HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Packet 02242010 Happy Day RanchMEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting — February 24, 2010
THRU: Cindy II n, Community Development Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner
RE: Parker Sage LLLP — Happy Day Ranch Designation to I listoric Register and Request for an
Historic Preservation Incentive
SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to designate the residence at the corner of Emma Road and Hooks
Lane to the Historic Register, and as an incentive for the designation, to obtain one TDR.
The BOCC continued the application on January 13 to allow the BOCC to visit the site (1/13/10 meeting minutes
are attached). The site visit occurred on January 25 with all of the commissioners in attendance. The Applicant
requested a continuance from February 10 to this date to allow additional time to consult with Suzannah Reid.
Only issues raised at the prior hearing or on the site visit are addressed below. Additional comments from
Suzannah Reid, Historic Preservation Officer, are attached. In addition, emails from Tom Waldeck and Randy
Parker to the BOCC are attached for reference.
The Applicant has submitted additional information, which includes a history of the remodeling of the residence, a
timeline of meetings between the Applicant's architect and Suzannah Reid, the permit set for the current addition,
and color views of the addition.
APPLICANT: Parker Sage LLLP — Randy, Sue and Ginny Parker
REPRESENTATIVE: Doug Pratte
LOCATION: 2956 Emma Road; corner of Emma Road and Hooks Lane; Tract 1 A, Happy Day Ranch
ZONING/LOT SIZE: AR-10/36.55 acres
ISSUES:
CONSISTENCY WITH PRESERVA"I'ION HANDBOOK: The BOCC expressed concern with the draft condition that
suggested that the Applicant "work with" the I listoric Preservation Officer to amend the building plans for the
additions to comply with the Preservation Handbook before further work occurs. The BOCC asked Ms. Reid to
provide specific recommendations to address areas of inconsistency with the guidelines. Ms. Reid has responded
to the relevant guidelines and has provided specific recommendations to ensure compatibility with the guidelines;
her comments are attached.
OTHER HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS/TDR INCENTIVES: A question was raised at the prior meeting regarding the
number of TDRs that have been approved as the result of historic designations (pursuant to the 2006 LUC). The
BOCC has designated the following to the historic register and granted incentives as noted:
• Morrow/Wingo Junction Ranch.- Requested 4 TDRs to use for previously approved subgrade space (2,500 sf
for each of 4 lots) to preserve 4 cabins. BOCC granted a GMQS exemption for the subgrade space so the
OOuOO #
__r titi
Applicant does not have to use TDRs. Applicant is required to restore the cabins prior to or concurrent with
development of new residences in the subdivision.
• Greenway: BOCC granted 1 TDR, 600 square feet of subgrade space and one additional residence in
Rural/Remote to preserve the Little Annie mine site. Applicant is required to restore the cabin (occurred
summer 2009) and stabilize the ruins prior to or concurrent with construction of the new cabin.
• Middle Ranch: BOCC granted 2 non -transferable TDRs to preserve 2 cabins, potato cellar remnants and
corrals. Applicant is required to stabilize the structures within 18 months (9/11/10). Applicant is required to
complete restoration work prior to or concurrent with construction of the principal residence.
• DJ LIE: BOCC granted one additional residence for preservation of cabin and outhouse. No timeline to
complete preservation work.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners make a motion to approve
the designation of the Parker Sage LLLP property to the 1-listoric Register, and as an incentive for the designation,
to grant one TDR.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Historic Preservation Officer memo 2/15/10
B. 1/13/10 BOCC meeting minutes
C. Randy Parker email dated 1 /27/ 10
D. Tom Waldeck email dated 1 /23/ 10
Supplemental Information from Applicant Provided Separately
2
O00002
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO DESIGNATING THE PARKER SAGE LLLP RESIDENCE AND OUTBUILDINGS
TO THE PITKIN COUNTY HISTORIC REGISTER AND GRANTING AN INCENTIVE FOR
THE DESIGNATION
Resolution No. -2010
RECITALS
1. Parker Sage LLLP ("Applicant") has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Colorado ("BOCC") to designate the residence at the corner of Emma Road and Hooks Lane to the
Historic Register, and as an incentive for the designation, to obtain one TDR.
2. The property is located at 2956 Emma Road; is referred to as Tract 1 A, Happy Day Ranch, and is more
specifically described in Exhibit A.
3. The property contains 36.55 acres and is zoned AR-10.
4. The BOCC considered this application at duly noticed public hearings on January 13 and February 24,
2010, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to the application.
5. The BOCC finds the site meets the criteria in the Land Use Code ("Code") for designation to the
Historic Register.
6. The BOCC further finds that the issuance of one TDR as an incentive for the historic designation is
appropriate, since the County's Historic Preservation Officer ("HPO") finds that the residence is
representative of the important ranching theme in the development of the region; sits at a prominent
location and is adjacent to another similar brick ranch house, which together preserve the character of
the original context in this area; is rare though not unique in its age, size and construction; and the
house retains its integrity in terms of the location, setting, feeling and association, though later
additions have compromised the house to some extent in terms of its design, materials and
workmanship.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby designate the
Parker Sage LLLP residence and three outbuildings to the Pitkin County Historic Register, as shown on
the map attached as Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby grant one TDR as an
incentive for the historic designation, subject to the conditions set forth herein, which shall run with the land
and be binding on all successors in interest.
1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application or in public meetings or
hearings and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other
conditions.
2. Within 60 days of the date of this approval, the Applicant shall record a covenant agreement in a form
acceptable to the County Attorney in which the Applicant agrees to preserve the historic resources,
including the house and three outbuildings in accordance with the Pitkin County Preservation
Handbook.
0 wJ003
Resolution No.
Page 2
-2010
3. Concurrent with recordation of the historic covenant, the County shall issue one TDR Certificate to
the Applicant.
4. The Applicant shall comply with the following recommendations of the HPO to comply with the
guidelines in the County's Preservation Handbook for Historic Properties:
A. .1 he sunroom (or other similar structure) shall maintain a high level of transparency and have
simple details that are compatible with the historic house. The structure shall respect the
southeast corner of the side gable form and allow the form of the original house to be understood.
The attachment of the structure to the brick wall shall be designed to limit damage to the brick.
Any anchors or continuous flashing shall be aligned with mortar joints and not be attached
through the brick units. Careful attention to any cementitious materials introduced into the wall
assembly shall be appropriate for use in the wall for both composition and color. The IIPO shall
approve the design and detail of the structure, prior to ordering and installation.
B. The brick wall that will be concealed by the sunroom or other structure shall remain a clean brick
wall with no stucco or paint finish on the brick. An appropriate breathable clear sealer can be
used to seal the brick; the HPO shall approve the solution. In addition, any other changes to the
historic wall should be undertaken with appropriate methods for the preservation of the brick wall
and the reversibility of the alterations.
C. The materials and details on the addition shall be compatible, but shall also create a distinction
between the historic house and the new additions. As work proceeds on the yet unbuilt sections
of the addition, the HPO shall review and approve the siding materials.
D. The Applicant shall revise the design of the windows and small roof elements on the west side of
the addition and the prior addition to minimize the impact of the octagonal and hipped forms, and
shall revise the design of the pair of horizontally proportioned double hung windows on the
southernmost end of the east wall of the un-built section of the addition to achieve a more
vertically proportioned composition, to the satisfaction of the HPO.
E. The Applicant shall develop a master plan for the repair and restoration of the brick walls of the
historic structure with the assistance of an experienced historic masonry specialist and the HPO;
the master plan shall be reviewed and approved by the HPO, prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the new addition. The plan shall identify scopes of work to limit deterioration,
repair critical deficiencies, and restore decorative elements. The plan shall also address
restoration of the two small original chimneys to their original configuration above the roof.
Photographic information shall be utilized if it is available. The plan shall include a timeline for
addressing the various scopes of work. At a minimum, any critical deficiencies identified in the
plan shall be repaired, prior to or concurrent with any future development on the property (not
including the currently permitted development).
F. The porch floor and steps as currently configured are not consistent with the original porch form.
lithe Applicant replaces the front porch materials in the future, the porch should be restored to its
original configuration.
G. If any windows are to be replaced in the future, they should be reviewed and approved by the
HPO to ensure compatibility with the character of the historic house.
II. By June 1, 2010, the Applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the HPO
and Community Development. The proposed landscaping shall mitigate the additions to the
historic house, without interfering with the existing character of the ranch landscape. The
landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new addition.
I. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new addition, the Applicant shall remove
the electrical service lines and panels on the facade of the historic residence and replace the
aluminum storm doors in the two historic entrances with custom wood storm doors that are
compatible with the character of the original door style.
Resolution No.
Page 3
-7010
5. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in revocation of this permit or any
subsequent permits related to this property or vested rights associated with this property.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 13th day of
December, 2009.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 24`h day of February, 2010.
ATTEST:
Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the BOCC
APPROVED AS "TO CONTENT:
Cindy H uben
Community Development Director
P123-09
PID #246514200001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
13y
George Newman, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Ely
County Attorney
MEMORANDUM
TO: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner
FROM: Suzannah Reid, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 2956 Emma Road, Happy Day Ranch
DATE: February 15, 2010
SUMMARY: I have prepared this memo to clarify and record my findings relative
to the Happy Day Ranch historic house addition both addressing the work that has been
completed to date, the work that is anticipated by the approved permit drawings, and some other
recommendations based on the desire of the owner to designate the house to the Historic Register.
As we have discussed, the house has gone through several alterations including the most recent
addition that is underway. 1 have included a review of the relevant guidelines and my
recommendations based on those guidelines. This memo does not address the other potentially
historic ranch structures on the site.
APPLICANTS: Randy & Sue Parker, represented by Brad Elliot, Architect
LOCATION: 2956 Emma Road, Ilappy Day Ranch
ZONING: AR-l0
PROJECT DESCIRPTION:
The project consists of the demolition of a trailer addition that was
located on site sometime in the 1950s. An addition, which connects the historic portion of the
house to the trailer will remain in place with some alterations. The demolished section will be
rebuilt in a slightly different configuration on the south side of the house. The proposal also
includes the addition of a glass sunroom that will extend off the east side of the historic house.
The historic house has been altered in several subtle ways over the years, and a two story addition
was added to the rear of the house. 'Mc two story wood frame addition does not comply with the
design guidelines, primarily because there is no clear separation between the historic brick house
and the wood frame addition. This addition remains in place as part of the work currently
underway. Other alterations include, the reconstruction of the front porch, window replacement,
various patches and repainting of some areas of brick, and considerable work on the interior.
The guidelines that arc relevant to this project are found in Chapter 28, and in the chapters
relating to the rehabilitation of the historic building.
Chapter 28 - The Design of New Additions
Guidelines:
28.1 - Place an addition at the rear Oa building or set it hack from the front to minimize its
prominence and visual impact.
Happy Day Ranch - Compliance with the Pitkin County Design Guidelines page 1
• The addition, as currently proposed, is located off the rear of the historic house and
allows the historic building to dominate the site. The sunroom portion of the proposal is
located to the east side and does have some visual impact on the historic house. The
nature of the glass enclosure is a plus and it does resolve some continuing deterioration
problems on the historic house.
• An existing railing on the upper level of the rear addition has tie effect of visually
increasing the height of the addition in that area. The relocation of this element, would
serve to visually separate the existing addition from the historic house.
28.2 - Do not obscure, damage, destroy or remove original architectural details and materials of
the primary structure.
• The sunroom is the only clernent of the addition that is part of the current design that
does obscure historic materials. In this case, the historic exterior wall will be concealed
inside the sunroom.
• A set of French doors is located in the center of the historic wall. This new opening
was created by expanding an existing opening that was altered in the 50s. A new header
and supports were added to the frame of the opening, since the level of deterioration of
the existing brick wall was significant.
28.3 - An addition should he compatible in scale with the primary structure.
• The new addition is one story and is compatible in scale with the historic house.
28.4 - An addition should be compatible in character with the primary structure.
• The new addition is one story and is compatible in scale with the historic house.
28.5 - Use building materials that are compatible with those of the primary structure.
• The addition has horizontal wood siding which is compatible with the historic brick
house and makes a clear distinction between the areas of addition and the areas of
original wall. The southern most part of the addition is indicated as brick veneer to
match the existing.
28.6 - Use windows that are similar in proportion and character to those of the main structure.
• The window design in general employs appropriately proportioned windows, however
two windows are of concern in the proposed design; the octagonal window on the west
elevation (labeled `1') and the pair of horizontally proportioned windows (labeled 'C').
The octagonal window is already in place and is a small opening on the west side. It is
not compatible with the historic window pattern, though it is also not highly visible. The
double hung window pair is more visible and part of the yet to be constructed addition.
28.7 - The roof form of a new addition should he in character with and subordinate to that of the
primary building.
• The addition main roof forms are compatible with the historic house. Some of the
smaller roof forms are not. The three small hipped roof forms, located on the west side
of the addition add a level of complexity that is somewhat at odds with the character of
the historic house.
Chapter 28 - Recommendations
28.1 - The current approved plan shows a sunroom adjacent to the rear of the historic portion of
the house. The applicant has expressed an interest in exploring some other options in this area.
Any structure in this location should maintain a high level of transparency and have simple
Happy Dcry Ranch - Compliance with the Pitkin County Design Guideline., page 2
0ia=_ 00'7
details that are compatible with the historic house. The structure should respect the existing
southeast corner of the side gable form and allow the form of the original house to be understood.
The attachment of the structure to the brick wall should be designed to limit damage to the brick.
Any anchors or continuous flashing shall be aligned with mortar joints and not be attached
through the brick units. Careful attention to any cementitious materials introduced into the wall
assembly shall be appropriate for use in the wall for both composition and color. The design and
detail of the structure shall be approved by I IPO prior to ordering and installation.
28.2 - The brick wall that will be concealed by the sunroom or other structure should remain a
clean brick wall with no stucco or paint finish on the brick. An appropriate breathable clear
scaler can be used to seal the brick, the solution shall be approved by the HPO. In addition any
other changes to the historic wall should be undertaken with appropriate methods for the
preservation of the brick wall and the reversibility of the alterations.
28.5 - The materials and details on the addition should be compatible, but should also create a
distinction between the historic house and the new additions. As work proceeds on the yet un-
built sections of the addition the siding materials shall be reviewed and approved by the HPO.
28.6 and 28,7 - The design of the windows and small roof elements on the west side of the
addition should be restudied to minimize the impact of the octagonal and hipped forms.
Currently the repetition of the forms serves to reinforce the proposed bay window on the west
side of the un-built addition. This larger hay is not an issue by itself, but some consideration of
the smaller elements should be undertaken.
The design of the pair of horizontally proportioned double hungs on the east wall of the un-built
section of the addition, should be restudied to achieve a more vertically proportioned
composition.
A single fixed window is located in the existing addition and is also at odds with the character of
the historic house. At some point in the future, if this window is replaced, a more appropriate
window should be designed.
Other Recommendations
The following recommendations relate to chapters 2 through 5, which address alterations and
conditions already existing in the historic structure.
Chapter 2 - Treatment of Character Defining Features
• The brick walls of the historic structure have some areas of continuing deterioration and
has several arca of repair. Some of the decorative brick has been obscured. A master plan should
be established which identifies areas of brick that require repair or repointing. It should also
address older repointing and repair efforts that should be removed and redone in a more
appropriate manner. The decorative brick panels, which have been obscured by awkward
patching, should be restored. The two small original chimneys have been modified and should be
restored to their original configuration above the roof at some point. Photographic information
should be utilized if it is available. The master plan should be developed with the assistance of an
experienced historic masonry specialist and the HPO. This master plan for the repair and
restoration should be developed as part of the current permitted scope of work. The plan shall
identify scopes of work to limit deterioration, repair critical deficiencies, and restore decorative
elements. This plan shall determine a timeline for addressing the various scopes of work. Any
critical deficiencies shall be carried out, at a minimum, either before or concurrent with the next
permit application submitted for the property.
Happy Day Ranch - Compliance with the Pitkin County Design Guidelines page 3
0UL)t 8
Chapter 3 - Porches
• The front porch has been altered several times, most recently in 04/05. The porch floor
and steps as currently configured are not consistent with the original porch form. If at a future
point the porch materials are replaced, a more appropriate layout should be constructed.
Chapter 4 - Windows and Doors
• It seems that a majority of the original windows have been replaced. If any windows
are to be replaced in the future, they should be reviewed and approved by the HPO. The house
has the two historic entrances are still in place and the owner should be commended for
preserving these. At this time, however, the doors have aluminum storm doors in the openings.
These detract from the historic character of the house and should be replaced with custom wood
storms that are compatible with the character of the original door style.
Chapter 5 - Roofs & Chimneys
• Sec the brick section above.
Additional Considerations
• "[he removal of the electrical service lines and panels from the facade should be made
part of the brick restoration scope and the timing should be made part of the current scope of
work.
• A landscape plan should be developed which mitigates the additions to the historic
house, without interfering with the existing character of the ranch landscape. This plan should be
reviewed and approved by the HPO.
llappv Day Ranch - Compliance with the Pitkin County Design Guidelines page 4
Lo
CONFIRMATORY READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY
ESOLUTION APPROVING A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE
TORIC FUND FOR FUNDING OF THE EMMA STORE PHASE II
RE TORATIONS — MOTION TO APPROVE
STA : DALE WILL, DIRECTOR OF OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
SECO ' READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE CONCERNING
THE RE t LATION OF TRAFFIC IN PITKIN COUNTY; ADOPTING BY
REFERE E THE 2003 EDITION OF THE "MODEL TRAFFIC CODE"; AND
PROVIDINt PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF AND CLASSIFYING
THIS ORDIN NCE TO TITLE 9 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE ENTITLED
"REGULATIO OF VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC" — MOTION TO CONTINUE TO
JANUARY 27, ' 10
STAFF: JOE DI ' LVO, PITKIN COUNTY UNDERSHERIFF
CONFIRMATORY. - ADING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY
ORDINANCE PROHI ITING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL ON
UNLICENSED PUBLI s *REMISES FOR THE DURATION OF THE 2010
WINTER X-GAMES TION TO APPROVE
STAFF: JOHN ELY, CO TY ATTORNEY
Chairman Newman opene• he public hearing on ail of the Consent Public
Hearing, second reading ite s.
Commissioner Hatfield moved • approve all of the items under Consent
Public Hearing, second reading including the continuation of the Model
Traffic Code Resolution reading ' January 27, 2010 and the following
corrections to the Resolution auth, izing Pitkin County to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement with • gle County for the 2009-2010 season
of snow removal in the Frying Pan V. ey: typographical error in the title of
the Intergovernmental Agreement bei the word "snoe". It should be
shown as "snow". Commissioner Rich . ds seconded the motion.
Chairman Newman closed the public hear
"Model Traffic Code" Resolution which is c
and then called the question. Motion passed
LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS:
on all items but the continued
tinued to January 27, 2010
to 0.
READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE
PARKER SAGE LLLP RESIDENCE AND OUTBUILDINGS TO THE PITKIN
COUNTY HISTORIC REGISTER AND GRANTING AN INCENTIVE FOR THE
DESIGNATION — MOTION TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 10, 2010 TO
ALLOW FOR A SITE VISIT
STAFF: SUZANNE WOLFF, SENIOR PLANNER
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2010
1.1010
'APPLICANT:
Parker Sage LLLP —
Randy, Sue and Ginny
Parker
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Doug Pratte
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to
designate the residence at the corner of Emma Road and Hooks Lane to the
Historic Register, and as an incentive for the designation, to obtain one TDR.
Tom Waldeck owns adjoining property to the Happy Day Ranch. His letter of
objection to the applicant's request dated January 8, 2010 to the County
Commissioners has been submitted as an exhibit for the record. It can be found
attached to the end of this packet material.
Suzanne Wolff gave the board her presentation based upon her staff
memorandum.
Commissioner Richards had concerns with the words "working with the Historic
Preservation Officer" (Suzannah Reid) as shown in condition number 4 of the
draft Resolution. She said that this is very vague and could be ignored by the
applicants.
Ms. Reid said that she suspects that whatever we do going forward would need
to be binding. She would also take the attitude that she would try to the greatest
extent possible to work with the conditions that she has to work with at this point
in time. There are plenty of buildings that come in for historic designation that
have had bad alterations and inappropriate alterations done years and years
before. She said that she certainly can't go and reverse those at that point in
time. She said that she thinks part of what she's running into is that this is so
close in time here. She said that she thinks there will be opportunities to get
closer in compliance with the guidelines than we are now and that those things
are within reason.
Doug Pratte gave the board a short presentation on this item as outlined in his
November 16, 2009 letter to Suzanne Wolff which can be found in staff's packet
material.
Randy Parker, applicant, addressed the board. He explained that he & his wife
have put in a little over $500,000.00 to date in fixing the foundation, loose bricks,
etc. The lion's share has been in the preservation. Recently, he added, they had
a ground water issue and have since come to the end of their savings and ability
to borrow. Their plan is to keep this for their lifetime and then pass it on to their
children.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING .IANUARY 13, 2010
Commissioner Owsley said that this is an asset to the community and he thinks it
is a wonderful project and he is ready to support it.
Chairman Newman opened the hearing to public comment.
Steve Novy is a principal at Green Line Architects in Carbondale. He has been
working with Tom Waldeck, the adjacent property owner. Mr. Waldeck has two
structures which have been designated historic. He is planning on additions and
things to rehabilitate those structures. He said that he doesn't think this
application in front of the board should be reviewed retro-actively. He said that it
is hard to tell what was existing and what was there before this application came
up. He'said that we have limited resources when it comes to historic buildings
and he wants to see the process tuned up to where the historic designation
comes first and then you work with the County.
Tom Waldeck, adjacent property owner addressed the board. He said that what
concerns him is that many of the features of the applicant's house have been
compromised. He said that their windows have been changed and they've
added French doors. What bothers him the most is that a precedent could be set
by people who have historic buildings NOT on the historic registry and that they
would get a signal from this decision to make changes very quickly and then go
to the County and get an application and the County will pay for the work.
Chairman Newman closed the public hearing and brought the matter back
to the board for their comments.
Chairman Newman said that he thinks the issues raised today can be tightened
up in the Resolution.
Issues, concerns, direction to staff and/or changes to the Resolution by the
board are as follows:
✓ Commissioner Richard's concern was that whatever those
recommendations are in connection with "working with the Historic
Preservation Officer" should be part of this Resolution so they
become a condition of the TDR rather than a "hoped for" result.
✓ Another concern raised by Commissioner Hatfield was that he would
like to see what is on the ground. He wondered if the addition would
detract from the original structure. He thinks we should be waiting
until the work is done and then look at the historic preservation
request. He wouldn't deny it, but would continue this request so the
applicant would not have to go through the full application costs
again.
✓ Commissioner Kay -Clapper and Commissioner Richards suggested
attaching a map to any final approval
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2010
u012
✓ Commissioner Kay -Clapper said that her priority would be to have
the economic impacts of the TDR to go towards the historic
preservation and not on the addition.
NOTE: Commissioner Richards said that she thinks the board can't
earmark what that money would go toward.
✓ Commissioner Richard's asked if the property could be lot -
split or subdivided.
NOTE: Ms. Wolff said that there are no restrictions on the property,
but if granted, a covenant that runs with the property would be in
effect if new development were created.
NOTE: John Ely said that the board would have to be specific with
the covenant as to what context they want to preserve beyond the
physical structure of the building.
✓ REQUESTED CHANGE 1N CONDITION - Condition 4 in the draft
Resolution reads as follows, "prior to resumption of work on the
additions in the spring, the applicant shall work with the Historic
Preservation officer to amend the building plans for the additions to
comply with the Preservation Handbook". Commissioner Richards
would like it to read, "prior to resumption of work on the additions - -
drop the words "in the spring" - - , the applicant shall work with and
abide by the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Officer".
✓ Commissioner Richards suggested a site visit to give the board a
chance to see the concerns raised by Mr. Novy and Mr. Waldeck.
✓ DIRECTION TO STAFF — Commissioner Richards suggests a future
Work Session to discuss this portion of the Historic Preservation
Code as we are now seeing these requests come in along with
revisiting the incentives we offer
✓ NOTE: She suggested an incentive that would allow abatement for a
number of years of property taxes as a different type of financial
incentive.
✓ Commissioner Hatfield spoke to one of the construction drawings in
Tab 2 of applicant's packet material where the bottom of the page
refers to "existing — to remain and new construction". He was
informed by the applicant's table that this was reversed. He said that
if you look on the east elevation, the right hand side is the existing.
The board was in agreement to having a site visit.
LCommissioner Kay -Clapper moved to continue this item to February 10,
2010 to allow time for the board to have a site visit. Commissioner Hatfield
seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 to 0.
ADING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
EL SPECIAL REVIEW FOR COMMERCIAL SNOW TRUCKING/DUMPING!
STO " — MOTION TO APPROVE FOR A ONE-YEAR PERMIT WITH
TO STAFF
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2010
u31.3
Page 1 of 2
Suzanne Wolff
From: Hilary Fletcher
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:15 AM
To: Jack Hatfield; Patti Clapper; Rachel Richards forward; Michael Owsley
Cc: Suzanne Wolff; Lance Clarke; John Ely
Subject: Fwd: Happy Day Ranch Discussion Points
Attachments: waldeck email parker histo...htm; ATT3513141.htm
From: Randy Parker [mailto:randyparkerhome@me.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 11:03 AM
To: LANDUSESTUDIO2@Comcast.net
Cc: newman cJsopris.net
Subject: Fwd: RE: Happy Day Ranch Discussion Points
Doug,
I am starting to have a real issue with process here. We have been
reluctant to send information or contacting BOCC members directly about this
process and handled the application through your office and Pitkin County
staff. Mr. Waldeck seems to have no such restrictions and seems to
regularly lobby BOCC members directly. His emails or letters, from my
perspective, are full of factual inaccuracies and opinion stated as fact as
well as accusations regarding of our intents. These letters are sent
directly to BOCC members on very short notice before hearings and site
visits where we are not able to respond to or refute the accusations. I
feel like we are constantly put on the defensive over false accusations and
half-truths. In short, I feel that one neighbor, with an personal agenda
that I do not understand, is influencing the information presented to the
BOCC in a manner that is grossly unfair to us. I can respond to this latest
letter at another time but leave it to say it is not an accurate depiction
of the truth or process followed during my construction of the barn to the
South of the house.
My question is; how to we get back to the question of "does the Victorian
house meet the standards, with the currently permitted addition, for
historic designation?". Yes or No.
If so, what are the conditions that are being proposed and what is the
offered incentive (TDR?). If the proposed conditions are too onerous, we
will respectively withdraw from the process and complete our permitted
addition as planned.
If we do withdraw from the historic designation process, Mr. Waldeck will
have achieved his apparent objective over the recommendations of Pitkin
County staff and support of Emma Caucus. This would be a sad commentary on
public process and fairness in this valley. I suppose that if we had the
financial resources of Mr. Waldeck, we would retain an attorney and settle
this through litigation.
Cingitt
2/3/2010
Page 2 of 2
Randy Parker
000 IS'
2/3/2010
Page 1 of 3
Suzanne Wolff
From: Lance Clarke
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 8:30 AM
To: Suzanne Wolff
Subject: FW: parker historic designation
From: twaldeck@a aol.com [mailto:twaldeck@aol.corn}
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 6:28 AM
To: newman@sopris.net
Subject: (no subject)
george
I want to point out a couple of things that i would like you to bring to the
attention of the other commissioners and the staff when you are on site.
One of the claims of the parkers is that the foundation work cost 190,000
dollars instead of the original estimate of $40,000. They claim that this
was used to stabilize the old house.
In fact, you will remember that 1 was concerned enough about buildings being
permitted too close to irrigation ditches. There are two problems with
building onto and next to the banks of an irrigation ditch.
the first is that it makes maintenance and repair of the ditch almost
impossible. State law requires an implied easement wide enough to carry on
these functions. That means getting machinery such as a back hoe or
bulldozer in a position to do the required work. State law allows the ditch
company or any user of the ditch to access any part of the ditch including
removing buildings and other impediments such as fences if they interfere
with access.
the second is that building on, or very near, the banks of the ditch can
compromise the safety and the integrity of the ditch bank, and can cause
significant seepage and even possible breach, particularly of the
disturbance is on the sown hill side of the ditch bank.
the reason i am telling you this is that the parkers, despite repeated
encouragement and finally warnings that the new garage that they built into
the down side bank of the Home Supply Ditch is illegal and could cause
serious breaches to the ditch, went ahead anyway. This is exactly the kind
of problem i described above. It is the reason they had to spend more money
oOOQ
1/25/2010
Page 2 of 3
on the foundation. It had little to do with anchoring the historic portioin
of the house and more with problems with the foundation work on the
addition„ but if it did, it was necessary because of their own actions.
More important, the problems of excavation and building the foundation of
the addition to the historic home was aggravated by the excavations that
were needed for the garage. Because they built the garage so close, and
actually into the ditch bank, the sub surface water flows were disturbed.
The depth of the digging for the garage foundation was approximately 15 feet
below the top of the down hill side of the home supply ditch.
It is highly likely that the Parkers caused their own problem of additional
expenses on the addition because of their irresponsible siting of the
garage.
This is not a small problem, and I don't know why they should be rewarded
with a TDR for violating so many of the historic guidelines, and on top of
that, expecting the county to pay for their cost over runs that have nothing
to do with the historic home and are likely caused by their own actions in
regard to the ditch.
In any case, i still feel that the county should add to its code that any
building permit applied for on a property that has an irrigation ditch on
it, should get cleared by the ditch company or the users of the ditch to
ensure that the state law on implied easements is followed.. This is a prime
example of what can happen if the applicant is allowed to proceed with a
building that threatens the integrity of the ditch and threatens the use of
the water on the ditch which, as you know, is vital to the agricultural
interests of this valley.
If there happens to be a breach on this ditch at this point, water flows
could be stopped for a considerable period of time, threatening the
agricultural valley of Emma . This is no small matter.
As you will see on the site visit, the statement that only the foundations
are in, and no other work has been done, is not accurate. The chances of
making material changes to better preserve the historic house within the
guidelines set by the county is slim now that so much work has already been
completed.
please understand that I am a big supporter of historic preservation and
open space and agriculture. But in this case, i just don't feel that the
parkers should be rewarded with such a large amount of money (a TDR in this
case that has apparently already been sold subject to getting it.. Maybe
there is another compensation that still puts the house on the historic
register in the county?
OQO01-3
1/25/2010
Page 3 of 3
A TDR or other compensation should be restricted to the maintenance, repair
and preservation of historic buildings, and NOT to help pay for additions
that substantially detract from the original historic home.
be sure to take a look at the historic brick wall and window that was
removed, on the east side of the house, and replaced with french doors. This
is a recent change. They claim that the wall was structurally unsound. I
have checked into this problem and found out that there are many ways to
reinforce this kind of problem without compromising the historic wall,
bricks , wondows etc.
i want to repeat my biggest concern. Another owner of an historic building
will see this as an open invitation to change their historic building
contrary to the historic guidelines before applying for a TDR, and then come
to the county for a TDR after the damage to the historic integrity of the
building has already been completed. Granting the parkers the TDR is exactly
the signal the county will send to the rest of the community.
while you are down in emma you might want to stop in next door and see our
cattle operation. I am quite proud of what i have done to keep agriculture
in the valley. let me know if you have time before or after the site visit.
If not on Monday, then maybe another day.
thanks george
warmly
tom
OM)
1/25/2010
Designation of the
Happy Day Ranch Victorian House
to the Pitkin County Historic Register
with Incentives
Pitkin County, Colorado
Supplemental Exhibits for the February 24, 2010
Pitkin County BOCC Hearing
Prepared by:
The Land Studio, Inc.
1002 Lauren Lane
Basalt, Colorado 81621
(970)927-3690 phone
landstudio2@comcast.net
Prepared for:
Randall J. and Susan Parker
2956 Emma Road
Basalt, Coloardo 81621
0011019
Happy Day Ranch House Remodel History
1952 - Happy Day Ranch purchased by Lanice and Lester Jones (Grandparents of
current owner). Condition of the old ranch house was quite poor with failing brick
walls on SW and S sides. Concrete buttresses were added prior to purchase
(1920's?) on N end of house with evidence of prior movement / settling. The house
had screened in (wood) porch attached to brick wall on S side with an exterior
wash-up sink. There was an old well (filled with rubble) that was located adjacent
to porch on S side. There was a bathroom located on the interior SW corner with
brick in very poor condition. The septic system had essentially failed when the
house was purchased.
1953 -1958 - Various repairs and modifications including:
• Install septic and leech field in orchard to the W
• Repaired and replaced roof
• Removed bathroom and brick wall to stairwell on W- replaced with
fireplace, hearth and picture window ; shore up foundation
• Added interior bathrooms (upstairs and down) in current location; added
windows for same.
• Installed modular dwelling (for ranch managers Elmer & Madge Stutzman)
butting up to SW corner (used some of old sewer piping)
• Removed single window on brick wall (East) and added triple picture
window (location of current French door)
• Remove coal-fired furnace from basement- replaced with electric
baseboard.
• Rebuilt front porch which had collapsed
1976 - rebuilt the chimney - existing had settled and was falling away from house
1985 - Added roof trusses and entry to modular; moved main entrance to W side.
1987 - Remodel by Dave & Silla Parker Remodel included:
• Removed S porch and approximately 2/3 of S wall due to collapsing brick
• Excavated and replaced footing and put in basement with sump pump drain
(over location of prior abandoned well)
• Added current SE room and upstairs master bath
• Rebuilt tie-in to adjacent modular with concrete supports
• Reconstructed N porch which had collapsed and deck above- brought up to
current code with railing height.
• Brick wall settling under NE corner - added internal footing and stem wall to
support
• Replaced some windows
• Steve Buttoah Architect - Award by Pitkin County for heritage friendly
remodel.
2004 / 5 - Restoration by current occupant
• Repair and re -point of some failing brick (major holes)
• Replace widows with heritage reproductions energy efficient
• Replace front deck (again rotted and failing) with new footings and
composite lumber - added bead -board and composite railings.
• Extensive restoration of floors / walls / ceiling / plumbing / electrical and
HVAC - Install boiler and heritage cast iron radiators.
• Gutters and exterior drainage
2009 - Current Remodel
• Remove old modular (foundation failing)
• Add extensive foundation and sub -grade drainage to S
• 90 foot drainage ditch and dry well with pump in pasture to E
• Steel structural support in location of old S wall (no brick removed)
• Reconstruct wall from fireplace to new addition at SW
• Steel reinforcement on E wall around former triple window (removed rotted
brick below window sill and replaced with French door.)
Future Plans
• Remove existing elect. meter on N side (underground service from opposite
side of house)
• Additional brick restoration (remove stucco patches)
• Replace chimney caps
• Complete permitted addition / Kitchen remodel
• Exterior landscaping
TO 21
Timelines/Notes from meetings with Suzannah Reid, Pitkin County staff and
architect Brad Elliott
6/12/09 Brad Elliott called Pitkin County to discuss permit application.
It is suggested he should talk to Suzannah Reid about our plans before we
submit for permit.
6/12/09 photos sent to Suzannah Reid (prior to demolition of rental
unit) showing portion of house to be removed in demolition phase
Suzannah emailed back / am very happy that you are demolishing
that addition. It will be a major improvement to a very special house. Please let
me know if you are considering any other alterations in the future.
Short email back and forth about whether we would be required to comply
with the guidelines even if we were not registered.
Suzannah's final reply There is no requirement to comply
with the guidelines if you are not on the register, but if you do additions and
alterations in accordance with the guidelines, it will preserve the ability to take
advantage of the benefits that the county has available in the future. This house
would certainly be eligible, and depending on various issues, they might be
eligible for an additional house site or a TDR as a benefit for designation to the
register.
6/15/09 We voluntarily sent Suzannah our progress set to review our
addition to see if there might be any issues.
Suzannah calls. She thought it was a nice addition. Her only
concern is about the sun room. Would like to see more separation from
existing historic building. We told her we would look at options for moving
the sun room.
6/18/09 Submit for permit
8/25/09 Talk to Suzanne and Suzannah. Suzannah was ok with smaller
addition. Asked about sun room.
82/7/09 Meet with Suzanne to discuss Historic Registration Process.
Discuss project progress. No mention of concerns about continuing
construction, which at this point was excavation and foundation work only.
n 9 t)rl
�') 4.4,
8/31/09 received Pitkin County pre -application conference summary
from Suzanne Wolf via email with instructions for application.
9/1/09 correspondence from Brad Elliott to Suzannah Reid re sun
room and the owners preference to keep the sun room in its permitted
location according to current plans
On Sep 1, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Brad Elliott wrote:
Suzannah,
The Parker's would really like to keep the sun room where it is. The brick wall around the
window we are removing is in very bad shape and needs to be shored no matter what we
do. That location also works for getting the snow away from the
structure and with their new floor plan.
What they are willing to do is work with you on a style and
color that you feel is appropriate for the house. I have
included imagery and plans for a couple different plans showing
a gable and or a bay that we feel work with the house.
Please feel free to call or email at your convenience to.
discuss these options..
Conservatory-Straight-Eave- Bronze jpg><Parker Gable Sun Rm
090109.pdf><Parker Bay Sun Rm 090109.pdf><Conservatory-Straight-
Eave-Lean-To-White jpg>
Thank You,
Brad Elliott
Brad Elliott Architect, Inc.
970-927-7620
0204 Park Ave. Suite 2F
Basalt, CO 81621
brad@ bearchitect.cona
www.BEArchitect.com
Suzannah emails back that she is leaving town and would like to meet with
us after September 24th. That she is sure we can work out a solution to
everyone's satisfaction.
9/11/09 Change order submitted to Pitkin County
10/8/09 Meeting with Suzannah Reid to discuss sun room. Suzannah
recommends that we pull the room back from the brick corner by the width
of the frame. That we set our bolts in the grout joint and that we step the
flashing in the grout joints. She also would like to see the frame be in dark
bronze or black instead of white. We agree to make those changes during the
meeting.
10/10/09
Randy & Sue,
I created these drawings after our meeting with Suzannah to make sure we are all on the
same page. Because we changed the frame to black or dark bronze I changed the Iower
panels back to glass. I'm not sure dark panels will look that good. I also revised the
foundation for a simpler base.
Thank You,
Brad Elliott
Brad Elliott Architect, Inc.
970-927-7620
10/12/09 Pitkin County Change Order ready for pick up
11/19/09 first pour of foundation of addition completed
1
n
c
A
BRAD
ELLIOTT
920.927.7620
204 PIA Avg, Sulk, ]F
PO 00x 4932
941411, CO 01621
LLF
CD
0
� o
o
da
w �u
w¢
w�
ra_N CO
1m tl• w•.r lir0•1•11,
[rwn e• •
CiW•rrt+rn•CT•c
1106112.,441544
A-90 1
CONSTRUCTION
D F
c
2
CAM- HOUse-
7a RPMAIN
A 0 Southwest View
2
TO
3
4
4
1
D
BRAD
ELLIOTT
970.947.7620
204 Park Ave. Sui lc 2F
PO Soli 4432
S dsi IL CO 81621
13
A
1.1
s� o
barmen
MADMAN, WHIP,
SOWIMOSIV.IN ,360
A-902
2
A 0 Southeast View
4
4
5
5
BRAD
ELLIOTT
ARCHITECT
970.927.7629
204 Park A60 Suite 2F
Pp Sax 4432
04540, CO 91621
.xa
.ram r• MN,rrw4h11t
Southeast Y
A
A-903
1
a
1
HEYY
GONSTRUGTION
13
A 0 Northeast View
EXISTING -
TO REMAIN
3
ORIGINAL HOU5E-
TO REMAkN
4
4
i
5
D
C
B
BRAD
ELLIOTT
92B327.7820
204 Park Ave. State 2F
PO Box 4132
Basalt, CO 8%21
J
w
0
M a
w o
CC ct
w ¢ U
CC w I.:
CC4D¢
N
a— ry m
wn
.pcnr.f •.- rrowma.
j n"
NpBbael wsa
A
A-904
1)
13
A O North View from Road
3.1
1
3
4
4
0
1)
RRAD
ELLIOTT
970 927 7620
204 Park Ave, Suite 2F
PO Box 4432
Basalt, CO 81621
13
A
PARKER REMODEL
0
0
cc
<
7
W
N O]
010 1,
i+el ill view 0371 Road
040
A-906
1)
13
A
3
4
i
BRAD
ELLIOTT
970 927 7620
204 Park Ave. 5ulte 2F
PO Bon 4432
Basalt, C081621
I3
ONortheast View from Road A
4
PARKER REMODEL
Nor,h0_ast View 1rirn Road
A-907
2
3
4
5
BRAD
ELLIOTT
PERMIT SET
is
c c
PARKER REMODEL
6/24/OG
B
B
A A
2 1 3 1 4 1 5
ARCHITECT
CONSULTANTS
SO. IF
PARKER
REMODEL
2956 EMMA ROAD
BASALT
CO 81621
PBRIAT BET
goi
sor
WAX
DATE
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT no orw
moo.. FILE Rolm mGSM..$
DRAWN By BF
corn or BE
7.1%414C I PRW KOH,-r
SHEET TITLE
Cover Sheet
CONTRACTOR IS.RESPONSIBI. FOR
SEQUENCING. ARCHITECT IS NOT
UTE
G-101
SHEET OFFO
6E Architect EER Pmlect%ParNer Rem
1 f 2 3 4 5
B B A Et
ELLIOTT
, '..
AItG I C '
-
, assEcoxlxxl
IB Nma Vs&
Wien
& E
Sn45mW'1,024 etl
RWm
Nu'
Epp;
Gb
TRP
MPS 9
ENT
SYMBOLS--�44Ss���
DIRECTORY
LIST OF DRAWINGS
0
Bn
Tb
RDm 0
AI BOPS
SCREEN BOOR
R Dam mve0 nxorxm0w0.
VVVVj
Nerve
D
„.w' c�s<RvER rnox
o
o
D
5
L'
sa
s-1a
Imwsiml
NCI
appc caY..,. pw�, Na�,a
1
®
3,
SAO,
11002.0
NI3CN:N
SCREEN -RCM
sericEm
CONSULTANTS a - r�ew�Ass3
PSIS
� Pen
�' coxrcox rmW.P. .
e&Lrt.
A
CONSULTANTS
r.
sJ
ovuxv
srnu v sNaNsm
AAsEol6rm
5
L
33
4d
950308 q
STORAGE
g'mua =
xomx.wRuw
axeuexru. m�oi�ma
eeatnnsreaauart�
a..oi
Rave
swya..enm
¢cxeyi
an.utr. coUni
+te. ti¢m-wi
nau
BW..t..a Am
®
4'4
34
aw-sareer
NEWEhSENENr
A a n,M
uun�t.r�mwm
n.lw
n.ao�
xernnsemEvcww
&RN&a
—
cco c , 0 w�xmw�
SOISMOR
e
11
4A
4A
RYna Gicor
NENBRSERINr
EGRESS
`Q
&R.&&.
(IKI
0
s�
E
T.b
Rw1-IDBmfluna
1RINBRY
Ost.m�n.[n
® BpsE.,E �ee P
nas
B
®'"
.��
NDRi
o Assn.,
SOSEENcEsSER
C
®
4e
E-b
RIAS4 DouSehum
AIBETH
ass
L,
• PARKER
REMODEL
2956 EMMA ROAD
BASALT
C081621
F
::
34
3-a
Rwuoo4NN3u�u
NBORN
axwL..oa ee��
UOTUPALIBRAMNaS
c 9
3a
N-a
awuoomm.
14 DORM
-
.1 mulls&
x 9
Ea
sa
Rwls Ooadune
BOORN
50 Bttnhe Ana+niu
1 9
3,sa
FPV1,1113.1.tmp
11BERR
0
RI.5 Polyym
NCLGBT
BUILDING SUMMARY
ZONING SUMMARY
GENERAL NOTES
EXISTING
20041
'TOTAL
INIKYIEVIJ.
17.45 SQ. FG
949
2,1445QFC
2O35C33Ps0Tw1[w ,"„ um�ne. nopnwrc
srrevaonsne a mcoececveo arnseaccEs
:ELonzroncosr
Interim DperScindule
1 .L
1SQ.,35 S
0
1.0359Q FL
ucnl.ceeeewraox 1,m,EsEE
Name
POCKET DOOR
;SRO SQFr
049
35493Q.FP.
,w
0352eum0nwoax
FARM&NT5T4T
MOSQ.FE
o
vo4Q.F4
ze00ecm3ANners0 cow'. ACSUnC
ItEce �xsu205103 a
B
_
roCNET DOOR
-
EOAe mecum nnlp
Imurrmemnxr0xeenemzreusnx
e
115
C Iaaca
n, BA,
CLASS sxvrx DOOR
30443.
;RP Q.FT
999
3,4493Q.FL
PARSNi NNexT Penn KAMMT In
FREE e'iuir : ox Pt coxn AriIn
w
wy
PE4YlFBET
9ASFM¢4t
382SQ Ff.
E.931
SQ FP
9115o
vxawem mrn.. ,.user
na.c0nuneara>Emaeam�eo
MARK
OATS
DESCRIPDalai/DORSETTOR
o aI
CONSETPWigls-
0SQ.£T
135
135 SQ.£T
au¢Bv ec®E
=orzenusteszou0emEERIE,x ax00
E Pe3.arflv543400051W3.53
DRAWN BY: BE
n Cr waea[mxnnL
+mxe.zapniBv
COMMIT
aemx4ZEONOJtoNLY OR
�v O PF
CAVEREDPORIal
OSQ.FE
14
14 SQ.FP.
mrn xeeRRw va
uormn
- -
ReaRIk IC
2935Q FP.
0
2935Q.FC
SHEET TITLE
lnfolmatfon
CONTRACTOR IS EEAbRnAcirRESPONSIBLE O`CESSN
B1E' �enaxTNE JOB
SITE
1 I 2
3
ESS10Cmos
4
5
G-102
SHEETS OFIB
2
3
4
5
BRAD
ELLIOTT
D
C
B
A
TO WILLIS LANE HO/MS E / I
8 HIGHWAY 82 /
OSite/Lighting Plan
SCALE: I. - 25
0
2
50 SIDE SETBACK
3
4
KICHLER Il�y
"aE POWER
r
5
D
ARCHITECT
EN Pah An
CONSULTANTS
C
B
A
PARKER
REMODEL
2956 EMMA ROAD
BASALT
CO 81621
MAPS
mrE
runNTSZT
oEwlmoxsn
DESCRIPTION
VROJECT NO: 9N)
F.I.R.,SSCDO5I*,H
DRAM Er OE
ClileD Fr* OE
SIIEET TITLE
Site/Lighting Plan
:gym: �oaem s
wea Ira M`an.0 ei4r;„ roe
art
AS-102
SHEET OFq
2 1 3 1 4 1 5
R A D
L►OTT
INEOESON
"STING MALL TOREHANN
-CASTING WALL TO BE F£WJVEO
® - ITEHTO 16. MHOJE9
OLower Level
1
3
O
`ORe lIh"NEIM r L„o"
4
D
13
A
970.927.7620
Bad= fin
CONSULTANTS
00
PARKER
REMODEL
2956 EMMA ROAD
BASALT
CO 81621
PEWIT SET
5/1409
OSIVITION SET
MARK
okra
DESCRIPRON
PROJECT SO, OM
MODEL E PuMerRamaSt 1.12O9.$
[MAWR BIN BE
OPINE/ BY: BE
COPYRRNIT
ARCNIIECt, INC."
'
SHEET TITLE
Lower Level Plan
CONTRACTOR Is RESPONSIBLE FOR
ESS .6
SAFE,
MOT JOB
SITE
AD-101
SHEET T OFW
1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5
RRA D
ELLIOTT
D
C
B
O 0 0 0
LIMO
EXISTING -
TO 'REMAIN
mom
MEV
66
NEM
CONSTRucnom
KITCHEN
Leaeno:
-EXIBTmbn/.W TO REMAIN
E - EnsTMsn.0 TO BB RE.+OVET,
C-IrEvroeE REMOVED
EXISTING -
TO RCMwIN
NEIN
GONETwcTON
Two. AR
BEDROOM
Q`
X " Y
Q
D
C
B
Paiii
ARCHITECT
CONSULTANTS
A O 0 0 0 0 A
OEnt Level
1 1 2 1 3 4 1 5
PARKER
REMODEL
2956 EMMA ROAD
BASALT
CO 81621
.7661
51.
MARK
OEsCRIPTION
PRO! CT No 070.3
NOID.I. FILE ... COMM,*
ORAMN BY BE
CHICO
COPYRIGHT
SHEET TITLE
Entry Level Plan
CONTRACTOR "`a ss MRBCTb FwcRNOT
RFSPC.IBLE FOR SAFETY ON THE JOB
AD-102
SHEET OF KO
2
3
4
5
B R A CS
ELLIOTT
er Model' Pecker Remotlel CO 051909. pN
5
D
c
B
A
O
SsT
0 0 0 0
EW
To RIN CONSTRUCTION
C>
traltranetar
0
EGENP•
■111 -TING WALL TOR£
-EXISEw5TIN MALL BE REMOVED
EMREMW EO 1
® -T(£n i08£R£nOYRO
11..er Level
EXISTING- NEW
TO REHAIN CONSTRUCTION
D
c
B
0 0 0 0 0 A
2 3 I 4 1 5
CONSULTAJTs
00
PARKER
REMODEL
295G EMMA ROAD
BASALT
CO 81621
AMU
OE0o0JONSET
MARK
DATE
PROJECT No. ozos
MOHLRLE PmSsrRamoEe1C5 OM*
DRAWN 13, se
CHMO BY: BE
SHEET TITLE
Upper Level Plan
SEQUENCING.XT, ARCHITECT o�`
[.SPONEI. FOR sAFEtt ON M[.).
BITE
AD-103
SHEETS OF 40
2
3
4
5
BRAD
ELLIOTT
C
B
A
OLower Level
0 - GISrINE MLL TO REM..
- f+05*1u5 WALL To BE REMOvm
®-REMTOeEREMOVED
2
3
EA
is REMAIN LONSTRucnoH
0 O L O
4
5
D
ARCHITECT
201.Parl An.
CONSULTANTS
C
B
A
PARKER
REMODEL
295b EMMA ROAD
BASALT
CO 81621
SION
PERYTSET
SeINN
OSPURONSET
HARK
EESCRIPTON
PROJECT W. 0]0l
MODE FILE PEI. r Mad Olga oil
CHICDEPI BE
COPYRIGHT
SHEET TnE
Lower Level Plan
SITE
A-101
SHEET 10 Of
cz)
CZ
CCZI
CO
BER RrojeMmPaRer Rom
c
B
A
0
0 0 Entry Level Shifted West
SCALE: 94. _ 1 0
2
L EOENO•
- EXIST. WALL TO REHAIN
▪ -ER5TM6 WALLTO BE REHoveo
- ITEM TO BE KKHovEo
2
3
3
EXISTING -
TO
1
0
GONSTRIIGTION
L O
EXISTING- INEW
TO REHhIF CO NSTRUnTION
Q
.�
C� O O'
4
4
5
0 0
0
F-0
D
c
s
0 0 A
5
B R A D
ELLIOTT
970.927,520
ooNSOLTANTO
PARKER
REMODEL
2956 BMMAROAb
BASALT
CO 81621 -
6,699
PEWIT SET
c-.uounoNSET
DATE
PRE, CT NO: ZIA
meDELFIL. parker Reno. CD °SINEW
DRAM. Br. BE
tEIRSIevamogo'^
SHEET TITLE
Entry Level Pier
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
RESPONS IBLE FOR SAFETY ON THE JOB
A-102
2
3
4
5
B R A
ELLIOTT
D
C
B
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
TO REMAIN CONSTRUCTION
6- WALL. TO REMAIN
-ew roeE REMOVED STiHs
TO RE WO
EW,22221- ITEm To 6E REMOVED
♦ ,C)
0
0
•
0
D
&salt CO WWI
C
B
OOHSULTAHTS
A 4).0 0 1 0 0 A
OUynr Level
1 I 2
3 I 4 1 5
PARKER
REMODEL
2956 EMMA ROAD
BASALT
CO 81621
FF5Mr3ET
oalounonarr
DATE
PROJECT NO OTOS
MOSEL PILE R.*. AMH+.'COLs1EutF1!
BY. BE
COPYRIGHT
SHEET TITLE
Upper Level Plan
CONTRACTOR a.ESMNSX.LEPONWE, RENO. E
LHITECT S E84 NOT
RESPONSIBLE FORWE, ONTHE JOB
BRE
A-103
SHEET 12 OF40
c
2
3
4
5
B R A D
ELLIOTT
r Remodel c�05 90d.p
model 0703:5 Parker Cad Orarving,1 Par
D
c
A
NN IN\\N 1.,. 1 r r-7,-\\ „
,4,„„, ,,,\\\\\\*v\\N::,,j7:,
"4,,,wk‘"tx\N\z‘-%.,,,,,,e4
,4, AN '\\N\NsNk\—\\. ,\\,„''\l,\'1',VNiriE-14-
v NN,4,,,iN4,,,,SW,,, \ N„,,,„ , , , , , ,,;
W\W‘X ,NkXNN\,'\\\\\N 1 \k% 1 M 3
N,.\\X\\\*\\ N\, 4 \ se,,,I'M
L.\\NX .\\\\% .. * \'‘'N‘\\\' .\\NNV \
L\\\\* \\\,\A\\N „ „ „ ' m'
CANSTIZUGTION
ORoof Level
2
3
4
5
D
c
B
A
20,1 Park Ave,
CONSULTANTS
PARKER
REMODEL
2956 EMMAROAD
BASALT
CO 81621
6,16,09
PEMET SET
5.1492
DAIOUR NSET
MARK
DATE
PROJECT NO. OR
MODE,. PorkxRvrmialcn 051909.0n
CHMO RV! BE
A9 BPM ELLICTTARCHITECT, gl,F,FOR
SHEET TITLE
Roof Plan
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
SAFETY. MEN. NETHOLM. PROCESS
SITE
A-104
D
C
B
A
Q.)South Elevation
2
2
4
�p ..u.v... O
Rcasa:c:at=a•aa o- wa746:7 tau at:
4tlIN,"
ONorth Elevation
3
Tv
4
I
5
5
BRAD
ELLIOTT
D
ARCHITECT
91,620
IF 2
GO SVLTAHTS
C
B
A
PARKER
REMODEL
2956 EMMA ROAD
BASALT
CO 81621
PT NM
AEON! DU
DATE
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NO 070.1
MOSEL FILE, PEEN
DRAWN BL
CD 0510010
CHIESSYT BE
COPYRIGHT
SHEET TITLE
North & South Elevations
CONTRACTOR IS ETV MEANS. Mica FAM `Esss
A-201
SHEET 14 OF40
1
2
4
5
BRD
ELLIOTT
D "1"
C
B
A
OEast Elevation
OWest Elevation
3
•
LONSTRUCCION TO REMAIN
2
3
L
4
da
wm.nrtx+awnv¢wA
a
5
D
C
A
970.927,7620
Park Ave.
CONSULTANTS
PARKER
REMODEL
2956 EMMA ROAD
BASALT
CO31621
UARK
CATE
REPO. SET
DEVOLITION SET
MESCRIPTIOR
PROJECT.
NOS
a00051909z.
DRAM
CAM RP: BE
CON ciat PROJECT ONLY'
SNP." TITLE
East & West Elevations
CONTRACTOR IS RESRORSI.E FOR
A-202
SHEET 15 OF .
2
EwenNL-
Tc REHM,
Nevi
LONSTRUGTION
3
4 1 5
BRAD
ELLIOTT
D
c
1111•1•11M
,AIIMMAMMI
OSectiLE IJ4' stSCAy
2
3
OSection Bedroom
4
5
D
c
B
A
204 Part Are
ARCHITECT
CONSULTANTS
PARKER
REMODEL
2956 EMMA ROAD
BASALT
CO 81621
6161,0
PERNIr SET
OEMUnON SET
104,11.
OESCRIPTON
PRO3EGIu 010]
O61£Y;F
OnICO Er! BE
SHEET TRLE
Building Sections
S A▪ FE, MEANS. METNOOS.
S ITE
A-301
SHEET f6 of N
2
3
4
5
BRAD
ELLIOTT
D
UNVERLAVIAINT
C nsvwxee wen+xe2 rtezenvx
wwe.n * Mom` f�.
B
A ® Truss Wall
VAPOrt
We' ar15
SEE STRUE1111.- FLOOR 554,-641146-SEESTRECNRAL
FLOOR .1[1.15-SEP SIN/MR,
OFramed Wall
.-----r-?,ft rvnaz5w rWA.
OConservatory Wall Section
/`�
® EnEry Section
2 I 3 I 4 5
D
70.527,76201
OM Park Am
CONSULTANTS
PARKER
REMODEL
2956 EMMAAOA➢
BASALT
co 81621
6,49
OPIAMITION
MARK
OWE
OSECSISTION
PROJEST M 4)W ee
MOOSE FILE: Parker Rera.CD usiwrym
MOM Er, 6E
COPYRIGHT
SKEET TITLE
Wall Sections
CONMAMOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
SAFE, AMASS, METTIOVE,SCCESS
SEMISSCING APLIIITEci IS NOT
RESPONEIRLE FOR SAFETY 0/41,1,1013
SITS
A-401
5,1.1,7 of W