HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20090527ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May27, 2009
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: NOON -Please site visit 219 S. Third Street on your
own.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - Apri122, 2009
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #15)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 219 S. Third Street -Historic Landmark Designation,
Historic Landmark Lot Split, Major Development
(Conceptual) FAR bonus, Variances (lhr.)
IX. WORKSESSION:
A. None
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. None
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
PROJECT MONITORING
Mike Hoffman 202 N. Monarch (Blue Vic)
426 E. Main (Main and Galena)
507 Gillespie (new single family home)
334 W. Hallam (Hayden Connor fence)
Paepcke Auditorium
Sarah Broughton 110 E. Bleeker
604 West Main Street
Firestation
Isis addition
308 E. Hopkins (LaCo)
222 E. Bleeker (new single family home)
214 E. Bleeker
426 East Main (Main and Galena)
Brian McNellis Fox Crossing Victorian
204 North Monarch (new single family)
332 West Main Street
510 East Hyman (Elks' deck)
1291 Riverside Drive
Ann Mullins 135 West Hopkins Street
Boomerang
604 West Main Street
300 South Spring Street
204 North Monarch (new house)
214 E. Bleeker Street
222 E. Bleeker (new single family home)
Deep Powder
Greenwald Pavilion
Jay Maytin Red Onion
Firestation
28 Smuggler Grove Road
707 N. Third
627 W. Main
Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Road
707 N. Third
M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc
5/21/2009
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 219 S. Third Street- Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmazk Lot Split,
Major Development (Conceptual), FAR Bonus, Setback Variances, Residential
Design Standards Variances- Continued Public Hearing
DATE: May 27, 2009
SUMMARY: 219 S. Third Street is a
modem home constructed in 1965. It is
identified on Ordinance #48, Series of
2007 as a "potential historic resource."
Owners of property on Ordinance #48
have a few options if they wish to
proceed with work. They can request
staff or HPC approval for their
immediate plans without actually
agreeing to designation, they can
volunteer for designation based on a
package of incentives negotiated with
City Council; or they can pass on
designation and accept a 90 delay period
for the processing of a permit to alter or demolish the building. The owners of 219 S. Third
Street are willing to negotiate for designation. This means that they are applying for a number of
currently available preservation incentives, and requesting some additional consideration from
City Council to facilitate their proposed project. The project does not increase development
rights beyond what could be achieved through existing code processes, however, Council
negotiation could assure the applicant the entitlements and configuration they aze seeking. HPC
will still have design review on this site and will be asked to grant a number of benefits that are
traditionally-within the board's authority.
The proposal for 219 S. Third Street entails preserving the existing 1,500 square foot home, and
making an 1,100 squaze foot addition at the rear corner. The western half of the site is to be
subdivided into a new lot that will contain a 2,400 squaze foot home to be designed in the future.
Historic Landmazk Designation, Historic Landmazk Lot Split, Conceptual review, an FAR
Bonus, Setback Variances, and Residential Design Standards Variances are being requested of
HPC. These approvals are typical of the topics within the board's purview on a landmazk site.
HPC discussed this project on January 28a'' Mazch, l lc', and May 13`t', 2009 and agreed that
examples of the Modem Chalet style of architecture, particularly this example, aze worthy of
preservation. HPC members have expressed concern that negotiated benefits could overload the
site in a manner that defeats the value of designation. Since the initial application the property
1
P2
owner has made several revisions including reducing the proposed floor azea, density, and
bedrooms on the site. On May 13th, HPC continued the applicafion for design restudy of the
roof form and placement for the addition to the Modern Chalet, but passed a resolution
supporting Historic Landmark Designation and the Historic Landmazk Lot Split. New drawings
responding to other HPC feedback aze in this packet.
City Council has been provided with HPC's most recent recommendations, has conducted first
reading of a negotiation Ordinance, and will hold second reading on May 26a', the night before
HPC. Council is asked to approve Designation and Lot Split, and to grant the following, all
related to a future house on the newly created vacant lot: setback variances, an FAR bonus, a
Residential Design Standards vaziance, waiver of Affordable Housing Mitigation and extended
vested rights. The vaziances being requested of Council aze not within HPC's purview, and they
have been informed that HPC has concerns with the additional FAR bonus, waiver of affordable
housing mitigation and extended vested rights being requested. Council may choose to finalize
the negotiation on May 27~', or may continue to June 8a' so that the property owner is not
committed to the voluntary designation before knowing what HPC will and will not allow.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to consider
preservation, rather than demolition of this modern home. We find the criteria are met for Historic
Major Development (Conceptual) and the requested vaziances.
APPLICANT: YLP West, LLC, represented by Suzanne Foster.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-65-005.
ADDRESS: 219 S. Third Street, portions of Lots O-S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
HPC is asked to review a design for an
addition to the Modern Chalet. The
new house is not being submitted for
review at this time, but will be under
the boazd's purview in the future.
To the right is a photo of the rear of
the subject house. The applicant
proposes an addition at the southwest
corner, which leaves this view (and the
alley, or front facade) completely
P3
P4
intact. The addition is built partially into the hillside.
Previously, the new construction was designed to have a pitched roof to match the Modern
Chalet. There was some concern with height and competition between the forms. The applicant
has responded by proposing a flat roof. Staff finds that this has truly minimized the presence of
the new construction. While we believe the earlier concept had merit, the revised plans show an
addition of a very low profile, strongly related to the alignments and proportions of the Modern
Chalet.
In response to HPC, the footprint of the addition has been reduced, by pulling it 5 feet away from
the rear property line. A variance is still needed since the rear yazd requirement is 10 feet,
however this is an important amendment and improves the project.
The addition results in little to no demolition of the existing structure. It does back up to the
western carport, and fills in the reaz five feet of it. At the last meeting the applicant proposed to
place the main entry in this infilled area. The house was designed as a duplex and there is a
simple doorway located under each carport. The plans have been revised to preserve the historic
door in the eastern carport. Staff is uncertain of the plan for the western door. Since the house is
ultimately expected to be single family, it could fixed in place.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
^ Maintain features important to the chazacter of a historic doorway. These may include the door,
door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and
flanking sidelights.
o Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
^ If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the
door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic
position.
^ If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must
remain operable.
On May 11~', staff indicated that we did not support the applicant's proposal to fill in the azea
under the reaz deck. This request has been abandoned, except that the applicant still hopes to
lower the floor level in the basement, necessitating window and door replacement on the reaz
wall. Staff finds this to be an appropriate compromise. The wall surface itself is in fairly deep
shadow, and that characteristic is what we suggested should be preserved.
The applicant has stated a desire to repair/reconstruct the rear deck. This is an issue for Final
review, however the overall character and materiality of this element should be preserved. It is
likely that the railings could benefit from some safety upgrades. More discussion about the deck
itself, along with the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials is
required at Final.
4
P5
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 500 squaze foot floor azea bonus. The following standards apply to
an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
Staff Response: Due to the nature of the negotiation process, which initially only gave the City
a 90 day time frame to work within (since extended with the applicant's agreement), staff did not
schedule a worksession on the bonus. The application has been before HPC three times already,
so the boazd has had the opportunity to provide early feedback.
The applicant requests the full 500 square foot FAR bonus. Staff finds that the Modern Chalet
must be preserved in a very intact condition to earn this bonus. The project includes additional
FAR bonuses through Ordinance #48 and it is important that we do not overwhelm the historic
resource in the process of trying to save it.
Few alterations to the existing architecture are proposed, especially due to the applicant's
conscientious effort to address comments from the public hearings. At this point, the most
noteworthy change relates to windows. New windows aze to be added on the front fagade. They
are in alignment with existing units, but extend the glazing to the eave line, chazacteristic of this
P6
style of architecture. In addition, the applicant wishes to replace all the window units, in kind.
New lightwells aze proposed for the basement.
The roof material/color are to be altered, and the applicant would like to apply new stucco or
veneer to the existing chimney (a very small element on the roof) The building will be
repainted, which is not a topic within HPC's purview. The applicant would like to remove and
reconstruct the rear deck with new materials, more in keeping with the character of the house.
All of these items aze most properly reviewed at Final. HPC has relevant guidelines to achieve
the best result on all of these topics, and staff finds that none of the work "makes or breaks" the
azgument for an FAR bonus.
Painting and general repairs will be undertaken to refurbish the building and the improvements to
the prominent rear deck will make a better contribution to the azchitectural character of the
building. There is little opportunity to earn the bonus through restoration work because the
building hasn't been significantly changed.
As discussed above, staff finds the proposed addition to be quite sympathetic to the existing
house. The decision to direct much of the new construction towazds a detached new house is
also strongly supported.
The designation is voluntary and the 500 squaze foot bonus is one of the more valuable benefits
available in the historic preservation program. Staff supports the applicant's request.
As HPC is awaze, a 493 square foot bonus is being asked of Council. The applicant's
justification for this bonus is that the same (or more) FAR could be built on the site through the
construction of a carriage house. While that deed restricted unit will not be provided in the
proposed scenazio, the applicant is dropping their request for a waiver of cash in lieu for
affordable housing, instead asking to lock in the current mitigation fee per square foot. This
should be perceived as an important concession because if the applicant constructed two
detached units in a condominium rather than lot split configuration, no housing fee whatsoever
would be due. Another reason that the applicant believes the bonus is warranted is because the
historic house is set %Z story below grade. That space partially counts in FAR, does not have the
quality of fully above grade space and precludes them from constructing a traditional basement
that is more fully exempt. This is a Council decision, which may or may not be finalized before
the HPC meeting. The applicant has expressed this as a "dealbreaker" issue.
A chart that compares the FAR that is allowed on the site without designation, with designation,
and with the requested negotiated benefits is attached for HPC's reference. Also attached is a
map describing the size of surrounding development, expressed as gross squaze footage, which is
more readily available from the Assessor's office than FAR figures.
6
P7
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code aze
as follows:
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
h. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: The applicant requests setback variances on all four sides of the existing house,
mostly due to existing conditions.
The building is already out of compliance with the front yard (alley) and east side yard setbacks.
The proposed new lot line and new addition require setback vaziances on the west and rear. HPC
has the authority to grant these variances, which area 16'6" north yazd setback reduction for the
existing location of the house, a 20'6" north yazd setback reduction for new lightwells (may not
be required if the lightwells aze the minimum size required by Building Code), a 2' east yard
setback reduction for the east carport, a 4' west yazd setback reduction for the west carport, a 3'
west yard setback reduction for the proposed addition, and a 5' south yard setback reduction for
the proposed addition.
The variances that facilitate new, above ground construction aze at the rear of the site,
internalized to the property, and allow the addition to be positioned in a location that preserves
the three publically viewable facades intact. As stated, the applicant has reduced the request
related to the reaz setback. Staff finds the location of the addition, and the variances, to be more
appropriate than the previous plan, which was to add, on directly behind the Modern Chalet. We
support the setback waivers finding that criterion "b," above, is met.
HPC does not have the authority to grant setback variances on the new parcel created through the
lot split, however vaziances aze needed to establish the building envelope suggested on the site
plan. Council is being asked to grant a 16'6" front yard setback variance (staff finds this
particularly appropriate in order to be consistent with the placement of the Modern Chalet) and a
5' east sideyazd setback vaziance on Lot 2. The east sideyazd variance allows more flexibility in
the footprint of the new house, and is "internalized" on the site; not directly affecting an adj acent
property owner. This is a Council decision, which may or may not be finalized before the HPC
meeting. The applicant has expressed this, particularly the front setback variance, is also a
"dealbreaker" issue.
7
P8
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The existing building requires variances from the following Residential Design Standards:
Building Orientation, Street Oriented Entrance, and Principal Window. The proposed new
addition had required a variance from the Residential Design Standard related to Windows before
the applicant's most recent revisions.
26.410.020.D.2 Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040.
Projects which do not meet Section 26.410.020.D above may be granted vaziances by the
Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is
subject to the requirements of Section 26.415. An applicant who desire to consolidate other
requisite land use reviews by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or
the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the
board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a
vaziance from the Residential Design Standazds shall demonstrate, and the deciding boazd shall
find that the variance, if granted, would:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In
evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider
the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate
neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board deems is necessary to
determine if the exception is warranted; or
b) Be cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
216.410.040.A.1 Building Orientation
The front facades of al] principal structures shall be parallel to the street.
Staff Response: The front facade of this house faces the alley. The building is orthogonal to the
lot lines, which is the underlying intent of the standard. This is an existing condition. Staff
supports a waiver of the Residential Design Standazd.
216.410.040.D.1 Street oriented entrance and principal window
a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet back from the frontmost
wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight feet.
b. A covered entry porth of firfty of more square feet, with a minimum depth of six fee shall
be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story
in height.
Staff Response: The front facade of this house faces the alley. The entry doors are located
under the carports and currently do not meet the Residential Design Standards. Staff has
recommended the door(s) be preserved.
A front porch is not a feature that is authentic to this house, and one should not be added. Staff
supports waiver of this standard.
8
P9
26.410.040.D.3 Windows
Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically
exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished first floor.
Staff Response: The windows on the east side of the new addition violated this standard in the
last design, but have been redesigned to comply. No variance is needed.
NOTE: The applicant is requesting City Council waive compliance with the "Secondary Mass"
requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the house on the new lot. The Residential
Design Standazd requires all new homes to place at least 10% of their mass in a detached
structure. Staff can support waiver in this case because of the constrained building envelope and
the fact that the property does not relate to the streets and alleys in the traditional manner (i.e. the
primary building fronts on the alley and there is no rear access to the lot.) This waiver is a
priority for the applicant.
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development (Conceptual),
FAR Bonus, Setback Variances, and Residential Design Standards Variances as proposed.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. FAR comparison
C. Neighborhood context
D. Application
9
P10
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for219 S. Third Street, Conceptual Review"
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
^ Maintain features important to the chazacter of a historic doorway. These may include the
door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hazdwaze, detailing, transoms
and flanking sidelights.
^ Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
^ If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that
the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic
position.
^ If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must
remain operable.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original
designs.
^ The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation ofthe building's heritage.
^ When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence,
develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and
maintains similar scale, proportion and material.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier features.
^ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or
a differentiation between historic, and more current styles aze all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
^ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
10
P11
^ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
chazacter to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
^ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
^ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
11
P12
~ ~ 3
N
~ v
i °
°' °
~ c
c oo
°~
_ o
C M x O C
OU O N 6. O
o ~ x v
,y ti
~
r .
y ~''!!
G '!
G
C 3
pd
U
p
w
p
~
p
~ c c
~ o Q ~ ~
w
~ v~ on o. o. o
n
a ~ o- x
c
d ..
O y
pn ~ G `^ U
C U
C }
L ~ _
+-' C
~ a
o s
N M '~
a 'ro
~ ~
P. ~
C i
w
~ n
z
~ o
;
> .~
~
>
~ C]
'
c - ~. w
V
.~ H
Y
~
~
o
a
3
~
~? N
o
c
8 "~ o ~, ,~ °c ,.,~
N ,
a .~
c
~
~
~y O C
O U
~., Oq
y ~ X
N O
U ~
y
'O 'O O ~ .
~; O ~ ~, ^
~
' C ~ b11 ~
C .~
Q y Q
w ~ ~ N
O
R a .p+ U •N p
q S1
~ O OC ~
3 7
~ C
° ~
v ~ ,-.
ti C
p N
b .b
a' N
bn .D
p
~ bD
U
'y ~, k N N ~
3
O ~
a a ~
E
~ ~ ~
v ~ . +
u _r on o n. h $ Y ~ o cn
•° a r~ ° Q a ~ a v ~ 3 ~ U s °
X t
~ N U bn ~/+
q
~ N
N C
~ b
7
~
N
~ ~ N
'd
a C ~ ~ ~ ~
O O W cCd
c
d y
~ N
•p
C ~,
o ~
a O ate. y
~ N
~, T
v
o
. U
C ^
on
~,..,
~
T x
~~ O
~ C
L ^
C . N
N
r
~ " ~ ODD
~ ~
on ro ti
y ~ Q
o ~ o ~ '~ ~ ~ .L c ~
g 3 a
ro w ~?
~ ~ ~ U ~ w ~ ,p N ~ C 4 CJ ~
3 ~ N W ~ ~ N >' S ~ L 4p ~y R1 i .Q
~ :i ~ Q ~ rG ~ O +
[ cad '00 N N
CL O~ N U Q M W ~ N z ~ W ~v~ O: Oi
6l
a
G.n O Y
O y C
d ~ ~ ~
3
E ~ ,.
° c °~'
~ o o ~
~ df~ ' ''
N , j
~ ~
.~ '
E 9
i
u en
v
.x ~ p ~ Q
ca ~^ ~ .+
~ ~
Legend
Address Lot Size Use FleatedArea
1) 431 Vb`Hopkins 12.000 sq ft SF 4.124 sgft
2) 413 W Hopkins 7.500 SF 5.227 sq ft
3) 205 Third Street 7.500 SF ADU 1.471 sq ft
4) 333 ti'V Hopkins 3,000 SF 3.087 sq ft
5) 218 Third Street 3,000 SF under construction
6) 325 V~lHopkins 6.000 SF 1.881 sq ft
7} 315 W Hopkins 7.500 SF 4.998 sq ft
8) 303 W Hopkins 7.500 SF 4.559 sq ft
9) 334 Hyman 9.000 Lodge 12.306 sq ft
10) 334 Hyman 6-000 4 Units 4.440 sq ft
111312 W Hyman 6.000 SF 1;536 sq ft
12} 300 W Hyman 6.000 9 units 3.718 sq ft
13} 315 W Hyman 1.102 SF 921 sq ft
14) :301 L~J Hyman 3,600 4-8 units 2,240 sq ft
15) 432 ~N Hopkins 12;000 Duplex 4.211 sq ft
16) 400 L^J Hopkins 15.000 7 unRs 10.154 sq ft
17) 500 W Hopkins 27.000 Lodge 45.000 sq ft proposed
18} 334 LV Hopkins 6;000 SF 2-948 sq ft
19} 324 W Hopkins 9,000 4 Units 6.600 sq ft
20) 308 W Hopkins 6.000 2 Units 1.284 sq ft
21 } 300 b~J Hopkins 6.000 SF 5.002 sq ft
219 S Third Street
Existing with addition 6.005 SF 3500 sq ft
Proposed New Lot 3,985 SF TBD
i`
R'~E
S
Bey
- SF =
Single Family House
-1 st Number isthe lot size
- 2nd Number is the heated
area {sq ft}
-All numbers taken from the
Assesors Data
0 30 80 160 230 320
Feet
P14
_~__~__~__ 514'60'19'W-
- -~- r--y"---- 4
/ / / b
/ / /
r--
/ i i
/ ~ / ~ I
I / ~1 I I
/ i
I
o.oa __~
1
I
/ i 1,060 F.F.
/ I 1~ ~ I 930 S.F.
N I
/ / n / % I
_________ ___~ ~, toy-0, f PROPOSED L0T2
/ 3~ ~ / 3,985 suf.
/ p/ A / ~ (PROPOSED F.A.R.= 2.400 sq.ft)
~ N % I
/ ~ I A I
I
1 as W /
/ d l g/ i 250 F.F.
/ 04/ ~/ ~ Wara9e)
I 21 N/ /
J N /
L_
/ V I r PROPOSED PROPERTY UNE (IYP.)
/ I /
/ / ~/ m
1 S / P0.0POSE~~ j
//~'
Np ~ ///~~/ IXIST.
GPf«I
5,-0" AMOSfD ~~ ~/
I ~ 1
I I I IXISTNG BUIUJING
I S I rsorosso IXln.
/ $ I vnno ot:« FOOTPRINT
I 1
I I
.___ ~ , 3 ~
I ml
I O I IXq~,
GMYCMT
! i PROPOSED LOT 1
fJ I 6,005 sq.h.
I (PROPOSED F.AR.= 2,625 sq.h.)
'i
---/ I __-_-- IXISTINO PROPERTY UNE (fYP.) _______
LL LL.. N 14' S0' 99' E 75.00'
EDGE OP PAVEA/D7T
SOUTH THIRD STREET
~I
it
~I
il~
?~"I N
Zf 1 ~
I
------
1
I
1
I1
F______
1
I
e'6" 1 I
1
c t 1
Z
o V
r;
1
m 1
I3 Y
O
1 A
to m I
~ I
1^
~ J
= a -----
4'b 1
1
I ~ I
1 1
~ I
1 1
1
1
_~
L___
PROPOSED LOT DIVISION/ BUILDING ENVELOPES ~ A-1 ~
FOSTER sine: 1 tza" = r-0"
219 5.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 OATE:OS-la-09
P15
~ ~ ''
I I '~: ~ 0
~ I L
O
~ I
Z I ~
z I
= I
I
L
o I I
~ I ~ 0~
Z ; L ~ ao ~
r-
r-
I
I
I ~~
I ,
I
I '
i
L__
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-4
FOSTER scue ue•- r-o•
219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 wre os-ie-os
P16
~~
~ ~
0
m ~ ;`;
O
S
m
D
~ ;,
Z ~ ;,,
0 ' DD
~ `= a D
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-5
FOSTER SULE 1 /8' - 1'-0'
219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 UATE:OS-IB-09
P17
r----
i
I -
;
I:
I ~~
~ :_
~ - - ~~ ~
I---
I
I
0
I
~ I
r--
$ i
m ~
~ r-- ~
m i
~
~
~
m ~
~ ~
Z i ~
~ L
F-- -
L-_
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-3
FOSTER sage i~r ~ r-0•
219 5.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 8161 1 one: os-~ s-oe
P18
r--
~- -
~ I
I ~
I ~
I ~
I ~
I ~
I ~
I ~
A ~ ~
o ~
~ I---
m
v
~ I
I
I
D ~
O ~
Z
I
I
~~
I
I ~~
I ~
I
I
I
I
~-----
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-6
FOSTER sum i /s• _ r-o'
219S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 DATE: a5-19-09
0
0
/ r--- ---- i I
~ I .. I
/ / ~ I
/ / ~ I Z
I
w
/ _ o
/ PROPOSED LOT2 i ~ I
4,122 s.f. '
/ ~ ~ (PROPOSED F.A.R.= 2,400 sq.ft.) I X I
~ I "'
~ ~ ~ I
/ ~ 8,_6„
~ I I
L PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE J
~ - ~`~ PROPOSED PROPERLY LINE (FYP.) ~ I
~ b
/ ~ o ~~
z ~p
0
^W' ~ PROPOSED ADDITION
~~~ I
g~
a
q~)Q E%IST. I
CARPORT
PROPOSED 4 -6
PATIO
/ I a~
o~
~~
I ~_
I I II I
I I PROPOSED PXIST. EXISTING BUILDING
PATIO PECK FOOTPRINT I
/ O2~F
60 =
d.U
I I I
IXIST.
I CARPORT
PROPOSED LOT 1 I
/ I 5,868 sq.ft.
(PROPOSED F.A.R.= 2,625 sq.ft.) I
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE (1YP.)
pRnpncFn i nT nlviSlON/ BUILDING ENVELOPES
FOSTER
219 5.3 RD STREET, ASPEN CO 87 61
~ 13`~
A-1
SCALE: 1 X16" = 1'-0'
DATE: 03-O1-09
P20
bedFoom 3
C - ~ i
-- --~
PROPOSED LOT 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN
FOSTER .~/~ ~" 1 17 ~^
27 9 5.3 RD STREET, ASPEN CO 8 677 f_ 1 ~J
PROPOSED ADDITION
~~
do
~,
y
b
x 3
PROPOSED °' -
LOWER a
~
v
,
,
PATIO I a
0 3
a°
A-3
SCALE: 332" = 1'-0
DATE: 03-O1-09
P21
- - - - - - -1
/ ~OSED A DITION
EXIST.
CARPORT '
PROPOSED I
UPPER
PATIO
~ O
PROPOSED EXIST. ~ I
LOWER ~ECK 0
PATIO
I ~ m ast r edroo
O ~~
~ ! ~ [
w.i.cl.
master bath
~ ~
EXIST.
CARPORT
PROPOSED LOT 1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN
FOSTER ~ ~ '2 `~'
219 5.3 RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 J
A-2
SCALE: 3/32' = 1'-0'
DATE: O?-O1-09
P22
i
-_i i
II
II
U.
~ L--- J ~
- - -
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS
FOSTER '~/~ ~ I "~~'L'
219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 I 1 ` l
Q-4
SCALE: 3/32" ~ 1'-C
DATE: 03-O1-09
Mar Oz 09 06:41p Traina Petty
f 71St 369-07z1
p.z
P23
- __._ - ~
.. ,:
'" ` `--- -+ I II I I I I- -
~
~ ~
_
_ _
I
_ ---
- _. - _... _ _ _ -- - I ~ I
~-~
----
-__= J
-~
_-
-------- I
-----V I
- I
--~
PROP05ED NORTH ELEVATION
PROPOSED LOT 1 6ASIC ELEVATIONS A-5
FOSTER IN-1 ~ ~ sonic ~i3z• - r-c
zt 9 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 816t t 1 1~ ~ D0.TF; 03-01 -07
LL__.._JL____J___LI___._.___-~
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION