gravel IW ()lltâ€¢!(ItÂ· (Il.1111(â€¢tâ‚¬â€¢r 17Â»/VA FOR DUPLEX light,1,Â·ight r Grout with GF ground lace LK'C lighhuÂ·ight concre!(Â· OHMS m.111Â».1,1 111,1( hinr M rew Metal Lath CT gr{)It LMS limt .T{inc OUNS , NitÂ·,1(1 n (>,KI 4, riÂ·,1 ACTUAL FAR= 4,489 SQ.FT. GPDK" jip'I)bum dri .,ill LTL lint(,1 OA (ner.W ! Board ' i GPL Zip.um lath Lt live i.,ad C. mihi'.wi i PARKING REQUIRED 1 SPACE/BEDROOM | GPPL In pburn 3)1.1.ter LVR |()/\ tr PNT 1).,1111 1 (â€¢(11 Gypsum Wall -- A ~ 4 SPACES PROVIDED ! GPT gv~Unjtile LPT 10.1,(}Int PNI 1).~ntÂ·I HH handli&le MB m.ic hintÂ· 13,11 PR p,nl< 1),1, Rock & Stone: HBD har{11)< ard All niale,iblt' iron Pl[) p.]per 1 1,1,1 (I,Ni)(Â·n'tÂ·T ' *NOTES HDW h.12!MariÂ· Alll n 1.innhile PTR 1)â€¢11),Â·r ,*Cl re{ el)1(I ctone, OrÂ·avel, 7~Ze*8316Â·0519*- CITY COUNCIL GRANTED AN ENCROACHMENT LICENSE FOR THE TWO PARKING SPACES ALONG + HM'[) ha'(1~~('()( 1 All R Mlant;0( Illfâ‚¬ {91 PAR Por otis Fill HiT head joint MRB ni.irl,I{, pk parking THIRD STREET TO BE LOCATED IN THE SETBACK -, , 1 4.,'//2.-0' 1 ~. HDR header MAS m,1.In PB[) part' IlÂ· 1},./rcl St. cne Veneer 11. ,)~r>Â«77 ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1988. HTG heating Ato mavir\ 01){ining PIN partit'on HVAC he.iting'ventit,it inK/ AlTL Material I>j PV pave ((11, {ing) 1...,n â€¢ n THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE PORCH OF THE air conditioning MAX nia',imuni PVMT Pavt'intÂ·iiI -------. 9=-5----- CARRIAGE HOUSE INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK HD heavy duti , MECH niecharic (all PED 1)"Cit.413! HT height MC nwelic ine cal)int,t PERF 1*Â·rforate (d) Stone Veneer Â·- RECEIVED APPROVAL FORM HPC ON JUNE 14, Cut 1988. DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE CONTRAC , THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY HM hexagonal MED medium PERI pe r 1 m e t e r ' TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRIAING DIENSIONS AND SELECTING WRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF Hts hugh carliÂ·-.trength <ement MBR niern I )er PLAS pia"er Â· CONSTRUCTION THE AACHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY Wood: **AN INCREASE IN THE ALLOWABLE FAR OF 500 i VARIATIONSFROMTHE DIMENSIONSAND CONDITONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING i SQ.FT. WAS GRANTED BY HPC ON JUNE 14, 1988. Finish r -Â·unh GENERAL / ":+arrupted REFERENCE 81 octÂ·i ng L Flywood: .C ~ #le Scale fÂ»ur_..14 U. I. ' y 1/blÂ· % 7. 7 A 111'4 JUOÂ·ird Jil i. Scale: Dtr , 41 . . 01 ay (th iti A01 . â€¢m 334 WEST HALLAM ASPEN COLORADO @1244 4-2 WILLIAM JOHN POSS PITy of Aâ‚¬>Pehi & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTUA & PLANNING 605 E. MAIN S REET J ASPEN, CO Â·C ~ 6 140 90' +1" W 1 CDO.00 /Â»44* 303 925 475 . i C O 1 4 1 i. 4. Rk,e _r 71 lA--1 1 094. 1 6%Â»et) 11; 4 0 E>K icc&*cr 44.. 0 Â· r< 64 o - 0"4 0 9 t 1 6*, j 9 11 1 11 0 1 4 > E-L *V. 0 41'le * - i ex. 3 11} 1 r L.6 1 - 1.--11 1 d 14+1 APPITION 1 < 11611\1 HOU 4 1 9*\47\4 ~ -1 1-Â·-11 Â»-41 IÂ»- 1 i 2 *TD Fky 4% 1 MA jA Houet, BX, 2 lD V -1 1 0 zab 9-Iial PHASE 2 111 19##4 1 --~ 1 / Bppe I] 1 /, 2 @TO,0 1 , ExlerT Fl-a:'B E.l_-6>0 ED<le'T Ner 1 GABA I A 8,6 1 1191 100.-Oil .- -- 1 NE:11,4 1 DAM -' 11 ' PHASE 1 1 /Â«- r (07 El-Â»1-E[73 - ~ PHASE 2 ,-' 4-- - - 1--/1Â»-* 1,----1, S.L...Ex/. . ~ 1 / *- -31Â·1 lv- , ' r 4 1 \\ /3 -4-7 Q I I f 11 - 1 1. 1 - Issue: Â¥- reFF14 --1 - L -1 - -i 0 4 P. -_IL w ki-4 V) \ , 0 /jr-,fo= =11 -Â«. 11 \ 1 J \ \41 li 1 1 V, f \ 0 14 eo' 490 9 100.00 1 11 / 1 1 . 11 io O 1 11 ' < ex. 11 132'Filac Y )EX- T-- PAk/&120 1 11 1 1 4 1 1 , If H Fou Arkt eT F-BET THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONL.Y TO GRAPHICALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF â„¢E WORK. THE CONTRAC TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING DIMENSIONS. AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF CONSâ„¢UCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING. /5-h\Â«04/ SITE_ FLAH *vr PLAN MORT-k.1 ~ ~~<~4 Hare: 0,0*,87 54 80 FOR. T+tie PLAN TAI+1 FBOM 40Â·IMED' * 88-1-7 3,51Â·88 8Â¥ ALRINg *012*16''I NG. 1 + Scale: [*11 -1 -0 43 Al.0 Â© 1988 WILLIAM JOHN POSS Â«Â«Â»//>< W _Le-1 47 42.. 9. FAMANATinlF .IXOR.~ >Â·f~.1 d 14.1.,4... . .4 !0'1 ' -~t-, ~ 541 iiI . % 4 r E:?3:*3:EFEEBEEE 33:D:#BENE:EENE.:33.:EE33Â§33:*EFEEFEEFEEFEEFEEBEEE=EEE:E:EzE:E:E:=E=E=E=E:E ..E:3:E=E:E:E=3 ..E.E=E: =3=3=E=E=E=E=E=E=E=E=E:E:E=E-E=. E=E=E=EFEEEFEE'.:3.E:'25?333?ENEEBEZEZEEBEEZEEZEEEiEEEERE@*EEZZi@Ea~EtEiE* Ef@HY<'55' 'E'3~E?3fEi3%#@232:33:.f:i~..,~.E:3~:~~~~2.~~~~:EE"" I. ........ I. I. I I. : ..:.> Â»W ... PX ::is; ... 271 0 ' ~Si A A XÂ·> 2 1 â‚¬' 4 .- . ka Lb: .:.:.: A4, .. .1 '4 ../. Â¥ */ 4.2/e.....:I.-'I-.WI...'I...<"/.-*. 4 ~- --- ~ -, ---â€ž.- i40,1 ~,~â€ž4-,+,#-.,41 q ..< #.....t.42, 1,4.5.294Â·Â·MÂ·-Aim,â€¢9,4#rÂ·* 4,?" f" -le'-"2 -â€¢Â·u;" * ., 0.-'.,?r *2'-!i5Â· '- . -' Â·" ~ .,1 . .. - ?1'1 - F*DE. oP Ex le:ST IN Gr .:.> 4 < -- -- EFT-12..l-IC.Fr l-,1 g.zk l... PFAAH I K|<ST :==55 -/ C 22. 74 . - .... ... 1 ... 1 f Â·m . - - ... - l - .... .... 2 XE ... .... 2:Â· f E: .... X* ....... 4-t - /f -4181*-rÂ·- 6,ffâ€¢*1,9,"M'.1*1efâ€¢~I . 4,- Â· ./,1 â€¢ ''*' ... ,/, L -2 3 -- 2 2 241[di :it. -- L .... ... ..:.: 1,< .... 1........0 Ellie, 69 FaÂ¥4160 *,~ i t- 22 - -- + 14All AlÂ©049 4 ... ... ... ... 11 1 1 ... ... ... 31 1 - FollkLIE*<r-10.16 f:> 8 1 03 1 11- ====:= ... .... L. a 1% ... 4/ 1 IF .... .... A 8 1 I m 4 11 ~ .... %44- 41 .... 41 ' ..9 9 :Â¢ 1 11 V I .... -.... r ... .....................................1 1 ! PLIZA CONG . WAUÂ» 1.11-04 -Â·- > si , 11- .... .... 192" Fl.UZ=-444â€¢r AN 12 72Â£ arre PbIP. f; Â¢7-9 1='EA I M ErrEE- apP , _ .... ' FE>ge,HED Ae=VE- 1*,I i r, .... 20 '- 34 0 I.1 1 .... .... ; i ... .... I PHASE 1 1 ,>Â·pwa-26,1-6 6.LAe, -7 CARRAIGE HOUSE < i 1 1 1 (COMPLETED) BASEMETÂ·iT 11 7 | 3 f .fsÂ»'*,2%*00197*41't X. ''Pf .1,4t~ 1- b 1 11 le, 1- 62>Eli 1 \ *21 , 1 1.9 ; 44 11 1 | ~| 1&12.~9|744. 10'ic; ~ ~ up - 1 11,1 Ope,~ . 261.-0 k' 11 11 71. hal-'Â®lier = Idiel 1 1 11 6 0-TÂ»%1 12 fl 11 ' - ,74-4 ,7,1 1.1 11 ' 0 . 00 liald 24 UALÂ»* / ' 1 ~ l.lootp PbALL Â¢7126.1 L : 1 ** 46.1, - 4 2'-1" Ape>V. F T .. ~CAP 41061446 . IN/ Â·-- - -~- -1 . - /1 0 1,1/4 -01Â« 26010#6 64:26. n Ii.jr V 1 30,6, 39 646 / * 7 : 1 1 1 5-[-012-Ad'E 4 Jp 12) 14_2~ ---7 , . 1 .:.:. EX1571196 CIRAWLGMALE, 13 9 1 .. 6 i 40 ~, li ,EXISTIPÂ·Â·16 k]E-14 5Â«56:/1 E-kET .... @AJ Â¢24 C_ cuT OPEN IN dr L l.~_ -4.- .i - - - - - - -Â· - -- -- -- ~ .2~11 MASONARY V =10'- 0" , 1 1 ]4// 11-toll Sa A<1 /O. Â©Ue, ... N. 2 Â§%- r'r ; 41 .,rÂ· 95* 114 COND. WALL- , . 11 1 <4/ 2377 FLUE AIMVE Â·iÂ·>i Fole- 1.70 1 1 - 6 F:.0 4 -[%41- y Attlt.- .. ... 1 -I â€¢â€¢â€¢ /3 ' ~ ~ 72.-Ii- --- â‚¬J?râ„¢~~R~Â·Â· ... 11 . 070. el'-- â‚¬ %% ~~ f Ff] ~1041,D . 1 i AlÂ«-rALL 5611 -ry'PE, '%1 ; MED'HAN 16Â·AL Â· 1 ... 43174. Ept) oN -TH le el 15 02 1. 944 1 Â·Â·Â·Â· I / ' ... 1 117 101 1 --~ .. CEXISn MB 34 / Â«TAI 04.JAC WALL ,=.. .~ ' ,4 ' *f.' .4:Z5'96,1- 14; . 2:- - 4./.-I 4-7- . 1 .1 i 01 ISÂ·Â«F'*Â· 01 4 rIKEFLACE - p 1 .9) 1 ,..4 2 1 49] eve .riF- 1 f GAPÂ«(Gr E / 1 .... ... n Â· - ... -0 1 ' 4 A BOVE .. 5% /21Â£ 2 E. N Z~_ =U j f BASEMIFEMT I ./ ~ '. 1 '.*... .' I. -71.'...uÂ· r.,-,JTL,eT te:,R in---6;Eâ€¢:LE/Im,EH,Im rY-": 1 -4-- .w- 1. , - [12*1 . . , ; - .' I Â· :. Â·e,,i....6:8; .... 1 1 -::; 9~pHde--r-----ri-7=1, 1 7 - r. 7 Ne/Ats -, Ny WALIC-11-IC. - c'MAIFf 1Â·pe.,IPTH 6'P - 7 k :' i \ SURFACE - E,laTING. AOJACE, AT- ,' i Â·' ~li h 4 1 an..ttÂ·+ jp: ~ GENfRAL NOTES Issue: ... ~ < TYPICAL *l-1 kIPA-T 10 Al 52}], 21 0 1% j. , MAIN [*94,6 83} 1. d:-0 AFT eAC,3-2542. *Ft-ALL- 6ee-6HT. Â»2,3 *4 P gue ~QI FY 3,3' 80 E,[16-h ,Â·Al>vericu/1 Th; 15 SCOMEE - __ rk-[05 * x A ' VELEV, - 101-411 , Iklerk-L- N~U :REE 91 916 619 1 OU 6 (F 4/ Ex JETI h.46* 6572uaru 2 E 8,31,08Llo WINGIÂ£ peE,9 18% BASEMENT ~ALL-6.l-1 #126@- | ExleÂ·r erfUL.TO =E' t 2 i .' .:..1,~ 3- ... t-,fls. g.rÂ·*'=r<.0.*54*f Â¥- -4.1- er. ' . . ... 1 I X .... 1,#SS /4127?rwT. .... 10'05-Fs &2 litptifl Kle, . , I . W: -4 6087< /Â«HÂ· 1 9-of-/4 (66 1Â¢Â£ Â¥iii. ... d ./.2 - 4 r li 10'4.05 FL~ ' I .1 X.> ~ 11 1 U .... W -0 7L 4.92" 1 5 -O E. ... ... 2%: .... 36'-472" CaPEE. 88) .... -. -1 FIEUP VENI E-f :5:/ I i .... .... ' - t. 'A Itt . .... ... -, i . . -4 .... V :5:kÂ· 1 .... W THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE CONTRAC TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIFNING DIMENSIONS, AND SELECTING WRICATION PROCESSES A,[) TECHNIQUES OF Â·Â·Â·Â· CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING. < exlel'Nor , NU 24 ' UDAGS,L 1 555 .:.~.: il BASEMENT lili > .:':.: 1 ::: FLOOR - l/00 FLAN Â¥-forgi Â·Â· 1,1Â»10$-T 1-1 1 . PLAN . ~ PHASE ONE PHASE TWO E n \' . MAIN INOUSE 8. .... = scale: 4'== 1'-Â°" A21 O 1188 WILLIAM JOHN POSS .................... ............................ 1 'ir - T ...../.4 R r )/3 D 4 7 1 F â€¢ - in u 36'-4 72 H 9 FI~l.-O VE.2 IFY al 0 1 i ~ '~ DTO tal- f. f/"h'' *>. 9 .SM ... . . . â„¢E PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAFHICALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WOTK. THE CO~RAC. TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR Coll:IF~ING ONE//%AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF ri~ 4- - 1 VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL RE NOTIFIED OF ANY 3- k -ta --,-9- - =4-t i - --'7 30 u , , 044,u ~ SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING. 1 1 ... ... 0 m ... ... c. ~ F LA hi LEVEL 139- LOWER \Â¢11:7' 2 , <-1~,NORTH 1 FLOOR V BEEZED F . 555 PLAN PHASE TWO i Â§.:R: . ~ MAI Al HOLIee ..... ....:=:=:=:a=:E:GE:i.........:3:*SE:E:DE:i:.:E:.:ESSM=E:PE:PaE:.:E:E:E:E:ESE:E:3:EEE:E:E:~:i:DE:E:E:Z:E:E:.:E:E......:E.DE=*Â¤:*S:.:.:.i:EE:E:?E:=:=:....:==:.:b.:=:>ZESE:E:?i:i:i:3:E=:.ESE>:E:E=BE:i:Eâ‚¬:i:ZEE?E:EgEÂ¢EEE:E:E:REÂ¢E=PEfEEN:E:ESE:i:<E:DE:E:E:E:E:Eâ‚¬=E:E:*:E:E:i:E>E<EENEENEEiEEâ‚¬:*:E:E}E>:E:~:i:i:E:i:Bi:DE:i:E>:E:i:~8*:E:~:Di:E:E:iEE*EFEEiEENEEED-ENEEEi*:EEDEEEEâ‚¬EYEyijfiEEE.E.Da::=i:>.a:=:=::%::==:=:I:=:=:>-:=:E:E:E:i:i:6:i:E:E:3:6:22:53 Scale: W= 1'-r,k A2.2 Â© 11 88 WILLIAM JOHN POSS 0 64 C. A-1-~ 1 - '11. T I 91 -t 334 WEST - , HALLAM . ASPEN COLORADO WILLIAM JOHN POSS & ASSOCIATE e V. F" ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 605 E. MAIN STRE T 1 ASPEN, CO 303 925 4755 . 1 - 0 ... I e e' e I I . i " -. 41 D ... 0 - 4 .. 4 ' - . A- , . I ... - . h f ... 0, 6. . - . , 0 00 . , ... . - 4- . '1,1 . . .C , 0 0 , I , , . I. . - P . ...: - 1 .-, 6. m I - F , I . 4 0 - 0 .- , 0 F . -*- 0 . U. , - m O - . , 0 . .' - A 1 ., , ' ' 0 0 ' . 4 .0 ..0 - I. 1 . .. -. 0 - .. . . .. 4 I. 1. - C . . â‚¬ . e - , -A . V .Â· 11 - ... plig - R ' 0 0 1, -, ' - .. A. . ,2 . \ 1. t. 11 * S'. . '411. ,v" v t"F . ...9/ Â·â€¢Â·r I. \ 4 4 -2 ........ PHASE . CARRIAGE i . (COMPLET r 4. i 0-0- 1 . 1 :1 4. - Â·~ I ala\ --- eli -9 - I ~ r Â· .:s.: -V -.... Â£ 1-M STEREO gADIHETT / DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK ME CONTRAC Â£ 1 THE pURPOSE OF THIS DRAWNG IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALY ...... PROVIDE- CABLE OUTLET-j tep TOR G RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING DIMENSIONS AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF . PE[>12%1-69 FEDWER L.IMEx .... VARIATDNS FICUTHE DIMENS*iNSAND CONDmONS CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY SEE VAVID WAT-5011 $ ' ... AND SPEAKER PREYVIRE- . SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING. RE 1 MAIN 9-REET MIUSIC - .... ,/----- - .... .... ... I UPPER 1 041 .4 FLAN 409:2 LEVEL D. f -- . NORTH FLOOR 26' 3 YAV. 1,F.) 2 . : : *HASE ONd PHA&!E IWd - - PLAN MAI hi Hel-le/ PX I dIA!242.IAGE PfOUâ‚¬:4 X.> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = = = " = ~ = = ' = = = = " ~ '== = Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· .. ....:~ :<i ,.~:iÂ®*:%~,E .j.i:3ia. -Â§%%43Â§{EE{Â§%?33Â§Â§Â§%3ii{Â§ 2Â§#ikEE.....I......I.*~f~~39.:?'iEÂ¥%9Â§284:.::~.~~ :~:.::x::<0.:.:.u>..........:..................... & 11 i Scale: rt = lur" 1 11. 4. A2.3 -4 -It. Â© 1190 WILLIAM JOHN POSS ................................ ji- 9/2 C v. 4 P.3 e 1.0, i 334 WEST HALLA ASPEN COLORAOO e WILLIAM JOHN OSS .2 & ASSOCIATE ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 605 E. MAIN STA ET Â® e 00 0 ASPEN, CO 303 925 4755 ... 1 4 .. â€¢ . I. 0 e I 'C . I . I , 0 -- I ... t . -4 . I I - 0 I , " A , . .' 1 4 0 , . 21' 0 '. ' '9 FF I - P ./ . , -2. 1/ '.L Vi , 4 , I. ,. . -? 0 1 ~1 ,, 1 , f . EN. . r I, .. /. t 1 K I. I il . 00 0 0 1 9 9 t A - , , A I . 4 a. .. . tt I 4 a , 1,1 , 1 , 11 0 . p 0 44 - .. .. 1 0 .. , . I I D -" ... Viv ./. ... , . tf . . 0 - . A . . . .. . . 1 - ... . . 0 - A .... e D . , i .. r. 4 -e I '17 1 -1..... .. A /21 A A 4- V . 0- SU kll=20=Mi IZE>EUP U .. 2% I 94#76-12 4 BTAL (Al=' - 4 AX*129 2213" U . S Lorie 0. RoOF SECTION / TO P =Al k 0 W Te 0 -T . 0 J Â»-9 T 1 11.. e 130 g L \ lio i 40 11/ 1 ' U 1 + 1 1 a m 1' i, -1 1 / -1 ,< iâ‚¬,r I h.16â€¢ FKC-:e, P II2 OVG.12. a.>80+4 -36,-01,..1 I \11 1 1 1 . NEW MEN. \ 1=Al Al \ \ / , E.* 19>T. b< 1 OT 4-- 1 1 > \10 + 4 \12 <1 11 Â£ AlÂ»11*LE / p \ \ %>Lf> :, ew 6-6-r / 1\ * . 1 FOOPJ+JOr- 64 4 \\ : F, 4 vrew, Â£71 m sup& 1/5,1 4 1~t ~ 122 VIKA.i hd ~ \\ - :riA / 1 V I 1 A \ 4.-- xIi ~ ./ 'i--'~ D-]Al.0-lÂ» 12â‚¬Lz:Pld --4- - /1/0/1 -L 1 1 08571. 1 1 i \ 1 11 / 1 < -3> 1 r-- - td -thie. loq~ 1 1 06 ' 4 fl 1 - 1 -\/L 0 1 : ' N. Exieri er g=VPS, 1 1, ' 7/7,< 2*LO 1.-1 0 ~ ove.IR. POWCAA AKI C> 80Â¢r 1,0 14 PPOR - ' .1 . 1 tf 4 4 f--' 1 --ExI ST-l klor 041 Mkler 11 T--- 1 1) 5 + 1 w \ -3 i \11 \ 7 \\ \ 7 t lie'- ~ovs i i-- %Â»Â»Heer 1200* bÂ« t.1 - - . 7--I- -.- - - /Â«fâ‚¬,TEM SL.OF:PE, 9\\\\ 1 4 ~[ - DISTIAL<* C.HIMAIEY 1 E->< lori Nor // rgl- 9001' ~70 09*14 - 11 CAR'=.16.DrE- ble.-16.E. --J-- - --- (goop W' deÂ·vidklb / ~ ~ Issue: 4 <444, A al 1 0 -1_- 7 \1:*ce:,F CA/6.12. FS:t)'ge,MI SE-Lo 14 - GAPAC.râ‚¬- 12Â£>OP BE,U:>14 Â· \422~> t/' , 4 THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHCALLY 2*leri,Â» *x:Pe s,OPEs AKE Aâ‚¬,961,19,07 To BE. 1 / 12. ALL- TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING DIMENSIONS, AND DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE ODNTRAC 4614 1:2,6-1.-g 61.-OPet 61-i Al-1- CONSTRUCTION THE AACHITECT SHALL dE NOTIFIED OF ANY SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF MIÂ«reÂ·-'Mt EK PÂ·CrIAIGr. PLATE VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS LI kIE.e HAVE le,GeÂ·d c>er E.,12-M I LIEO SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING AE: 4,+t c:Lt N , Ri t=Gr E Â·H El <SrÂ·FIT~6 AIAE Cpoloc. b..10&-IN-r U PDD AJ 22<11=DTIhdr NEÂ»c>P â‚¬5.0"55, - ROOF PLAN L MEMIC.2/11 12,APFIklÂ« MIA:T EPÂ·I A..L-.rL Lt'14 ki Th:E THE ACX.3 P EPES IL- A-T- -Tho Ex I <.s, I kd 0, ErrA.UOCL.112Â·E- A.61 p REPt-ADS kl M+-1 1~100[9 6*46LE + WL.b'F; 64<4,-r EMI . Scale: 411- 11-OIl '1 A2.4 * 44 Â© I9221 WILLIAM JOHN POSS 04 1 l 3 El 01 AS k. i 7 1 44>4~ FIGI A A r - LILLI 4,~~ PHASE 1 i .r - - | CARRIAGE HOUSE - - 7=ri/&*1 IN FRONT 1 (COMPLETED) [4Â¢2912 Â©441 klil.-6 BE,ofs e:>Â»9-TEMI ---~---- -- 1 r --- - - | -- h FladkiTE.7 RANC,-< CUT- Ug=)12 ekilklorLE,5 ' ir- -- , ..'..t ..7 1.-7,-- NO ..2341 134--1411.1 1 - - ~////// 1Â·Â· -Aail__.1.INIL-1 1. 4414.4. r'-4 1 / \ 1 / 9 ' 1 ' - f 1 1 ' - - r T f.., \~A. 31.+33111Tldr / N 1 T.- ~ ~~~ ~~T.I.' 061 T 1 7 1 C, i rer'i , 1 / r '' Â¥ 7 7 -J N hz V.7 1 â€¢ - ~~4~Â· 7E1-]-11_ICI FAI Arre>12 1.4,2=,00 6:kx:1 14 -rle.1 M ----- -r Y , 1 - 12 --â€ž LL, -.1 / 1 -- / 1 - - \ / \ I \ / 1 1 I - i / \ 1 -- FLEX I bLEÂ· StEE[- iRcO Flk!<24 579"T- El 113 j / \ \1 F "- 1 / 4-1 ..._---______IÂ«-- 1,]corp 614'klarLE Fc:c>F 67-5-1--fi HI _ 11 - AA I -- 4-5-- -- - - - '2-pt:2 FlÂ£X:>42- - --- 11 - -----0--- --- ------- N ,\ lie L 19+4 - \L Â£=_h -1.-Unizq-1 4 1 - - -- - - I ' -1?*r 741 #TE,C, I~007 FRAH 612 4#LAZ-IRCEâ€¢r 676-F6~1 44 .-2 i i 45.1 1, I 1 1 ---- ---- ----P 1-----r ~~--431~[[- - - . 1Â·11111 . .7- 1 1,</fl==I-1 1 146â‚¬217 FIZAMINÂ£* r--11 - 1 11 Ld*- 41 1-g(1)1 I 1 11 / /14*11 ~ 1 11/ .1131- 111 - 1 -1 AD, 1 U It 1 11 | ~ VAbl-- i _ - | - 11 96" rr Pa'K ' 0-re te,p//' FA1 Al-rep 1.looto 271 66 - -- L~~. 11~ I Il I 4 -Cok!,2-2 67Â£ PB.IVE-614-r 4 IAil |.1 i h 43â€¢Â¥P. *12, 1-IALL.... -Â·--Â·4~-4 L - 0A Ell -717 El 1-2 . 1 ; 1 1111 1 p 1 'sT P!14, PI-Â·'0"a~ / . 1 ce L O ---'- -- - . - FAIW-1-60 k,10*Q Â»'AJE-l/b Akilp -rl-ZIMI -- ~ ~ ~Fl / I , 4 6-RAV G/L- 4 <2:+46. el-Ale, Â« l X \1\Ls-vt..tp \AcorD> 9002-5 -- 1, !6 MEÂ·111*Â·Ak' E. PA--a / r -1 .. Â© k[600 F:~AMINGr ' r -1 - -- gy-reupell FOUrÂ«TY 12-6-416 141Â·51.-IL.Arrlok.1 26,420 FAI NTE>02 1.16='52 61Â£=PLOK| 45 ------- -1 , I J ' fl 4 ~ - -~rÂ·Â·'d ~%;1'2,36<0 625:Kit 12.E,T & el-Ae, -- it 9. a \ T- 1 eli -1 r 14-r $ 10" , 11'-0,1 /--1 NORTH ELEVATION 1 rJ 3 f 1 40.' 8 1 \ ..2 1 r =HAIÂ·417 AAIL. G 2-'-9' Above. -1 r-~ 6-TAI~ AJOSIL.lots , ED ~Â»6Jls,krr diAB ' | "4 ELEÂ¥ . 10'-ft "L.Â«77-7 El-EÂ·V = 001 0,1 1 .r '"" _ -L_ .O ,=,240. 02=,l-Alb AF 40 Fo.UALSÂ»Flold) 95~Â·Lo -,=OLJNtÂ»:710 Al 13'RA'k.1 1-11 -- - E><115Ilk'Gr DHIHINE>re 2 4.1 l 1 / r- --W - 1:ReÂ·Pl-â€¢ADE E.* lerrikkar A .1 . 'All-rk k[544 1406212 PHASE 1 ---_________-- _____ - _ 64!kjarl-â‚¬, @gaPT *Pferrekl CARRIAGE HOUSE - -------- ----- - - - 1Â»4 47- E>< I erT- I klar '(COMPLETED) 1 /23\ 6-fer 6 M Wct:"7 61-11 kl (Gr- LED WCE.-DF ' / Idce:20 1-72. IH Â· Â· FAI #TE,ty kle<PID FMâ‚¬>{A d i . ~ -17411/1 . -~ -1-)--- 6==1 '\\ 1 b li Issue: 2Â· 12 69 14 RE, '* Â», 1 .0 N=Â« 1 --1 --- it' - ..k-4--1- - 9 . H l Â¥-4/ Ne -2:ZiNEE'Aulotlt, :D *C. r.- - 5Â·27:58'TÂ·'15.7.7â‚¬A; , 5% perrING,r W I LIC>OUS .- I trt* .......Â·-LIli FÂ®d '41-E~g~LEÂ·>r OUT w.pp __ t-==F--* _-- ~ 3 9Â·â‚¬e.2.Â·rzE=lf# : I. ,#2 1 *H WOr ' Ae. Tcp FREP'14 1 AL /9 I + 11 : 1 1- 10,1*>1'd ANP 2-i- 9 ~ 9 - u -~ EL I 1 FAI#159 6.10â‚¬212__ ~--| A.- 141N 11[- ABI < - 11= P FÂ»J K.r-re> q I.d eGO - --4 LJOOP 6.1 P I LICK 61 15> 1 41â‚¬51- AULaul - .- --- p .~---". a- 4 --- . --- -..nal'1~4 1 .,1 '1 44-1.- - . -776.it#'Ir 4--1- 02"7 F LA --I- 1 4 4 + -__ --- - 1- 3-1- . El-Ex, Â·= 110'- .14 . re , r 1 2ND FIN. Fl-CYDR , v. -- 1 4- 4 ' . * - Â·- FAI KIT EX 165.T ' 4 dr , -Ill.---Ii.----- TELEV,-1-3912 174" -. -1,-1....~-2-4- MAJUPI N<jrÂ» 141P - -- 1 /%.--.= 1 - 1 [--Ill] 1 322- r- ~1 96.4 TEA--6. :----- 1 1 5-1 - L il[JI 1. 4 t iÂ«-00 -re l H - 21 E--3 dll ! 1 - il, 1 0- ...]111--21 --- - -4 1 L-_~___1, J p- --1+ - 1 1 ~1 1Â® 11 1 1 - 1 DEPICT TME GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK. THE -ONTRAC CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY - 1 . T | TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING DIMENSIONS, AND VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ! ' L._ -21.19 SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING 120 1 MAN Coo i Ihri~1~1 1. 20 7-1. 1| 1 111 ull- IL 1 =1---1-4 11- 111 { -- THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY 1 ULECHFIG WRICATION PROCESSES ANO TECHNLUES OF 4-------411--------i' 1 - IL-21-1111 1 1 01 1 j==1 - r-- Al Ki-E EXIÂ«E I WCOrÂ· lk|(â‚¬39 1 6. 11[J U 11 3 - - 12 NORTH-~~~---~ lsÂ·r, Fl N . FLCOK 1 1 I 'SE Fl I~ FL.COR ELE.V. I 00'- O' 1 WEST TEL_EV 40 9 0 | | - - MAI NTE>tp kic:OP =Lue'* /| 1------ weld 6â€¢,hluper E. 1 FEpukl tÂ»<T-1(Ski LEXTERIOR 1 1 ~ ove.â€ž101 Â¢:Al, 141 4-rED 120010 66'LUM NE, ~ | -- "~ 60<10-T-11*:Ir 41 0 ELEVATION F'14154-1 a, RAIP & ~ 1 42t--i-- --1 Scale: ,/4.1 L It. 12 11 woop pap WEST ELEVATION ~ 0 COEWSTE 61-*12: -1--- --4/1 1 . < -- 40*4(16-Te F=E:>Uklr*-~1043'-------~----- - ------, 1 mâ€¢eft)f- 6L:Ab . 1 4 EASEMENT_ 1-06. 4 - - - -- -- -- --- ~LL--- ~3.1-~ I BLEV. 81LUJ .1 1=21 - - EL-EN/, . 10- Â©~' T --I.-Ill----- - ---- - - - -I----- --- - -2 - ..... --- -- ......- - - --I - --. - - -I --1 11 1 1 Â©_~186WILLIAM JOHN POSS A A A . CARR~GEHOUSE rn==1 -SJ HerAL- PLA*+41 Norep .- - (COMPLETED) , lt>Fo OF Acan,rep ,(466â€¢UPIE:Al WAY BEYOND 1Â» 41 kIT E,K 1617 hicÂ» FA KI C>f 12 *aar 9 1.4"+9 Aj/1 y .1 6,LIT WIc,=4 2,4- INOrl-Â·66 El-69 5 126' - 5411 - 1_ 449,0 M te"*O 132Â« T - - - - h /IKEPLA,LE EXIST-lkl* ____--QÂ£--* +-r--+r-re i *T-3-4-*-m--1-7 ---1 . 1 / w i-r + W Ekl Ide=00 Â·_.1 -f_--9-3-'-T--T--15 1 . .1 . eÂ»gral --'r-i,Tj 0141 LIGr LEÂ· PAC k:2 P -2-r~. . -.Â»r-"r--1~-7----Ar.- --1 1-,1.- -7- T- -~-~LISCEICIEUIL' -. - / -'r./-0.....7---L-,4.-- -IE 1 - I. - A- . 1--w~ " - -Â·--1 - 1 3337--IELIELLI-222-0 1*1 ~/ 1 --7-rl-r-~4_L~-*TLri " 4---~ L 1-2r Â· Â·-r-Â·~ EXIÂ«rlk,la 4--t /-' * f 1.-n -,4.-~-,-r_1â€ž=LILIT//Ir,4 ~~al,....1 ' j. __3371273-FT-F -kiCer) -rkl MI5 1 -O, - - - Â»4 MT EX temklor klooty 7 - 1 1- liE 1 ~, -- -TRI MI ANIP kill Al MokIS L-J ~ _ . __ _ ___ P:..1 41- EW Iâ‚¬:fT- Ikk:* 1.ICOP 61 0 1 War Ek '97 1 46+ 141 kirk)1416 - 4-ECEy 4~--3-25.-L.41*71.--f>24 =~-- 6.w w ~-~- --I/t~4 t- - 1 L 11 11 iLE==aL L--1 11=4[], 12 To BEHAI W 1 2-H" 41â€¢4. Plwd)6712- , , .- 1.Ill - _J==~~~ZI~~ I -r yÂ¥17 h- 1 - p~V---] 1 2 #1 91 1Â·4- putpo* 0- 'uu- ' li_- -_.__ 1* ~1| E.L.EW 6-118) LOS,ke," C --7, i /. / AD.1 3 lU <FQrAME~yn (9 ../01 i Al KITED kida:252 FRAFIEP <13/ 1 . -2 r-3]4 -Â· - i----- -1~ 5 rt -A 2.1 N or e-fe-T EMI -i NE' 17 311, i ' p, \ 11 0 / lEi t. I / 41 ~ 6 '11 I <41 v ~ 1 i.4 1 r-FAI K.rreP 6.16:*20 5,1 L.L. - 4+4 9 -O:21 M + 1 , -1 Ad -r 64 14 65:.tp p:..A E l-6, 1 (9) , <1 - 1111 4 9 \<~ ~IÂ¢/-7 1, 1 1~ il 1 ik-1991 \ 1- --- 141 1 1-1-72-=927*41:/-16 1-u P 0% 6 1-Arb t- -- - CB, C>2.eG~f.HOLÂ·106 5.0, 1 -- 1- ELE V Itr'-6 -'--- 4-1, 1 16 f X 46.1 lÂ« Fl U - PL,c:t* 1 1-- -- .1--* --. 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 E LE>.. - *11- BR , t | 1422Â¢21 C.(21--LI Mble , 1 1 1 1 / : 1 ,1 0 ~ SOUTH ELEVATION 1 ' 1 \1Â« 1 r 0 +7-- ------*246-garD 82\AAHÂ»Cneu â€ž 1 Vi ' 1 -- 1 To, 04_AIR425 -. A4.1 PHASE 1 _-__ El 7 - ---- - CARRIAGE HOUSE 7-2247-2/ U 3 4-TI -Ae_J-t 1 E p KI tpor E (COMPLETED) Pâ‚¬21-Â»65 62* leT-IN* 14 ITH r ELEV. EF-33>*Ti-11031 64052 *HING,r LE, RayF *fe-rE.Il ----~- -9 -1 WlÂ· \ Fl-AT- 26=F ape>rokp i - k E L.ey i.24 2 11 '6*11 T 1 P< 1 POr-E 1 1 U,lavi 19AFRAPGT - - '' , , BCOP Â·6â‚¬Â·647Â£H Issue: \ -4 <4- Re.1414Â£5:0152 ,Â£,Al hi.4*l-E' ~ 0 axikirr E.*le:;T-IN<St F*\Wor a.u-r -_-_ --_-----1 ~~ Lk- Â· ~ c k kloOP .S H 1 K.LarL.E D 1 >%41 \ . 1 -.i- 44 L:~ 2 3~-9>z> i.el.S/C;~n 725$' 'Ps FAIK-1-r Exle>Tlk,14 WOOP TI:KIM _ 0449 -r'2111 h / / f 1 - -- - *1 N-rEP FiNGÂ·M" CLY- il IiI 7 -1 ./ 1 , L.--=-4- 1~- -...i----- ---- - kle=C) 52% 14*l-54. , / 1 -1 --- -h , ~ -- - U- /~E=7-:- -9~ri --3*EF~ - -I . 1 ----- L.fr--,I [ 1 -T--- --r- F=*.4.I Nt SIC> 6<.~625>IP 7-- C EXI5-Rt* trt'IdditUKE - k --- 1 Iâ€¢LI AL:20 I.â€¢dg AhÂ·112 TKI MI ,/, / I i I 1 H. -- --- 11Â»25'I 1 4-2=j 1 1 /44 3.1 / 41 UL- 1 I JL i -~ f 1 I j -11I U 1 - $ 4 OD E-\W *Loof ~ 1 1[ 1,~Ir *1 1- -li[ .Pr[- --1~F- 01&1 1 7-EEQI--ilas-,=i 940.11 - , 11 1 -P. - .[il f ... 14 1 4 , I i~1~i # :A~ 14+----1 , - lili L-â‚¬0 111 -,111. -1 2 lili li - - /1 1 -22131---9- _1-_Wit-El-H - eLÂ£37â‚¬e-.-/ ~2=2---122nk .-il==b>*1-~69=-'=-- . '.-11--- -iLL=ral _Â£3 1 1 1 _ 1 - l J t,<1 5'Fl ----~ 1 Fl-En~~f~~~fâ‚¬ll[~~-9~j~'~~~ R/<Tabi câ‚¬ Ar-<912 11]11 4[1 , , . THE PURPOSE OF THWS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPH1CAUY - - - DEPICT THE GENERAL- NATURE OF THE WORK. THE CONTRACÂ· 11 TOR $ RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING DIMENSIONS, AND b 'll I, j lili / il' il #. I lili \ 111 1 F .III 11 1 11 h [Fll-:JIÂ« rim,7..::91 If=T='I i 1*4 14-rerp 1-1Â£22 12 F KAI'/I EM 8&71 6. . i 1, ,~ , 11. *-1 111 11[ ..41 *-41 111-*# 1 CONSTRUCTION- THE AACHITECTSHALL 8E NOTIFIED OF ANY f / ~ - A .- 9 1 1 i P, 1,1 6 1 OuÂ·â‚¬-1 ~lar 6Â¥Â·e-r E.,1 - -2-71 --Â·- m - lili 1!111< 11111/ lili \lit )1- 1 SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES All TECHNIQUES OF VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENNONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING i 1 1 1 ~11 1 1111 Â«Â»,INI'll / 1: ---- Aal L ---_+= --'- 1 ~ 1 1 1 -- J 11\ 1111 liIU'' 1 1 .. 1 11 11\ 4 \ lk=:he:=eJ 1===pÂ£~ r====---:.- =- - - =-==--==--41 1 4, I 48 ===- =- r--1 EAST i; , IAN EL] b---7.14 \. 4 /1 ' SOUTH -4 ler Plk.1. Pl.-062212- , ks'r: F:iN. FLEZ>K aus*-~naa~rv-- - -=- - - --=-= EXTERIOR ----- /16, . ~ PN#1-657 WOOP ELEVATION 1 1 1 To- 6042446 SLAD 1 ch liZE__flbl._EU,3:;='fa , 1 1 P:70 12-Al 0 20 7 ELE.4 - 114 6,1 1 -- - - - - - -- - - -- - 9119 14 . 1 FN klnEÂ·O 14 COM / i-Ed.50.7=-14-((/*Irl- 1 - 42,KEÂ·FZ-e:TE Fol-lkilÂ»TIOkl ------- 1 -------- > | | Ager lokIAL | Scale: 1 1,1 9/ 1 1 1 | AKLO Te' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [*53-1 /~1 .1 lilli I ( 4 1_ EAST ELEVATION ' -- 4- 1.--BASEMEN-17 TO, 44.- El-EV 01'- G" T ' C-*-1 1 1,-====t====================- Â© 1185 WILLIAM JOHN POSS 4 ~ 334 W. Hal-lam -H Des., Demolition of- ~ .< C Carriage House, & Significant Dev't. f- 7 - 04 9,5Â» 01; 67 -L42 057211/k 2/OF- 1-, CJ 1 i -2 Dil . 1.37777TiT-UTij...15~1 IP. R . M.- e C 0 1 %-I f uf, i r 133r-- --2-__u#~-I-____ ~.-i,Ii ~ and associates ~ r r sEP 1 31988 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 4- 1 9PA September i._Â·, ...=_ Ms. Roxanne Elfin Planning Office City of Aspen 160 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: This letcer is a follow up to your conversation with Bill Foss this morning. A memorandum from Jim Gibbard, Engineerino Department, dated September 7, was written recommending approval of our parking encroachment into ine City right - of - way with a condition that our client provide a sidewalk along Third Street. However, until the sidewalk condition in the West End has been properly studied: as discussed in your meeting with HPC on July 125 we do not feel that a sidewalk is appropriate. Right now, there are no sidewalks at all in this neighborhood. So a new short piece of sidewalk along this property would seem very our of place and would upset the existing balance of this Historic District. As you can see from the enclosed photographs, placement of the sidewalk 13 critical, The irrigation ditch is very close to the street, as are tne large trees, there doesn't seem no . be an easy solution to this proolem at Inls time. We would like co obtain approval for the encroachment application, and have cue sidewalk construction be a separate item from this application and give the City more time to study these conditions in the West End. lihncerely,, ~ .. 1-st ncia Harris f/.49' 2 Project Manager / , G: 4 : r ; .42Ii 1 m A- @* v ; fF--2 *F - PH: gak y* Â£* 41> 9*2>*t.1 3'. 4 f . 0 . MEMORANDUM To: Alan Richman, Planning and Development director From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Insubstantial Amendment to previously approved plans of 334 W. Hallam St. Date: August 23, 1988 I have reviewed an application from Trish Harris to amend the previously approved plans for 334 W. Hallam St., Carriage House. Because the parcel is a designated historic landmark, development is subject to the regulations of Section 7-601 of the Municipal Code. Based on my review of the regulations, I find that the proposal is an insubstantial amendment, and the change does not impact on the character of the structure. The only change is the addition of one window on the east elevation of the first floor, due to the required percentage of natural light. The window matches those which have been approved. I recommend that you approve this insubstantial amendment to the approved development order pursuant to Section 7-601 of the Municipal Code, thereby authorizing the applicant to apply for building permit. If you approve, please sign the signature block below. I hereby approve of the proposed development activity. ,<14Â» 19 Alan *ichman, Planning and Development Director CC: Bill Drueding, Zoning Official Rob Weien, Building Department staff.signoff.9 .. CITY OF ASPEN 411~ MEMO FROM ROXANNE EFLIN Historic Preservation Specialist 1 i 4 uU / - fÂ·{_0~L f FL ~EMAito*i7Ld&4 1 4 fÂ« 14/ 4044Â« ~ C f 941 % 13%. I Â¥:1'Iâ€¢F:keâ‚¬â€¢]air:1(42"La 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 Ms. Roxanne Elfin nspen/Pitco Planning Dept. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Â·Colorado 81611 Re: 334 W. Hallam Insubstantial Amendment of Develooment Order (Sec. 7-603A) Roof Skylight ueak h: o Manne : ine purpose of this letter is to reouest a review by fne Flanning Director for the addition of a roof skylight window a* shown on the attached sketch. (5XX4 2: 11 -0-0 dj I believe this request is in order with the standards -7:/ 4 ,1.. outlined in Smc /-ouo h. it you require additional clarification, please don't nesitate to call. Sincerelv 8 . 1 F: i 1 1 54Â·1 er. 4:1 A.Â·, 141,Â·4 r +Zay/&* 2.'ce-v.-0 0 _- ' i t ' c.: 1 1 Â·Â·=â€¢. l...r..U: encl: 1 - /7~_- It . \ BUGE +lEi *11-r .MATch Exls-r-ING Â· - - _- ~ ~ - . - .- h - Li -----Lfirh C 4- r- . 1 . 1 11, 1 11 ( FDOED VEL-,UX 7/216 ----- le/ ~ ~ St=:-4 Ubtff 1, , 4 I AM. ---r - $ , 9 1 / I t-.*q 203 S ./4 // - Ill- u ~Ii_ 2 = 6 -I - --. Â£ --.--I -.--I- 0 :12 --------- - 1--- . a 1 L] 9 14 rk ge L..vgi / _ -__~_-1-- I--- --f-_I-f----*.- \ T b., 1 011- 11/1-11 ---- -3~ -1.- EN ./l ....'M -*i .JETT -2 _~.-2.- ;. -- = 60 60 m>-- i ' 4 1./fT >- wal.0.0 i 0/ . IC '- o /1 414 1 A., 0 '.dl .-- 4 -I -1 -- -I -- , It ~ - - - -__SOUTH .L / ---- Cl NIDITIcM &0}F REOP Se(06401-0 1- - (SFIRVE - NO/. gi (12Â· .-. 1 CLMI FOVS FA / PITITÂ®S 534. W. HAU--AFF\ . . .6 - 1 H EAP 1-leT. , \49 \1 - N*_~_~. - 1.1 I %XI - 1-1 Â£ i ~ _ A- 1 c 6/ , 6--340% 244 - dE . / U 1 - hv fl !71 ... NOI1039 1 C Â« 416<N , 1 1 1 ... , I I : I\/ I . ....1.1 'r .1 34 e ,Â· 1 / 1 ./ , .-. t-1- -- . Ile I ~9 3 rr 3 Â·Â· ti' , - - 4-'lrIGUI dely I 1 --8 1- -1- - 1 *Miho 214 *9 iN + 4 * i 44 ~ 1'0-1,1 ~2 ~ A*1 ~ + + Il 1 - 1 149 Fl~ZE~ 4039 -zi) hOLOGIEvt *397- 1 1 / 41Â« 6.- 419 14=l N , I. I t'it . -T \ r>14 '4Â·49,31 ILPT 400 T .6, M A= .5 1 1 -------Oil_11 1 ex= . GOÂ»2/ 6 -'4- .- 79.' & i U-/ - /YN.3 i'Â· //-4- /t-4 6 / 9.4 40 - - 1-1 \. 33.,1 p *i -3>-~~Pâ‚¬% 4 -- . 1 9 - 311 11 Â·U, 1 0 -- i 1 ~-21-(R) i - - 4 258,. 4-- 'I_ -1 - 11 -- ' 2 N.1022 , '.34 1 1 01 [2 - ./913\68 1 - f -1- Â·*d -- --- ___1. 0 ' -11 I .k 1.e 21Â» 1 1 \ 1 \ 7 , 177(C~&-Â« .4 -- \ , /,If / 4 L f- \ 1.7 K ! I 1/ 1 *- 1 7. , 9 04 :61 A 4 1 ! / 4 2 . 1 r _1 <23 0us03(22 ---- 1 01)* \2 1 /4 / / . It .0 . /70 - /,1 11) ri CD -~*1 9 4 \ . . r li ~ . 0 0 4/4 Preservation Assistance Division nterpreting National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. C Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 81-022 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: APPROPRIATE SCALE OF GREENHOUSE ADDITIONS Issue: Greenhouse additions to historic building are sometimes used by developers to obtain additional floor space or for passive solar heat collection. NPS does not discourage new additions to historic buildings under certain conditions. A number of projects that include contemporary greenhouse additions have been certified for tax purposes where they have been proposed for non-significant elevations and have been compatible in size and scale with the existing structure. In addition, their construction should not involve demolition of significant historic fabric or obscure significant architectural detail or features. Greenhouse proposals that do not meet these criteria may jeopardize certification of the project work. Application: The proposed rehabilitation of a four-story Federal style structure included plans for a wrap-around greenhouse to be built on two of the building's three elevations. At the end of a long row of wharf buildings, this structure projected prominently into a square near the center of a downtown historic district (see illus. l). NPS determined that all three of the building's elevations were equally significant, and therefore it would be especially important that the size and scale of any addition be sensitive to the existing structure. The developer of the building planned to convert the first two floors to a restaurant, and several hundred square feet of additional floor space would be provided by the greenhouse (he sought no solar energy benefits from the addition). The initial proposal submitted to NPS called for a two-story, lean-to greenhouse whose roof would connect to the building just below the third floor window sills (see illus. 2). NPS determined that the two-story height of the greenhouse would dominate the four-story facades for which it was proposed, thus violating Standards 2 and 9. NPS suggested that if additional space was required, a one-story greenhouse would be more compatible with the scale of the building. A one-story addition would obscure only the ground floor of the building (comprised of storefronts that had been altered several times in the building's history) and would leave the upper three stories unimpaired. Such an addition, however, would not be a recommended rehabilitation approach. The developer responded by presenting a slightly scaled-down greenhouse design, with the sidewalk depth reduced and the height lowered from the third-story window sill line to the second-story lintel line. By reducing the size of the greenhouse in this way, the developer gave up some seating space in a second floor balcony which had been < included in the original design (see illus. 3 and 4). In arguing for their revised two- story design, the developer and his architect maintained that all of the greenhouse . .. 81-022 would be glazed and that only very light framing would be required to carry the sloped roof, allowing a person on the sidewalk adjacent to the greenhouse to look up through the glass and readily observe the historic brick wall above. They argued that a one-story greenhouse would require an almost flat roof because of the relationship of < its height to its depth. In order to carry the weight of the glass roof, therefore, the framing would have to be heavier and would, they maintained, obscure the view up through the glass. NPS did not agree with this assessment of the addition's impact, and in its letter of denial to the owner, stated: the scale of a two-story greenhouse would dominate the facades for which it is proposed. A one-story (design) would not have the same overwhelming effect-from either a close-up or distant perspective--on the existing structure. In appealing this NPS decision, the developer wrote: ...we believe the sloped roof of the greenhouse reflects the line of the existing roof of the (building) as the one-story design would not .... The configuration of the two-story) canopy, combined with sensitive lighting will high-light the components of the historic (facade); a one- story addition would intrude upon and obscure the significant features of the (facade) .... The dramatic alteration caused by the proposed greenhouse addition will have a positive effect on the...building. At night, "suitably illuminated," the greenhouse becomes invisible from any sight line, and the facades of the...building are dramatically revealed. After reviewing the facts of the case, the hearing officer sustained NPS's denial of certification and, in his letter to the owner, wrote: I agree that with illumination of the facades of the...building the greenhouse would be nearly transparent at night, and that the facades would therefore "read" through the glass much as your elevation drawings depict. I would hasten to point out, however, that the drawings overlook the reflective quality that glass possesses during i daylight hours. As a result of this quality, I believe that glass in a greenhouse is not a neutral material, "virtually invisible," as you maintain. It is a dynamic material with bold visual qualities very different from the red brick of the...facades. (These) visual characteristics...would make a two-story greenhouse less an invisible addition and more one which would stand alone as an architectural statement, competing with and altering the historic character of the building. The hearing officer reiterated to the developer that a one-story greenhouse likely would receive certification. In a resubmitted application, however, the developer ... t 81-022 eliminated the greenhouse entirely, proposing instead outdoor seating on the sidewalk during the summer months only. Upon receipt of this new plan, a preliminary approval ( of the developer's proposed work was issued. Prepared by: William G. MacRostie, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. { . .. .4. I L t...: 81-022 1. Corner of the Federal Style build- - ing for which a two-story greenhouse ....1. was proposed. The greenhouse would ,L, have run half the length of the facade at right and the entire length of the 405 7 . -. facade at left. . -ILy - IIi ~ E-1 15 ~~S:=AN /-%*/.--a-2â€¢-1/=.4 21' rt iT-- 4 51-- Kfl 3r~-~.21 MM - 2. Initial design proposal. NPS deter- .. i u i - 1 ---3 mined that this two-story addition would dominate the two facades and overwhelm ~1~~~ ~ ---UNi~-~I the building. 4- I . . M. 6 M fb -mi --*~~~~ k-- NIEEN~18 @ 1-77 -r:-p--t~jz 3. The developer's second design pro- posal reduced the height of the green- 4 1 house to the level of the second story window lintels. NPS continued to with- hold approval for the project. . m Fuu:.0* 1 E r--6 -Â£14--2 61 -' ill E E m m m 4. NPS suggested a one-story green- MEE MME house, similar to this, which would not have the same overwhelming effect ~ 4- L1-44--Irl- - rl -1-, 7Tl-~ ' on the building as the proposed two- fl] 1 1 1 E -1-1 1 story addition. , Technical Preservation Services ~ ~ Preservation Assistance Division .... nterpreting National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 82-025 - Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (conformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (conformance) Subject: ENTRYWAY ALTERATIONS IN CARRIAGE HOUSE CONVERSIONS Issue: The rehabilitation of historic carriage houses into usable living spaces often poses difficulties for owners undertaking such conversions. These structures are often more modest in detail than the main house they serve, and generally lack architectural features such as window and door surrounds, elaborate cornices, and high quality brick-work. Nonetheless it is important that their essential form and integrity be preserved during the course of rehabilitation. ( Doors and openings are frequently the most distinguishing features of carriage houses. Owners, however, often find it necessary to modify these features for the following reasons: to allow for privacy, for adequate light and air, and for more efficient access into the interior living spaces. Owners should be concerned about the possibility of violating Standards 2,4, and 5 by damaging historic fabric or severely altering the integrity of the structure through the use of inappropriate infill designs. Additionally, where original or historically significant doors have survived, they should be retained rather than removed, and the sense of opening should be preserved. Projects that fail to retain their "carriage house" character can result in denial of certification. The following project provides an example of the mitigating circumstances that existed to enable the approval of a particular infill design. Application: The owner of an 1840 carriage house in a historic district rehabilitated the structure for use as rental units and upon completion of the project requested that the work be designated a "certified rehabilitation." The two-story brick building had been constructed with a balcony across the second floor and two arched doorways that opened into the interior carriage spaces on the first floor. In 1934 the structure was converted into apartments, and wooden doors were installed in the arched entryways. These doors were not original elements of the structure nor were they significant to the character of the carriage house. The rehabilitation work performed by the present owner, according to the certification application, included refinishing the interior woodwork; repairing existing wood sash, doors, and shutters on the balcony level; paving the existing gravel courtyard with exposed aggregate concrete; repairing the balcony elements; and replacing the wooden carriage doors with fanlights, sidelights, and French doors. 0 . 82-025 The regional office determined that the project did not meet Standards 2,4, and 5, primarily due to the infill designs for the elliptical-arched doorways. The denial letter < stated: Our office would have suggested, had the application been submitted before work was begun, an alternative design solution which would have incorporated a simple, contemporary entry into the large garage doors to 'scale down' the openings. The regional office also expressed reservations over the apparent replacement of the balcony balusters and the extensive amount of paving that occurred within the courtyard. The owner subsequently appealed the decision. After hearing the appeal, the decision was made to designate the work as a "certified rehabilitation." Although additional balusters were apparently installed on the balcony, the hearing officer determined that the replacement features maintained the simplicity in design and austere detailing that existed prior to rehabilitation. Regarding the courtyard space, the new paving covered the existing gravel surface, but its appearance as an informal courtyard and not a formal garden or patio was retained, preserving its historical and architectural integrity. The major source of concern was the infill design for the carriage house doors. The hearing officer agreed with the regional office that installation of fanlights, sidelights, and French doors was an extremely formal solution for adaptively reusing the existing doorways. A more appropriate approach would have been to design a doorway that incorporated as much of the character of the existing fabric so that the doors are able to maintain their original definition and historic character. Nevertheless, because the need for light and air in the first floor spaces was clearly established and no historic fabric was destroyed, the architectural elaboration of the , doorways was approved-although not recommended-as an acceptable treatment for this particular structure. Prepared by: Christopher A. Sowick, T PS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-025 1"11.1.11'll"mu*+* 1Â¤1 41â€ž .r ** mIll!1 L.-1==.â€ž.,7.*512...f I illill.i:~ --&.-*Â¢ Ii'Fl.'-I.Ir : - -14?71.4 Â¥* f, * - 14> â‚¬1 ./ Â· . ,-L-~â€ž:,. : .4. .1 1. Carriage house prior to recent 2. Completed rehabilitation rehabilitation. This view incorporates showing formal infill design, repaired 1934 changes, including interior balcony railing, and paved courtyard. alterations and wooden entrance doors This work was found to meet the Standards. in archway. B .. .41&0 CITW)(ASPEN 130 ~uth galena street asph, colorado~1611 303-925-1020 33 f w Â£4-1- fclfÂ« n -z fof - ~.yrt ''001Â·,fjt~1Â·ANKL. /\A , 9 1/.--/m P h./ 4 , 4 : 1 .It , - 2 4. 44. . > â€¢' i , * h.\ 0 9 1 ... 4 - . -Â· -I-: --/ .. . k - *-4-V 6 1 - 4-7 -7 - . r ---" WILLIAM J. POSS & Ai~IATES [LIEFI~ Â®[F T[Â®311*161Â®OFFAIL 605 E. Main St~ ASPEN, CO 81611 DATE JOB NO. 8-8-88 8712 (303) 925-4755 ATTENTION Roxanne RE: TO 334 West Hallam Roxanne Eflin City of Aspen - Planning Department RE 1 51988 WE ARE SENDING YOU Â® Attached m Under separate cover via the following items: m Shop drawings Â£ Prints m Plans C Samples m Specifications m Copy of letter E Change order El COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 7 8-8-88 Addendum THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: C] For approval U Approved as submitted C] Resubmit copies for approval IZ For your use m Approved as noted C] Submit-copies for distribution m As requested m Returned for corrections [J Return corrected prints U For review and comment [3 0 FOR BIDS DUF 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARpR f' tl r .)/ .6~-,c d TÂ· f.1,02. 16 7->ti 1Â£4 - (, t*do o j trg_641_ CAn,litÂ£ . 1 A./.4 14*1 j c . r l'Â·0(b. 010 1 '24 10 reÂ·Â·Â·,96 -tr,# --1-11 r , 6 010, te)644 CaÂ· 6 , 1 6-0 - *vi#41 4.6-r.Â¢ 4 ./\4- i. (reloe A. ho<~4 -troL- 400 CA , ..98+ t .Â· I -Y l -M (fo J + C i A 2 AY,-1'U~A Â£ 9 1 1-4 0 3 146'- -4 -trj jftL _je- < _401-4 4--rtalluff44 54-4. 11 4 r ... 4141 f r q Â¥ hot.-. 3 COPY TO SIGNED :4; Patricia Harris PRODUCT 240-3 NEail k &- M.1 01471. ;al&.ttj,._.,~* |f enclosures are not as noted. kindly notify us at once. AUG 1 5 I988 ; and associates 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 August 8, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Elfin Planning Office City Of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: We have submitted a copy of the enclosed prints as an addendum to the Building Permit. This includes the basement, interior wall revisions, enlargement of the lower east elevation windows for egress, and elimination of the storage door on the alley. I have enclosed one set of prints for your record, and one set for Joe Krabacher. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, 4 4 d U V-- Vt,-' T Â¥ A. u, 4- Patricia HarrÂ»62 Project Manager PH:gak encl. . KRABACHER. SCHIFFER & HILL P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUL 2 5 1988 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-6300 TELECOPIER (303) 925-1181 B JOSEPH KRABACHER OF COUNSEL SPENCER F. SCHIFFER BARRY D. EDWARDS THOMAS C. HILL July 21, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen-Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 334 W. Hallam Street Dear Roxanne: I have received and reviewed your letter and enclosures of July 13, 1988 regarding the above property. I have a couple of questions. First, the construction approach recommends removing the existing exterior siding and replacing it with half inch plywood sheathing. No where does the construction approach state that the exterior siding will then be utilized on the final carriage house. Perhaps I am in error, but I thought (or hoped) that the exterior siding would be retained to the extent possible. Second, the Harriman letter states that they are going to use 3/4 inch plywood sheathing. This is inconsistent with the letter from Ted Guy. As soon as final plans are available, I would appreciate it if you could forward them to me. I would also appreciate any other documents or information regarding conditions proposed by HPC. Very truly yours, KRABACHER, SCHIFFER & HILL, P.C. By: / Â©1- ~. Joseph Krabacher BJK/kmc BJK40/81 .. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspent colorado 81611 July 13, 1988 Joe Krabacher Member, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee P. 0. Box 8127 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Monitoring 334 West Hallam St. Dear Joe: Thank you for volunteering your time to monitor the development at 334 West Hallam. Trish Harris from Bill Poss & Associates will be bringing you a set of drawings. I have enclosed the most recently received structural response letters regarding the carriage house. At the June 28 meeting, HPC required that the applicant submit to staff a detailed description of the carriage house foundation implementation plan. I have enclosed two letters regarding same for your review. Please let me know if you discover any details which we have not covered. Feel free to contact me at any time with concerns or questions. Thank you, f'. :,1. 1 T : 1 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Specialist enclosures rig - ...~~,r Â·-- Â·,~-ve-â€¢Ir--7 -0,7-- 1 *-.27 ~rr'r-'-~'r-,1, 2 -p WILLIAM J. POSS & AS~IATES - V..r.....â€žr -, NEFI~ Â®F IFIEAIMIÂ©[00 OFFAIL 605 E. Main St. ASPEN, CO 81611 DATE JOB NO (303) 925-4755 ATTENTION Al *ANNFL Ef:Ll Al . RE: 1 *feR /*iTy fl-AlÂ© !61~07-7 5-31- W. rt-ALLAÂ¥Vl . 1600 4 6*teN>t. CA#{11AtA tÂ©liSE- A.WAR Co . â‚¬8 11 JUL 1 21088 \01 - - WE ARE SENDING YOU C] Attached El Under separate cover via .---- the following items:j C] Shop drawings El Prints El Plans E] Samples C] Specifications . ~Copy of letter C Change order rl COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 EA . 7 5 ~3 S aer t 11926, , emtICA.,911-l- PMEf-. AfA{*ft ' 1 PA -7/ ME, 14Ae.A MAN 01*LineciliN j GON 31*r-71 DN A,1 R72O THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: m For approval El Approved as submitted C] Resubmit copies for approval ;)<2 For your use El Approved as noted [3 Submit-copies for distribution 1<As requested m Returned for corrections El Return corrected prints El For review and comment U m FOR BIDS DLJE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO MUL SIGNED: PRODUCT 240-3 /N~ Int, Glomn, Mas& 01471. 1, If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. .-I ~m '; 177. THEODORE K ~ASSOCIATES PC ~ ARCHITECTS AND CTURAL ENGINEERS RECEIVED July 5, 1988 JUL 71988 BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES ASPEN, COLORADO William Poss William Poss &Associates 605 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE : 334 West Hallam 'f; ,11. 1 2 *28 Aspen, Colorado 6-ill ;'-- - -- f i Dear Bill: This letter is in follow up to our discussion regarding the possibility of providing a basement area below the Guest House of the above referenced project. Since the existing upper soils are found to be of a poor material, a new foundation is required. A basement space is easily justified with this new foundaUon construction. The construcUon approach recommended is as follows: 1. Remove the existing exterior sidIng and provide 1/2- plywood sheathing all around exterior. New window and door openings can be placed at this time. This will laterally brace the structure. 2. Provide additional bracing to maintain a square profile and stabilize the structure. 3. Utilize an experienced house mover to lift and shore the structure in place. The existing frame floor and walls should be lifted as a single unit and held in place during the foundalion work. 4. Excavation can proceed and a concrete foundation placed. To maintain the existing floor joists and decking, a new girder and pipe columns with pads may be required. 5. The structure can then be lowered on the foundaUon and backfill placed. If we can be of further service, please call our office. Sincerely, THEODORE K GUY ASSOUTES PC Â«44 Stephen K. Peiglflal Engineer SKP/lw 88502 Ll 351 STATE HIVVAY 82 P.O. BOX 1 640 BASALT, COLOAADO 81621 [303] 927-3167 JIR. 12~ HARRIMAN 1 , 1% E CONSTRUCTION INC. July 12, 1 988 William Poss and Associates 605 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Bill, The following is a brief description of how we intend to raise the carriage house at 334 West Hallam to assure that there will be no damage to the existing structure. The subcontractor will be Bailey Housemoving of-Grand Junction. They have been in the house moving business for many years and have never lost a building. They are fully insured. First our carpenters will remove the existing siding and apply new 3/8" exterior plywood to provide shear for the exterior walls. We will then brace the interior. Both the exterior shear panels and the interior bracing will meet the structural engineers specifications. The house mover will then use four cross beams which are 6" x 6" steel "H" beams placed under the exterior walls and floor system. These beams are then lifted by two 50 foot long 10" x 44" steel beams. The structure will be raised between 2 to 3 feet. After the basement walls are poured the building will be lowered into place at its original location. Sincerely, - 9447 .-,t--90--h . A 1 1 ar~ J n lun r(,EÂ®>m Vice President 409 Pacific Ave Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 1161 / Fax # [303] 925-2392 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Review, 334 W. Hallam St. Date: June 14, 1988 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC's final development review approval for the partial demolition, alterations, addition and carriage house renovation to the property at 334 W. Hallam St. BACKGROUND: On March 8, 1988, HPC passed a motion granting conceptual development approval, based upon the recommendations presented by Staff, adding the condition that no changes be made to the windows on the south, east and west elevations of the original structure. Specifically, the conditions approved on March 8 included restudying the greenhouse/sunspace addition to limit its size and scale in relation to the original historic structure, and that the large cottonwood in the east side-yard be retained, or a landscape plan be presented showing transplantation if it is demonstrated the tree cannot be saved. Also at that March 8 meeting, HPC recommended historic landmark designation. On April 6, 1988, the applicant returned to HPC requesting an amendment to the original conceptual approval regarding the sunspace design and attachment. HPC approved the applicant's request to create the necessary access into the sunspace from the original structure's living room by creating a doorway out of a window opening, thus altering the original structure. HPC also approved the revised sunspace design which was more rectangular and simple in design over the previous arched style. OTHER COMMITTEE ACTION: On May 3, P&Z recommended historic landmark designation, and Council approved the designation ordinance on first reading on May 9. Council's second reading occurs June 13. The applicant is requesting the $2,000 designation incentive grant which the property is eligible for due to its "5" rating. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Each element of this development plan is reviewed below: CARRIAGE HOUSE: Primarily, the treatment of the historic carriage house's renovation has been a sensitive issue. This project comes very close to being considered a demolition. As stated in previous memos, 334 W. Hallam St. is considered eligible for individual listing on the National Register of .. Historic Places, and the entire site's treatment is critical to its future listing. With that in mind, staff obtained an opinion from the State Historic Preservation Officer with regard to demolition definition in this case. Her opinion echoes staff's in that although nearly all of the original historic fabric must be replaced due to its dilapidated state, the structural members are sound and will remain in place to receive the new materials. Therefore, it remains defined as a partial demolition and reconstruction. The Planning Office continues to stress the importance of sensitivity in foundation underpinning and other renovation work. The applicant has verbally stated the possible need to lift the carriage house up on-site to pour the new foundation. This activity is not recommended by staff due to the obvious risks, and other methods for foundation underpinning and shoring should be researched. Aspen is losing historic outbuildings annually, and (to coin a phrase): "Once they're gone, that's it!" The Carriage house plans remain similar to those approved at Conceptual review. It will be a two-bedroom dwelling unit, with a 4' expansion added to the east facade, carrying through the same lines as the existing structure. The applicant states the design "retains its appearance as a secondary building to the main structure". In staff's opinion, it goes to the farthest extreme of keeping its "carriage house" feel. However, in support of the project the revised design plans do show much simplified elevations in comparison to the previously submitted conceptual plans. The small west elevation porch is simple, however, it does encroach into the setback, requiring HPC to grant a variation in their motion finding such encroachment to be more compatible with the historic structure. The west elevation reflects a second story tri-parte arched window, definitely a contemporary design element and appearing quite dominant. Other elevations show simple fenestration, using double hung windows and some divisions. The gable peak height remains identical to the existing height. The renovation and enlargement of the Carriage House is considered Phase 1, scheduled to occur this summer, allowing the owners to occupy it while the main historic home is receiving its new addition and restoration. Materials are called out in that section. PARKING: As required in code, one parking space must be provided on-site per each NEW bedroom created. The current site contains two spaces for the existing house, which have served this four-bedroom home for years however, two additional spaces for the two bedrooms created in the renovated carriage house must still be provided. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan (Option B) showing such parking allocation, however, two of the four spaces proposed encroach into the city's right of way. The applicant is currently addressing this issue with the City's 2 .. Engineering department, stating the precedent for on-site right- of-way parking has been set for years in the West End. The applicant has the option of appearing before P&Z in special review to request a reduction in required parking, or appear before Council with a request for an encroachment license. The original conceptual plans approved by HPC included one parking space inside the carriage house/garage, accessed off 3rd St. This plan has been amended, as the owners prefer to utilize the carriage house totally as an additional dwelling unit, not as a storage space for "modern carriages". It is staff's recommendation that the applicant pursue the Council/right-of-way encroachment review procedure, which will provide the four spaces on site. Although P&Z is the review body for parking issues, HPC's purview for review is linked to its affects on the historic character, integrity and aesthetics of the site or historic structure on such site. For HPC information only, the Engineering department has brought to staff's attention the necessary curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements required by property owners along 3rd Street when any development is permitted. These required improvements are due to 3rd Street serving as a major route to the Music Tent. The parking/curb cut issue is also connected with these improvements. The applicant is aware of the required improvements. MAIN STRUCTURE AND ADDITION: No changes from conceptual development approval and subsequent amendment are proposed with regard to main historic structure and the addition, considered Phase 2 by the applicant. The letter submitted by the engineer regarding structural stability states the historic main home is very sound and that the partial demolition and new addition will not undermine its integrity. The rear addition, replacing the earlier one which will be removed, steps back slightly from the original house on the east elevation. The sunspace links both old and new, with access into it from both areas. The sunspace will be custom built very similarly to the example of the attached photo. The east side yard fence remains, mostly screening the sunspace from Hallam Street. THE WEST (3rd St.) ELEVATION plans show a projecting bay window in the center of the second floor. Although the overall size of this bay window has not been reduced as briefly discussed as a desired possible option by HPC, at appears tucked under the overhang and less dominant. Staff's concerns were, and still are, competing south and west facades, the south being the primary and historic facade, setting the character for the remainder of the house, addition, attached garage and carriage house. Currently, the 3rd Street (west) elevation reads plainer, with no fancy detailing or projections. The only breaks in the elevation are the vertical double hung windows, allowing the Hallam Street (main) facade to shine as the home's focal 3 .. point. Staff is concerned that new attention-getting details on the 3rd St. elevation will dilute the importance of the historic facade. To offset the new detailing the doors and fenestration remain simple and unchanged from conceptual, very nicely and compatibly designed, in staff's opinion. The garage is a one car structure, and staff finds no reference to door materials, which should be determined by HPC at this final review. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): The previously submitted FAR calculations did not include the basement under the new addition. The following table describes the new calculations: Lot size: 9,000 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 4,080 sq. ft. Main structure with addition 2,749 sq. ft. Basement under addition 251 sq. ft. Garage 310 sq. ft. Carriage House, both floors 1,270 sq. ft. Total FAR: 4,580 sq. ft. This is exactly 500 sq. ft. over the allowed limit, which HPC may approve finding such variation in FAR more compatible with the historic structure. Staff recommends HPC approve the FAR variation and include such finding in the motion. By adaptively using the carriage house as a dwelling unit, the FAR is increased. PHASE 2 RESTORATION: As stated in previous memos, this home is of particular importance to the overall historic character of the West End. It appears on the cover the Historic Preservation Element, its locale on such a prominent corner makes an important statement in the historic West End, its original owner, Eugene Wilder, was of particular importance in Aspen's early development, its special design elements are unique in Aspen AND it is eligible for individual listing on the National Register. The Planning Office is excited to see such a comprehensive plan of renovation, adaptive use, new addition and restoration all wrapped up in one project. The Planning Office recommends that every effort be made to preserve and carefully restore those details that make this property a true Aspen historic landmark, exemplary of Aspen's history. MATERIALS: A complete listing of the major materials to be used is attached. In summary, the new siding on both the main and carriage house will match the existing, which is 1X4 clapboard and will be painted. The existing clapboard siding on the historic home is in very good shape for being nearly 100 years old, and will be repaired and repainted as suggested in the National Park Service' s "Preservation Briefs". Existing historic wood windows will also be repaired and repainted using technical information and guidance from "Preservation Briefs". Roofing materials will be wood shingle on both the carriage house and 4 .. . main structure. Windows are all traditional wood easement-type and double hung as the plans reflect. These materials are of high quality and acceptable to staff. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the partial demolition and final development of 334 West Hallam Street, granting the following variations: 1. The encroachment of the new porch of the carriage house into the required setback is found to be more compatible to the historic structure, and that 2. The FAR limit has been exceeded by 500 sq. ft., due to the adaptive renovation of the historic carriage house, which HPC finds to be more compatible with the historic structure. The Planning Office also recommends that the carriage house not be li#ted up for foundation repair or replacement purposes, and remain situated on the site. hpc.memo.334WHF 5 .. MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Roxanne Eflin From: Alan Richman Postmark: Jun 08,88 9:40 AM Subject: Reply to: 334 W. Hallam parking Reply text: From Alan Richman: 1 The adequacy of the design/location should be reviewed with a member of Engineering. If they OK, then I have no concern. Preceding message: From Roxanne Eflin: Final development review is scheduled with HPC June 14, I am writing memo now. The required two new parking spaces are being provided on site, however, they extend slightly into the right of way. Bill Poss intends to show this is more common than not throughout the west end. The parking area will be paved, and is 10' from the curb, so no "crowding" is occurring. Is this O. K.? The important issues as I see it in reviewing the Code is that the required spaces are being provided ON SITE, and no special review for parking reduction will be necessary through P&Z. Please respond ASAP I need to let Bill now. ------- .. .. *73 0 APPL ICAT ION FOR H IST ORI C PRES ERVAT ION COMM rrT EE REV I EW A. Name of Applicant: Marta Chaikovska and Frank E. Peters B. Authorization by owner for Representative to Submit Appli- cation: See attached. C. Name and Location of Property: 334 West Hallam Avenue, Block 42, Lots K, L and M. D. Description of Proposal: See attached letter. E. List elevation plans, site plan, detail drawings, historic photographs, current photographs, etc. which are being submitted with this application: Site Plan. survey. existing floor plans, existing elevations, proposed elevations, historic inventories (National and City of Aspen), photo of property, Sandborne Map, structural observation. F. Building Materials: To match existing: wood shingle roof, narrow clapboard siding, corner boards. G. Colors: To match existing. H. Illumination: N/A I. Signage: N/A J. Effect of the proposal on the oripinal design and architectural elements: See attached letter tor specifics. K. Identify encroachment licenses or other City approvals needed by applicant: P&Z approval of ripsignation; City Council approval of designation; P&Z approval of setback encroachments on the designated property. JAN- -> Â·- 12=01 P.02/02 .. Industries, Inc. ip i.(1 1 Il~ ~ MAY31 38 ~ January 26, 1988 J Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 334 W. Hallam St. Lots L,K,M, Block 42 Town of Aspen Dear Steve: ' Acting as the owner Of the above referred lot and as the applicant Marta Chaikovska of 334 West Hallam, 925-2272 - I hereby authorize the following to act as my representative during the HPC review of the above referenced project: Bill Poss & Assoc. 605 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel. 925-4755 Kind regards. / 4- .... Marta Chaikovska 370 Brook Street Elgin, Illinois 60120 312/931-5430 1-1., ..L~ / Ill..., 3 >d M _ ~ 524 r. 167 ~ 2 Â·Â·47Â·Â· â€¢â€žn N.Â· 44' bi.*4 cl f 53 â‚¬ O 4 ./ WARRANTY DEED -]1 , 4 11 iI OBV 72/1-IÂ· r-' f ar N {i 32 .... ~': ~ _~ ~~ THIS DFED. U~. 4 s #2 44 I*Ct rÂ¥,et-42- io . M.ION 1. In an â‚¬ ..9 ti - a It ~". W Â·4 Ihe . =9=49-0'9, Pit.i. ..5-04 . :2 I'*-4 Â·wl Â· r 4. Â· . 42. .lt b Â°33:-'-' rit,Z'IXID#VI~t~ and FRAK E. p ERS . i= -d r 4 71 . e - id t â€¢b.*bid,wink Post Office Box 9698. Aipin. Colorado 81612 3 - I 1Â·4 ' + 4. t .>41 Pitkin -4 2- d C*â€¢ado. F-ME 4..1 â€¢â€¢00-4 TEN ($10.00) AND OTHER GOOD AND .'.4.* 223 'b,AUUM. Collm=.m,1 DOUAKS. :,VA ....... a . 2 Il.Flibâ€¢~11-d.-Idandc-,d.*b, Irâ€¢, P-*-0,-t .1- 0. 1 1 - 24.2 1 45 4.=04;iwiw."'~ , .* , d.>. M.*,ty., -4 bcâ€¢al -â€¢c i litkin ... *d 51- 01 Cokic,<10 de,ntâ€¢N . 6,11~~ up~ U 1 1 - ./61â‚¬69 . Â·*fÂ·$- d ~ Â¢ 4 City - 1*I,nitte of hpin 4 92*i /--1 Â¢ 6 STATE DOCUENTARY FEE ZUAR .5 5.Â¢.4 . 1 1 .-t .0 :f Â¥ 1/4'-11' IED 3 /8 :41 .' >.2 Rt'lk ~ - 1 59.50 ..t 4 1.40/? 0 9 1 ./ 7 - /Â·~C./. ......ya...,,2,.....: 334 West Hallam, Aspen. Col orado 81611 . TOGETHER v â€¢*11: Imilla,u- 0â€¢rheNdâ€¢â€¢mentâ€¢ aad arrworâ€¢,4. r, Ihrâ€¢câ€¢, trkâ€¢,Fier .. m mi.iâ€ž apeÂ·,1â€žnin, ah.! t rew-â€¢.â€¢: 4 gfnâ€¢-. R-â€¢â€¢der -d M,0-~drn. mâ€¢â€¢. iâ€¢-râ€¢ -4 1,04'â€¢ *Irra,1 "J Â»11 th' B.'*r n,h, 1,16: 09-"Â·'i .1.4,1, .f.j 'Se,n..,d ."i....,I- t.: t,4 , ////1.,1, ./dift / 1.I 1 /,/I/*6 0~ I a,d In Ihc div W,mmd prmâ€¢â€¢câ€¢. â€¢ *h /ht A-4,1â€¢t/â€¢ir- 0.1 *hrlrn 4,Â·. 4 To HAVE ND TO 110LD *,r â€¢-1 r.... alâ€¢â€¢c h.4.41.4 -â€¢t .trâ€¢.nh,4 .Mh ihr 0â€ž...râ€¢ w,11 t, ,i.nt. h,Â· hi,i. .,C ...gn. i: 6-Â·â€¢rf AMMEP/*,1 0,â€¢h-nelf h,â€¢hcln. -d;,rn.â€¢~.1,rrâ€¢râ€¢,-An.. 1.....r,#M r,#M h.,t... 0.1 ..frt h, ,â€¢..inith. rÂ·.r=ta n â€¢h,# .., I.,10-0 11- 0 Ac t-12 4,1 Ih, ta,4411,0 -1 *414-, 111 1~,rwprrâ€¢Â¢â€¢1â€¢ hr i, â€¢(It Fird ,â€¢t IA p,rrns.c~ *,4.,-,ew.1 hâ€ž ,Â·..1 u. tâ€¢ '14.1 Stâ€¢â€¢â€ž â€¢,uk '1 , 1 , Â·4 0.1-rle..oNÂ¢ c.1- 4 *W).Ir.-bâ€¢ - teÂ¢ .4* 4 â€¢â€¢ 0,1 lulltâ€¢Ki *â€¢1 ...1.1 *44 1. Â· 4 h.. , .14 7 11 /4,#r . 2 â€žrâ€¢N , M manâ€¢/1 -41 1.â€¢1% . 0//.,0.1 0â€¢J â€¢hâ€¢â€¢ thÂ¢ u,â€¢1, * 1â€¢vi /4 41â€¢â€¢, trâ€¢-i â€¢11 1â€¢-1 .4 Â·â€¢D.1 ,Â·i.,i, h..iâ€ž i Â· ukÂ·. â€¢en. 1.â€¢c. i.-~,~mâ€¢ 'â€¢'â€¢ 1 â‚¬a.,imi.*. ..Irre.,â€¢e. â€¢4 â€¢hâ€¢ler, A-1,â€¢.,â€¢fr â€¢â€¢nr, c.â€¢Crâ€¢ FOR AND SUB.!r.CT TI) THE FALLOW I:â€¢; : (Â·eneral property taxen for 1986 and thereafter payable in 1927 and ther,Â·after; 41Â·~,Â·rva- tions and excepts in Patent recorded in Mook 1 39 at P-Re 214. M 1 1.9 B 1 0 \, is BEING TO T,{r. REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF }'llkIN WIN: 4. 01.(,KA!)0. T h. 10*â€¢ â€¢hal -O -,11 MARN Â©41 A V/4 -1 %1 N IM 11 CHN .4-, h.Â·, .rn. J ,â€¢ â€¢,Â»â€¢ , in 4 . 'â€ž .,1 '1. . .... r.. W , ... . '.1 r..11. 1,â€¢â€¢hrâ€¢â€¢,â€¢â€¢14,â€¢i,/â€¢ 4,madâ€žfrrfi Fmmâ€¢â€¢Fâ€¢,Â·-â€¢ Iâ€¢â€¢1â€¢;'% â€¢t,m.n, :h .kÂ·k .q m. fâ€¢*â€¢1 t'~ r.â€¢4 lh.â€žâ€¢.,... râ€¢ur'~, fi., '~ I...b t.~ ... thÂ¢ plural :hr â€¢104 1,â€¢â€¢f â€¢#' Phr Vy i,4 -i Wrok' AIN N arri..,4. I ,.it s..A*f. 10 4% It,/'* w H, 1(,4Â». 1,. " / 0 . I Ma r Kt, 11. (Â·et , 0/ 411 / 4 1 C 11 i * %| 1 ' j./ 1 '*â€¢" 04 Pitkin < '...../ U.. I. ritkin . I i. 8 6 ., ;â€¢Arit'â€ž R. 1.,Â·t / â€¢ ... K .1..$1 â€ž44. .t- .4 1 7, , ' 1/ /| . . /. . 44*,1 ./ , 4 I r. . - 0 1 f 0 -1-1,' - $ 1 .... 4. . Il i \\\\4\\\\ \12 3 * 6~ 41* 180 MA 3 1 26 . 111 / 7-0.- *:. eli 10 9 10 111213 14 15 16 1 N.- T. 0 Ilp\Â© "H ' CITY H /H H , 2 60 A - 9 0 V. 1 - h H _ ~-6 1 -/ 1 4 1 1 9 le Â·, H. 4 . 4 7 .-7nl - 'Hl M .'35-4 H W, HALLAM ST. ~L rpÂ»o, fetÂ»Frf 11"- 1 - I 0 9-Â® - 1 ./ _ IN -W tt I , t; - W. BLEEKER ST. - , -- HW Ho C H M; .9 e H-j f 1 63 an 3 _ .-- .-I LL - H- 1 1 lill' 1 Z Ch _ U) 01414 4 z Z 4-*#-tW=&- I . >*1*.1 -V lei H+7 --/ : ./. ST. .*/7/11-: - , , / .Bk , 19 - 0 Itt . . w - M. H k - P. A. - W. - HOPKINS -' AVE--,- ,"Ili ./ I".. 0 ' 2 ' ' I . ..>4 t. I '.../ -, 1 -1.- :. :i ' * I + I : Â· I-' - H ~ c b c def g h J ..1; -----*-----==- , 0 8 M I 1 0 klmnopqrs 1 0 g/ HOSIMIWS N L WILLIAM J. POSS & AS~IATES 0=IEFF*8 Â®F F[BAES[mOTTFAJEL 605 E. Main St ASPEN, CO 81611 DATE JOB NO. May 31, 1988 8712 (303) 925-4755 ATTENTION Ms. Roxanne Eflin RE: r TO Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 334 West Hallam Avenue HPC Final Development Approval 130 South Galena Street Request -- Â·---- ---364-1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 , MAY 31 Â£,h\ b - WE ARE SENDING YOU Kl Attached [3 Under separate cover via the following items: 4 0 Shop drawings m Prints K] Plans m Samples m Specifications n 1â‚¬ Â· Â£ Copy of letter C] Change order COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 ea. 1-26-88 Representative Authorization Letter 12-3-86 Disclosure of Ownership (Warranty Deed) .4 . Vicinity Map 4 5-27-88 Letters Outlining Proposed Development Re: Standards for Designation and Re: Development 5-27-88 Representation of Materials 5-27-88 Plans and Elevations THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: m For approval m Approved as submitted El Resubmit copies for approval K] For your use C] Approved as noted [3 Submit-copies for distribution C] As requested [3 Returned for corrections D Return corrected prints E] For review and comment E] m FOR BIDS DUE 19 m PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS File ~ COPY TO SIGNED: '0~,14 PRODUCT 240-3 /7923*7*on, M= 01471 .*..â€ž~~. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. J - -- ... ... .1--I'-2. -- IMPORTABLT MESSAGE FOR DATE w / TIME J ) 051 1 - 71 , 0: 03-tz. M 33 4 ip ji a.Â£14~ OF TELEPHONED PI-IONE 6~4 1 *40 ETUANED AREA CODE NUMBEA MESSAGE /'~~~EC>~ YOUR CALL (ILE:) WILL CALL AGAIN CAME 0 eu_ tÂ»Â» --fO SEE YOU A k/ANTS -Erieu+l ocly fO SEE YOU Sl NED c.'illgI , e-3 ~ FORM 4006 arto #3-en ck- -D 0 4 9% e CITY OF ASPEN A~A MEMO FROM ROXANNE EFLIN Historic Preservation Specialist 1 9 LOOJJ , 1- Atht f- f - - Ii---1.--h---- 1-4 Ed )A-CA_&-4- , E BLC'-1Â£ C-U/L-6 â‚¬ C Clu com ' f-- #C *-ffiÂ«-----f~litÂ« oc---- *gÂ«z~_---_ r 401. Li ~Â« C W.* Nvit . . I t' c_or- ballÂ»3 ad U- . 9/DA - do, trot+floff Elf cake - Atâ‚¬4 3 S. On 6 (0 70 -6 . 24-A- i>kE_1 3~Zj- 2-_ (k-Ru~*_- -4443- - /963 ~ l_ Â¢1J-\ S {0 v * 9%4 -93 --1 + a40-6 - 08 - + 011 134 1--9 (34-6 - UW- _24.-60 --EK--- f tÂ»th*_UNalso -- fal rt * f.- CÂ«t 62 APO CÂ·QÂ« 1 el _-20Â«-a-oLct Fmt- Ili ~cÂ«0/1 ~ _ ciLLL- copÂ« 44- AL.lia- O k TÂ«+ f0Â¢ CL 4 MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Roxanne Eflin From: Steve Burstein Postmark: Apr 19,88 9:12 AM Subject: Reply to: 334 W. Hallam - carriage house Reply text: From Steve Burstein: I suggest that you check the minutes & packet submittal to compare what the applicant presented to what they now propose. I thought that they had been committed to saving as much of the siding as possible, probably reroofing, including removal of old dormer & replacement with new dormers, and that was about it. Are you concerned about this because you fear that if we call it demolition they will be more wreckless and demo the whole structure; or is fairness the issue? Preceding message: From Roxanne Eflin: The question is: is it a full or just partial demolition, as a majority of the historic fabric is being replaced with new? And does this warrant another public notice (the first appeared 2-18 for the 3-8-88 HPC meeting). I feel the applicant continues to present similar information that they will re-use as much material as possible, which was also the direction given them by HPC. Complete demolition was denied.I believe staff has presented the situation with our concerns, and HPC has given direction to the applicant. I am unsure how to proceed - the applicant is on hold. .. . e: 4,31 454 ,~A 'Vic fILAWL'YARAT / 41 Lt-- 16 1,Â£1 -- ylo-1 Catj / a,/L fÂ·lk-_ aw *wria Â»t, Â«,utkn.C /,d . /O 171 l k<Un -Cla C 1/al- I 1 (Mu 4 Ag-talbilk# d A . c-E Â«f- A >Ette 1 GU.,x MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Roxanne Eflin From: Steve Burstein Postmark: Apr 19,88 9:12 AM Subject: Reply to: 334 W. Hallam - carriage house Reply text: From Steve Burstein: I suggest that you check the minutes & packet submittal to compare what the applicant presented to what they now propose. I thought that they had been committed to saving as much of the siding as possible, probably reroofing, including removal of old dormer & replacement with new dormers, and that was about it. Are you concerned about this because you fear that if we call it demolition they will be more wreckless and demo the whole structure; or is fairness the issue? Preceding message: From Roxanne Eflin: The question is: is it a full or just partial demolition, as a majority of the historic fabric is being replaced with new? And does this warrant another public notice (the first appeared 2-18 for the 3-8-88 HPC meeting). I feel the applicant continues to present similar information that they will re-use as much material as possible, which was also the direction given them by HPC. Complete demolition was denied.I believe staff has presented the situation with our concerns, and HPC has given direction to the applicant. I am unsure how to proceed - the applicant is on hold. ------- .. VI.C,1 .. MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Roxanne Eflin From: Steve Burstein Postmark: Apr 18,88 11:34 AM Subject: 334 W. Hallam Carriage House Demo Message: If you conclude that the substntial renovation of the carriage house amounts to complete demolition, I suggest you write Trish a letter to inform her. The public notice provision of the Code cannot be waived; and it is as much for the applicant's protection as for anyone. It'd be terribly misleading to not do it, in my opinion. Please review the demo submission & review reqs and ask Trish for any supporting info you need before you can schedule the P. H. (i.e. structural engineer's letter,...) ------- .. L f . 1 Dil . 10 1:3. 0.1 i \\ .44 1988 ; and associates i 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 April 14, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Carriage House Renovation 334 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K, L and M City of Aspen Dear Steve: The purpose of this letter is to explain the renovation of the existing carriage house at 334 West Hallam Avenue. We will be removing and restructuring the existing roof along the historic lines to carry today's loads, per our engineer's recommendation--2KS rafters and a 5'-1/8" x 12" glu-lam ridge beam. The new roof will be wood shingles to match the original and that of the main residential structure. Due to the poor condition of the existing siding (which suffers from extensive dry rot damage), we will be removing most of it and will replace it with new to match the existing narrow horizontal clapboard siding. We have investigated the existing foundation and found it, at best, minimal for the proposed loads. It is an 8" concrete block resting on a poured concrete slab, approximately 9" in thickness. We will need to supplement it with additional foundations as our structural engineer recommends. In summary, this is an extensive renovation project, leaving a skeleton of the structure as it now stands, and adding 3'-0" to the east (yard side) of the building. . . Mr. Steve Burstein April 14, 1988 Page two ~ and associates Steve, if you decide that the work we are doing for this structure truly qualifies as a demolition, please inform me of your decision as soon as possible. I would ask you, if demolition review is your requirement, to work with Roxanne and schedule us to present our project at the next Historic ~ Preservation Committee meeting on April 26, 1988. Also, I ask that, should you decide on demolition review, we not have to repeat the process of posting public notice of demolition for the carriage house, and repeat mailings. We went through this process less than two months ago (February 26, 1988), and at the public hearing only two people appeared, whom I have been in contact with since. If you have any questions, please call me. Patricia Harris Project Manager PH:dem PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 334 W. HALLAM HISTORIC DESIGNATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 3, 1988, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, to consider an application for Historic Designation at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 42, Townsite and City of Aspen. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 282. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 14, 1988. City of Aspen Account. A Pril / 1 -1 0 -1 -1 1 605 EAST MAIN STREET -p ASPEN,COLORADO81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: REVISED 3/3/88 ZONING R-6 9,000 S.F. Lot Area: Existing 1-louse Floor Area: 2,907.6 S.F. Proposed Addition Floor Area: 458.4 S.F. Proposed Total House Floor Area: 3,366 S.F. Maximum Allowed Floor Area: 4,580 S.F. Existing Carriage House Floor Area: 1,144 S.F. Proposed Carriage House Floor Area: 1,280 S.F. Proposed Garage Area: 230 S.F. Maximum Allowed Area: 500 S.F. Existing Site Coverage: 2,090 S.F. (23%) Allowable Site Coverage: 2,700 S.F. (30%) Â£-C Proposed Site Coverage: -4 , u Â·-â€¢ J S.F. (30%) PROPOSED DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURE: Total Front-Rear Setbacks Proposed: 45 Feet f Minimum Allowed Front-Rear Setbacks: 30 Feet # Total Side Yards Proposed: 40 Feet Minimum Allowed Total Side Yards: 25 Feet PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE DEVELOPMENT: Total Front-Rear Setbacks Proposed: 53 Feet Minimum Allowed Front-Rear Setbacks: Feet Total Side Yards Proposed: 11 Feet Minimum Allowed Total Side Yards: 25 Feet With regard to the encroachment in the Alley and on Third Street, we are utilizing the Variance Setback Incentive allowed with the (Proposed) Historic Designation. Trl.~... 11- ; '.1 . 2.7.. - 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: REVISED 3/3/88 ZONING R-6 Lot Area: 9,000 S.F. Existing House Floor Area: 2,907.6 S.F. Proposed Addition Floor Area: 458.4 S.F. Proposed Total House Floor Area: 3,366 S.F. Maximum Allowed Floor Area: 4,580 S.F. Existing Carriage House Floor Area: 1,144 S.F. Proposed Carriage House Floor Area: 1,280 S.F. 1 S.F. Proposed Garage Area: 6 /MI Maximum Allowed Area: 500 S.F. Existing Site Coverage: 2,090 S.F. (23%) Allowable Site Coverage: 2,700 S.F. (30%) Proposed Site Coverage: 2,635 S.F. (30%) PROPOSED DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURE: Total Front-Rear Setbacks Proposed: 45 Feet Minimum Allowed Front-Rear Setbacks: Feet i Total Side Yards Proposed: 40 Feet Minimum Allowed Total Side Yards: , 25 Feet PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE DEVELOPMENT: 'r.-7 Total Front-Rear Setbacks Proposed: J Â·.> Feet Minimum Allowed Front-Rear Setbacks: 30 Feet Total Side Yards Proposed: 11 Feet Minimum Allowed Total Side Yards: 25 Feet With regard to the encroachment in the Alley and on Third Street, we are utilizing the Variance Setback Incentive allowed with the (Proposed) Historic Designation. 7 r v.. ,:1 : ~ MESSAGE DISPLAY ~ TO Steve Burstein From: Alan Richman Postmark: Mar 11,88 10:33 AM Status: Previously read Subject: Reply to: 334 W. Hallam St. Historic Designation: P&Z Review Reply text: From Alan Richman: Are you asking me for anything? I can't tell. Preceding message: From Steve Burstein: On March 8, 1988 HPC recommended in favor of historic designation of 334 W. Hallam. At the meeting, the applicant changed the initial proposal for two detached units to a duplex configuration (9,000 s.f. parcel). Some HPC members preferred the detached approach; and the motion passed included a condition to further study detached. Today the applicant indicated the application is for a duplex by right and not the conditional use for detached units. I explained that if HPC does not approve the attachment between the carriage house & main house, they may need to apply for conditional use later. P&Z Time. t it f 6 216. ~ MESSAGE DISPLAY ~ TO Steve Burstein From: Alan Richman Postmark: Mar 11,88 10: 56 AM Status: Previously read Subject: Reply to a reply: 334 W. Hallam St. Historic Designation: P&Z Revie Reply text: From Alan Richman: We can schedule for 1st P&Z in May for designation only, provided envelopes for notice are gotten in time. You can tell Nancy to put it on that agenda, for Roxanne to handle. If the conditional use is submitted, we can consolidate if notice time/referral time is adequate. Preceding message: From Steve Burstein: I ran out of space. I suggested that they request conditional use approval as a "back up" in case HPC turned down the attachment; but they can do as they wish. Do you agree? Would you please schedule for P&Z (public hearing)? From Alan Richman: Are you asking me for anything? I can't tell. From Steve Burstein: On March 8, 1988 HPC recommended in favor of historic designation of 334 W. Hallam. At the meeting, the applicant changed the initial proposal for two detached units to a duplex configuration (9,000 s.f. parcel). Some HPC members preferred the detached approach; and the motion passed included a condition to further study detached. Today the applicant indicated the application is for a duplex by right and not the conditional use for detached units. I explained that if HPC does not approve the attachment between the carriage house & main house, they may need to apply for conditional use later. P&Z Time. ------- .. .. P--not - MEMORANDUM OÂ»u fc TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Uttkra CÂ¢71Ulf*Â·~-- ~ FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 334 W. Hallam Street, Designation, Demolition and Conceptual Development Review DATE: February 24, 1988 LOCATION: 334 W. Hallam Avenue, Block 42, Lots K, L and M, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval, with request for carriage house demolition and re- placement with a new two-story structure similar in size. Also, northern portion of the main house would be demolished and re- placed with a new addition; greenhouse would be attached to east side of main house. SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Refer to applicant's letter of 2-16-88 (attached). HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: 5 PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: The applicants are requesting HPC's recommendation for historic designation and conceptual development approval at this meeting. The applicant's next step is review by the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain their recommendation on historic designation. City Council would then hold first and second reading of an ordinance to accomplish designation. Applicants are also requesting partial demolition of the main house and entire two-story carriage house. A com- plete application must be submitted as stated in Sec. 24-9.5(c) Procedure for Review of Applications for Demolition. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Director the HPC shall hold at least one public hearing on its consideration of application, with public notice posted on site and published in the newspaper. Written notice must be sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the property. It should be noted under Sec. 24-9.5(a) Demolition of Historic Structures that "No demolition and total removal of a Historic Landmark or any structure within a "H" Historic Overlay District or any structure rated as a "4" or a "5" by the HPC...shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the stan- dards of Sec. 24-9.5(b)(1) through (6). PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: On February 23, 1988 HPC held a pre- application meeting with Trish Harris, as associate of Bill Poss and Associates, Architecture and Planning to discuss historic .. designation, demolition of the carriage house and partial demo- lition of the main house, as well as new additions and develop- ment review of the entire project. The memo from the Planning Officer for that meeting listed 12 issues for HPC consideration. As a quorum was not available for this item (Chairman Poss stepped down) discussion with three members included: no interest in the carriage house demolition with recommendations for rehab development, toning down architectural details, aiming to keep carriage house facade as close in design to original function as possible; moving proposed greenhouse attachment to newer main house addition, retaining all original architectural elements and restoring where possible; retaining large tree in east side yard (not possible with proposed greenhouse addition); simplify architectural details of entire project. Applicant's representative stated carriage house is unsound structurally per findings from Theodore K. Guy Associates, PC, Structural Engi- neers. PRIOR DISCUSSION: Standards for historic designation are stated in Section 24-9.3(a) of the Municipal Code. The standards for demolition of historic structures are stated in Section 24-9.5 of the Municipal Code. The development review standards are stated in Section 24-9.4(d) of the Municipal Code. Following are Planning Office's comments in response to the above standards: Historic Designation Standards 1. Standard: The structure or site is commonly identified with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The home and carriage house are significant in their architectural design and are associated with Eugene Wilder of the Aspen Lumber Company (one of Aspen's oldest establish- ments). 2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: Constructed c.1885, the front elevation of this two story home is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small panes of stained glass. The quality detailing throughout the front facade and its highly visable corner location, make this entire property exemplary of Victorian residential architecture. Please note that a nomination of this property to the National Register of Historic Places was proposed, and it was determined to be eligible. In addition, the home is featured on the cover of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element. The carriage house and simple fenestration of the east and west 2 .. facades of the main house blend together well. Carriage houses are commonly found throughout the immediate neighborhood, as well as the "Hallam Lake District", most are original and have renovated in such a way as to maintain the integrity yet be utilized for modern living uses. 3. Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing charac- teristics of a significant or unique architectural type or speci- men. Response: The Wilder House embodies the characteristics of the gabled "L" with Victorian detailing elements, identified in the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines", as an historic architectural style in Aspen. 4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The Wilder House was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber and may have been built by The Aspen Lumber Company, established c.1880-1882, according to Barbara Norgren, preserva- tion consultant who prepared the National Register nomination for this property. The house displays a high degree of craftsman- ship which was available in Aspen at the time of its construe- tion. Through careful restoration of the original elements, this house has retained much of its original integrity. Demolition Review Standards 1. Standard: The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. Response: The applicant is requesting to demolish portions of the main house, those portions that were additions to the ori- ginal structure. The additions include (a) the partial two story attachment to the northwest of the original main house and (b) a full two story addition to the northeast which flattens out the newer roof line. No evidence has been submitted showing unsound structural integrity to the main house. The applicant did note that the foundation appears to be very shallow and did not extend around the full perimeter of the additions. The applicant is requesting entire demolition of the carriage house. The attached engineer's report states that the present carriage house foundation system extends down a very minimum distance, possibly 12 inches, and that upon further investigation a new foundation system may be recommended. The report also states the original roof frame system is functional yet is undersized for todays load criteria, and recommended a entire new roof structure. Also that the existing upper floor system is 3 .. approximately 25% of the structure required and recommends a new floor system be provided. Evidence of proper maintainance of the carriage house has not been submitted. As stated in the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, (Structural System section): "Recommended: Re- pairing the structural system by augmenting or upgrading individual parts or features. Substitute material should convey the same form, design, and overall visual appearance as the his- toric feature." In our opinion, the original carriage house possesses fairly high historic architectural significance and warrants being upgraded with structural foundation improvements and siding replacement as necessary. The removal of the shed roof dormer added more recently would enhance the structure. 2. Standard: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Response: Renovated carriage houses are found commonly throughout this neighborhood, with a variety of different uses. The subject carriage house is very large and original to the pro- perty, complementing the main residence, and could provide enough square footage for a garage and living quarters as proposed. The Planning Office strongly recommends the applicant address all economic feasibility issues of rehabilitation and resuse of the carriage house. That portion planned for demolition of the main house is of the newer addition, which when constructed changed the angle of the original roof slope; the demarcation of the old gable and addition is clearly evident. The carport between the house and carriage house is also to be demolished; it is of newer construction and has no historic significance. Should the applicant be encouraged to save and rehabilitate those portions of the main house rather than undertake the proposed partial demolition? 3. Standard: The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. Response: The applicant states the unsound structural condi- tion of the carriage house makes it impossible to move. In our opinion, on-site preservation of the carriage house is preferable and would prevent relocating the structure. We believe that it is reasonable for the applicant to pursue relocation to a new site if on-site preservation can-not be practicably carried through. Neighborhood compatibility of the new site would then need to be examined. 4. Standard: A demolition or redevelopment plan is submitted which mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood. Response: The applicant states the part of the main struc- 4 .. ture planned for demolition is in the middle and rear portion, and will have minimum impact on the character of the neighbor- hood. Also the applicant states the demolition of the carriage house will have no great impact to the neighborhood. Planning Office comments pertaining to this standard follow in Conceptual Development review. Carriage houses in this neighborhood and particularly as comp- limentary outbuildings to larger, main residences are important to the overall character. Numerous carriage houses are found reflecting their original use although renovated for modern use. We consider that demolition of this highly visable carriage house would be a loss to the neighborhood, and that the redevelopment plan does not mitigate the impact of that loss. 5. Standard: A demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact the proposed demolition has on the historic importance of the structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: The applicant states they find no evidence of historical value for the existing carriage house, and that the partial demolition of the main house will have no impact on the historical importance of the original structure. According to the 1904 Sanborn's Map, the carriage house is original, how- ever was moved slightly to its current location. A footnote made on the National Register Nomination by Barbara Norgren stated that (due to exterior changes made to the carriage house) it was non-contributing; however, after further discussion with Barbara she informed us nominations may be amended and she may find the carriage house contributing through additional study. Given the general prominence of the carriage house on the site, and as Third Street is a primary route leading through this West End neighborhood to the Music Tent, we believe that demolition would negatively impact the historic character of this neighborhood. Barbara Norgren's footnote does not reduce the historical importance the carriage house has to the property or the neighborhood character. 6. Standard: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest ex- tent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of the historic structure or part thereof. Response: The applicant states the proposed partial demolition plan for portions of the main house will have little or no impact as the original portions with the greatest historic significance will remain undisturbed. The Planning Office upon review of the proposed redevelopment plans find changes proposed to the original east facade including the windows of the upper facade and lower level, not in keeping with the recommendations in both the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development 5 .. Guidelines (pg.55) and the Secretary of the Interior's Stan- dards for Rehabilitation. Every effort to preserve and repair existing windows should be made; they are very important in de- fining the overall historic character of the building. Also not recommended is changing the number, location, size or glazing patterns of windows. The Planning Office also finds the proposed demolition of the carriage house to be contrary to the Guidelines (pg.51). "The tradional residential pattern placed barns, carriage houses...and other support structures at the rear of the lot at the alley. Buildings on alleys have an importance of their own, and give alleys a special character. Preserve... wherever possible historic outbuildings." Conceptual Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: The Planning Office determines that the proposed development to the main house is compatible in character with the following exceptions: 1) The proposed window changes on the east facade are not in keeping with the Guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and should be preserved as is; 2) Removal of the very large cotton-wood tree in the east side yard is contrary to the Guidelines (pg. 49) which state: "Traditional landscape patterns should be maintained. In alterations to existing buildings and in any new construction traditional landscape patterns should be maintained."; 3) Greenhouse additions are discussed in the Guidelines (pg. 59) and the Planning Office recommends this addition be sensitive to the historic original structure, placed where it will not obscure the details of the primary facade. Every attempt should be made to insure the greenhouse addition does not become the visual focus of alteration to the house. By attaching the greenhouse to the newer addition (rear section of the east facade) these results could be achieved; 4) The addition of the upper facade bay window on the west (Third St.) side is a great deal more elaborate than the original historic elements of this home and tend to overpower the historic quality of plainness of that facade. The front facade is the focal point of this home and all attempts to retain this main visual appeal should be made. A more simple approach would blend better with the original architectural elements of this home; 5) The proposed new carriage house design elements are not in keeping with the Guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Planning Office recommends that any new develop- ment proposed for the carriage house retain, if demolition is 6 .. approved, retain the original look and feel of this outbuilding without the addition of elaborate detailing diminishing its original character. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is con- sistent with the character of the neighborhood. Response: We find that the proposed development is mainly consistent with the neighborhood with the exception of the green- house addition which (as proposed) is a new element not common in the neighborhood. Also, the elaborate development plans for the carriage house are not consistent with the historic neighborhood character in our opinion. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of the structure. Response: As the applicant states in the proposal the new development will enhance the value as they will be maintaining and restoring the original portion of the building, which demon- strates the lifestyle of the original owner, an important family in Aspen's history. As previously stated, changes are proposed for the original east facade which will harm the historic inte- grity of the structure (windows). The new carriage house proposed is to be used, in part, as a modern carriage house (one car garage); however, it is the Planning Office's opinion that the proposed demolition will detract from the cultural value. We are concerned that the present degree of grace and momentum of the house speaks of Mr. Wilder's status in Aspen and that the imposition of a high Victorian stylization in an inappropriate interpretation. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated structure. Response: The applicant states the new carriage house plans complement the proposed historic designated structure, through the use of similar materials, roof form and scale. The develop- ment plans for the main house will enhance the original struc- ture by setting the new walls back approximately 18" from the existing east and west facades. The ridge lines will be lower on the addition to de-emphasize, which will allow for the prominent identity of the original historic structure. With the greenhouse attachment on the east facade, as proposed, (and as previously stated), architectural integrity will be lost as window changes are to be made. Original fenestration is an important element to retain in this structure, and the Planning Office recommends the applicants redesign the greenhouse attachment. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to HPC to recommend historic landmark designation of 334 W. Hallam St., 7 . .. Lots K, L, and M. Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen subject to the condition that no changes be made to the original windows and proper maintenence and preservation be made of the original facade and architectural details. The Planning Office also recommends to HPC to give approval for the partial demolition to the main structure, newer addition only. We recommend denial of the carriage house demolition as we feel the owner should be encouraged to save and rehabilitate the existing structure or examine the possibility in more depth of moving it to a compatible site. The Planning Office also recommends to HPC to give conceptual development approval for the main structure with the following conditions: 1. The greenhouse addition be made as inconspicuously as possible, with no damage done to the original historic structure. Attaching the greenhouse to the newer addition is preferable, and limiting the size and scale in relationship to the historic building. 2. The west facade upper level window design more closely resemble the original fenestration or the historic structure. 3. The very large east side-yard tree be retained, if possible or a landscape plan to replant be considered. 4. All new materials should be compatible with the original materials with care given to any restoration or details in the maintenance/preservation plan of the original structure. NOTE: Attached are a new set of plans received in the Planning Office after this memo was made. As of this writing we have not had an opportunity to examine them thoroughly and make comment. re.334WH.memo 8 U=IEtrli~B Â®[F F[mA[MIS[000TFA[L ~WILLIAM J. POSS & ASS~ATES 605 E. Main St. v=v ASPEN, CO 81611 DAT*. 0,9 ~ JOB NO. (303) 925-4755 ATTENTION V L/' RE: To %3 x0.-21-h,/6. ~C>/ 71 ,bl -*4 L--r, Â·4Â·-Â«,~(gtyn i *Â·-I. WR 6 , r _ WE ARE SENDING YOU ~ Attached C] Under separate cover via the following items: Â£ .8 El Shop drawings m Prints m Plans C] Samples m Specifications Wy of letter C] Change order El - COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION < 4 4 A L Â·<770-4,i Mjm *12 /-Nar- ;â€¢ 1 -9 2~'RA Â£- tÂ») C-Th/0 Al 31>U>6Â«66-h 4 32 E- I , it THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: m yor approval 0 Approved as submitted C] Resubmit copies for approval ~)K~For your use [3 Approved as noted El Submit-copies for distribution ...... L [3 As requested m Returned for corrections E] Return corrected prints El For review and comment [3 El FOR BIDS DUE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US ,@t'.= REMARKS - /5 1 -. ~ COPY TO 6'(LA SIGNED: F~4~24O00' <f*Fly. & i / PRODUCT 24(1-3 /***7 Int, GrotÂ»n, Alas 0t411 H enclosures are not as noted. kindly notify us at once. THEODORE K G~SSOCIATES PC ~ ' ARCHITECTS ANC) ST~MCTURAL ENGINEERS April 4,1988 William Poss William Poss & Associates 605 E. Plain Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Â£ RE: 334 West Hollom Aspen, Colorodo Dear Bill: At your request, I toured the above referenced residence on Morch 31,1988. My intent is to observe existing structural conditions and indications of possible structure movement or concerns. Genercl conclusions os to required steps for the remodel ore olso included. No octud components ore onoly zed for copâ€¢]city This dwelling is o timber fromed, two story residence located on o relatively level lot. A quick look into the attic reveal c steep sloped framed structure typical of the construction of that era. Shecthing is spoced boords. The roof ond ceiling joists tend to oct together os field built trusses. Since interior finishes ore in ploce ot this time, the buik of my observations were ot the cellor/crowl space. The kitchen orec is obviously o later addition. The foundation here is o concrete block voll over o concrete sprecd footing. Floor joists span this Â©roÂ¥1 spoce with o wood girder down the center of this area. Construction in this oreo look to be in very good condition. The rest of the structure is the origniol construction ond consists of mony unacceptable conditions. the 2 x 8 tloor joists ore undersized for their spon ond in very poor condition. Many joists have been shored-up by timber scrops wedged between the framing ond soil. Timber girders and posts ore virtuolly buried by crawl space soil. A mechoncic{ space hos been hond dug and the soil well shored up with old untrected timbers. The rest of the crawl space is filled with soil ond unoccessible. The floor of the Living Room shows obvious movement. The orec neor the center of the room is considerably higher than the perimeter. The owner reports additional movement in the recent post. Whether this is coused by the interior supports heaving upwards or the exterior perimeter foundotion settling dowword, is not determined ot this time. A concrete skirt opproximotely 8-inches wide x 9 inches deep has been poured oround the exterior perimeter of the building. This is not o bearing structure, but apparently c cover over whot oppeors to be o timber foundotion. This is intended to help divert water owcy from the structure, yet provides little reel protection. j would anticipate thot settlement is occurring clorig these exterior volls. 351 STATE HIWAY 82 P O. BOX 1640 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 (303] 927-3167 .. 334 West Hollon April 4,1988 Poge Two CONCLUSIONS Some froming reinforcement ond odditionol support should be anticipated for the roof ond upper floor systems. These ore expected for remodeling structures of this oge. The foundation ond main floor froming is the primory concern. To stop continued movement ond ossure future performence for the remodel, it is recommended that oll the moin tloor system be removed ond reploced with the exception of the Kitchen oreo. This iricludes removing the concrete skirt and providing o new concrete foundation oround the entire building, with the exception of the kitchen area. All interior loods will also need new foundation. Approaches to this work moy entcil extensive upper framing shoring to place this foundotion oil ot once, or underpinning sections in sequence. Comparison costs hould be discussed with building contractors. ' If we con be of further sevice, pleose contact our office. Sincerely, THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC 1 Off -,/ 1/ 2. j , C f Stephen K. Pe<ghtol Engineer/Architect SKP/lw 88502 L 1 .. Structural Observation March 31, 1988 Page Two Several solutions can be pursued: . 1. A solls engineer can be employed to analyze the bearing soils to determine foundation performance without frost cover. In Lhe event that acceptable conditons are determined, it is then a decision of the Building Department as lo whether they will accept this variance from code requirements. 2. A system of foundation under'pinning can be pursued. This would require 4 fool long x 3 foot deep x 1'-6" wide reinforced concrete poured in place piers, placed below the existing footing. Due to non-reinforced existing conditions, these piers will need to be placed with 4 foot of undistrubed soil between each. No shoring should be required during excavation, as these undisturbed 4 foot sections are intended to carry the structure during construction. Extensive hand work should be expected at these areas. A total of eleven piers are anticipated (one side not required due lo extended building area), and should be placed approximately 3 inches short of existing footing bottom. After a curing period, this space is then packed with a non-shrink grout. The possibility of structure movement is possible during this type of work and some risk musl be accepted. 3. An entire new foundation can be placed. Since a new roof and upper floor structure must be provided to replace the existing framing (refer lo Structural Observation dated 2-3-88), very little original structure is to remain. It may be much more cost effective to entirely remove existing construction, and slarl with new construction. These are of course economic decisions, and construction pricing should be solicited from a building contractor to aid in a sound decision. SKP/lw 88502 FR2 yHEODORE K G~SSOCIATES PC ~ ARCHITECTe AND S~CTURAL ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION To . William Poss - William Poss & Associates From: Stephen K. Peightal - Theodore K Guy Associates PC Date : March 31.1982 Re : 334 West Hallam - Guest House Aspen, Colorado Those Present: Trish Harris, Stephen Peightal FINDINGS: ' Excavations have been dug at two exterior corners of the carriage house. The main floor has also been cut open to allow interior inspection of the lower structure and foundation. For upper framing observations, refer to Observation Report dated February 3, 1988. No structural analysis has been performed for this report. Actual conditions and indications of structural concerns are addressed by this report. The carriage house foundation is found to consist of one course of concrete block, laid over a concrete spread footing approximately 9- deep x 24" wide. Footing protection ranges from several inches of earth cover to exposed above finish grade. No horizontal steel was evident at an open mortar Joint in the concrete block course. The carriage house main floor iS constructed of 2*6 T&G decking laid over 2x8 joists spaced 24- o.c. A heavy timber girder runs down the middle of the structure with two concrete pads at third points. This crawl space provides approximately 15 inches clearance below the floor joints. Although no perimeter ventilation is observed, no wood rot or framing problems related lo moisture Is evident at this level. CONCLUSIONS The main floor framing appears lo be sU'ucturally sound and can continue to be expected to function. To avoid moisture problems, it is advisable to provide perimeter ventilation for this crawl space. Although joist to crawl space grade is not up to code, problems can be avoided with proper ventilation, The existing foundation conditions are of concern. There & no frost protection provided al any point around the entire perimeter. Depending on the type of soils below the fooling and the nature of site drainage, foundation movement can be a real concern. It must be assumed there is no steel reinforcement in this foundation. reducing the ability for this system to withstand movement. 351 STATE HIWAY 82 P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT, COLOAADO 81621 1 6303] 927-31 67 THEODORE K G~SSOCIATES PC ~ ARCHITECTS AND 81~TURAL ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION To : William Poss - William Poss & Associates From: Stephen K. Peightai - Theodore K Guy Associates PC Date : March 31. 1988 Re : 334 West Hallam - Guest House Aspen, Colorado Those Present: Trish Harris, Stephen Peightal FINDINGS: Excavations have been dug at two exterior corners of the carriage house. The main floor has also been cut open to allow interior inspection of the lower structure and foundation. For upper framing observations, refer to Observation Report dated February 3.1988. No structural analysis has been performed for this report. Actual conditions and indications of structural concerns are addressed by this report. The carriage house foundation is found to consist of one course of concrete block, laid over a concrete spread footing approximately 9" deep x 24" wide. Footing protection ranges from several inches of earth cover to exposed above finish grade. No horizontal steel was evident at an open mortar Joint in the concrete block course. The carriage house main floor is constructed of 2*6 T&G decking laid over 2*8 joists spaced 24" o.c. A heavy timber girder runs down the middle of the structure with two concrete pads at third points. This crawl space provides approximately 15 inches clearance below the floor Joints, Although no perimeter ventilation is observed, no wood rot or framing problems related to moisture is evident at thus level. CONCLUSIONS' The main tloor framing appears to be structurally sound and can continue to be expected to function. To avoid moisture problems, it is advisable to provide perimeter ventilation for this crawl space. Although joist to crawl space grade ts not up to code, problems can be avoided with proper ventilation. The existing foundation conditions are of concern. There is no frost protection provided at any point around the entire perimeter. Depending on the type of soils below the footing and the nature of site drainage, foundation movement can be a real concern. It must be assumed there is no steel reinforcement in this foundation, reducing the ability for this system to withstand movement. 351 STATE HIV\/AY 82 P.O BOX 1640 BASALT, COLOAADO 81621 [303] 927-3167 .. Structural Observation March 31, 1988 Page Two Several solutions can be pursued: 1. A soils engineer can be employed to analyze the bearing solls to determine foundation performance without frost cover. In the event that acceptable conditons are determined, it is then a decision of the Building Department as to whether they will accept this variance from code requirements. 2. A system of foundation under'pinning can be pursued. This would require 4 foot long x 3 foot deep x 1*-6" wide reinforced concrete poured in place piers, placed below the existing footing. Due to non-reinforced existing conditions. these piers will need to be placed with 4 foot of undistrubed soil between each. No shoring should be required during excavation, as these undisturbed 4 foot sections are intended to carry the structure during construction. Extensive hand work should be expected at these areas. A total of eleven piers are anticipated Cone side not required due to extended building area), and should be placed approximately 3 inches short of existing footing bottom. After a curing period, this space is then packed with a non-shrink groul. The possibility of structure movement is possible during this type of work and some risk must be accepted. 3. An entire new foundation can be placed. Since a new roof and upper floor structure must be provided to replace the existing framing (refer to Structural Observation dated 2-3-88), very little original structure is to remain. It may be much more cost effective to entirely remove existing construction, and start with new construction. These are of course economic decisions, and construction pricing should be solicited from a building contractor to aid in a sound decision. SKP/lw 88502 FR2 . VI B. . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 334 West Hallam Street, Clarification DATE: March 22, 1988 LOCATION: 334 W. Hallam St., Block 42, Lots K, L, and M, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is seeking clarification of the motion made in HPC meeting of March 8, 1988, specifically regarding the connection between the main house and the carriage house. The applicant feels the motion was not specific enough for their further design work to continue as is. The motion passed included a condition to further study the detached approach. The applicant felt the motion was to restudy the connection from the approach of design. If the attachment is not approved, the applicant would need to make application through P&Z for conditional use. The Planning Office would like the applicant to clarify more specifically to the committee at this meeting the proposed two foot addition to the carriage house. We feel this issue was not formally addressed to the committee, although it is reflected in the plans submitted. E~> ri-- / -h, r -- e . %...-. 0 -> 11! .1 IN i: 11 4 MIR 8 1988 1\. Ut COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 March 4, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: It was nice to speak with you and to know you are working with the planning office in Aspen. I'm sorry if I sounded a little vague about the Wilder House, but it was many nominations ago. In reviewing the files, I found that we did not submit the nomination because the house was for sale. Steve was to get back to me after it had been sold and give us the new owner's name. We would have to go through the required notification process again before we could send the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Do you know if the owners are interested in submitting the nomination at this time? If they have any questions about the process and what designation would mean, I would be happy to talk with them. As to your question about the carriage house being non-contributing on the nomination form--there was not a photo of the carriage house in our files. We only have a photo showing the front view of the house and the side away from the carriage house. I checked back in my research notes and found that the carriage house had been moved a fewÂ»tfeet and remodeled. This may have been the reason I said i*was non-contributing, but to be certain, I would like to take another look at it. Would it be possible for you to send+some photos showing side and street views of the building? If it appears to have retained most of its original integrity, it may indeed be contributing and tr-he nomination for it could be changed. 1 will get back to you in writing with a new evaluation of the carriage house as soon as I receive the photos. Sincerely, t:,UAy+-aA-ON-1 *3,0,,9(Ff Barbara Norgren National Register Coordinator BN/j c Ka .. f MAR 8 COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 March 4, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: It was nice to speak with you and to know you are working with the planning office in Aspen. I'm sorry if I sounded a little vague about the Wilder House, but it was many nominations ago. In reviewing the files, I found that we did not submit the nomination because the house was for sale. Steve was to get back to me after it had been sold and give us the new owner's name. We would have to go through the required notification process again before we could send the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Do you know if the owners are interested in submitting the nomination at this time? If they have any questions about the process and what designation would mean, I would be happy to talk with them. As to your question about the carriage house being non-contributing on the nomination form--there was not a photo of the carriage house in our files. We only have a photo showing the front view of the house and the side away from the carriage house. I checked back in my research notes and found that the carriage house had been moved a few feet and remodeled. This may have been the reason I said it was non-contributing, but to be certain, I would like to take another look at it. Would it be possible for you to send some photos showing side and street views of the building? If it appears to have retained most of its original integrity, it may indeed be contributing and the nomination for it could be changed. I will get back to you in writing with a new evaluation of the carriage house as soon as I receive the photos. Sincerely, 'Lit,U y-lp/32*3-1 Barbara Norgren National Register Coordinator BN/j c MAR 8 COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 March 4, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: It was nice to speak with you and to know you are working with the planning office in Aspen. I'm sorry if I sounded a little vague about the Wilder House, but it was many nominations ago. In reviewing the files, I found that we did not submit the nomination because the house was for sale. Steve was to get back to me after it had been sold and give us the new owner's name. We would have to go through the required notification process again before we could send the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Do you know if the owners are interested in submitting the nomination at this time? If they have any questions about the process and what designation would mean, I would be happy to talk with them. As to your question about the carriage house being non-contributing on the nomination form--there was not a photo of the carriage house in our files. We only have a photo showing the front view of the house and the side away from the carriage house. I checked back in my research notes and found that the carriage house had been moved a few feet and remodeled. This may have been the reason I said it was non-contributing, but to be certain, I would like to take another look at it. Would it be possible for you to send some photos showing side and street views of the building? If it appears to have retained most of its original integrity, it may indeed be contributing and the nomination for it could be changed. I will get back to you in writing with a new evaluation of the carriage house as soon as I receive the photos. Sincerely, Swwd 04'teÂ»-0 Barbara Norgren U l KA National Register Coordinator BN/jc .. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, hereby certify that on thiso~~)< day of (10Â»RF 198 F , a true and correct copy of the attachek_bittice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners ap indicated on the attached list of adj acent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. f r A A j jA I . -----*--- Nancy Caeti f . PUBLIC NOTICE RE: DEMOLITION OF CARRIAGE HOUSE AND PORTIONS OF MAIN HOUSE AT 334 W. HALLAM STREET NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 8, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 2:30 P.M. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the City Council Chambers, 1st Floor, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO to consider an application to demolish the carriage house and portions of the main house at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M of Block 42, Townsite and City of Aspen. The carriage house would be replaced with a new two story structure similar in size containing a garage and dwelling unit. The northern portion of the main house to be demolished would be replaced with a new addition. This demolition review is in conjunction with historic landmark designation of the property and significant development review. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Bill Poss Chairperson, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on February 18, 1988. City of Aspen Account ph.334 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 334 W. Hallam Street DATE: February 24, 1988 LOCATION: 334 W. Hallam Avenue, Block 42, Lots K, L and M, 71-J.-24 ..4 City of Aspen APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval, with request for carriage house demolition and re- placement with a new two-story structure similar in size. Also, northern portion of the main house would be demolished and re- placed with a new addition; greenhouse would be attached to east side of main house. 4 SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Refer to documentation in HPC_ pacietof2-23-B-meeting Â· Tf Â· L QÂ«f ((k#. 02 HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: 5. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: The applicants are requesting HPC's recommendation for historic designation and conceptual development approval at this meeting. The applicant's next step is review by the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain their recommendation on historic designation. City Council would then hold first and second reading of an ordinance to accomplish designation. Applicants are also requesting partial demolition of the main house and entire two-story carriage house. A com- plete application must be submitted as stated in Sec. 24-9.5(c) Procedure for Review of Applications for Demolition. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Director the HPC shall hold at least one public hearing on its consideration of application, with public notice posted on site and published in the newspaper. Written notice must be sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the property. It should be noted under Sec. 24-9.5\ADemolition of Historic Structures , (-aj--Ggom:** that "No demolitibn and total removal of a Historic Landmark or any structure within a "H" Historic Overlay District or any structure rated as a "4" or a "5" by the HPC...shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the stan- dards of Sec. 24-9.5(b)(1) through (6). PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: On February 23, 1988 HPC held a pre- application meeting with Trish Harris, as associate of Bill Poss and Associates, Architecture and Planning to discuss historic designation, demolition of the carriage house and partial demo- f, .. lition of the main house, as well as new additions and develop- ment review of the entire project. The memo from the Planning 1 off ip -E>i:reetea for that meeting listed 12 issues for HPC consideration. As a quorum was not available for this item (Chairman Poss stepped down) discussion with three members included: no 2 interest in the carriage house demol~t~on with recommendations win 47 for rehab development, toning downiarcHitectural details, aiming to keep carriage house facade as close in design to original function as possible; moving proposed greenhouse attachment to newer main house addition, retaining all original architectural elements and restoring where possible; retaining large tree in east side yard (not possible with proposed greenhouse addition); simplify architectural details of entire project. Applicant's representative stated carriage house is unsound structurally per findings from Theodore K. Guy Associates, PC, Structural Engi- neers. PRIOR DISCUSSION: Standards for historic designation are stated in Section 24-9.3(a) of the Municipal Code. The development review standards are stated in Section 24-9:4(d) of the Municipa11 Code. Standards for demolition of historic structures are stated 1 in Section 24-9.5 of the Municipal Code. Following are Planning w) Office's comments in response to the above standards: 1. Standard: The structure or site is commonly identified with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The home and carriage house are significant in their architectural design and are associated with Eugene Wilder of the Aspen Lumber Company (one of Aspen's oldest establish- ments). 2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: Constructed c.1885, the front elevation of this two story home is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small panes of stained glass. The quality detailing throughout the front ~~---n facade and its higi~1;ytâ€žNi,sN*'28, 4 9â€¢,9 Sorner location, make this entire i tk' 1. properkY_ exemplary: . Â·dhe home is featured on the cover of the f|â‚¬*e A"IeFB-T'*sp-en Area Comp iensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element. F.P.,-4 A 4., j The carriage house and simple fenestration of the east and west a '"~+ 1,*t)dU~ facades of the main house blend together well. ~* 4'e,ir, e 14,~3 - Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing charac- W4, fq ..),01 t~ristics of a significant or unique architectural type or speci- d W * LA.,.U T. /men. Response: The Wilder House embodies the characteristics of 04<M, :) the gabled "L" with Victorian detailing elements, identified in the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development kc,14 - 2*Off- B wlcuA < 64*y- .. Guidelines", as an historic architectural style in Aspen. 4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. 97 Rsponse: The Wilder House was undoubtedly constructed from Â· , local lumber and may haved been built by the Aspen Lumber Company, established c.1880-1882. The house displays a high degree of craftsmanship which was available in Aspen at the time of its construction. Through careful restoration of the original elements, this house has retained much of its original integrity. 1 1 1 15-1 60 6 C ik * 43 + Â·u obi- f /2-2-\- & 1 /, 0 L_ r,. 2.L -0*-#*-- -3%~ Mn. 'oen/Pitkin Plar":Bâ€¢ '~"'- CÂ· I â€¢u.AUL t.Wilt' /7 F[824 oj 3 S. Galena \, 1988 ..1 4 Aspen, CO 81611 \tly/ ---*--.'*.......-* 1rmkm// ---Tplnejeflum/W- CÂ»* 40. U 4 il.r. JanuarY 9.1788 Connecticut ~ 11 7 444/4 %44 4.~ Josef Uhl 03 / Margarete A. Uhl / 320 West Hallam Avenue ~ Aspen, Colorado 81611 .,,...2 .. . PUBLIC NOTICE RE: DEMOLITION OF CARRIAGE HOUSE AND PORTIONS OF MAIN HOUSE AT 334 W. HALLAM STREET NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 8, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 2:30 P.M. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the City Council Chambers, 1st Floor, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO to consider an application to demolish the carriage house and portions of the main house at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M of Block 42, Townsite and City of Aspen. The carriage house would be replaced with a new two story structure similar in size containing a garage and dwelling unit. The northern portion of the main house to be demolished would be replaced with a new addition. This demolition review is in conjunction with historic landmark designation of the property and significant development review. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Bill Poss Chairperson, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on February 18, 1988. City of Aspen Account ph.334 1 /<be-N'> 1 /F FEB24 0~ - 1 ' Â»4: j ~--- -AJ-ZELE- 79--*. 1' - Aspenirimm rianmng Omer . 4 '988 / 130 S. Galena . \122-' Aspen, CO 81611 CÂ»~ - Januar,-9,1788 ~ 40444/4~42: Connecticut P ~F r~.. '/ William Greenwood 1'~+ 204 North 5th Street '~ ~ 1,\ FEB 26 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 1111ill .C PUBLIC NOTICE RE: DEMOLITION OF CARRIAGE HOUSE AND PORTIONS OF MAIN HOUSE AT 334 W. HALLAM STREET NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 8, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 2:30 P.M. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the City Council Chambers, 1st Floor, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO to consider an application to demolish the carriage house and portions of the main house at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M of Block 42, Townsite and City of Aspen. The carriage house would be replaced with a new two story structure similar in size containing a garage and dwelling unit. The northern portion of the main house to be demolished would be replaced with a new addition. This demolition review is in conjunction with historic landmark designation of the property and significant development review. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Bill Poss Chairperson, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on February 18, 1988. City of Aspen Account ph.334 WILLIAM J. POSS & AS~IATES NEF'11*3 Â®[F FBAR)Â©la]0F1]32:. 605 E. Main St ASPEN, CO 81611 DATE JOB NO. 2/12/88 8712 (303) 925-4755 ATTENTION 1 F'~~ Mr. Steve Burstein RE: TO City of Aspen 334 West Hallam Avenue Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 WE ARE SENDING YOU N Attached E Under separate cover via HAND DELIVERY the following items: U Shop drawings El Prints C] Plans E] Samples C] Specifications Ot Copy of letter m Change order El COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION Historic Inventory List, Property Photo, Sandborne Map, Structural Observation Letter 2-12-88 Letter of Design Concept 2 ea. 2-12-88 Schematic Design Set of Drawings, Survey, Al.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 1~ 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 ~p THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: b 7 14*,Alli m For approval m Approved as submitted C] Resubmit copies for approval [3 For your use El Approved as noted [3 Submit___copies for distribution â‚¬fi.%51'i ..St/9 C] As requested C] Returned for corrections U Return corrected prints 1/41.11 El For review and comment El U FOR BIDS DUE 19 El PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US Â·4 REMARKS 1 by r 9, 4 1 COPY TO F i 1. e E SIGNED: ficÂ«-,Amn-0 B PRODUCT 240-3 Int, Gmton, Masâ€¢ 01471 ,.g~ If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. Patricia Harris .d . . . f - .. Researched January 28* 1988 at the Pitkin County Assessor s n.4. .4. Â·1 C'- f:-Â·-: g Block 34: Lots N & 0: Robert M. Chamberlain, Jrâ€ž 420 West Francis Street aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots P,Q,R,S: Joseph & Holly H. Coors 100 Castle Rock Drive Golden, Colorado 80401 Block 35: Lots A & B: Donald W. Swales Suzanne U. Swales P.O. Box 1596 A spen, r' r O1 Â£ 1 0 Lots C,D,E: John M. Rahm Harriet B. Rahm Box 1376 Aspen, Loiorado 818.1.,2 Lots F,G: - . , . .... I .... .... Jack l Mnviv:.Â·: c, Carole R. Moyes 411 West Francis Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots H,I: Ruth Epples 150 North Ocean Boulevard Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Lots K,L: L. Irvin Barnhart Suite 333 2121 Sage Road Houston, Texas 77056 Lots M,N,0: steven Craig Gordon Sandra Diane Gordon 040 East Jefferson Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90011 Lots P.Q: Dolores Courshon 301 Arthur Godfrey Road Miami Beach. Florida 33140 N 1/2 Lots R,S: Nelson Fox 1 It -1 I ....1 (.j..Â·t ,,Â·.. Â·'1Â· /:J Aspen, Co. 81612 %..1 R.S: Marv H. Kalmes 404 West Hailam Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Block .2,6: Lots A,B,C, k througa %.., I Weaver Subdivision, John F. Weaver, Jr. Lot 1, Units 1 & 29 Mary Weaver and Lot 2: 442 West Bleeker Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 North /0 of Lots John Kerr igan - P H,M,L: a. triLia r..errigan 5907 Yrwell Drive Houston, Texas 77096 Lots D,E, East 39'Lot C: hallam Street Condo: Unit A: David Sawyer ... 1 . t... 1 Robert K. gandolph Suite 800 1400 Prc# Oak boulevard .. Houston, Texas 77056 Unit B: Janes K. Patrick Li y R. Patrick Williams Drive Favetteville, A rkansas 72/01 Lots F,G,W 1/2 of H: Jessica Carro //10 ue orge rown Pike . Mc Lean, v i r- g .1. n]. 2'R .... Lots E 1/2 of H,I: rrank Earle Jenkinson Marjorie P. Jenkinson 403 West Hallam Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Block 41: Lots K,L,M: Robert H. Allen Judy Lev Allen 3 u j, 12 e j..2 0 515 Post Oak Boulevard Houston, Texas 77027 ':E: Lots E L , Q,R,S: William Gr ee n wood 204 North 5th Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ld ....3 13 ID u Ellen P. Kohner 1 I U. Hn'< EÂ·Â·491 Aspen, Colorado 81612 r.:. . Lots A,B: Helmut J. and Brunhilde P. b c nl o '?Â·ter P.O. Box 941 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lots C,D,E: Frank H. shatroth bailv W. Shafroth Suite 303 288 Clayton Street Denver, Colorado 80206 Alison L., adford i-Â·1 u. ' 307 west Francis Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots ,:, I. , I 4 , u 1' John ano Kat60 ine 1 Buchanan 13/ Moore Road ...../ Woodside, California 94069 Lots N,O,P: Josef Uhl Margarete A. Uhl -!..5 17: 1,i n, Â·. Hallam Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots Q,R,S: Theodore S. Ryan Ruth R. Hyan , ..... .2 .U. .Box 1/16 Lakeville, Connecticut 06039 Block 43: Lots A,B,C: John A. arid MA~ F. Scheid Estace of Marguerite M. Scheid 1171 Morada Pl=ice Aitadena, California 91001 Lots D,E: Sharon M. Prior r- 1-0-' .Un Box 656 Aspen, Coloraao 81612 .. .. Lots F,ti.H,1: V i Vi e iÂ·Â·1 Â·aÂ·.Â·~ f:::' culÂ·Â· c....0 i 2..1.1 "4Â·4Â·.1 e s .. Andrew Doremus P.U. Box 317 Aspen, Colorado 81w12 Lots K,L,M: Jack Barker Wendy Barker P.O. Box 3379 Aspenq Colorado 81612 Lots N,O: .3 d i .L y rÂ·i .....t:. 11 ,Â·' U LVi 1-1 P.O. Box 575 Aspen, Co. 81612 Lots F,Q: Eugene Siegel 800 East Hopkins Avenue, #B-3 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots R,S: C.M. Clark P.O. Box 566 Agnp- r-,inrado 81612 Block 49: Lots A,B,C: Esther M. Schiff P.O. Box 3238 As pen, Co. Lots K,L.M: helicia M. Lee 302 North 2Nd Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 Block 50: Lots A,B,C & W 6.64 D: Esther Benningno++ 233 Weq' r Hallam Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 71,1-Ii....: WILLIAM J. POSS & AS~IATES LIEFIP~ Â®F F[EA[*6[m Oy[[A[L 605 E. Main St. ASPEN, CO 81611 DATE JOB NO. 01/29/88 8712 (303) 925-4755 ATTENTION Steve Burstein RE: TO HPC REVIEW of 334 West Hallam Avenue Planning Department Residence and Carriage House City of Aspen 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 WE ARE SENDING YOU m Attached U Under separate cover via the following items: m Shop drawings El Prints Â£ Plans U Samples C] Specifications C] Copy of letter m Change order m COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 2 1/29/88 Forms for #PC Review Process JAN 2 8 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: m For approval U Approved as submitted U Resubmit copies for approval ** For your use C] Approved as noted m Submit-copies for distribution [3 As requested C] Returned for corrections U Return corrected prints XX For review and comment El m FOR BIDS DUE 19 m PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO File 964-A*wd SIGNED: PRODUCT 24&3 /12227 Iâ€¢6 G-~ 11- 01471. â€ž1~ If Inclosures are not al noted. kindly notify us at once. Patricia Harris . .. , . ........Â·:Â£*"..L-a.."d 1, peli)Â»4##44 - 5 ~â€¢h,Lt ' r 4 - ~ b.vt . { COM (9441 râ‚¬144-UAH 46*. 01 Q.64'fj i,V! 679 6 6) De*47,4 +AbLAN)/4-/tvt..t "~ cri+friA- 1, D<wri- i C"r10'Ur -sÂ¥.Â·J.41 d tffi f, U) Re,<+Ip fâ€¢fd '1.*~ ~ 314 GV, 144 11. A 4) Are, 3 80* v,Ad;., be...b ke,-4 A R#coffÂ¥0041 -..A.I. 04 51 Lt,nj,Â¥64 0,4 bâ‚¬,43 >,1'0~14/fâ€¢14, Ir.,\J Â«vitw CorÂ£4-ft'Al litkt,~Avt M,rer#.14 .tt r. e tic,t/~ 4476,6,~.W'15 4 itt,ti<y 1/4,7 YV *c,n Ly 6 0,Ili}L ''tioâ€¢,41/,1 reni:441 ~ fl 'yi,41,4 '051'LI,e - 4Â· L *CAPfU rn-10Â¥i'IN 4 . 560(143 G#y V*'litin, 0, 44449,9 . PA t'j 06 y. 4 1.16â€¢,h i 6,14-t ' PA,fiki 041 Â£DVEV.r Ok 1 j.(wit,41, % (v-,441, p QU 14(16) 44#T CbMA'hi,4. \)~l - CULA, 4 -(D, 1,â€žII'tt n ... 93 ,+ 4,?ofil.l/,1 54414 7 -_- Et,v,tual 662,5, j - ~bok 459-2 6.4961.1 fl heuti J ~,---ht_.1 '23 CA. 1 Â¥ L $9.W -- ~ 123 % u Wk-j UN+J fok -P -6 rilit /44424 in 11/41 I Ro.4044;,0 . W,1/J wy''f 'Itew y (0&1:,ti'Gr.f 6/v,orm 1. 1 fl +d tv 01#,4 dent,4 0,5 A-eL+4, 4 #42 6hfu.07 h ..4 40 â‚¬*,I,;6 Â£ ffâ€¢,4, 1 + f)Â¥)91;~) f <2;45,ob/liuM) tf jtybltir,3 L KIA ,#winj *w 46#041 - h.ew Jpknuy n, ~Â·(yk 7 aili "*,VA\ 4 '946)Â£84 Ve 04.fial T -151&4 c.ff,#4 c.â€žlar 1,4, 4 ;trt-â‚¬6Â£,t' f/tle,â€¢~ f- jum{; 44.IH'? ewcvt;44*4% 66 ...,k cht'-j -4 kiL..h - #4 j.f,r f.yw.J T 9 6'vt, 1,164'ki c.,4," 1"lb 18 59.1 3.0, obil~~ek lE--6,1 6-vÂ·63 96 922 8 .st,Ar 't GArk"r ~10Â»0 - j, ,} â€¢ 84,vi.p |lovk 6111 #L,w t.,rd dli; i#- 9 212- 1,JII'A Ult +64 con,UL Litl 44},n, 4,vw 441'r L 0'4,<4 t.0, 4,46046'v,4 - i .h-'-Ill- - THEODORE K GUV~SSOCIATES PC ~ ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION To William Poss - William Poss & ~ssociates From : Steve Peiqhtol - Theodore K Guu Associates PC Dote . February 3,1988 334 West Hellen-i Aspen, Coloro,jo Those Present: Williom eoss, Trish Horris, Stephen Peightol FINDINGS: The structure observed is the corrioge tiouse next to the primary residence of the above referenced ,]ddress. This building is two story wood frame construction, opproximotely 28 teet L,9 ZU -tee:. ln plon. Exterior wood siding hos deciyed beyond repoir. The roof structure is t] simple zx6 rofter system ploced z4 inches on center, with on approximate roof slope of 12 in 12. Tne originol construction provided c celler tie at these rot-ters und no ridge boord. A later remodel to add o dormer to one side removed the bulk of these collar ties,]t the building center The upper tioor system is comprised of 2:48 joists spcced 16 inches on center, sponninq the fuil 20 feet dimension. Bounce induced by wolking on this tioor indic:ote an obvious undercopocity of the tloor structure. The m,]in tloor is wood plonk : â€¢ind the structure below is unknown. Inspection of the exterior south -sice incieoze o coricrete block found,]tion woll. h is my understanding thot this foundction extends down o very minimum distance, moybe cs little cs 12-inches. No perimeter vents wet-* observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ariolysis of the origin,]I roof frome st.Istem would find it grossiy undersized for todous load criteria, q et functional. The cre,] of roof thot hos been remodeled hos removed keu elements that create c mathematically unstable system. An entire new roof structure is recommended. The existing upper floor system is opproximotely 25% of the structure required. This is not dose enough to reinforce, ond it E recommended that o new floor system be provided. The present foundation system does not appear to provide frost protection or,]dequote orcess,ind ventilotion i.0 ine oss-umed m,Jin tloor fron-ting system. Further inyestigotion mcg weil support c recommendation to reploce with o new Ioundotion system. The overall quality of construction of this out. building is not indicative ot the croftmanship of its ero, ,ind does riot comp,it-e to the permonence crid soundness of the prim,]ry residence. In light of these findings, it is my recommendation thot this structure be removed and replaced -with new construction. SKP/lw 88503 FR1 351 STATE HIWAY 82 P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 (3031 927-53 1 A-7 Wl. 1 illt JAN 2 8 ; and associates 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL (303) 925-4755 January 29, 1988 Mr. Steve Burs-[ein lannina Office :ity of Aspen 30 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RfÂ·Zi " Historic Desianation and Conceptual Plan Approval 1 1 Â·20Â·2â€¢ 4 Was 'C n,3. 1 .1. a m A ve ri Ll e Block 42, Lots K, L and M 1 : 1 1- ..., ri 4 Aspen Dear Steve: The purpose of this letter is to apply for historic designation, and conceptual review and approval for the above-referenced proj P rt . -- -6 Our program and concept for the residence at 334 West Hallam A venue is as tollows: 1. Obtain historic designation for the property. 2. Pursuant to applicable codes, do the following: a. Demolish, reconbtruct, enlarge and renovate the existing residential structure. du Demolish ano reconstruct the two-story carriage hoil-se. With careful restoration to the existing residence, we believe that historic designation should be granted ,0 this property. It is significant in its architecture (vernacular design) and its association with Eugene Wilder and the Aspen Lumber Company ione of Aspen s oldest establishments). It is our feeling that the appearance ot the prooosed addition to the house allows for the prominent identity of the historic structure. This addition not only enhances the comfort of the residents, but 19 characteristic 0+ Ene Victorian style of the house and neighborhood. Mr. Steve Burstein loG'k) January 29, 1,WW Fage two ~ and associates The new carriage house is sited on its original location (see Sandborne's Map of 1904). It is a building which is more useful to the owners as a true carriage house ana dwelling place. We feel that the carriage house is not so much a separate building, but rather a complement to the main resicienriak structure. This is accompl ished through similar detailing and smaller proportions befitting a secondary structure. Hopefully, this letter has helped you to understand the intent of this project. If there are any nuestions, please give me a call. Sincerely, 1~Â»,4 Patricia Harris Project Manager PH:dem Enclosures .. APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVAT ION COMMITTEE REVIEW A. Name of Applicant: Marta Chaikovska and Frank E. Peters B. Authorization by owner for Representative to Submit Appli- cation: See attached letter. C. Name and Location of-Property: 334 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K.L and M D. Description of Proposal: Historic designation, demolition, reconstruction, and addition to existing structure. See , attached letter. E. List elevation plans, site plan, detail drawings, historic photographs, current photographs, etc. which are being submitted with this application: Elevations, floor plans, site plans, historic inventories (National and City of Aspen), photo of property, Sandborne Map. F. Building Materials: To match existing. G. Colors: H. Illumination: I. Signage: . J. Effect of the proposal on the original design and architectural elements: Conforms to and complements the Victorian style. K. Identify encroachment licenses or other City approvals needed by applicant: -J A t-4 - 1:,.~-aa THU 12:el P .02 -/ 02 r.,9 0 0 .. Industries, Inc. January 26, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 334 W. Hallam St. Lots L,K,M, Block 42 Town of Aspen Dear Steve: , Acting as the owner Of the above referred lot and as the applicant Marta Chaikovska of 334 West Hallam, 925-2272 - I hereby authorize the following to act as my representative during the HPC review of the above referenced project: Bill Poss & Assoc. 605 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel. 925-4755 Kind regards. Marta Chaikovska 370 Brook Street Elgin, Illinois 60120 312/931-5430 0 . U.4 04 â€¢ -'11 4 43 . f i ri*CT 1~FÂ»4*97-- N. 3 110 F. A Â· 0 DH Â· ST. A . 300 75'11 -ALL- 800 74 - 0 11 3 t_ 11 11 - v e 11 R 11 ;1 90% 4 - 8 , 0 ~ 4Â»4- 11 11 1 11 74 C /11/ 11 -1.- . 1 0 1 / 0, 2 11 ll 0 0 (12 Efa (1/2 /020/ 0 R ~1-127 N O ' rr-li-, . i :/1 -'. It 19 74 11 4 r- r -42 i 0 Â£ _ T-i- 11 1...4., 11 dr--17=ym fo,â€¢) -b U Z 2- ~1,1 LfÂ·P-~ 1/ \ i --1-10 L 0 -1 1-71 F.>Y. 3 F Â¢ii-_\ 11 I 0 71 11 4 -c 1 4 11 / 1,1-4 5 11 10 1 1. i ., 11 . 0 / 11 RH % 11 - $ -- 11 /1 .,/ 11 -2 +Pe/Â» . 11 - S g 11 1301 . 0 11 11 0 11 0 - 11 0 ~FA, ~ k N.24.0 ST. (19,+IPPOM471* AA,r 4~ 1104.- , 300 400 1 4 1/ OLD Z I A 1 || < 9 2 11 1 - P 0 2 - 11 . 11 * -- 0 2 8 0 11 11 7-ZI 11 1 -- 11 11 t. 0 1 .Al c 77 ~; A 11 ..04 77 1 2 11 Â¢1./. 11 - 0 0 .... N D 0 11 11 11 / . 12&249 771 0 0 It 0 4 :712 80 r-- _3 E. U i \ li 7,17 h mir 524 m*167 ' 4.., i.Â·0 31 . _ ~/ râ€¢Â·4.1.â€¢11 Nt, . cA f f J â‚¬ O . Zff 4 WARRANTY DEED i 1 1, I / ..: p q .,1 - 9 15*b' 44 -Dtct metazi ms N 41 ~ Ci i THIS DFED, 10~01â€¢ jÂ¢ 9 0 p. 00 i -1 1 K -4 Z~ ' i 'Â¥ 86 h.-8 , MARION B. Crn 1 2 73%40(+H ~ ~ W 12 V WMOJC , 0-,W a Pitkin -d 51. 14 % , 1.-j .4. N : I. 34* :i Rfam" Â¢ 4 J n~ c-*/- .4 MARTA CHAIKOVSKA and DRAK E. PETEU 88 joint teâ€¢ints - 4 t . 242 1 1 :1 4 1 .b- 10,1.*.. Poit Office Box 9698, Upin, Colorado 81612 * ' 4Â· 7. 4.3 *-.5 Pitkin -6 k*ded-do. p.-c j 44 .306... 64,4 ..............1-0, TEN ($10.00) AND OTHER GOOD AMI) 6 .Ft O -'Â¥010â€¢U Co=Ini<Alm, DOLLARS. ~ " ' ' ' ' ' ' -- I. 4 Pld.,=/1.1.idâ€¢'014 -4 i...~.4.-db> 0â€¢ck rre.<101. dn,4 /11/1. b.fgati. 0â€¢11. ~ ... 0...1 *itkin ... â€¢ithâ€¢=powmem. â€¢C->. wâ€žâ€¢c.ty,ng-dbcing/:hâ€¢ 3 Id S- al Colur- deâ€¢rnbed b fulka . ~ - 94'e)Â·-â€¢9.Â· /. . 9-7-i ,;-- Ki L, U.49::4 .. . 4 j* A *Moek 42 ~- 4 4,/ ir vy ' STATE DOCUIENTARY FEE r -Â· X Â£#l.,df> A + f . ; E 306 j t.... 1 .1 , 15950 - Cr .,...4,..4-=,0. 334 West Hallam, Aspen, Colorado 81611 TOGETHER â€¢ â€¢* JI: -d *Illi:log * 1,~rd,lamrnt. and .pr-*â€¢anâ€¢ A Iherrtâ€¢ 4-1~n,in,Â· â€¢w in -n .i~. a~ralâ€žnin, an.! IN fri,* - 4 m,â„¢,m. remal~del -di wmim, 0.. 14-câ€¢ -1 râ€¢,14'â€¢ *,rn,4,1 1,~1 811 1}â€¢, iâ€¢~,1,' ii,N Iâ€¢lk.,%Â·i~â€¢1 ,!,in, .nd LkÂ·,Tut,,1 .ful-â€¢u- tÂ·f th,r , F-â€¢w. clther / 1- 1 equâ€¢y. i / 8..1 â€¢; 11â€¢ Aâ€¢, 1-,â€¢t,â€¢rd p~tn,â€¢câ€¢. â€¢â€¢th th~ te.141â€¢â€¢â„¢*â€¢Â¢â€¢ -2 *rurlen in. e. TO HAVE A4O TO HOLD {hc -d pe~Inct alâ€¢â€¢Â¢ h,ry,ana-1 .Ir-neW *ph 4 4-â€¢r,u.... ,â€¢m 4.7 *r. r,tri hiâ€¢ h.-,i, anj *-iynÂ·Â· Rirâ€¢â€¢fr Aid *Ir pl-, 1,â€¢ himâ€¢flf h,â€¢ hel,â€¢. -d bin.,I-1 n-rÂ¢r.ai.11~iÂ·. .;Â·n oâ€¢â€¢d,n: 1,0â€¢ h=,Â·.iâ€ž in.1 .6,U . . .ini ll. E .F.,a h â€¢ h, in ....1 burâ€¢â€¢. 144 * thr l-r .4 *14 rnâ€¢,â€¢1010 *11 dellwn â€¢11 th~w pnÂ·.Im h. 1,-, 11 4Â·,ird â€¢4 th. pâ€¢r,â€¢t,- â€¢ â€¢h.t ...,1Â·.1 h., 0...1 Â«,t râ€¢ 1 1, J ..4.'.4 -,1 -AwN. râ€¢ule,Wiahrnt,m,/ bâ€¢ -Ic, wnpk -11- ,â€¢â€¢â€¢11,# 1.111â€¢-u ./41'.UIL.*/4,1, 1., r'.uâ€ž h......9 w 2 ./J , 1/1- rÂ· 'hÂ¢ 'arâ€¢*. m minicâ€¢ -d 64,1 . b..,0. 0,4 4. - .,Bl, *Â· 1â€¢ri *4 i k,t Irâ€¢â€¢m .ti 1 wrn.Â·i ,â€¢kl â€¢ha ,â€¢ini. h., i i u.k . ., â€ž Â· i n, . â€ž -.- i. Â£ $ m..n.0.-*r. and rÂ¢44â„¢1.-â€¢ .4 â€¢hainri kilâ€¢1â€¢â€¢notâ€¢~ -â€¢.â€ž nâ€¢erâ€¢ FOR AND SUB.!ECT 10 THE 101.1 '16'14 , 1 1,enerat property taxe, for 1986 and thereafter payable in 198.7 and therrafter; 1.4.Â·.,Â·rva- tionâ€¢ and excepts in Patent recorded in Mook 119 mt PÂ·.g,Â· 219. '.Er 1,1 +1 ' BEING TO THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF I'll IN (,I}ZIN.., 911.i,kA!>0, 4 11â€¢F'*'"" .hall ..1.,11 *ARRANI /WHIÂ¢11\1 11 1411'â€¢.Dih, A-, 4 '.,iâ€ž ..,. â€¢,4.... r 1,â€¢â€¢ hriiâ€¢ ,..1.â€¢,â€¢i,nâ€¢ â€¢,â€¢â€¢nn *Calâ€¢! rÂ·ra râ€¢Â·f-â€¢,44 1â€¢râ€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢Â» 1.-lulti .twi .n, 'h .k*.4 .,i.-p.iâ€¢ â€¢ . -,Â·,i 1 4. . ,~ .- thÂ¢ riwfal IN- â€¢,4, .1. ...c ih. uâ€¢r ,â€¢ .â€¢, ,~â€¢â€¢]e, â€¢h.11 N .rrlâ€¢,.N. â€¢ Â· .11. Â· w . IN '411'4"A 441'111'(H, 4. v.râ€¢'*â€¢ 14â€¢ at,uâ€¢Â·.1,1.â€ž 1, J..â€¢ 1,+4 ., 4 'a .,Â· / F ..f -9 , . Matfu ,, A. Grt - 4 1 411 1 11 1 111 1 * /1. , f '. Pltkin )'1 tA 1/1 1...It. ' 7, '4 Kh , .,ar i,â€¢n P.. 1 â€¢Â·t , 1 , 64 00-'~- #*1 472/ , Â· 4 . 1 â€¢ \ \\\1\\\\\ \12 3 4 5 61\ .01-/0/2 i / / r--E I 0<>Cls/71 - 18 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 1 [FR<Fa - H F H , 8 A - 0 I H H 4 - H' 9-el :EF 'Hl W. HALLAM ST, TEJI-PÂ«y E 4 4% Z H W W . W. BLEEKER ST. M HO Z Z o H e e lI t- ]J F fli ~ 1 -- Z Z .U _t'+14 _\/Id>I Nli7 --f,-1 7 t; 0 8 03 1 Il .. w WH W. - HOPKINS - AVE--- R-o H i e Â® . (al W 0 I -1 101 : 1 1 1Skild . 16&113 .-S..... I ' le) 1 . bLOGK 42.- \ida--r- bub .. )FRANCIS \ - " -2\,1.-ltâ‚¬+Cid ---//) .1- ~ -7890 C,3 r 0i P -=F N/AL\ N/A 1, > k'4- <-f:r~ NIA f -7 1 1, X 1 1 _-1 - ~ 7893.0 x j - ___* r-1__* _d-= 303 T /1 X -7-1- - K 'h ''* .7422 r-4 v,-1/ 7 1 -[72 -1 \11 r--1 A .j. 11 j r >< r r j k V 03 -J_L \ E-ul Ln 0114*1 1 r l, 1 _<9-94; ~334rÂ«4 13~0 1 PrÂ« J . (uL-T-) f /- fy \Â«5 Vit.-R,buvi \UAI I A A A' O .F .Ili~-ORY OF HISTORIC SITES & STRUC~S ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE ASPEN, COLORADO 16180 RESOURCE NUMBER: NAME OF STRUCTURE/SITE/PROJECT: Aspen Historic Sites/Structures Inventory 1980 LOCATION: 42 east 1/2K. west 1/2 L Block Lot 334 West Hallam Street Street Address RESOURCE INTEGRITY: 0= None,N..Â· 1= Notable /2= Excellent /3= Exceptional (Maximum - o roints) DEGREE OF SIGNIFICANCE SCORE I. 1-7 Historically Associated with Events of Significance to: . LOCALE , 0 1 2 3 . REGION 0123 . STATE 0123 . NATION 0123 SUBTOTAL 10-1 I I. f--7 Historically Associated with Individuals or Groups which are Significant to: . LOCAL 0123 . REGION 0123 . STATE 0123 . NATION 0123 SUBTOTAL 101 III. // Embodies Distinctive Characteristics of: . TYPE/STYLE ARCHITECTURE/CONSTRUCTION OlA . PERIOD OF ARCHITECTURE 0 1 7 . METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION 0 1 2 SUBTOTAL 1-33 ., Tv f--7 Represents the Work of a Significant Craftsman/Wilder/Architect: . LOCALI.Y 0123 . REGIONAL 0123 . NATIONAL 0123 SUBTOTAL 137 V. //A Noteworthy D.r.Â»kc.:r. rple of a Style Becoming Rare in tne Locale or is Identified with,Â·.a Streete. Â·Â·Â·Â·u....t:.Â·Â·:' ..0 Landscape 0 1~3 -FET - Â·.,3 Â·Â·Â·Â·.Â·'.11-.cu.-:se:.4 ,>igh Artislic V: " . 0 1 TOTAL POINTS Lle-1 - i - -4.-/ 1-6 Points = NOTAB; DATE: 1 .n l - 0 ...: f-7 7 - 7 2 POINTS = ExuL /~ 13 - 18 POINIS = EXCEPTIONAL 0.1 01 09 .. W D b-1 51 7 p 'BABB ARA 8. Â·11[Ek.l e-L~ ~ i l-L I ATAA -4 z~ U A-k~t_0~\11156, ASPEIMMSTORIC SITES/STRUCTURES INVENTORY 1980 42 f KL 334 \81. .LI-ALLAM 6~' BLOCK/LOT(s) ADDRESS INSTRUMENT/DATE GRANTOR GRANTEE YEAR/TAX ASSESSMENT K-Liti LAND IMP,2. ACD I ~17 ~96 86 +1At )04 Laa.2342-0 ~13 6<rxlee-- (ICE) |~GI 65 1194. b. 5*ytse_ 1 ' 1 -. I+A-ARLI G KLM E. VO IL-iz>E:-e_ (loD lu],14 5. l.-. Alme. ri 669. 'PU- il_u 21,14 \ 8(2 1~50 69 0 ace A-prli )67 (bea. Pln; 11& ps E.Â»Ek CE k.1196iL Wn j.x,1 2 370 Eu<an.De- W 11.-DEe_ BEN 33 4:Peuceâ‚¬_ ED 1364 141 1 161 -1 46pa Y 5% 13)8019 lk)dde- WD Maq 1-)~19 *90*l~e- kudge= 6-\48/(;C'I?4~2i Vâ‚¬- */b Ap-,2499 Eneine \AJ\Mer- A. 6Â°~Aidju Â« 6?CD R 1841900 A- . 61\ALW IK ) TW,a- A.6Â»,Ue-AL.) h~AT-'L. SANIC_ 1<2- WD '3~ 141901 A-twee,4 4&, Al A-r,CRAuY_. Â·AA-r-Â·ne- Baec-H 140LUgSHEAD MD I)~12-1 81 {-1-Aifie B.Â¥40 Red-\ AA\upeeDEVe-0 f \AID **0 Al\INE-DE thllin~|ted '*ADevÂ·1 -AouclÂ»17(ZH- W D 918*2- Sert -1-jn rb<12 -Do-n _14@ker 66Â© M a * Tain P>Al23O E. 6. Ch)t_D WD 512-1 46 E. 6. (Ra )LD 4-0 l._1734-1F I EL:b WD 610/149 JOH-KI P- LITOJEFicaLD UPAT,an-E_9-<B\Â·ea A-PA â‚¬, AGI Â¢:u~ RESOURCES: 1. Pitkin County Abstract of Lots Books 04Â¢6,2.--~ Grantor/GranteeÂ·Books f Grantee/Grantor Books 9 i 2. Pitkin County Tax Assessment Rolls (on microfilm) , RESEARCHER: ~S,IZA ~f ~112KPATEAC.-4(- LkwÂ· ' 950 i CONCLUSIONS: f - 1 1 t -.COLCRADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY -Preservation Office, 1303-aroadway, Denver, CO 80203 ~ INVENTORY RECORD NOT FOR FIELD UgE I '- DET. ELIG. /17 J- 0 - 11! L-224- 1 IMPORTANT: COMPLETE THIS SHEET FOR EACH DET. NOT ELIG. RESOURCE PLUS EITHER AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR NOMINATED HISTORICAL/ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT FORM. LISTED, DATE 4-_4:4564 . . I. IDENTIFICATION: 1)Resource No. 5PT-256 2)Temp. No. 98 3)Resource Name Eugene Wilder ' 4)Project Name ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES/ STRUCTURES 5)Category: Arch. Site_, Hist./Archit.* Structure*, Hist./Archit. District_. 6) (For Arch. site)In a District:yes__no-;Name N/A II. LCCATION: 7)Township lOS ;Ridge 85W ; :- 16 of -- T of -- 4 of SE 15 of Section 12 ; P.M. 6 . 8)County Pitkin 9)USGS QUAD Aspen ;7.5*15_;Date 1960 Attach photocopy portion of Quad. Clearly show site. 10)Other maps 1-50' scale Cooper Aerial Approx. 45 ft. x 100 ft. 11)Dimensions mX m 12)Area 4,500 sq. ft. sq.m(*4047=) less than 1 acres 13)UTMÂ·Reference: (One UTM centered on resource may be given for resource under 10 acres.) A.It ,3 ~314,21416,0,6E;14~3I3,9~7,0,0~N. B.11 ,314314,214,2,0 traE;|4 13 |3 ,9 16 ,3 ,O [mN. c.11 ,3 ~~3 i4,2 #3 ,4,0[inE;14,3 I 3,9 I 6,6,0~mN. D.Il ,3 I;]3 14 2 13 ,8,0 ImE;14 ,3 13 ,9 17 :3 ,0 imN. 14)Address 334 W. Hallam Street I Lotl<L Block 42 Addition -- III. MANAGEMENT DATA: 15)Field Assessment: Eligible * Not Eligible Need Data~Â· Â· Â·~ 16)Owner/Address N/A 17)Gov't Involvement: County-State-Federal__Private-: Agency N/A 18)Disturbance:none__light-moderate__heavy__total__;Explain N/A .. 19)Threats to Resource:Wathr. Erosion__Wind Erosi~n__Animal Activity_Neglect-Vandalism- Recreation-Construction__; Comments N/A 20)Management Recommendations Follow Design Guidelines V. REFERENCE: 21)State/Fed. Permig Nos. N/A Colorado Preservation Office 98 22)Photo Nos. - . ,on: file at (303)-839-3394 I. . 23)Report Title ASPEN INVENfoRY OF HISTORIC SITES/STRUCTURES * - 24)Rechrder- Verfa *G. Kirkpatrick ~ f ~ - Â· 25)Recording .Date .Sept, *30, 1980 26)Recorder Affiliation Aspen-/Pitkin County.-Planning Office 27)Phone No. (303) 925-2020 III Â·TPSForm 109OO ;024-0013 6-82) Expire: 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received Inventory-Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Comp/ete Nationa/ Register Forms Type all entries-complete applicable sections 1. Name historic Eugene Wilder House and or common Eugene Wilder House 2. Location street & number 334 West Hallam Street __ not for publication city, town Aspen vicinity of state Co code 08 county Pi tkin code 097 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district - public _X_ occupied -_ agriculture - museum X building(s) X_ private --- unoccupied -- commercial - park structure -_ both work in progress -- -- educational x private residence site Ppblic Acquisition Accessible _ entertainment religious object nZA in process -- yes: restricted - government - scientific being considered _- - yes: unrestricted -_-- industrial transportation 21- no __- military - other: 4. Owner of Property name Marvin Getz street & number p. o. Box 4737 city, town Aspen -_ vicinity of state CO 81612 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry ofdeeds, etc. Pitkin County Court House street & number 506 East Main Street city, town Aspen state co 6. Representation in Existing Surveys boloraao inventory of title Historic Sites has this property been determined eligible? __ yes _7_ no date Ongoing - federal _-X_ state - county -- local depository for survey records Colorado Historical Socilly - OAHP city, town Denver state CO .r 7. Description ~ Condition Check one Check one ?L_ excellent deteriorated unaltered X original site good _ ruins X altered moved date fair unexposed Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance The two story WilderÂ· Hot.ule, constructed ca. 1885, is wood frame with clapboard facing. It has an L plan with a broad front gable . Tile front elevation is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small panes of stained glass. The cornices of the bay, between the first and second stories and at the top of the second story, have such delicate ornamentation it is easily overlooked. There are small sawn brackets at the angles and the wall junctures. Below the frieze, which has a row of very small dentils, are delicate attached pendents. There is a small front porch next to the bay with a low hipped roof supported by rectangular wood posts and denticulated frieze. There is , a second hipped roof porch in the L with similar elements and a secondary entrance. The roof is wood shingle with a tall brick chimney in the middle of the west side. The one-over-one, double hung, wood sash have molded cornices at the top. The gable is faced with fish scale shingles. Prior to 1961, an addition, two stories high faced in clapboard, was -constructed on the rear which changed the angle of the original roof slope. The demarcation between the old gable with fish scale shingles and the new construction is visable on the east elevation. (photo #1, la) The building department records beginning in 1961 indicate several renovations up to 1979. These include the remodeling of the original building and partitions for three rooms and a bath with no change in exterior dimensions. In 1963, the two story carriage house in the rear was moved about five feet to the southeast and remodeled for use - as a studio and garage. In 1970, a bath was added to the carriage house. The front bay windows and porches were restored in 1965. The house is painted beige with white trim and brown highlighting the ornament. There are still some of the old street trees remaining on this corner site. 1 1 .. 8. Significance Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below prehistoric archeology-prehistoric community planning landscape architecture.- - religion 1400-1499 archeology-historic conservation law -_ science 1500-1599 agriculture economics literature - ._ sculpture 1600-1699 DC architecture educafion military __-- social/ 1700-1799 a rt engineering - _ music humanitarian 1_ 1800-1899 commerce explorationsettlement philosophy __-_ theater 1900- communications industry politics/government ___ transportation invention - other (specify) -- Specific dates 1885 Builder Architect possibly Aspen Lumber Company Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) The Wilder House has architectural significance in its unique vernacular design incorporating a one-of-a-kind and highly decorative bay window. The house displays the high degree of craftsmanship which was available in Aspen as the town grew from a rough mining camp into a sophisticated mining city of the late 1880s, The house has retained much of its original integrity through careful restoration of the original elements. Additional significance is seen in the association with owner Eugene Wilder, who celine to Aspen in the 1880 s and was associated with the Aspen Lum Per Company, one of Aspen's oldest establishments. BACKGROUND The Wilder House was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber and may have been built by The Aspen Lumber Company. Wilder was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, along with R. F. Roberts from the mid-1880s to the early 1890s. This business was one of the pioneer Aspen lumber companies established ca. 1880-1882. It is not known how long Wilder lived in the house or who subsequent owners were siYce there are no Aspen City Directories after 1893 up to the 1950S. - Footnotes 1. Aspen Daily Times, April 1, 1886, p. 2. Colorado Business Directory, 1880-1885. Aspen City Directory, 1889, 1892, 1893. 9. Major Bibli~raphical Referenc~ See footnotes 10. Geographical Data Acreage of nominated property _ _ under one Quadrangle name Aspen _.. Quadrangle scale 1 :24 __9_0.Q__._ UT M References A [113_| I3|41214ioiol |413|319[616io| 81 1-111 111 lilli lilli Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing clllllil1llll/1lllll DI lili 'll'JI'lll'll E L-1_1 lili lillil'Illl F Ll-| | | l1li11l1i1ll1 GIl_Illilill I lillill HI 1 1 11 1-lilli lilli 1 1 Verbal boundary description and justification Block 42, lots K, L, M Aspen Townsile List all states and counties for properties overlapping state or county boundaries state n/a code county code ---- state code county code 11. Form Prepared By name/title Barbara Norgren, Consultant n/a date August 15, 1986 organization street&number 7453 East Jefferson Drive telephone (303) 740-7860 city or town Denver state CO 80237 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: national -- state -___ local As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89- 665), I hereby nominate this properly for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Service. State Historic Preservation Officer signature title date For NFS use only I hereby certify that this properly is included In the National Register date Keeper of the National Register Attest: date Chiel of Registration GPO 911â€¢399 i 1. . .., 07 Â· - - 4-,ilÂ¥457<GLENÂ¥+Tr' O - t., 19*dis.?\4 4f - . L.V,k . .-r, %, - t'.,21,-7,7.-1. - . , L 242 h . ..r , - . 1, 1 'a= 4 43 3.3942/.: , C a 9 . v-fu. â€¢ - L . ./ 1 -*-f A 2*1~ r . - ' - '' &2 +-' A . 1 EP:*:2'LA'~7 044' 9. 4 ... ...0 3 .. 551.- - - - '' ' * 02..bidd~~. b- ... b. - -rt --- -- 14 - h h 7111 . 336 ..11.2-24. r/Gne~QI- lia V 47~5469 ,#A:/ Mitti. -1)-93~33~ . .7- 9 113 0 --- yals,0 . ...1 -49Â«NE -395-44.: Mra~ iâ€¢y-* ''L&~C% 1 - ,-:I'' -r'I e Â¢ r Â· cm 'Ill m Â·/ 7 . 2/ 8-6'- 1-Â· -7 1- r ' i .= 2 . 70 1 J 3 i.2. - , Â· - u . .d . m/Â£&*ChG 4. â€¢' 1 - 4- SKI . r==== -I--0---ILE-As/ef 1.-1 ~ Ew=a 1 r--1 /:V, Id ===:ll 1 .-1 F 1 ~ /~E ~ - L-1,1 1.- 04-IC, Crzrj a- , r 4 " ~ f ' u(- . l- t 01 ,'i~j 2 i / $ 1-2 ic -// 4 *4.44.-2 12 - â€¢:,1 0- . - 1 . -- Ill r P "4 ' Iâ€¢ 2 1.1 C J 1 A .1 t~ , . r 66 E r E m :,mmii.Mmmilm,mm- c 4 '11.-~ 1 1 ' iÂ· '41,|~ 1~1111'1111.;617!4.-19/9- - I. f. 1 - ..3 . , .t â€¢ J/>2 'L-Â·1~â€¢ ''RE. / ~'~- /((,t-11/~. - ),/ /Lkj{Jll, , '~~~'~C t. l--... / 1 ./ f 1 ,. Â·Â·1 2 . D 4., SleÂ» . 11.9 -'r:...i'* 62 ..1~4 27/ *. ._.,Â«1Â· i.~Â·32;9~241-. 12. ,Â». .96 r F!Â·12*'. - 3:,Â£64 e~ER '. 1 3, N.- - .. 1,11,1 n'111111 '1~-f~r- r 'lilli ", 11 1 1 r..a-r/11*dur- 1441'llfi11Ilill4'It.Cri#r#$*.4,#uhl~Rtailifuli13i$'IA,119 ., Â·.- , *.-4,.5 -Â·ltrÂ·4Â·.: -6 :' ~-'f.,:'r,$'re'.FF.. 1.4 #,v#,All.Di lfU!3Â·41* b j'* tj N -70,'.ut, 44 1\,I. ine .Â· Emae'*t % 0 6 I JiN-N.,1'J 12=el P.02/02 .. Industries, Inc, January 26, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 334 W. Hallam' St. Lots L,K,M, Block 42 Town of Aspen Dear Steve: Acting as the owner Of the above referred lot and as the applicant.Marta Chaikovska of 334 West Hallam, 925-2272 - I hereby authorize the following to act as my representative during the HPC review of the above referenced project: Bill Poss & Assoc. 605 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel. 925-4755 Kind regards. 1 . H L :. / -- Marta Chaikovska 370 Brook Street Elgin, Illinois 60120 312/931-5430 . I .III\~ORY OF HISTORIC SITES & STRUC-1~S ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE ASPEN, COLORADO Icl 80 RESOURCE NUMBER: NAME OF STRUCTURE/SITE/PROJECT: Aspen Historic Sites/Structures Inventory 1980 LOCATION: 42 east 1/2K. west 1/2 L Block Lot 334 West Hallam Street Street Address RESOURCE INTEGRITY: 0= None,N .Â· '1= Notable /2= Excellent /3= Exceptional (Maximum - 3 roints) DEGREE OF SIGNIFICANCE SCORE I. 1-7 Historically Associated with Events of Significance to: . LOCALE 0 1 2 3 - . REGION 0123 . STATE 0123 . NATION 0 1 2 3 SUBTOTAL 1-67 I I. f--7 Historically Associated with Individuals or Groups which are Significant to: . LOCAL 0123 . REGION 0123 . STATE 0123 . NATION 0123 SUBTOTAL 101 III. // Embodies Distinctive Characteristics of: . TYPE/STYLE ARCHITECTURE/CONSTRUCTION 0 1 (1 3 . PERIOD OF ARCHITECTURE 0 1 -2- 3 . METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION 0123 SUBTOTAL liI ., 1\I FT Represents the Work of a Significant Craftsman/Wilder/Architect: . LOCALI.Y 0123 REGIONAL 0123 . NATIONAL 0123 SUBTOTAL FU V. / / A Noteworthy f..:r'.,:c.AÂ·.6..r. aple of a Style - Becoming Rare in tne Locale or is Identified with,e Street:=3-, --'fÂ·.iÂ·.~2Â·Â·'UÂ· 2 Landscape. 0 1~3 fET - --rÂ·~.1 Â»'11-.(.:.'se:,4>igh Artislic V:- . . 0 1 TOTAL POINTS 1(el l._/ 1 - 6 Points = NOTAB; DATE: -/77 7 -12 POINTS = Exul L... & ... 7--7 13 - 18 POINTS = EXCEPTIONAL .. Â«-1 D 10_,| 31 ~ 6-(p 'iAAR-BARABÂ· Â·1-leha Rx-~ ~~il_LI A,AA-4-L.jo l-JAUA~-07~111 56, ... ASPEN RISTORIC SITES/STRUCTURES INVENTORY 1980 42 f KE - 334 \61 - -[Ult-+M 6-k BLOCK/LOT(s) ADDRESS / INSTRUMENT/DATE GRANTOR GRANTEE YEAR/TAX ASSESSMENT RED 47 j96- 8 6, AA-OUA Luu-B 13 c E-Lit,( LAND IMAC. 01(1186- Oit> UG' 64 - L.Gu. b. SIÂ©YELA- 1. I.. H-A-{11Â£1 63 1<LM (ROD 13]44 5.L. A,490-0. 8 (Ber . '[Al- Il_u ht'H \ ee (rED 60 0 E-Â·VO I L-ibE=-0- d)00 Ap< 11167 (%6. Ph hkps E.,Coaki E kLUee_ Wibj)L-x~ 2 Jgo El)GE-De- Ihj Il,DE#2_ BEN 33 41*Unee_ \ND 726 \211 1 BE-kl -5pa Y ER-, 53<39ne k)Â£ icle-r- WD Mat f Il)19 f*c~e-ls \A )\\dse-- A--I-U~hE~3Glr~26 4b~Ar.2499 Atene 4.)114-er- A. 5645Rtdu 41- (3?CD o hoho A-. 43*2\At lk) -<78- ATUm.Ra C-AG U, Ar 4 L. 84-rÂ·J CL 162- WD '3~41901, A-Aree #JAA, 11~r'uBA+JL t~A-r-'-rE '-E 7~qc-*0\ WD ACLU SHEAD 1)1121 31 NA-pria- B. SURC-:8 AA ;LDe*Eve-07 W b +140 Al\I--DEED Â£ 1Hlingoltecd 'j@ke,r~Â¥ 6xlÂ¥4\-1 \AID 9 j80~2- ilbert -1-jnfrA<&(Elt .Da-n 14@-Ler- deD M 19 1 44 fli,n KAi_er E. 6. Fa) LD i f WD 512-1 1 Lk, 6.6. (Ra )LD 444-k) l._1Â»]Fl E-Lb Wt> 61(01148 JOH-KI P. LITCH-Fi 51-0 L/PAT,2-in-2.-9- 9ACAA:Â·RA 16, 14â‚¬t.4 8.-~ RESOURCES: 1. Pitkin County Abstract of Lots Books O,62__: Grantor/GranteeÂ·Books i Grantee/Grantor Books , 2. Pitkin County Tax Assessment Rolls (on microfilm) RESEARCHER: ~RA 6 11 ev-prre-Ac.-4:- Lkg ' 950 CONCLUSIONS: ,-CGI=.CRADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SilRVEY -Preservation Office, 1300-ireadway, Denver, CO 80203 ~ INVENTORY RECORD 7~ NOT FOR FIELD UgE <RNIA - DEL ELIG. DET. NOT ELIG. !w ' i .Vl f - IMPORTANT: COMPLETE THIS SHEET FOR EACH 1 i TME N NOMINATED I /1 RESOURCE PLUS ElilIER AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR - HISTORICAL/ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT FORM. LISTED, DATE I. IDENTIFICATION: 1)Resource No. 5PT-256 2)Temp. No. 98 3)Resource Name Eugene Wilder ' 4)Project Name ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES/ STRUCTURES 5)Category: Arch. Site-, Hist./Archit. Structure*. Hist./Archit. District_. 6)(For Arch. site)In a District:yes__no__;Name N/A II. LOCATION: 7)Township lOS ;Range 85W ; :- 4 of -- k of -2 4 of SE k of Section 12 ; P.M.' 6 . 8)County Pitkin 9)USGS QUAD Aspen ;7.5*15__;Date 1960 Attach photocopy portion of Quad. Clearly show site. 10)Other maps 1-50' scale Cooper Aerial Approx. 45 ft. x- 100 ft. 11)Dimensions mX m 12)Area 4,500 sq. ft "sq.m(:4047=) less than 1 acres 13)UTMÂ·Reference: (One UTM centered on resource may be given for resource under 10 acres.) A.11,3 ~;]3i4,214 ,6 ,0'mE;14,313,917,0 iolmN. B.11,31;13 14 2-14,2 :0 ImE;J4 8 |3,9 |6,3,0 ~mN. c.11 ,3 1;~314,2#3 ,4 10 lmE;14,313 ,916,6,0~mN. D.11 ,Â·31;13 14 ,2 13 ,8 ,0 ImE;14 ,3 13 ,9 |7 :3 ,0 lmN. 14)Address ~ 334 W. Hallam Street + 2 Â£0eKL Block 42 Addition -- III. MANAGEMENT.DATA: 15)Field .Assessment: Eligible * Not Eligible Need Data Â· 0 . 16)Owner/Address N/A 17)Gov' t Involvement: County__State__Federal__Private-: Agency N/A 18)Disturbance:none__light-moderate__heavy__total__;Explain N/A . 19) Threats to Resource:Watur. Erosion__Wind Erosion__Animal Activity-Neglect-Vandalism Recreation__Construction-;Comments N/A 20)Management Recommendations Follow Design Guidelines V. REFERENCE: 21)State/Fed. Permit Nos. -N/A Colorado Preservation Office 98 22)Photo Nos.- son'file at (3031-839-3394 23)Report Title ASPEN IrÂ·IVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES/STRUCTURES . ~ - 24)Recarder' VeRA G. Kirkpatrick ~f ~ ~ Â· 25)Recording -Date -.Sept..~30, 1980 26)Recorder Affiliation Aspen/Pitkin County/Planning Office 27)Phone No. (303) 925-2020 1 210 . . m .Y O . 1024-0013 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received Inventory-Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries-complete applicable sections 1. Name historic Eugene Wilder House and or common Eugene_Wilder House 2. Location street & number 334 West Hallam Street ___ not for publication city, town Aspen vicinity 01 co state code 08 county Pi tkin code 097 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use distridt - public _X_ occupied --__- agriculture - museum X building(s) X_ private --_ unoccupied - commercial - park structure -_ both work in progress ---_ educational x private residence site Ppblic Acquisition Accessible - _ entertainment - religious object rv a in process -- yes: restricted -- government - scientific being considered _- - yes: unrestricted -_._. industrial transportation 21 - no _-- military - other: 4. Owner of Property name Marvin Getz street & number P, 0. BOX 4737 city, town Aspen __ vicinity of state CO 81612 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Pitkin County Court House street & number 506 East Main Street city, town Aspen state co 6. Representation in Existing Surveys bolorado inventory of title Historic Sites has this property been determined eligible? __ yes _*_ no date Ongoing- federal 1- state - county _- local depository for survey records Colorado Historical SOCilly' - OAHP city, town Denver state CO 7. Description ~ - Condition Check one Check one ?L_ excellent _ . deteriorated unaltered X original site good _ ruins X altered moved date fair unexposed Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance The two story Wilder Hous:e, constructed ca. 1885, is wood frame with clapboard facing. It, ha.s an L plan with a broad front gable . The front elevation is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small panes of stained glass. The cornices el' the bay, between the first and second stories and at the top of the second story, have such delicate ornamentation it is easily overlooked. There are small sawn brackets at the angles and the wall Punctures. Below the frieze, which has a row of very small dentils, are delicate attached pendents. There is a small front porch next to the bay with a low hipped roof supported by rectangular wood posts and dEnticulated frieze. There is a second hipped roof porch in the L with similar elements and a secondary entrance. The roof is wood shingle with a tall brick chimney in the middle of the west side. The one-over-one, double hung, wood sash have molded cornices at the top. The gable is faced with fish scale shingles. Prior to 1961, an addition, two stories high faced in clapboard, was constructed on the rear which changed the angle of the original roof slope. The demarcation between the old gable with fish scale shingles and the new construction is visable on the east elevation. (photo #1, la) The building department records beginning in 1961 indicate several renovations up to 1979. These include the remodeling of the original building and partitions for three rooms and a bath with no change in exterior dimensions. In 1963, the two story carriage house in the rear was moved about five feet to the southeast and remodeled for use as a studio and garage. In 1970, a bath was added to the carriage house. The front bay windows and porches were restored in 1965. The house is painted beige with white trim and brown highlighting the ornament. There are still some of the old street trees remaining on this corner site. .. 8. Significance Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below prehistoric archeology-prehistoric community planning landscape architecture.-- religion 1400-1499 archeology-historic conservation law . _ - science 1500-1599 agriculture economics literature .__ sculpture 1600-1699 X architecture education military -_ social/ 1700-1799 art engineering _ ~ _ music humanitarian 1- 1800-1899 commerce exploration/settlement philosophy ___ theater 1900- communications industry politics/government __ transportation invention -__ other (specify) - Specific dates 1885 Builder Architect possibly Aspen Lumber Company Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) The Wilder House has architectural significance in its unique vernacular design incorporating a one-of-a-kind and highly decorative bay window. The house displays the high degree of craftsmanship which was available in Aspen as the town grew from a rough mining camp into a sophisticated mining city of the late 1880s. The house has retained much of its original integrity through careful restoration of the original elements. Additional significance is seen in the association with owner Eugene Wilder, who celine to Aspen in the 1880 s and was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, one of Aspen's oldest establishments. BACKGROUND The Wilder House was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber and may have been built by The Aspen Lumber Company. Wilder was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, along with R. F. Roberts from the mid-1880s to the early 1890s. This business was one of the pioneer Aspen lumber companies established ca. 1880-1882. It is not known how long Wilder lived in the house or who subsequent owners were si~ce there are no Aspen City Directories after 1893 up to the 1950S. - Footnotes 1. Aspen Daily Times, April 1, 1886, p. 2. Colorado Business Directory, 1880-1885. Aspen City Directory, 1889, 1892, 1893. 9. Â·Major Biblio*aphical Reference0 See footnotes 10. Geographical Data Acreage of nominated properly __ _--under one Quadrangle name Aspen _ .- Quadrangle scale 1:24 000 UT M References B l -1-1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 A l la I Il|4Â·i2|4i 010| |413 | li9[616io| Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing Cll]lllllllllllllll 01 11111]11]1 li li Ill EL_1_1 lili"IIIIIIIII F1l111l1ll11l1l1il1 HI , li l i l.ii i I il i L-1 1 1 Verbal boundary description and justification Â· Block 42, lots K, L, M Aspen Townsile List all states and counties for properties overlapping state or county boundaries state n/a code county code state code county code 11. Form Prepared By name/title Barbara Norgren, Consultant n/a date August 15, 1986 organization street & number 7453 East Je fferson Drive telephone ( 303 ) 740-7860 city or town Denver state CO 80237 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: national -_ state -_- local As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89- 665), I hereby nominate this properly for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Service. State Historic Preservation Officer signature title date For NFS use only l hereby certify that this property is Included In the National Register date Keeper 01 the National Register Attest: date Chi.1 of Registration GPO 91 1-399 'B&*et..24%,1)5&.~9~:y,~,~'~fll.<~~.~~i~~~~44#.4.%4, >i..- , .-1/918Â«i'J ... .f- ;.)-IÂ·,924'f'Â·,A M*Â·Â·,Â·Â£41499;4 21'~';:':2-: , .r r .r b .Â¥ . r, ..... .... I , .Pl,U-/.Ard M..... . ; 4.$.1, --. . N , I e< 5~4, ~('49:Â·t ..FNYÂ·lf//Ff'' 04' b ./. 7,:alESQI'll@W .V. -- 1.4,0 d N:4:6.,1... .4....J*.AN,itÂ»Â«g>* ;4 4 . , ~ â€ž,- 4.eki,JI'.~#dt*~*f - 9 Â·; 4Â· Â· a Â· 7- <iii - 11=-91 t:. I Jâ€¢ Â· Â· ' K Â· Â· - 4 +411 1 11 D I :p.1. 'f AftibÂ·: t.(2;94*%0%12/f#94' 1 I ..Jill....d \ 4, 4.:14.409,4.fil f: 3.1 Â· , .1 '4 1 Â·Â· .... 1~ ,... 59'l, I.a.â€¢4Â·Â· 7'Li *.â€¢ 4., 9. I . 1 ..74- #i.4 Â·: '00 . Â·1, â€¢19 Â· 9 &71â€žt. 1 ...4 4 1 : r'Â·64:igÂ·p ,& stÂ· #: % 4â€¢.5~5'Â·h.'.'9*3'~Â· ~ i/i 4/. 4 Â· $96../i'.r ..StotÂ·. fiff/,~45351<,4-A*:wie r . 'â€¢VE' tlÂ· - 4- 4 I :.- 4 A., .Â¥., VA..riÂ¥.'444Â·... ..7 . . ..,1.9 '1 ..010'.pr,11.7 42#%.31<Y' . L. 1**DYF.41%469 - D 14'<il.;. #2 :9iffi:*S. a b. 4,7 I',: .5: .~.! f 1 19 r 'th.. i:'Â·I..t...1,,WÂ¥ Â· Â·Â· , ,;S Â¢ I . e ..ANill:..-.4 . ' + 04..: .:~-: P . 1 ..~ -,1 . i --- - . *i. . f.-, j .Â·. >:r ' ./AXM:F:47,1-1â‚¬1 46 d B - . ' I ./ i I ..~I' 0 26, - r' Â·: " . 4.... t..2;-. *51%:trie'. 6 . 144*Â·k>r<,6 . 7. Â·41. .... @1:Â·?/ . <24:Â·.. tÂ®m.Â·46'3*39.- '76Â·&4Â· - Â·Â· .. . I'lÂ· 4 .'- 4 ~~Â¢.34,4~Â»541??01,4*NAâ‚¬,~i ., .6 .113% 7.- . j . , t .- 4- . d .:24.i~fit':~4*1.JTEr'/1,3&41&4~lf R . /$ - t.6 .J' - i 02â€¢;f' uy>,z.: .. . 1. 1 . -4 2 '191224~i;*LFi.2 1/ENBSE#9347%5"A 1. r 11*Al . I ':imilus#i"/*I--:Ak' . I.J.C . '>1 1 41,21 .: ' '44.. *22Â·,'Â·'' 13 '..'*~'ll ' - -...ma, '. Â·4~. 9.Â·-Â· Â·' ' 0- ,~ Â·â€¢A:'A I . Dll'i ; 1 1 i- A ~ :1 4Â·.Â·"fg 771%1 3432* -J#--i-/<U 2162:3-0;*42/i~~//:'B . 9 'f.~ tatmth- . 7/34'.:<EÂ·'A -a=: y:-:.Â·Â£7./9 ' -.*Aâ€¢'422 .-1 442,trif. p . ... ..2 J 104=3 -:/ Â·Â·4'12<-U. 1 1.6/#46*e-- 7. . -1 .. rr. ,....... 1 1 . I -ir 2.11-21'"I. a Mr.. . "~.ii .... 1.02 6 4 1/*54=.4~~jÂ·id.24.:<:i ... -:,0Â·,5 *t~qu*Mjpit'tt~ .... P= . I ; 76414*4:IyE#1:'fj/f k.* 4. . . . k //1, .,4 149iff ';9 . M â€¢* . 0. -/ I -.-- I * I ./ ' ./%4 Â· 0 4 11 & 00 0 45 Pre*cur TF+421-7 N . #J .- QRD D.N + ST. 1 64.' 316 80, 0 400 74 - 113 \ PN~-71\ 't_* 0 11 0 2 11 ,WIi 8 + 411 I / Â° ll 11 9194, 1,1,1 1 /- 72~ C i 'L i 0 1 Oil, u, R 0 It .. 02 \, 40 t e 21 Colo,1 - M \1Â¢ t 4- 77 1 5-71 N L fl= r 71-11 , 11 L'- -Â«-1 11 3 - rL F- 181' 1 01 - 42 11 0 Â£ r 7-7 U fl' I. /ll - 1 A L 4711 L.Â»-1 0 1 11 1 /1Fr g ' F 11 3 1~ 11 - 1 27Â» -LJC Ned . 4 11 IN /,-\1 ~ f k 11 / 11 RN 11 - 2 -- 11 2 /2,/ 1 11 5 0 S 11 11 301 0 401 11 11 0 1 N.2ND ST. 39614 1Â»01Â¢4?'t 0 - AA,1, 4] 1104- ' 400 . 2.- E= fIOLD & ~ 7 1 4 1,0. 1 11 ..21 -- 2 -IL-- 11 .. - 11 I 8 0 11 11 - I.71 1 ..+ 11 I 9 / .Al C 27 rA- 0 ..t p U . - 11 N D 11 ': 0 5 4 1 2=0 49 ,1 \\ 11 177 0 r- -3 E. 211 k u -, L "' y t.,i-*44(Â· n.cluzr-M, WN ~-- 3 524â€¢*167 J Keâ€¢Â·riâ€¢ i,m N.. 6.-4 R , -- L:,4 WARRANTY DEED f-1 -n r i' 1, '.J -4 - Vi.El,I 3 11(7 ' :19* 4 !1 Â£7' 5 25 b THIS DFED, Iia.,Ik 35*Jo ' . 4 -Dtot r- 8 2426 ~D ),1 voti k S Vt 4 1 1. 1 K 4 ZT ., i, 86Â·'.,-c,MARION B. am 00 Â«JARD.ir,.242-'st* pitkin /45-01 : iE -1 W - It?je:q ' *- /-1 I: il 03Â° 6 K . 18 0 1 11 ' c-.4 00_ 0.4 MARTA CHAIKOVSKA and FRAX I. PETERS 80 joint tâ€¢nants ..4 11 1 5 14 I .6.- I.tâ€¢-.6 Post Office lot 9698, Aipin. Colorado 81612 -Â·41# 1 4 ..i.:7.1 1 1 Pitkin -4 /1/le u< Cohir-Â· //I'lac Ash )2 w . Im-.â€žI.â€ž,*--*-b 04**id TEN ($10.00) AND OTHER GOOD AND 1 i At.1.4 Â¥=10==*9 DOLLARS: ..-..14* Â·Â·PU N JW/,trAS-I .-1 .-,91,2... ...1 Pitkin -d S- 4 Co-do de.cribed B lulk-* J f ..L 4~<4 06 *; L. di /**~,~~.. - .: 3, . k,Fk ..:: Meek 42 r 24/ 4//Re la# *Wail d--- 'i STATE DOCIÂ»ENTARY FEE ..34 1 DEC 3. - 0 .1,~1 , 3950 Â· 1 -9. 0 Â·-4 CP -AN-m Dy.-10â€¢di...ber. 334 kit Hallam. Aspen. Colorado 81611 1 . TOGETHER â€¢ 1 41: -1 44 * hc.:dâ€¢un-, ...1 -neâ€¢an, r, therrâ€¢, 1â€¢-1,â€¢41,1, .w "' 11" 4' ~ arrâ€¢Â·,1â€¢,n,n, â€¢nd tht re~â‚¬-.~- 2-3 1 1 Fc-Indrf *ad WN-d,n. :r-0. 14-Â¢% -11 rnâ€¢râ€¢ *m< 4-1 all th, r~â€¢r ii,h, 1â€¢k ,â€¢,1~~t .1,irn an,1 .6:,Tu,r,J ~tuâ€¢...Â·~c, .Â»t rl, t fam./. r,/t,r m 104% 1 Equ47. al I ..d h, the Aâ€¢*c h/PNd pmmâ€¢eâ€¢. ..It, thÂ¢ h. red,tamrniâ€¢ -A .pruilen .rk p , IW Mdrl/BAW/â€¢Ultd:Mil~nUOITÂ¢. Imbl -1~-Â¥4 -1Jh**Pâ€¢â€¢111$1â€¢t Iâ€¢Illâ€¢-1:f anâ€¢t,-1111-11&5 1â€¢ipâ€¢â€¢in h4'..in .11,{~:,4Â·r â€¢hÂ¢ Lari TOHAVE AND TOHOCD :h, -4 pe-ne, ilâ€¢nÂ¢ thâ€¢r,/ne,1 -,d Jrwrâ€¢IN â€¢ih rh.' art-*r,-0â€žâ€¢ ur, ti~ ir,nk. h,â€¢ he.,4 .R .-,0:.. ,Â· kiner A-1*2 01-0,w kw himâ€¢clf hiâ€¢hrs,i. 1-11,erâ€¢â€¢,8.11,rmÂ·*dWAIâ€¢râ€¢ 1,Â·â€¢,â€¢â€¢rN,11 1,0 h-,Â·.i,j Ar.i.,tur t, ,>.. .,Thlh, AÂ·'.rlix r, Ain ,,4.1 fM. th~ 4 Ihe 1-r ,4 thullâ€¢GamÂ¢ -1 *11*> â€¢4 1|,rw lirrilâ€¢ h.- iâ€¢ 4~11 wird â€¢â€¢1 th, pl~nii...c~ An L,1.'uÂ·wÂ·.1 h..0 ,â€¢'1 'uâ€¢iÂ· 14Â·'14.1 ,&..,1 6 I i 18 7-1.,--Â·Â·Â·, Ild th.,m .â€¢ 86â€¢rw.d ,â€¢d thâ€¢. th, 4,m, -r l.w â€¢nd .1,â€¢ 1-~ â€¢11 1 wn.Â·i ..1 Â·â€¢ha pan/â€¢ h.,1â€ž r ukÂ·â€¢ -4, â€¢ taic' ,~w ,1,â€¢r. 1%1â€¢ mÂ·.n,hran- andrntâ„¢1..â€¢ 04*h,~rwtkHâ€¢1 â€¢â€¢wwr ..-Â¢ c.,4â€¢ FOR AND SUBHICT TO THF. FOLLOWI'.Â·: t,rneral property taxeÂ» for 1986 and thereafter payable in 1987 and thereafter; 4 .,rva- tion# and excepts in Patent recorded in Mook 139 at PÂ·,ge 214, 2.1 }"112' 1,1 S BEING TO THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF l'!1-KIA (.1)lIN.,. Cor.(lkA!,0. 4 1 h. p.noâ€ž. J..11 -11 -11 *AMRA\1 A'â€¢1)14 *1 \ 11'1 HI I i.' 15 .4. ., h., 1.....d r., ....%. .,n .4#wmp,Â· â€¢â€¢,~4 pÂ·~~,~ ,Â·â€¢3 .â€¢ 14, â€ž, â€žÂ·< h,â€¢ hrir. An,1 Â»â€¢i,nâ€¢ 4,in,1 Â»1: Drkl Â¢04Â·n WiÂ¥- 1,Â¢ fâ€¢-hâ€¢/. 1..41.11% 4/.in in, th 04,6 â„¢ .in i..~i , 1 *,1 1/* thâ‚¬ plwfal th, .,â€¢, Wa# /4.. 11. .â€¢r ,â€¢ -. ,â€¢Â·â€¢â€¢dâ€¢, Ilwli tâ€¢ Irrl. â€¢'4< 1.' .11 A.1.11." 10 %41 1 V .0 w â€ž,11"â€ž , ihi /1 â€¢rn.â€¢ h'â€¢ rit â€¢ â€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢1 1/4, i J. i â€¢1 ..4, r'â€¢. 1â€¢1. .4, : â€¢1 Â·'. ./ c.' , , 1, 1 Mailâ€ž.1 A, t.el Â· %1411 Ill t'll/*,1- Pitkin 4... 1,1(kit, 4 '. 86 :,aric,n M. 1.Â·t: Â· , lili .4 1 ... 1 . .... " t.. - ~ 1Crj 3, A : In A 1 . ' 4 tl ' 4 \ 14\\\\\ 112 -Â© 1Â« 44 3 4 5 81\ - 2 2 e Â¢ 180 09. e t + 18 9 I 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 4,- ~ 5 1 P\\: 54 H ' 1- -- - - 17 0/ CITY H H , /H 2, (120 (12) -e e < .-I 1 .- H -6_ H 3 Â® e -@ . 1H 1 , 3*3 .01 t/!h W. HALLAM ST. Lme*M tÂ¥~#f-r-1 1 - 0 - E -31 3@@Â® '- ----I.----- .- g m m Z - W. BLEEKER ST. -- H CH 0 - Z OR) E 0 4 Z J U ,. 1 0 0 0 11'U;111 1 Z Z Z _ 7 --- M- - A v 1,54 Ni7 ST.~ 4f(Hi. . - 11 -1 r - 6% â‚¬3. 14 ---------- M, H Â¥ -1 0, R-o W. - HOPKINS - AVE, H , ~ abc ~fghj:. Â® Â® - Al Â® i , 1. \LLE 0'k lmn opq rs 1 M 00 1 1 I 1 TH ED ST. .