Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.20190227
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 27, 2019 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. 12:00 SITE VISITS- PLEASE MEET AT 931 GIBSON AVENUE II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes Minutes - February 13, 2019 C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. OLD BUSINESS A. None. IV. 4:40 NEW BUSINESS A. 4:40 105 E. Hallam- Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Setback Variations, PUBLIC HEARING B. 5:50 931 Gibson Avenue- Conceptual Major Development and Demolition- PUBLIC HEARING V. WORK SESSION A. Citizen suggestion for Historic Preservation Benefits VI. 7:15 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. 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. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 1 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Certificates of No Negative Effect ................................................................................................................ 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 333 W. Bleeker St – Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations ............................................ 2 Wireless 5G Update and Check In ................................................................................................................ 5 P1 II.B. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Gretchen Greenwood called the regular meeting to order with Commission Members Bob Blaich, Jeffery Halferty, and Richard Lai present. Roger Moyer arrived late. Also present were Andrea Bryan and Linda Manning. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. Commission Comments None. Conflicts of Interest None. Project Monitoring Amy Simon, community development, stated she has one for Richard. She gave it to him to take home. He will get back with Amy on it regarding the affordable housing project on Main Street project. Staff Comments Ms. Simon attended the CPI conference and it was great. Roger had a great time and went to a number of things. Keep us up to date on dates you may miss meetings. Richard said he enjoyed the conference session on drones. Legal difficulty on drone flying over the city and asked about the possibility of having a drone map the city. The moderator said it is possible to have a drone fly over it we asked for permission. Certificates of No Negative Effect 447 E Cooper. Chalet portion of the building and the salmon color addition. On the salmon color piece there is a request to change the doors and windows and install a mechanical piece. Minutes Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes from December 12, 2018; seconded by Mr. Blaich. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Blaich moved to approve the minutes from January 9, 2019; seconded by Mr. Lai. All in favor, motion carried. 333 W. Bleeker St – Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations Sarah Yoon, community development, said the property is located on the corner of Bleeker and 3rd. It is in the R6 zone. The review is for a major development. The property is a 6,000 square foot lot. A lot split was approved in 2002. The existing floor area is 2,435 over the allotted amount due to a miscalculation of garage space. This will bring it back in to compliance. She showed an image from 1963. The applicant is proposing to relocate the house and rotate the outbuilding. There is a one story connecting element on the rear of the resource connecting to a one story addition. There are also changes in fenestration on the landmark. From the Sandborn map we can tell the outbuilding was moved to this location. In the 1968 map the outbuilding was moved to the location. Staff is concerned with the relocation of the historic home. Parks determined removal of the trees is acceptable with mitigation. The P2 II.B. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 3 house is no longer being proposed to be moved forward by 5 feet. There are large spruce trees at the Bleeker Street elevation. We are concerned the resource will partially have a visual impact. The applicant proposes skylights on the east side yard. They are not minimal. We are requesting study for stormwater mitigation. There are three specific fenestration changes. The removal of non historic sliding doors on the east elevation. For the south elevation the change of the non historic French doors to two windows. Staff recommends exploration of the west and south elevations. We want to figure out if the existing windows are original and to investigate if there are original openings for the openings. On the proposal to remove the enclosed porch area we came across conflicting information. The Sandborn map indicates the feature was not there but a later map shows the feature is. Staff finds it difficult for the feature to remain. With it removed the connector would join the addition. Staff is concerned with the design of the secondary entrance on 3rd street. The addition is subordinate but doesn’t meet the design guidelines as to how it relates to the resource with form, materials and fenestration. The guidelines also state the roof form must be compatible with the historic building. Staff finds the proposed design contrasts between the old and new and doesn’t achieve the visual compatibility. The applicant is requesting setback variations for the out building. Staff is in support of the request since it supports the neighborhood pattern of alley access for the garage spaces. Staff would like to revisit the setback variation request for the rear addition. Staff is recommending continuation until March 13th for restudy. Mr. Lai asked Ms. Yoon to highlight the conditions. Ms. Yoon replied to restudy the eastward relocation of the historic house, restudy the skylights along the east side yard, preliminary stormwater mitigation information, restudy the proposed secondary walkway, investigate the historic framing, and restudy the new addition. Applicant presentation Mitch Haas, representing the owner, stated prior to submitting the application we went through two or three major design revisions. We submitted the application and made more revisions. The main one is not moving the house forward at all. Parks has agreed to allow us to remove the trees along the alley. Not moving forward five feet changed the plan. The new addition becomes barely visible from the 3rd Street side. Rally Dupps, architect, stated the garage hides the addition. The garage roof is taller than the roof of the addition. Mr. Haas said with the addition we are consistent with the resource in terms of form. It is a rectangle. We felt it was inappropriate to use any other roof pitch. The roof form is a simple form. Is it different than what you find traditionally, yes. It is all hidden by the garage structure. We feel the addition is consistent with the form. It will be consistent with the materials. We don’t feel the additional requires any restudy. Another concern was moving the house 3.7 feet to the east would change the appearance of the house. The house is roughly centered between the spruce trees today. We need to move it to the east. The house is so constrained by the trees there is nowhere else to work with. We need room for the new basement and over dig for the foundation walls. By not moving forward we are not getting any closer to the drip lines than we already are. Moving to the east also helps to further hide the sky light that staff brought up. It sits more than 51.5 feet from the edge of the street. No one will ever see the sky light. Our feeling is it is not problematic. He showed views of the sketch up. We lost almost 200 square feet of floor area. We did that by turning the garage, internal configuration and removing the rear porch addition. The only place you see much of the addition is right from the alley. We will remove the sky lights from both pitches of the garage roof. We have no issue with studying the framing. On the conditions we feel the relocation of the house is appropriate. No one will see the sky light along the east side. We don’t feel it needs a restudy. On stormwater all the guidelines say at final review. Roger entered at 5:08. It is not appropriate to start that at this level. The walkway to the connecter is landscaping and we are fine with restudying it. We are happy to restudy the historic framing. The only thing it leaves is the addition at the back. We feel it is appropriate and obscured. Mr. Lai said page 21, staff is concerned with the relocation of the historic home that it will compromise the resource being so close to the dripline. Ms. Yoon stated the memo was released prior to the revision. Our concern about the relocation still stands. Half the front façade will still be in the dripline. Ms. Simon P3 II.B. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 4 said the house is still being moved eastward behind one of the large trees. Mr. Haas said it is not a concern. We have to pick the house up anyway to put a new foundation under it. Ms. Greenwood said the three foot move is due to the basement not the resource. Ms. Simon said that is part of our concern. Relocating a historic building is not generally an accepted best preservation practice. We have not seen any concern that this is the best thing for the historic building. It is allowing their basement. Ms. Greenwood said the word preservation hasn’t been mentioned once. Mr. Haas said we don’t have anywhere else to add on. Ms. Greenwood replied that is the nature of the property. Mr. Haas said a move to the east is not as negligible and allows that. Mr. Blaich said the trees on the alley, Parks doesn’t want them removed. Mr. Haas said now they said we can, but they want us to plant back three new spruce trees in that area. They won’t fit. Under no condition will we do that. Ms. Simon said when Parks took the position that the trees had to stay and they were going to move the house forward we said it created another set of problems they reconsidered. Mr. Halferty said the memo described the roofline of the addition potentially not conforming. Was there any discussion on the glazing versus wall mass. Ms. Yoon replied it touches briefly on the fact the fenestration doesn’t refer back. The materials can get there. When it gets to fenestration and form we see a departure. Mr. Halferty said the neighbor is in support but concerned with the setback of the garage. Ms. Yoon replied correct. Mr. Halferty said the relocation of the resource is not a preservation point but to maximize the footprint of the subgrade area. Mr. Dupps replied we have a limited amount of room above grade and would like to put most of the addition in the basement. We want to move the house 3.7 feet so we don’t disturb the trees. Mr. Moyer said he agrees with staff. Ms. Greenwood asked to see the floor plan of the lower level. What are the setback variances you are asking for. Mr. Haas replied they are all rear yard. The original request was for the relocated garage. Today it is less than a foot from the alley and on the west property line. It will turn 90 degrees and move one foot off of each property line. It needs a rear and side yard setback variance. We need combined side yard variations because of the same structure and where it sits on the property line. The addition would also require a rear yard variation of 7.10 feet because the back of the chimney and the wall and the alley. The letter about the structure on the alley, I understand but there will be less structure on the alley than before. Ms. Greenwood asked are there any bonus ask. Mr. Haas replied we are losing 200 feet. Ms. Greenwood asked how many trees will be removed. Mr. Dupps stated he does not know of the top of his head. Six from the back. Parks asked us to remove some spruce trees that are competing with the cottonwoods. Ms. Greenwood opened the public comment. There was none. Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment. Mr. Haas addressed the letter that was submitted earlier. Ms. Yoon said the letter addressed the initial application. Mr. Haas said today there is 25 feet of building structure and trash right against the alley. Once rotated it will only be 13 feet. We feel we are making it much better. The letter issue is the ability of cars to back out of the alley and the maneuvering of cars. There are fences along the alley on the property lines. That is what is constricting the alley, not the garage. Board discussion. Ms. Greenwood said she would like to discuss the setback of the new addition as well. There are six items to discuss. One of the main ones is the restudy of the new addition to meet the design guidelines. The applicants have said that they meet the form. Staff doesn’t feel they do. In the last week they have decided not to move the house forward five feet but to move it to the east three feet. I still don’t understand the reason for that. It is not a preservation technique and that is our purview here. P4 II.B. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 5 Mr. Halferty said it is an interesting historic resource. He commends the applicants on their preservation plan and the modest addition that is proposed. On the relocation of the house, when we move structures many times it has to do with better preservation. I understand the square footage and the subgrade space and the less of an impact on the ground level. To me, I also think it needs some restudy. I’m not sure it is the best preservation effort to move it to the east. Concerning the guidelines and the addition, two of the three should be met. I think the roof and the amount of glazing is in competition with the historic resource, even with the one story link. I understand what the applicant is saying regarding stormwater but I also think it should be restudied. I appreciate them filling in the skylights on the resource but the new openings also need additional clarification and study. The lightwells are indicated to be less visual, but we are starting to see more and more of these and I’m not so sure how successful they are. I think they could also use restudy. The new addition also needs additional study. It is definitely modern and contemporary. It may be too much in competition with the resource. I’m ok with the relocated outbuilding as a garage. I think it is a logical place. I’m fine with the setback request. The roof form is modest, simple and small scale but it might be in too much competition with the main building. I think with some modifications and simple suggestions I could see this comply with the guidelines and could support it. I would support the recommendation for continuation. Mr. Blaich said Jeff covered all the points very well. My main issue from a visual point of view is the restudy of the new addition. I think there is a lot of room for modification. Item number six is a major question for me as it exists. Mr. Lai commended the applicant for being below the allowed FAR. His main concern is the impact of trees on the integrity of the resource. Second is he agrees with Jeff’s comments on the roof of the addition. It should have more compatibility with the existing buildings. On the auxiliary building, looking at it from 3rd Street he prefers the gable projected on to 3rd Street. Mr. Moyer said applicants should come firstly with a preservation plan and that should be predominant in their mind. We have an issue with trees and it is all the more reason to have discussion with Parks. Moving the house, I’m not in favor of. We need to spend some time on window wells. Turning the out building is a very valid move and I’m not opposed to it in the least. I concur with staff that we need to restudy. Drainage can be dealt with between engineering. The walkway can also be easily dealt with. The addition is close but not quite. The glazing is a bit overwhelming and the compatibility is a little off. Ms. Greenwood said the board is generally in favor of staff’s recommendation. I didn’t get a clear direction from the board on moving the house to the east. I would say the building should not be moved over. Mr. Moyer agreed. Ms. Greenwood said she is a little concerned that you made a statement that you worked a lot with staff. It feels like this project has a long way to go for approval. There are new guidelines. The addition does not meet the guidelines. It has a low pitched roof. It is a complete departure from the vernacular of a historic resource in the City of Aspen. I think we all agree it is not compatible. Regarding the setbacks, I think turning the building is a good solution that allows an addition to be put on this building. To me it is a very busy site. I’m having a problem with the entire project. The addition needs to be restudied. I find in favor of the setbacks in the back and for the garage but not moving the building to the east. Mr. Blaich moved to continue 333W Bleeker Street to March 13, 2019 with staff recommendation; seconded by Mr. Moyer. All in favor, motion carried. Wireless 5G Update and Check In Jessica Garrow, community development, introduced the team working on the wireless code amendments including Paul Schultz with the Information Technology department and Andrea Bryan, assistant city attorney. Mr. Schultz said wireless technology is changing and driving smaller and more installations in communities. This is happening everywhere and Aspen is getting ahead of this to ensure we have the best wireless technology for our community while minimizing the visual and construction impacts of that technology. He showed images of unsightly small cell installations. Work is often performed by the lowest out of state contractors. He showed examples of building mounted and light/flag pole mounted equipment. For very small applications they can even be located underground on man hole covers. P5 II.B. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 6 Ms. Bryan said what is driving the code changes is a result of changes in both state and federal law. The new Colorado law creates a use by right for small cell facilities in any zone district. It shortens the time frame in which the city has to act on applications to generally 90 days. It also gives providers the right to locate on city light poles, traffic signals and other infrastructure in our right of way. Federal law also recently changed. The FCC approved rules imposing new deadlines for processing applications to 90 days for new stand alone facilities but 60 days for ones collocated on city infrastructure. It also limits the fees we can charge. It also limits our allowable aesthetic requirements. They have to be reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure and must be published in advanced. We have until April 11th to have some design guidelines finalized. Ms. Garrow said knowing that we have to allow this new type of infrastructure how do we manage this that it meets our small town character and doesn’t conflict with our pretty strict rules we have related to design. From a historic preservation perspective, we like to have things be what they are and new look different from old. When we had this conversation with P&Z, they thought fake chimneys are weird and we should use some of our regulations related to other mechanical equipment, requiring setbacks and screening. Treat these types of facilities the same as we would anything else. Mr. Halferty asked how is it done now. Mr. Schultz replied today uses different frequency. There is some equipment on the top of the St. Regis. There is a fake tree near the water plant. Mr. Halferty said like P&Z fake things wouldn’t be appropriate. Mr. Moyer said this technology is changing will the equipment ultimately become smaller. Mr. Schultz replied yes. Mr. Moyer asked if the folks in Washington have looked at this from a historic resource perspective. Ms. Garrow replied no. We are really responding to federal rules and making sure they are treated like any other type of infrastructure. Ms. Greenwood said you said the city can’t regulate where they go. Ms. Bryan replied they can be put in any zone district. If someone were to come in and located one on a publicly owned historic building it can be subject to certain review criteria and heightened review. We would still have to act within the timeframe. In some circumstances you can say no as long as our design guidelines are objective and reasonable and as long as we are not materially inhibiting them from providing their wireless service. Ms. Greenwood said it is really a concealment issue. Ms. Garrow said one of the things we are interested in getting feedback on is the light pole issue. There is a manufacturer in Colorado Springs that can design any pole you want. Is this something you are comfortable with. Mr. Moyer said it is very difficult to attach anything to public historic buildings no matter what it is. Mr. Halferty asked if we have identified how many locations could be affected. Mr. Schultz said currently we have around half a dozen sites. We have been approached by two of the large carriers and they have shown maps with 12 to 15 around town. It is hard to predict. The trend is smaller and more of them. Mr. Lai said they should be expressive of what they are but tasteful and honest of what they are. Ms. Greenwood said disguising is not the way to go. Ms. Garrow asked about having a level of review where you may have to say yes. P&Z said they would rather it be an administrative process unless it is incredibly offensive they don’t want to see it. Ms. Greenwood said it could be handled administratively but one of the issues that come up with historic buildings is there is not enough information given to us for most of the mechanical systems you see on a building. Staff is starting to zero in on that. Mr. Halferty suggested a monitor process for review. At 6:35 p.m. Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Halferty. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk P6 II.B. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\C35F3D95-B0A6- 4F30-B4D2-21A1D74E97F6\15735.doc 2/20/2019 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 1102 Waters 602 E. Hyman 210 S. First 333 W. Bleeker Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision 209 E. Bleeker 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace 128 E. Main, Sardy House Gretchen Greenwood 124 W. Hallam 411 E. Hyman 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace 101 W. Main, Molly Gibson Lodge 201 E. Main 834 W. Hallam 420 E. Hyman Jeff Halferty 232 E. Main 541 Race Alley 208 E. Main 303 E. Main 517 E. Hopkins 533 W. Hallam 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen Roger Moyer 500 W. Main 223 E. Hallam 300 W. Main Richard Lai 122 W. Main 211 W. Main Scott Kendrick 303 E. Main 517 E. Hopkins 419 E. Hyman Sheri Sanzone 135 E. Cooper Need to assign: 134 W. Hopkins 422/434 E. Cooper 529-535 E. Cooper, Stein Building 305/307 S. Mill 534 E. Cooper 210 W. Main P7 II.F. TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes) Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. 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. Procedure for amending motions: A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion. If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion and voting on the Motion may then proceed. If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails, discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed. P8 II.K. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation MEETING DATE: February 27, 201 RE: 105 E. Hallam Variations, PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT /OWNER: 105 E. Hallam LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Z Group Architects LOCATION: Street Address: 105 E. Hallam Street Legal Description: The east 25.14’ of Lot B and the West 8’ of Lot C, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-124-37-002 CURRENT ZONING & USE Single-family home, R-6: Medium-Density Residential PROPOSED LAND USE: No change SUMMARY The Variation historic addition and shifting it forward as part of basement construction, and development of a new addition. STAFF Staff recommends memo. 30 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Officer , 2019 105 E. Hallam – Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation, Setback PUBLIC HEARING UMMARY: The applicant has requested a Major Development Variation review for a project which involves removing a non historic addition from this Victorian era home, lifting the home and shifting it forward as part of basement construction, and development of a new addition. TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation to restudy topic memo. Site Locator Map – 105 E. Hallam Street 105 Page 1 of 6 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Relocation, Setback Development, Relocation and a project which involves removing a non- this Victorian era home, lifting the home and shifting it forward as part of basement construction, and topics identified in this 105 E. Hallam Street P9 IV.A. Page 2 of 6 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: 105 E. Hallam is a 3,314 sq. ft. lot located in the R-6 zone district. On the site is a brick home built in 1885, and a brick shed, which straddles the property line with the home to the west. This home was built for Catherine Brown (née Cowenhoven), who was married to D.R.C. Brown. Both families were significant in Aspen’s mining development. 105 E. Hallam and 101 E. Hallam, to the west, were originally mirror images of each other, however, a new second floor was added on 101 E. Hallam decades ago, so that the two buildings are no longer a pair. 105 E. Hallam is on a blockface which is all 19th century homes of varying styles and setbacks. REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: · Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for removal of a small non-historic addition and construction of a new addition to the rear of the historic home. · Relocation (Section 26.415.090.C) to move the historic home forward 5 feet. · Setback Variations (Section 26.415.110.C) for setback variations related to historic and proposed new conditions. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority, however this project is subject to Call-up Notice to City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff finds that the proposal meets many of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines but recommends continuation to address areas where compliance has not yet been achieved. Please note that this project does not include a request for a floor area bonus, and is in fact below the allowed floor area by approximately 500 square feet. Also, while the application mentions the need for a parking reduction, this is not required. The site has no parking now. The proposed single stall garage is an improvement and adequate for compliance with the zone district. Following is a summary of staff findings. Site Planning, Relocation, Setback Variations: The applicant proposes to lift the historic house on this site, move it 5’ forward, and suspend it over the excavation of a basement that exceeds the P10 IV.A. Page 3 of 6 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com footprint of the above grade development. A historic shed along the alley will remain where it is. Limited improvements are proposed for the yards surrounding the resources. In general, staff is supportive of the project concept for Site Planning, Relocation and Setback Variations. Criteria for the approval of Relocation and Setback Variations are detailed on Exhibits B and C to this memo. Staff finds that, given the fact that the property contains two historic resources, a house and an outbuilding, allowing the house to move forward on the lot facilitates a connector as part of the addition, and creates adequate distance between the new construction and shed. As a condition of approval, the details of the relocation plan, outlined by a structural engineer and housemover, will require review and approval by HPC at Final, and the applicant will be required to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation. Before the next Conceptual hearing, a number of items require clarification by the architect. The Building Department has brought up the need to fire rate the historic structures and eaves within a certain proximity of property lines. The applicant must confirm this is possible without inappropriate exterior alterations to the historic resources. The applicant must also confirm that the extension of the basement towards the front lot line can be accomplished within the Park’s Departments requirements to protect the large cottonwood tree at the front of the site. Staff also requests that the applicant verify that sod can be planted on top of this basement area. The house has historically been surrounded by grass. The application mentions a proposal to cover any new exposed foundation below the historic house with brick. Staff does not support adding any additional courses of brick. New construction should be clearly new. Any foundation that is visible should be limited and should either be exposed concrete or metal flashing. The applicant must confirm that the relationship of the finished floor of the historic house to grade is not changing. Finally, staff requests restudy of the lightwell at the northeast corner of the historic house, so that it is more recessed from the front façade due to potential visual impact. The applicant is required to carefully design all of the lightwells so that the exposure of the curb of the lightwell above grade is the minimum necessary. Regarding setback variations, the applicant requests the following: · A 5’ reduction of the front yard setback for the basement only · A 5’ reduction of the rear yard setback for the basement and for the second floor of the addition · A 4” reduction of the west sideyard for the historic house P11 IV.A. Page 4 of 6 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com · A 4” reduction of the combined sideyard requirement · The historic shed is to remain in place with existing encroachments in the rear and west yards. Staff finds that the review criteria are met for the requested setback variations because the variations maintain the siting of the historic resources and/or allow the new construction to be maximized below grade and to the rear of the historic house. Adequate buffer to the historic shed is also achieved. Historic Landmark –Alterations: The applicant proposes no alterations directly to the historic resource. More detail will be discussed at Final review. New Addition – Connecting Element & Form/Materials/Fenestration: Criteria for design review and a full list of the relevant design standards are provided in Exhibit A to this memo. Staff finds a number of design guidelines related to the addition are not met. We recognize that a balance will be needed given site constraints involved in a small lot with two historic resources to preserve. For instance, while Design Guideline 10.9 calls for a connector at least 10’ in length, the applicant proposes only 8’. The connector otherwise meets the characteristics typically required in this transition piece. Staff supports the applicant’s proposal. On the other hand, staff does not find that Design Guidelines 10.3, 10.4, 10.6. and 10.11 are adequately met, and/or these guidelines require discussion by HPC. Design Guidelines 10.3, 10.6 and 10.11 all direct an addition to be visually compatible and deferential to the historic resource. Staff does not find that the addition strongly relates to the historic resource in terms of two of the following: form, fenestration and materials. The proposed addition is very similar to the addition recently completed at 101 E. Hallam, but the historic house at 101 E. Hallam has a gable roof form and lacks the historic integrity of the resource on this lot. Staff recommends restudy of the addition to ensure that the compatibility described in these guidelines is achieved. It is the roof forms of the addition which staff finds particularly unrelated to the historic house on this site. The project does not meet Design Guideline 10.4, which requires that the above grade floor area of the addition be no larger than the above grade floor area of the historic resource. This is a difficult standard to meet, especially when working with some of Aspen’s small historic homes, such as this one. The applicant is not asking for a floor area bonus and is below the allowed floor area. Staff can support an exception as provided in this design guideline based on: o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically P12 IV.A. Page 5 of 6 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com In summary, staff finds the proposal to be generally in keeping with the design guidelines but recommends restudy to meet guidelines 10.3, 10.6 and 10.11. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred out to other City departments to preliminarily identify requirements that may affect permit review. The following is a summary of comments received. See Exhibit B for more details. Follow-up on these comments is needed. Building: 1. The Building Department has identified the need to achieve a 1 hour Fire Rating on walls of the historic house and shed which are less than 5’ from the adjacent property line. Any eaves which are closer than 3’ to a property line will also have to be fire rated. Engineering: 1. A public sidewalk is required to be built in the right-of-way abutting Hallam. Coordinate sidewalk and utility placement (including a new water service line) with Engineering and Parks to protect the street trees in front of the property. 2. Clarify details related to drainage as defined by the Urban Runoff Management Plan and Engineering Design Standards. 3. Demonstrate how micropile walls for the extended basement can be constructed without damage to the roots of adjacent trees. 4. Demonstrate that the neighboring transformer proposed to serve this property has capacity. Otherwise this project will require an on-site transformer. Parks: 1. No excavation will be permitted any closer than 15’ from the trunk of the street trees. This includes the micropile cap. 2. Tree dripline irrigation will be required throughout construction. 3. Construction access must be coordinated with Parks and may only be allowed from the alley. 4. Air-spading will be required to limit impacts to trees. 5. The front walkway to the house must be a floating sidewalk with minimal excavation for any snowmelt, to be coordinated with Parks. Zoning: 1. Setback variations will be needed on the west for the house, on the rear for the shed, as well as for the basement and the upper level of the house. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue the application for restudy of the addition. A draft resolution is provided, should HPC wish to proceed with approval. Direction for the next meeting is: P13 IV.A. Page 6 of 6 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com 1. Restudy the proposed addition to meet guidelines 10.3, 10.6 and 10.11. 2. Confirm how the historic structures and eaves will be fire rated where they are within 5’ or less of property lines. 3. Confirm that the extension of the basement towards the front lot line can be accomplished within the Park’s Departments requirements to protect the large cottonwood tree at the front of the site. 4. Verify that sod can be planted on top of the basement which is forward of the house. 5. Any new foundation that is visible below the historic structure should be limited and should either be exposed concrete or metal flashing. The applicant must confirm that the relationship of the finished floor of the historic house to grade is not changing. 6. Restudy of the lightwell at the northeast corner of the historic house, so that it is more recessed from the front façade due to potential visual impact. In addition, carefully design all of the lightwells so that the exposure of the curb of the lightwell above grade is the minimum necessary. 7. Preliminarily address all referral comments provided in this memo. Proposed conditions of approval, assuming resolution of the items above, are: 1. Provide details of the relocation plan, outlined by a structural engineer and housemover, at Final. The applicant will be required to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation. 2. The following variations are accepted: · A 5’ reduction of the front yard setback for the basement only · A 5’ reduction of the rear yard setback for the basement and for the second floor of the addition · A 4” reduction of the west sideyard for the historic house · A 4” reduction of the combined sideyard requirement · The historic shed is to remain in place with existing encroachments in the rear and west yards. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #____, Series of 2019 Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit B – Relocation Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit C – Setback Variation Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit D – Referral Comments Exhibit E – Application P14 IV.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, RELOCATION AND SETBACK VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 105 E. HALLAM STREET, THE EAST 25.14’ OF LOT B AND THE WEST 8’ OF LOT C, BLOCK 65, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-37-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, 105 E Hallam LLC, represented by Z Group Architects, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations for the property located at 105 E. Hallam Street, the east 25.14’ of Lot B and the West 8’ of Lot C, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. 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; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on February 27, 2019. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation and Setback Variations HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations for 105 E. Hallam Street with the following conditions: P15 IV.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 2 of 3 1. Provide details of the relocation plan, outlined by a structural engineer and housemover, at Final. The applicant will be required to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation. 2. The following variations are accepted: · A 5’ reduction of the front yard setback for the basement only · A 5’ reduction of the rear yard setback for the basement and for the second floor of the addition · A 4” reduction of the west sideyard for the historic house · A 4” reduction of the combined sideyard requirement · The historic shed is to remain in place with existing encroachments in the rear and west yards. Section 2: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 3: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the _____ day of _______, 2019. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair P16 IV.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 3 of 3 ATTEST: _________________________________________________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk P17 IV.A. Page 1 of 15 Exhibit A Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. 1. Conceptual Development Plan Review b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: 1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be 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 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 3) 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. 4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section P18 IV.A. Page 2 of 15 P19 IV.A. Page 3 of 15 P20 IV.A. Page 4 of 15 Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. · Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. · Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. · If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. · Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. · Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi- public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. P21 IV.A. Page 5 of 15 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. · Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. · Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. · The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. · Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. · Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. · When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. · Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. · Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. · Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. · Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. · If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. · The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. P22 IV.A. Page 6 of 15 · Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. · Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. · In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. · Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. · Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. · Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. · In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. · Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. P23 IV.A. Page 7 of 15 2.1 P24 IV.A. Page 8 of 15 Preserve original building materials. · Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. · Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. · Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. · Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. · Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. · If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. · Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. · Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows. · Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them. · Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass for the repair. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. · Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. · Do not change the size of an original window opening. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. · Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, 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. · Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. P25 IV.A. Page 9 of 15 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. · Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. · Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and spacing of balusters. · Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. · Repair only those features that are deteriorated. · Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. · On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. · Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. · Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. · Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. · Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. · AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. · When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details. · If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. The determination of significance is based on documentation of the construction date of the outbuilding and/or physical inspection. A secondary structure that is related to the period of significance of the primary structure will likely require preservation. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. P26 IV.A. Page 10 of 15 · In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. · In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. · Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. · In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. · If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. · It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. · A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. · Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. · Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. · Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. · On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. · Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. · Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. · New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. P27 IV.A. Page 11 of 15 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. · The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. · Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. · Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. · Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. · The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. · During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. · The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. · A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. · 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. · For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. · HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. · A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. · An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. · An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. · An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. P28 IV.A. Page 12 of 15 · Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. · The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. · The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. o 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. · An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. · A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. · Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. · Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. · Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. · There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. P29 IV.A. Page 13 of 15 10.8 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. 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. · Only a one-story connector is allowed. · Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall. · In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave. · The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. · Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic resource. · Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially 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 primary building is inappropriate. · Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. · Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. · A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. · On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. · Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. P30 IV.A. Page 14 of 15 Staff Finding: The applicable sections of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning and landscape, building materials, windows, doors, porches, architectural details, roofs, secondary structures, relocation and building additions. Landscape, lighting, fenestration and materials are typically discussed in detail at Final review, therefore staff has not focused the memo on these aspects of the project except where a Conceptual discussion is appropriate. The applicant proposes no alterations to the historic resource itself. Repair and restoration work will be addressed at Final. Regarding Conceptual review, staff finds that many of the guidelines are met. Others can be met through conditions of approval. In particular, staff hopes to see assurance that Design Guideline 1.12 will be met by the planting of sod in front of the historic resource, despite the location of a basement forward of the resource. Regarding Design Guideline 7.2, the Building Department has brought up the need to fire rate the historic structures and eaves within a certain proximity of property lines. The applicant must confirm this is possible at Final review. Staff has drafted conditions of approval related to Design Guidelines 9.4- 9.7, having to do with the safe relocation of the historic house. Staff finds a number of design guidelines related to the addition are not met. We recognize that a balance will be needed given site constraints involved in a small lot with two historic resources to preserve. For instance, while Design Guideline 10.9 calls for a connector at least 10’ in length, the applicant proposes only 8’. The connector otherwise meets the characteristics typically required in this transition piece. Staff supports the applicant’s proposal. On the other hand, staff does not find that Design Guidelines 10.3, 10.4, 10.6. and 10.11 are adequately met, and/or these guidelines require discussion by HPC. Design Guidelines 10.3, 10.6 and 10.11 all direct an addition to be visually compatible and deferential to the historic resource. Staff does not find that the addition strongly relates to the historic resource in terms of two of the following: form, fenestration and materials. The proposed addition is very similar to the addition recently completed at 101 E. Hallam, but the historic house at 101 E. Hallam has a gable roof form and lacks the historic integrity of the resource on this lot. Staff recommends restudy of the addition to ensure that the compatibility described in these guidelines is achieved. It is the roof forms of the addition which staff finds particularly unrelated to the historic house on this site. The project does not meet Design Guideline 10.4, which requires that the above grade floor area of the addition be no larger than the above grade floor area of the historic resource. This is a difficult standard to meet, especially when working with some of Aspen’s small historic homes, such as this one. The P31 IV.A. Page 15 of 15 applicant is not asking for a floor area bonus and is below the allowed floor area. Staff can support an exception as provided in this design guideline based on: o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically In summary, staff finds the proposal to be generally in keeping with the design guidelines but recommends restudy to meet guidelines 10.3, 10.6 and 10.11. P32 IV.A. Page 1 of 3 Exhibit B Relocation Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.090.C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or P33 IV.A. Page 2 of 3 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Finding: The historic house is proposed to be relocated directly forward by 5’. The historic shed will remain in place. All of the homes on this blockface are landmarked Victorians. They are of varying sizes and styles and there is not a consistent front setback amongst them. That said, this house was built as a twin to the house to the west. Staff has some concerns with moving this resource forward of the other, however the house to the west has been significantly remodeled, with the whole upper floor removed and replaced, the original front porch demolished, etc. The two homes do not maintain a strong relationship. Below is the 1904 Sanborne map of this block, with 105 E. Hallam indicated. Moving the house forward is allowing the applicant to accommodate an addition, including a connector between the house and addition, and reasonable buffer around the historic shed. Staff finds that this P34 IV.A. Page 3 of 3 relocation is an acceptable preservation outcome. The applicant has not provided detailed information about the relocation plan, other than to say that their engineer is designing a plan to suspend the resource directly above the basement excavation. As conditions of approval, the specific relocation plan will require review and approval by HPC at Final and the applicant will be required to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation. The application mentions a proposal to cover any new exposed foundation with brick. Staff does not support adding any additional courses of brick to the house. New construction should be clearly new. Any foundation that is visible should be limited and should either be exposed concrete or metal flashing. The applicant must confirm that the relationship of the finished floor of the historic house to grade is not changing. Finally, staff requests restudy of the lightwell at the northeast corner of the historic house, so that it is more recessed from the front façade due to potential visual impact. In addition, the applicant is required to carefully design all of the lightwells so that the exposure of the curb of the lightwell above grade is the minimum necessary, consistent with design guideline 9.6. Staff finds that, given the fact that the property contains two historic resources, a house and an outbuilding, allowing the house to move forward on the lot facilitates a connector as part of the addition, and adequate distance between the new construction and shed. P35 IV.A. Page 1 of 2 Exhibit C Setback Variation Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.110.C: Variances: Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. 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 b) 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 Finding: The applicant requests the following setback variations: · A 5’ reduction of the front yard setback for the basement only · A 5’ reduction of the rear yard setback for the basement and for the second floor of the addition · A 4” reduction of the west sideyard for the historic house P36 IV.A. Page 2 of 2 · A 4” reduction of the combined sideyard requirement · The historic shed is to remain in place with existing encroachments in the rear and west yards. Regarding the request to extend the basement to within 5’ of the front lot line, where a 10’ setback is required, the applicant must confirm that this can be accomplished within the Park’s Departments requirements to protect the large cottonwood tree at the front of the site. Staff also requests that the applicant confirm that sod can be planted on top of this basement area since design guideline 1.12 establishes the foreground of the resource as the most restrictive area in terms of alterations to landscape. The house has historically been surrounded by grass. The applicant requests a variation for the basement to allow it to be within 5’ of the rear property line, where 10’ is required. Staff supports this variation as a means to capitalize on below grade space with no concerning visual impact. In this same area of the project, while no rear yard setback variance is needed for the new garage, which is permitted to be 5’ from the rear lot line, the living space above it is subject to a 10’ setback. Staff supports the applicant’s request for a variation in order to allow the applicant to focus new living space at the back of the site, away from the historic resource. The proposal requires a 4” west sideyard reduction and a 4” combined sideyard setback reduction, only for the historic house. The house is too wide to fully meet the 5’ sideyards and 10’ combined yards. Finally, although the shed is not proposed to be moved, it does sit within the rear and west sideyards. These conditions are historic and should be maintained and legalized through variations. Staff finds that review criteria b is met for the requested setback variations because the variations maintain the siting of the historic resources and/or allow the new construction to be maximized below grade and to the rear of the historic house. Adequate buffer to the historic shed is also achieved. P37 IV.A. From:Nick Thompson To:Amy Simon Cc:Denis Murray; Bonnie Muhigirwa Subject:RE: Referral of HPC Project - 105 E. Bleeker Date:Friday, February 1, 2019 11:23:38 AM Attachments:image001.png Amy, The historic portion of the house is less than 5’ from the West property line, requiring the wall to be 1 hour fire rated. This might be feasible since it is brick. The eave overhang would need to be no closer than 3’ to the property line otherwise it would need to be fire rated which would allow it to be 2’ from the property line. I was unable to determine the overhang projection distance from the drawings. The shed is on the property line so will need to be fire rated and will not be allowed to have an eave overhang or any openings. The overhang could be as close as 2’ from the property line if it is fire rated, otherwise, closest is 5’ (unless the shed is sprinklered, which would get it down to 3’). The window wells don’t appear to be in walkways or patios so would not need guards around them. Nick Thompson Plans Examiner Community Development 130 S Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970.429.2757 c: 970.456.5165 www.cityofaspen.com www.aspencommunityvoice.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning and/or applicable building code regulations which are subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Amy Simon P38 IV.A. From:Hailey Guglielmo To:Amy Simon Subject:FW: Referral of HPC Project - 105 E. Bleeker Date:Monday, February 11, 2019 12:58:19 PM Attachments:Full application.pdf image001.png Amy, Below are Engineering comments. There are quite a few constraints on this property and the following comments should be addressed prior to HPC approval. 1. The project is required to install a sidewalk along the property frontage in the City ROW. There are large trees that will cause constraints to the sidewalk. The sidewalk will need to be installed as a floating sidewalk that utilizes rebar support and does not dig down around the tree. Applicants should work with Engineering to determine the best alignment. 2. The project proposes a basement that extends setback to setback. This leaves limited options for stormwater treatment. The application does not address how stormwater will be handled on site. A preliminary plan should be presented prior to HPC approval. 3. There are large trees in close proximity to the proposed foundation. The project needs to demonstrate shoring micropile walls can be installed outside of the tree dripline and will have no negative affect on the tree roots. 4. The project proposes to use a transformer that is located on another parcel. Does an easement exist for the existing transformer? Does the existing transformer have adequate capacity to supply the new development? If a new transformer is needed int needs to be placed within the property boundaries, and not in the ROW. 5. The project will most likely require a new water service line. The water service will cut in the dripline of two prominent trees. The alignment needs to be determined to limit damage to the existing trees. Thanks, Hailey Guglielmo, EIT Development Engineer Engineering Department 201 N Mill St. Ste 203 Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970.429.2751 www.cityofaspen.com P39 IV.A. From:David Radeck To:Amy Simon; Sarah Yoon Cc:Ben Carlsen; Ian Gray Subject:RE: Referral of HPC Project - 105 E. Bleeker Date:Friday, February 1, 2019 3:38:50 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Amy, Parks Comments: 1. City Forester has called out that there is to be no excavation any closer than 15’ from trunk of trees in front yard. This includes the micropile cap. 2. Irrigation for all tree driplines throughout the construction period must occur. 3. Access for this project must occur through the alley unless the City Forester allows access through front yard over a mulched pathway. 4. Air-spading will be required to limit impacts to trees. 5. Sidewalk leading to street from front door will need to be a “floating” sidewalk and if snow- melted must involve minimal (1-2”) excavation below current grade. Can you confirm that the side yard setback is 5’ off the east property line? On a side note: I did not see any fees for Parks associated with this review…. Is this an oversite or does Parks not get any? David Radeck Project Technician Parks Department 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970.429.2025 f: 970.920.5128 www.cityofaspen.com To apply for a Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit, register here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SFNewUser Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit Online Permit Application: https://cityofaspen.force.com/applicantportal/s/login/? startURL=%2Fapplicantportal%2Fs%2F&ec=302 If you need assistance for the online portal, please contact customer support: P40 IV.A. From:Jim Pomeroy To:Amy Simon Cc:Sarah Yoon; Bob Narracci Subject:RE: Referral of HPC Project - 105 E. Bleeker Date:Monday, February 11, 2019 4:34:43 PM Attachments:image001.png Zoning notes for 105 E. Hallam Variances required: Side yard setback variance to the west. Rear yard setback variance for the shed. Basement and second floor rear yard variance to allow them at 5’ Other: Lighting? No FA drawings to review. Cheers, Jim Pomeroy Zoning Enforcement Officer 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p 970.429.2745 c 970.618.3790 www.cityofaspen.com www.aspencommunityvoice.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contained in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Amy Simon Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 5:13 PM To: Sarah Yoon <sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com>; Ben Carlsen <ben.carlsen@cityofaspen.com>; Bob Narracci <bob.narracci@cityofaspen.com>; Bonnie Muhigirwa <bonnie.muhigirwa@cityofaspen.com>; David Radeck <david.radeck@cityofaspen.com>; Denis Murray <denis.murray@cityofaspen.com>; Ian Gray <ian.gray@cityofaspen.com>; Jack Danneberg P41 IV.A. P42 IV.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION COMPLIANCE FORM CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. GALENA ST | ASPEN, CO 81611 All applications for a building permit within the City of Aspen are required to include a certification of compliance with applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or attorney representing the property owner. The following certification shall accompany the application for a permit. ___________________________________ _________ ___________________________ I, the property owner, certify as follows: (pick one) This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this building permit do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this building permit have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning, or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner Signature ____________________________ Date _________________ Owner Printed Name ________________________ OR Owner’s Attorney Signature ___________________________ Date _________________ Owner’s Attorney Printed Name _______________________ ADDRESS UNIT #PARCEL ID # ADDRESS: ____________________________PERMIT NUMBER: _______________________________ January 2018 P43 IV.A. Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371 December 17, 2018 Amy Simon City of Aspen Community Development – First Submission for HPC Review Re: 105 East Hallam Street, HP Design Guidelines Response Parcel ID 2735-124-37-002 Amy – we have responded to the Historic Preservation Guidelines individually to best articulate how our Project meets the guidelines. We have left some guidelines out because they are either not applicable to our project, or the response has been covered in a previous guideline. 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. The proposed development meets this guideline in two ways. 1. We are proposing to move the historic structure forward, towards the front setback. This could be seen as a negative impact because we are proposing to move the asset, however the more forward location is more in keeping with the neighborhood. The new location would then be in line with the two adjacent historical homes on either side. 2. All the new construction will be built at the rear of the property, behind the historic home. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. This property does not have a driveway off the street and we are not proposing one. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. Simple, straight walkway, perpendicular to the sidewalk, is proposed. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. This site is narrow and the existing historic structure does actually span from setback line to setback line, therefore open space is being proposed towards the back of the site. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. The Civil Engineer has been hired and a drainage study is being worked on. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. The existing historic home is in great shape and currently we are not planning on modifying any windows in the front or sides of the home. The rear of the home was added onto in the past. We are removing that addition, which then opens the opportunity to expand those windows. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. Fortunately, the entry door looks to be original and that door will be refurbished. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. We do not need to reconstruct any portion of the historic asset on the front or sides, other than some finishes, such as fascia. There will be the need to reconstruct some portions at the rear of the home, but those areas are minor in scope. P44 IV.A. Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. The original roof and form shall remain. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. The existing chimney is at the rear and is part of the addition and we are not proposing to keep it. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. Historical photographs are limited and therefore it is hard to tell what original grade was, however this is a brick structure on the original foundation, so therefore the likelihood that this home was moved is very minimal. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. A new foundation is being proposed. The existing foundation is not exposed, and the brick continues down to grade. It is our intention to match the brick as best we can and cover the new foundation at grade. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. There are no proposed lightwells located in the front of the house, facing the street or adjacent to the entry porch. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. This will be the case for this property. The existing front door shall remain the front door. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. This Project proposes to relate to the historic cabin by keeping in similar “form” and “siding material scale” to the historic cabin and deviate in the “fenestration” of the addition. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. The addition is roughly the same footprint as existing historic home and roughly the same height. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. The proposed addition sits entirely behind the existing historic asset with an 8’ long, one-story connector. 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. The proposed new structure is oriented to Hallam Street. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. The historic porch is the front porch. P45 IV.A. Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371 Land Use Code Section 26.415.090 - Relocation of a Historic Structure. This Project is proposing to relocate the historic structure roughly 5’ closer to the front yard setback. The main front façade of the historic home will then align with the main front façade of the historic home to the east. The existing foundation is very poor and will be demolished and a new concrete foundation constructed. Currently the concept is to raise the historic structure and excavate under the home during the foundation construction and then place the structure onto the new foundation without the historic structure leaving the lot. Our structural engineer has been engaged to assist in the shoring of the historic structure for relocation. Land Use Code Section 26.415.110.C2 & D – Variances and Parking Setback Variance: We feel this project meets both criteria set forth in this section. From the street façade, we are proposing to move the historic asset forward on the site to align with the adjacent historic home while architecturally keeping the Victorian home exactly the way it is. The additions are proposed to be built below grade on the front (5’ variance) where the modification is unseen from anywhere and, in the rear (5’ variance), where the addition’s architectural form is subservient to the existing Victorian structure, keeping with the pattern, features and character of the historic property. We also feel by only proposing an addition below grade in the front and above grade in the rear, it most certain mitigates any adverse impact to the site and structure. Parking: Parking reductions may be permitted by HPC. Due to the location of the historic shed in the rear of the lot, where the only possibility of development can occur, creating two parking spaces is impossible with any meaningful addition or development. The location of the historic shed forces any addition to be pushed over against the east setback line and two parking space could only occur if one was in that setback. A garage or carport would not be feasible unless a significant east side setback was requested, which would be a negative impact on the historic asset. Land Use Code Section 26.515.080 – Special Review Standards (Parking). For HPC to approve a parking waiver requirement, the project must meet all three requirements in this section. This project is required to have two off-street parking spaces and we are proposing one off- street space due to the narrowness of the site and the existing historic shed location. 1. The property is located just outside the Aspen Core in a residential neighborhood, across from the Red Brick School. Although that particular street is busy during the day, night parking is less chaotic and over night parking for the one parking space needed is most likely going to be the majority of the use. In addition, the location of the lot is only 3 blocks away from a major bus stop at Paepcke Park, which make use of public transportation easy and convenient. 2. Onsite mitigation for the two spots is impossible with any addition development. 3. Existing off-site street residential street parking is available in the neighborhood. If you have any additional questions or need further information, please contact me. Sincerely, Z-GROUP ARCHITECTS Seth Hmielowski P46 IV.A. P47 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Property Phone No.: Owner (“I”): Email: Address of Billing Property: Address: (Subject of (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $___________flat fee for ____________________ $____________ flat fee for ____________________________________ $___________ flat fee for ___________________ $_____________ flat fee for____________________________________ For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director Name: _______________________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________________ City Use: Fees Due: $____Received $_______ P48 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ Applicant: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_______________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:________________________________________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ P49 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in Conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances Increased Density Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Park Dedication Fees Conditional Uses Tax Credits Exemption from Growth Management Quota System P50 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Proposed % of demolition: __________ DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P51 IV.A. P52IV.A. P53IV.A. P54IV.A. P55IV.A. P56IV.A. P57IV.A. P58IV.A. P59IV.A. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273512437002 on 09/27/2018 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com P60 IV.A. GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST JOHNSON MONTAE IMBT DALLAS, TX 75230 6820 BRADBURY GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST ZATS JULIE ASPEN, CO 81611 118 N GARMISCH GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST HOTEL ASPEN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 110 W MAIN ST 203 E HALLAM LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 101 S MILL ST # 200 GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST RODNEY JOHN W PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 8536 N GOLF DR 111 WEST FRANCIS LLC GREENWICH, CT 06831 28 ROCK RIDGE AVE GSW FAMILY INV LP LANCASTER, PA 17601 1320 HUNSICKER RD GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST HENRY FREDERICK B TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 100 W HALLAM ST HERRON LLC HOUSTON, TX 77006 1627 SOUTH BLVD PARDUBA JIRI ASPEN, CO 81612 116 N GARMISCH ST CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST HALLAM LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2408 HOGUET CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 118 E BLEEKER ST ASPEN COMM UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ASPEN, CO 81611 200 E BLEEKER ST BTRSARDY LLC PALO ALTO , CA 94303 PO BOX 10195 DEPT 1173 HOGUET CONSTANCE M NEW YORK, NY 10065 333 E 68TH ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST P61 IV.A. GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST VICTORIANS AT BLEEKER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 101 E BLEEKER ST COLLINS CINDA REV TRUST MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554031162 301 KENWOOD PKWY #301 TARVER CHARLES ASPEN, CO 81611 616 E HYMAN AVE 308 ASPEN HOLDING CO LLC GAHANNA, OH 43230 501 MORRISON RD # 100 GARCIA STEVEN J ASPEN, CO 81611 120 N GARMISCH GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST 120 EAST MAIN PARTNERS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 120 E MAIN ST PENN PAUL E & SUSAN W FT LAUDERDALE, FL 333162324 2566 LUCILLE DR DOMINGUE FAMILY TRUST WINTER PARK, FL 32790 PO BOX 2293 GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST MOUNTAIN STATE PROPERTIES LLC NAPLES, FL 34102 715 10TH ST S JAMMB LLC EL DORADO HILLS , CA 95762 PO BOX 5560 GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST ERWIN GREGORY D OMAHA, NE 68137 5062 S 108TH ST #122 ELLERMAN JEFFREY S & PAMELA C DALLAS, TX 75225 3600 CARUTH BLVD ROSE BRANDON WHARTON, NJ 07885 PO BOX 544 CRAWFORD RANDALL & ABIGAIL ASPEN, CO 81611 124 N GARMISCH ST MOUNTAIN STATE PROPERTIES LLC NAPLES, FL 34102 715 10TH ST S GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST HOGUET CONSTANCE M NEW YORK, NY 10065 333 E 68TH ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST 114 EAST BLEEKER STREET ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 114 E BLEEKER ST P62 IV.A. copyright 2010 Z-Group Architects Sheet #: Drawing Title: Construction Issue Date: DATE#ISSUED FOR Seal: 411 E. Main St. 205 ASPEN, CO 81611 105 EAST HALLAMASPEN, COLORADO(970) 925-1832 GROUP a r c h i t e c t s A3.0 FRONT ELEVATIONSP63 IV.A. ASLU 105 E. Hallam HPC Major Development 2735-124-37-002 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sarah Yoon, 970.920.5144 DATE: June 5, 2018 PROJECT: 105 E. Hallam REPRESENTATIVE: Seth Hmielowski, Z-Group Architects REQUEST: HPC Major Development DESCRIPTION: The property on 105 E. Hallam is a designated Victorian era miner’s cottage located in the R-6 Zone District. This modest one-story exposed brick structure has an asymmetrical front façade with a porch. A historic brick outbuilding straddles the lot line between this site and the property to the west. According to the Pitkin County Assessor, this lot is approximately 3,314 square feet in size. The historic resource appears to be in its original location (Fig. 1), and is in close alignment with other surrounding historic resources. The applicant proposes to retain the location of the historic resource but design an addition that directly attaches to the rear, alley-facing façade of the resource. The addition may or may not be proposed to connect above grade to the historic outbuilding. The proposal includes the construction of a full basement underneath the historic resources. Setback or parking variations may be required. Restoration/preservation opportunities needs to be addressed by the applicant using available historic documentation. REVIEW PROCESS: Step 1: At Conceptual Review the HPC will review all submitted documents regarding this major development, including the Staff report, then provide recommendations to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for recommendations based on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Following Conceptual, HPC will inform City Council of their decision, allowing them the opportunity to “Call-Up” any aspects of the approval that they find require additional HPC review. This is a standard practice for all significant projects reviewed by HPC. Conceptual Review focuses on site design, height, scale, massing and proportions of the proposed work. HPC will apply Relocation criteria to the excavation of the basement, requiring protection of the historic structures. Step 2: At Final Review the HPC will review all submitted materials and then provide final decision to approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. When approved a development order will be issued from the Community Development Director. Final Review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and selection of new materials. (Figure 1) Sanborn Map, 1904 P64 IV.A. 2 Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415 Historic Preservation 26.415.070.D Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development 26.415.090 Relocation of Designated Historic Properties 26.415.110 Benefits 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.180 Mixed Use Zone District Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use Code: http://cityofaspen.com/276/Title-26-Land-Use-Code HPC Design Guidelines: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/310 Land Use Application: http://cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/305 Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation HPC approval for design and any benefits. Public Hearing: Yes, at Conceptual and Final HPC review. Neighborhood Outreach: No. Referral Agencies: No. Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) Referral Agencies Fee: $0. Total Deposit: $1,950 for Conceptual Review, and $1,950 for Final Review. Please submit one copy of the completed application to the Community Development Office on the Third Floor of City Hall before each review step: Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. P65 IV.A. 3 Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. HOA Compliance form (Attached). An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing. A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development, and any requested variances or bonuses, complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. At Conceptual application only, provide graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials. At Final application only, drawings of the street facing facades must be provided in ¼” scale. At Final application only, provide final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples are preferred for the presentation to HPC. At Final Application only, provide a lighting plan and landscape plan. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: 1 digital PDF copy of the complete application packet 12 sets of all graphics printed at 11x17 Total deposit for review of the application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P66 IV.A. City C970 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner (“I”): Name: Email: Phone No.: Address of Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) □ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. □ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. □ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: _________________________ date:___________ Owner printed name: _________________________ or, Attorney signature: _________________________ date:___________ Attorney printed name: _________________________ P67 IV.A. X XXXDYHOSWW W W W WE GWGGGGGG G G G GG GEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UE EX-UE EX-UE EX- U E CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV T T T T TEX-UESSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS EX-UE EX-UE TTTTCTVCTVCTVGES 75°09'11" E 33.14'S 14°50' 4 9 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 'N 75°09'11" W 33.14'N 14°50' 4 9 " E 1 0 0 . 0 0 '7.30'38.10'10.50'1.00'12.70'28.30'0.10'14.80'9.00'3.80'L=11.74'4.7'5.3'19.4' 33.7' 1.2'11.5'24.20'9.00'2.8'4.8'3.5'WATERSERVICEWATERLINE#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #25947#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #29030TBM EL=7891.38'#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #ILLEGIBLEBEARS S48°43'57"E 1.19'#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #29030 BEARSS67°54'09"E 0.52'ADJOIN E R H O U S E ADJOIN E R H O U S E ADJOIN E R H O U S EWINDOWWELLSPA ACLOT A, B L O C K 6 5 LOT B, B L O C K 6 5 LOT B, B L O C K 6 5 LOT C, B L O C K 6 5E. 25.14' LOT BW. 8' LOT C3,314 S.F.±SINGLE STORYBRICK FRAME HOUSE105 E HALLAM STREET25.14'8.00'SHEDSPIGOTSTONEWALK(TYP.)ELEC.METERWATERMETERGAS METERSHED CONCRE T E S I D E W A L K POSTCABLE TVPED.ELEC. PED.COVEREDCONCRETEPORCHRIDGE7910.8'F.F.7892.8'RIDGE7915.8'RIDGE7915.7'RIDGE7913.0'CHIMNEY7908.4'F.F.7893.5'RIDGE7905.3'F.F.7893.7'IRON FENCECONCRETE CURB & GUTTEREAST HALLAM STREET74.38' R-O-WASPHALTALLEY20.69' R-O-WGRAVELGASLINESEWERLINEELECTRICCABLE TVTELEPHONEELEC.METERGASMETER4" DRAIN7892.33'6" PVCSTON E W A L KTELEPHONEELECTRICCABLE TVFENCEGASLINECOA GPS #9 - BEARSN66°27'49"W 2197.62'COA GPS #8 - BEARSN00°46'37"E 339.12'EAST 22' LOT CBLOCK 65WEST 4 . 8 6 ' L O T B HALL A M , L L C .CONCRETEPADSINGLE STORYWOOD FRAMEBUILDINGREC.NO. 192251ELECTRICTRANSFORMERAPPROX.SERVICE10'5'5'10'CITY OF ASPENR-6 BUILDINGSETBACKSCOTTONWOOD36" 30' 7892.1'COTTONWOOD14" 20' 7892.1'ASPEN3" 10' 7891.7'PINE24" 20' 7892.1'ASPEN10" 8' 7892.2'ASPEN10" 8' 7892.2'789378 9 3 78927892 7892 78927892NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW, YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRSTDISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT INTHIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THECERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.ByNO.DateProject NO.RevisionDrawn By:Checked By:Date:Computer File:P.O. Box 1746Rifle, CO 81650Phone (970) 625-1954Fax (970) 579-7150www.peaksurveyinginc.comSNWEPeak Surveying, Inc.Since 2007180211 OF 1105 EAST HALLAM, LLC.CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADOIMPROVEMENT & TOPO SURVEYE. 25.14' LOT B & W. 8' LOT C, BLK 65105 EAST HALLAMJRNJRNMAY 07, 2018021.DWGIMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENTI HEREBY STATE THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY PEAK SURVEYING, INC.FOR 105 EAST HALLAM STREET, LLC., A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.I FURTHER STATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE,APRIL 13, 2018, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THEPARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCRIBEDPREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES, EXCEPT AS INDICATED, AND THATTHERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANYPART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT AS NOTED. I FURTHER STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE TITLECOMMITMENT PREPARED BY STEWART TITLE COMPANY, COMMITMENT NO. 185222, DATEDEFFECTIVE MARCH 16, 2018 AND FIND ALL EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE THAT AFFECT THE SUBJECTPROPERTY ARE SHOWN HEREON TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ERROR INCLOSURE FOR THIS SURVEY IS LESS THAN 1:15,000.BY:___________________________________ JASON R. NEIL, P.L.S. NO. 37935IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYTHE EAST 25.14' OF LOT B AND THE WEST 8' OF LOT C, BLOCK 65CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONTHE EAST 25.14' OF LOT B AND THE WEST 8' OF LOT C, BLOCK 65, CITY AND TOWNSITE OFASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.NOTES:1) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, BUILDINGSETBACKS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN INTHE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY STEWART TITLE COMPANY, COMMITMENT NO. 185222,DATED EFFECTIVE MARCH 16, 2018.2) THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY WAS APRIL 13, 2018.3) BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF S03°56'41"E BETWEEN THENORTHWESTERLY CORNER, A #5 REBAR & CAP L.S. #25947 FOUND IN PLACE AND THESOUTHEASTERLY CORNER, A #5 REBAR & CAP L.S. # ILLEGIBLE FOUND IN PLACE.4) UNITS OF MEASURE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON IS U.S. SURVEY FEET.5) THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN MAP, BOOK 325 PAGE 65,BOOK 325 PAGE 67, BOOK 325 PAGE 70 AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND CORNERS FOUND INPLACE.6) ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON A GPS OBSERVATION (1988 ORTHO DATUM) YIELDING ANON-SITE ELEVATION OF 7891.38' ON THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER AS SHOWN. CONTOURINTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT.7) ACCORDING TO RECEPTION NO. 461105 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LISTED AS INVENTORY OFHISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES AND SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS OFSECTION 26.72.010(D) OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE.NESW0306090120150180210240270300330P e a k Surveying, Inc.0101020405SUBJECTPROPERTYVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'CO L OR A DO LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LAND SU R VEYOR JA SO N R. NEIL3793505/07/18P68IV.A. Report Created: 9/13/2018 11:38:34 AM Parcel ID: 273512437002Pitkin County Parcel Report Land Use Category Improvements School District Township, Range, Section Jurisdiction GIS Parcel Size Watershed Drainage Watershed Subbasin Historic District Caucus Zone District Master Plan Area Boundaries 815 Sq. Feet Address (Assessor's Records) Assessor's Information 105 E HALLAM ST Property Information Aspen 3310.56 Sq. Feet 1112: Residential-Single Family Residence Services Water District Sewer System Fire District Address (GIS Points)105 E HALLAM ST 623 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 R000811 105 EAST HALLAM LLCOwner Account Owner Address T:10, R:85, S:12 Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 65 Lot: B AND:- Lot: C E 25.28' OF B & W 8.22' OF C Legal Description Aspen Consolidated Sanitation DistrictA s p e n C o n s o l i d a t e d S a n i t a t i o n D i s t r i c t City of Aspen Water Service Area C i t y o f A s p e n W a t e r S e r v i c e A r e a Aspen Fire Protection District Aspen School District No. 1 (RE)A s p e n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t N o . 1 ( R E ) Not within a Caucus Area AACP Check with your municipality. Not within a Historic District. Upper Roaring Fork River Roaring Fork River above Aspen P69 IV.A. Page 1 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner THROUGH: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: February 27, 2019 RE: 931 Gibson Avenue – Conceptual Major Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT /OWNER: BMH Investments, LTD REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams and F&M Architects, LLC LOCATION: Street Address: 931 Gibson Avenue Legal Description: See Resolution Exhibit Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2737-074-00-004 CURRENT ZONING & USE Single-family home, R-15A: Moderate-Density Residential PROPOSED LAND USE: No change SUMMARY: The applicant has requested a Major Development review for the restoration of the two relocated historic Victorian structures onto a new basement and the construction of a new addition and a connecting east of the historic house. The two historic structures have approval to be relocated to 931 Gibson from 333 Park (Ordinance 22, Series of 2018). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation of this project to restudy the issues identified on page 11-12 of this memo. Site Locator Map – 931 Gibson Avenue 931 P70 IV.B. Page 2 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: 931 Gibson Avenue is a 15,497 sq. ft. lot located in the R-15A zone district which currently contains an existing residential structure planned for demolition. This site has been approved by City Council as the receiving site for the two historic Victorian structures on 333 Park Avenue. Following the safe relocation of the historic structures to 931 Gibson, this site will be designated historic. On July 11, 2018, HPC recommended in favor of the relocation of the historic buildings to 931 Gibson Avenue but decided a fully developed site plan including all new development was necessary for Conceptual Major Development review. The applicant agreed to HPC’s request to return with a new Conceptual Major Development application for 931 Gibson Avenue following the approval for relocation by City Council. City Council approved relocation, demolition, and the historic designation following the historic resources with the following conditions: 1) A future lot split is prohibited unless approved by City Council. 2) The property shall contain a single driveway and single curb cut. 3) The property shall not be eligible for a floor areas bonus, pursuant to Section 26.415.110.F, as may be amended. The property is hereby granted the establishment of one (1) Transferable Development Right (TDR), pursuant to Section 26.415.110.L. The establishment of this TDR shall be in addition to the underlying floor area allowed for the subject property, as prescribed in the underlying zone district. 4) Install a continuous sidewalk along the subject property on Gibson Avenue in accordance to the Engineering Master Plan requirements pursuant to the Engineering Design Standards. In preparation for the relocation, the applicant has begun the process of asbestos and lead paint abatement and received administrative Stream Margin approval on February 4th, 2019, pursuant of Ordinance #22, Series of 2018, to demolish all non-historic additions and stabilize 333 Park Avenue. REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for a new addition towards the east of the relocated historic residence. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority. This project is subject to Call-up Notice to City Council. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to relocate the Victorian house and one-story historic addition onto a new basement and construct a new above grade addition that will be connected to the historic house with a 30 ft. long connecting element. The relocated landmark will be 26’-2” from the front property line meeting the 25’ front yard setback requirement and be within the 10’ rear yard setback requirement per underlying zoning. No dimensional variations are requested for the proposal at this time. The applicant P71 IV.B. Page 3 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com plans to restore the historic configuration of the two structures as indicated on the Sanborn map once they are relocated to 931 Gibson Avenue, and restore the exterior finishes and fenestrations by referencing historic documents and conducting investigations of the historic framing and materials. As part of this application, the applicant requests permission to phase the permitting process by applying for a foundation and relocation permit to move the historic structures to 931 Gibson following the approval for Conceptual Major Development and City Council call-up, but prior to Final Major Development approval. The applicant commits to submitting for Final Major Development prior to the issuance of the relocation permit if the phasing of permits is pursued. Figure 1 – Existing South West Elevation of Historic Landmark on 333 Park Avenue Figure 2 – Existing North East Elevation of Historic Landmark on 333 Park Avenue P72 IV.B. Page 4 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com STAFF COMMENTS: Staff finds that the proposal for restoration meets the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the site planning for the relocated historic resources is appropriate, but recommends continuation to restudy the design of the new addition to achieve visual compatibility between the historic landmark and the new addition by strongly relating back to the historic landmark to form, materials and fenestration as required by Design Guideline 10.6. The proposed new addition also demonstrates a more prominent presence because the front façade of the new addition is proud of the historic front façade. Staff also finds concern with certain features related to the connecting element and recommends restudy. The following points go into more detail regarding the proposal for HPC discussion: 1. Site Planning & Relocation: The receiving site does not adhere to typical townsite lot configurations and requires a front yard setback that is more than double what is required in the R-6 zone districts. The two historic structures are to be placed on the west side of the property and the original configuration of the two structures are to be restored. Open space is designed to complement the historic landmark and a simple walkways perpendicular to Gibson Street is proposed for the front entry (Design Guidelines 1.6 & 1.7). A new foundation will be required for the relocated historic buildings and Design Guideline 9.5 indicates that a simple foundation is appropriate. Although the size of the lot provides more appropriate locations for stormwater mitigation features, staff recommends that the applicant consider stormwater management as part of the site design to support positive drainage away from the historic structures (Design Guidelines 1.8). The proposed site design tries to maintain the existing trees around the periphery of the property. The applicant has indicated that the Parks Department did not identify any “landmark” trees and shrubs on the property but the Cottonwood stems located on the west side of the property are to be protected. The proposed design appears to maintain these trees as requested. The Parks Department requests a plan calling out trees for removal with the tree removal permit. (See Exhibit B for comments.) Staff recommends the applicant continue to work closely with the Parks Department throughout the design and relocation process. The route for relocation and a letter confirming the historic structures are able to withstand the relocation has been provided with the application. The bonds for relocation will be collected at the time of demolition permit issuance for 333 Park Avenue pursuant of the Stream Margin approval. (See Exhibit C for approval.) A more detailed relocation plan that calls out impacts to trees, signs, power lines, and transportation routes will need to be reviewed by all relevant Departments before permit issuance. P73 IV.B. Page 5 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com The applicant’s request for phased permits regarding relocation and the new foundation on 931 Gibson Avenue before Final Major Development approval is unprecedented. This request would allow the applicant to relocate the two historic resources directly onto the new foundation that has yet to receive a development order, as they are issued after all HPC reviews (Conceptual and Final) are complete. Staff cannot support the construction of a new foundation that does not have an appropriate development order. However, the relocation of the buildings from 333 Park Avenue to 931 Gibson can be completed, as it was part of the City Council review of Ordinance #22, Series of 2018. Staff finds the proposal for site planning meets the HP Design Guidelines and recommends approval. The Parks Department requires additional information related to tree removal that may be submitted with the tree removal permit. Staff recommends the applicant continue to work on preliminary plans for stormwater mitigation. Staff does not support the request to phase the permit for the new foundation, but support the applicant request to phase the permit for relocation only. 2. Historic Landmark – Restoration & Alterations: When the house was relocated to 333 Park Avenue in the 1960s, the original front façade of the house was rotated to face the Roaring Fork River and significant alterations were made to the north west elevation where the non-historic additions were directly attached to the historic house. It is unclear how much historic building fabric remains on this side of the house, and further investigation during the removal of the non- historic additions will be needed. This area has been identified by the applicant as unknown and will require staff and monitor review to verify historic material. (See Sheet HP-006 for location.) The design for the connecting element is proposed in this area. The connecting element will be recessed from the front façade of the historic house by 16’-3” and will be 16’ wide. As proposed, the connecting element will cover the bottom half of this side façade but towards the rear and will reveal the front 16’ of the façade which will be visible from Gibson Avenue. The entire length of this side façade is about 33’. Currently much of this façade is covered by non-historic additions. The Design Guidelines typically offer more flexibility for new openings related to windows and doors on rear or secondary walls of the historic structures, but it is also clear that covering original building material with new material is inappropriate (Design Guideline 2.5). The applicant has offered a design solution to reconstruct the exterior siding on this entire façade and encapsulate the section where the façade meets the proposed connecting element. The interior wall penetration would then be limited to a 4’ wide opening. Although this is a unique solution for retaining the historic character of the wall, if no historic siding remains, staff finds that replicating the historic siding on the interior may create a sense of false history. Additional investigation will be necessary before revisiting this idea. Staff finds the proposed width of the connecting element requires restudy because it does not meet the Design Guideline that calls for a minimal width and the possibility of covering historic building material with new material (10.3 & 10.9). P74 IV.B. Page 6 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Figure 3 – Proposed Site Plan on 931 Gibson Avenue When the historic one-story addition was relocated to 333 Park Avenue, it was detached from the historic house and the south east and south west walls were completely engulfed by the non- historic additions. The one-story addition will be restored to its original location at the rear of the historic house and the enclosed porch will be reopened following Design Guidelines 5.1 and 5.4 related to porch restoration. Any necessary reconstruction will use simple and minimal forms that will comply with the Design Guidelines. Staff and monitor review and approval on site will be necessary to determine details and historic material. The applicant proposes to match the exterior historic siding where reconstruction is needed, and new windows and door penetrations are proposed on the wall currently covered by the non-historic additions. Design Guidelines 3.7 and 4.5 give greater flexibility to rear or secondary walls when it comes to introducing new windows and doors. Staff finds the proposed alterations to the historic one-story addition meet the Design Guidelines. P75 IV.B. Page 7 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Figure 4 – Existing Site Plan, 333 Park Avenue Figure 5 – Proposed Site Plan, 931 Gibson Staff finds that the restored configuration of the two historic structures and the location for new fenestration on the one-story addition meets the Design Guidelines. Staff finds the proposed location for the connecting element is appropriate because it is a location that has been significantly altered and the connecting element is recessed from the front façade of the landmark, but staff recommends reducing the width of the connecting element to decrease the area that would be covered by new material. Staff also recommends investigating the exterior facades for historic material before revisiting the design idea of incorporating the siding as part of the interior. The applicant will need to work closely with staff and monitor to determine condition, treatment, and historic integrity of historic materials and architectural features for all proposed restoration work. 3. New Addition – Connecting Element & Form/Materials/Fenestration: The proposed new addition includes a 30’ long connecting element and a two-story above grade addition. The proposed above grade floor area, including the connecting element, is approximately 2,320 sf and the total above grade floor area for the historic landmark is approximately 1,848 sf1. Connecting Element: The proposed one-story connecting element has a roof deck accessed from the second floor of the new addition. The connecting element is attached to the east façade 1 Minor adjustments to this number have occurred when compared to the Stream Margin approval. 1. 1. 2. 2. HISTORIC RESOURCE NON-HISTORIC ADDITIONS HISTORIC RESOURCE P76 IV.B. Page 8 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com of the relocated historic house and recessed from the front façade of the landmark by 16’-3”. The Design Guidelines state that a connecting element must be one-story and a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building (10.9). Usable space, including decks, are not permitted unless it has limited visibility and shielded with a solid parapet wall. Typically, the connecting element is attached to the rear of a historic structure and has a minimal width that serves as a breezeway but with the new addition located to the side of the historic house, the connecting element faces Gibson Avenue. To try and create a significant distance between the historic house and the new addition the connection element extends 30’. Due to its length it is not perceived as a minimal feature from the street, however, the site is large enough to support this condition. Glass railings are proposed for the roof deck and a long light well is proposed in front of the connecting element facing the street. Staff finds that the roof deck which spans the entire length of the connecting element increases the visibility and presence of this element and creates compatibility issues with the historic landmark. Staff finds the long lightwell facing the street will contribute to visual impact and does not meet Design Guideline 9.6. Staff recommends restudy of this connecting element. New Addition: The design of the new addition needs to be recognized as a product of its own time, but visual compatibility between the historic and the new needs to be achieved. Design Guideline 10.4 states the total above grade floor area of the addition may not be more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the historic landmark unless it meets two or more of the criteria listed in 10.4. The proposed design does not require any variances, is located on a large lot allowing significant setback from the street, detrimental non-historic additions are being removed, and the interior spaces of the historic house are being maintained with the same number of usable floors. The proposal meets more than two of the listed criteria, therefore, HPC may consider an exception to the floor area requirement. The new addition must be subordinate and secondary in comparison with the historic landmark (Design Guideline 10.3, 10.4 & 10.10). The proposed addition is slightly taller than the historic building and the front façade of the addition is about 7’ proud of the historic front façade. Staff finds that proposed new addition reads as a more dominant structure because the façade is not behind the landmark and the unarticulated façade has a bold presence and recommends restudy. P77 IV.B. Page 9 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Figure 6 – Proposed Ground Level In order to promote design compatibility between the new addition and the historic landmark, Design Guideline 10.6 requires two of the following characteristics to strongly relate back to the historic resource: form, material and fenestration. The design of the new addition has subtle connections to the historic buildings for all three categories but does not meet the Design Guideline because it requires two aspects to strongly relate back to the historic landmark to create visual compatibility between the historic and the new, therefore, staff recommends restudy of the new addition. Form: The proposed addition has a gable roof form with a pitch that relates back to the historic house and complies with Design Guideline 10.11 which calls for a simple roofscape. The applicant proposes to restore the chimney on the historic house. To mirror the chimney and roof pitch relationship of the historic house the skylight feature has been extended on the new addition, however, the proportions of this feature does not relate to the historic landmark and disrupts the P78 IV.B. Page 10 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com form of the addition. In addition, the brick screen wall to the east of the addition is appended to the form of the addition and brings attention to the secondary entry point. Staff recommends the restudy of these two features to strengthen the design connection to form. Materials: The materials selected for the connecting element is mostly glazing and the addition consists of mostly brick masonry laid in various patterns and wood siding to the rear of the addition. The building materials for the addition appears to be a purposeful departure from the historic landmark but the variety of patterns created with the brick is a subtle reference to the variety of patterns found on the landmark using wood siding. Staff finds that the use of the masonry material to create diverse architectural details does reference the use of materials on the historic landmark, however, the masonry material itself does not strongly relate to any of the materials used on the historic landmark. Fenestration: The design approach to fenestration on the front façade of the addition incorporates the same ratio and size of the openings found on the historic façade using the brick screens to call out these dimensions. The screens cover the actual fenestration from view and diffuse the light emitted from the interior. The secondary facades of the addition deviate from this approach and introduce ratios and fenestration types that are more representative of today. Staff finds this approach does not strongly relate to the fenestration of the historic landmark and recommends further restudy. Figure 7 – Proposed North Elevation Staff finds the location of the new addition to the side of the historic house and the length of the connecting element to be appropriate for this property, but recommends restudy of the proposed roof deck and width of the connecting element, as mentioned previously. Staff recommends restudy of the new addition to be subordinate to the historic house and meet Design Guideline 10.6 to achieve visual compatibility. The proposed street facing skylight also requires restudy. Skylight Glass Railing Secondary Entry P79 IV.B. Page 11 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred to other City departments with requirements that may affect permit review. The following is a summary of comments received. See Exhibit B for more details. Follow-up on these comments will be clarified in the conditions. Engineering Department: 1. Phased Permit will require entire civil design to be approved prior to starting any phase of work. 2. Coordinate sidewalk and utility placement with Engineering and Parks to identify trees that need to be protected. 3. Clarify details related to drainage as defined by the Urban Runoff Management Plan and Engineering Design Standards. 4. Confirm status of Holy Cross Electric Easement (Book 304, Page 658). 5. Provide proposed layout for utilities for review. Parks Department: 1. Protect the Cottonwood stems on the west side of the 931 Gibson Avenue property. 2. Submit a plan calling out the trees for removal with the tree removal permit for review. 3. Detailed relocation plan calling out trees along the relocation route will need to be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department. See details in Section 3 of Ordinance #22, Series of 2018. Zoning Department: 1. Brick screen walls surrounding the secondary entry needs to meet height requirements of up to six (6) feet in height measured from finished grade per Land Use Code Section 26.575.020.(E).5.(p). 2. Proposed skylight on the new addition needs to meet maximum requirements for height per Land Use Code Section 26.575.020.(F).4.(m). 3. Floor area of existing house must be verified by the Zoning Enforcement Officer with the Building permit application. 4. Please show proposed location for mechanical equipment for review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue the application for further restudy of the following: 1.) Restudy the new addition to achieve visual compatibility with the historic landmark as outlined in Design Guideline 10.6, and reduce the dominant presences of the front façade by setting the addition behind the front façade of the historic landmark. 2.) Restudy the connecting element by minimizing the width of the element and remove the proposed roof deck accessed from the second floor of the new addition. P80 IV.B. Page 12 of 12 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com 3.) Restudy the street facing location of the proposed skylight in front of the connection element. 4.) At the time of demolition of non-historic additions, investigate the historic framing and materials on the north west elevation of the historic house where the connecting element is proposed with staff and monitor review and approval. 5.) Provide preliminary plans for drainage and stormwater mitigation for review at the time of Final review. Take the status of the Holy Cross Electric Easement into account. 6.) Provide proposed layout for utilities and mechanical equipment for review at the time of Final review 7.) Provide floor area calculations of the existing house on 931 Gibson at the time of building permit application. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #____, Series of 2019 Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit B – Referral Comments Exhibit C – Administrative Stream Margin Approval Exhibit D – Land Use Application P81 IV.B. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 931 GIBSON AVENUE, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT A PARCEL ID: 2737-074-00-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, BMH Investments, LTD, represented by BendonAdams, LLC., has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development for the property located at 931 Gibson Avenue, as legally described in Attachment A; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. 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; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on February 27, 2019. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development for 931 Gibson Avenue with the following conditions: Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development with the with the following conditions: 1.) Restudy the new addition to achieve visual compatibility with the historic landmark as outlined in Design Guideline 10.6, and reduce the dominant presences of the front façade by setting the addition behind the front façade of the historic landmark and reducing the height of the new addition. 2.) Restudy the connecting element by minimizing the width of the element and remove the proposed roof deck accessed from the second floor of the new addition. P82 IV.B. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 2 of 4 3.) Restudy the street facing location of the proposed skylight in front of the connection element. 4.) At the time of demolition of non-historic additions, investigate the historic framing and materials on the north west elevation of the historic house where the connecting element is proposed with staff and monitor review and approval. 5.) Provide preliminary plans for drainage and stormwater mitigation for review at the time of Final review. Take the status of the Holy Cross Electric Easement into account. 6.) Provide proposed layout for utilities and mechanical equipment for review at the time of Final review 7.) Provide floor area calculations of the existing house on 931 Gibson at the time of building permit application. Section 2: Approvals for Relocation, Demolition, Designation by City Council All approvals granted by City Council through Ordinance #22, Series of 2018 remain valid. Section 3: Project Phasing Project phasing shall be permitted in the following process: A. Applicant may apply for a relocation permit as part of the approval to move the historic structures from 333 Park Avenue to 931 Gibson following the approval for Conceptual Major Development and City Council call-up, but prior to Final Major Development approval. All bonds required as part of the City Council Ordinance #22, Series of 2018 and Administrative Stream Margin approval (Recorded at Reception No. 654054) shall be submitted to the City of Aspen prior to issuance of the relocation permit. B. The applicant must submit for a tree removal permit and the necessary plans required by the Parks Department prior to the issuance of the relocation permit. C. A development application for Final Major Development shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Major Development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development plan. Section 4: Impact Fees and School Land Dedication Any applicable fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The allocation of any fee credits for demolition work on 931 Gibson Avenue shall remain with the parcel where the structures are currently located. Credits shall only be given for legally established floor area. The demolition of the existing non-historic residence on 931 Gibson is approved for demolition. P83 IV.B. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 3 of 4 Section 5: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 6: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the _____ day of _______, 2019. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: _________________________________________________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk P84 IV.B. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A: Legal Description of Addresses 931 Gibson Avenue Parcel 1: A Parcel of Land situated in the Southeast ¼ of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence corner No. 11 of the East Aspen Additional Townsite bears South 54°52’17” East 58.10 feet; Thence South 34°54’00” West 46.63 feet to The True Point of Beginning; Thence North 63°58’00” West 185.12 feet; Thence South 15°30’00” West 86.60 feet; Thence South 63°54’00” East 155.54 feet; Thence North 34°45’00” East 88.30 feet to The Point of Beginning. Parcel 2: A Tract of Land situated in the Sunset Lode, U.S.M.S. No. 5310, being more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly side line of said Sunset Lode whence Corner No. 10 of East Aspen Additional Townsite bears North 34°45’ East 46.63 Feet; Thence North 63° 58’ West 185.12 feet to a point on the Westerly side line of said Lode; Thence following said Westerly side line North 15°30” East 17.03; Thence South 62°54’41” East 150.27 feet; Thence 39.76 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 295.57 feet to a point on said Easterly side; Thence following said Easterly side line South 34°45’ West 10.70 feet to The Point of Beginning. Together with any property lying Northerly of the above described property and the Southerly line of Gibson Avenue. P85 IV.B. Page 1 of 18 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings NOTE: Staff responses begin on page 16 of this exhibit, following the list of applicable guidelines. 26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. 1. Conceptual Development Plan Review b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: 1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be 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 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 3) 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. 4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section P86 IV.B. Page 2 of 18 Chapter 1: Site Planning & Landscape Design MET NOT MET 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. Chapter 2: Rehabilitation - Building Materials MET NOT MET 2.1 Preserve original building materials. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.NOT MET 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. Chapter 3: Rehabilitation - Windows MET NOT MET 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. Chapter 4: Rehabilitation - Doors MET NOT MET 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. MET Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review Criteria for 931 Gibson Avenue The applicant is requesting a Conceptual Major Development reivew for site plan of the relocated historic resources and the construction of a new above grade addition with a connecting element. The proposed design must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET P87 IV.B. Page 3 of 18 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. Chapter 5: Rehabilitation - Porches & Balconies MET NOT MET 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. Chapter 6: Rehabilitation - Architectural Details MET NOT MET 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. Chapter 7: Rehabilitation - Roofs MET NOT MET 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. Chapter 8: Rehabilitation - Secondary Structures MET NOT MET 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. 8.3 Do not add detailing or features to a secondary structure that are conjectural and not in keeping with its original character as a utilitarian structure. 8.4 When adding on to a secondary structure, distinguish the addition as new construction and minimize removal of historic fabric. MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET P88 IV.B. Page 4 of 18 Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. 8.6 Preserve original door and window openings and minimize new openings. 8.8 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary structure to a functional use is encouraged. Chapter 9: New Construction - Excavation, Building Relocation & Foundations MET NOT MET 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.NOT MET 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings 9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged Chapter 10: New Construction - Building Additions MET NOT MET 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained.NOT MET 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street.NOT MET 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.NOT MET 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.NOT MET 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building.NOT MET 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. NOT MET 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features.NOT MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET P89 IV.B. Page 5 of 18 • If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. • Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape. • Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. P90 IV.B. Page 6 of 18 • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. • In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. • Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. • Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. • If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. P91 IV.B. Page 7 of 18 • Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. • If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish. • Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. • Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. • Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. • Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. • Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. • Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows. • Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them. • Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass for the repair. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. • Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. • Do not change the size of an original window opening. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. • If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. P92 IV.B. Page 8 of 18 • Changing the window opening is not permitted. • Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. • A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. • The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. • Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc. • Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade. • Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. • Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, 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. • Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. • Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. • A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. • A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered. • Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties. P93 IV.B. Page 9 of 18 • Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. • Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource. • Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the building and should be a product of its own time. • Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. • When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of the building. • On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads. 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. • Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and spacing of balusters. • Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. • Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. • Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. • Match original materials. • When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony • Steps should be located in the original location. • Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc. • Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps. P94 IV.B. Page 10 of 18 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. • If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. • Repair only those features that are deteriorated. • Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. • On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. • Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. • Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. • If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. • The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the 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. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. • Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. • Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. P95 IV.B. Page 11 of 18 • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be appropriate on an addition. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. • Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. • If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured. • A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a secondary structure from that time period. • A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. • Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. P96 IV.B. Page 12 of 18 • When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details. • If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. The determination of significance is based on documentation of the construction date of the outbuilding and/or physical inspection. A secondary structure that is related to the period of significance of the primary structure will likely require preservation. 8.3 Do not add detailing or features to a secondary structure that are conjectural and not in keeping with its original character as a utilitarian structure. • Most secondary structures are basic rectangular solids, with simple finishes and no ornamentation. 8.4 When adding on to a secondary structure, distinguish the addition as new construction and minimize removal of historic fabric. • Additions to a secondary structure must be smaller in footprint than the original building and lower in height. Maintaining the overall mass and scale is particularly important. • Do not alter the original roof form. • An addition must be inset from the corners of the wall to which it attaches. 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. 8.6 Preserve original door and window openings and minimize new openings. • If an original carriage door exists, and can be made to function for automobile use, this is preferred. 8.8 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary structure to a functional use is encouraged. • The reuse of any secondary structure should be sensitive so that its character is not lost. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. • Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. • In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. • If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. P97 IV.B. Page 13 of 18 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. • A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. • Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. • Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. • Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. • The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. • During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames P98 IV.B. Page 14 of 18 and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. 9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged. • Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. • For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. • HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. • A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. • An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. • An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. • Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. • The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. • The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource P99 IV.B. Page 15 of 18 o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. 10.8 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. 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. • Only a one-story connector is allowed. • Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall. • In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave. P100 IV.B. Page 16 of 18 • The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic resource. • Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially 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 primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. Staff Findings: The applicable sections of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning, building materials, windows, doors, roofs, building additions, accessory buildings. Staff finds Design Guideline 9.6 regarding minimized lightwell impact is not met for the proposed lightwell facing Gibson Avenue along the proposed connecting element. This element is located in a highly visible area and not minimal in size because it spans nearly the entire length of the 30’ connecting element. Staff finds Design Guideline 10.3 related to the design of the new addition is not met. This guideline requires the new addition must be “subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary” when compared to the historic landmark. Staff supports the side by side location of the new addition due to the lot P101 IV.B. Page 17 of 18 configuration, however, the proposed front façade of the new addition is approximately 7’ forward the front façade of the historic landmark. Staff finds Design Guideline 10.4 related to the historic landmark being the focus of the property is not entirely met. In addition to the concerns listed above regarding the forward massing creating a dominant presence, staff finds this forward addition will read as the more predominant structure from the street when compared to the landmark. The requirement for floor area regarding the above grade addition meets HPC consideration for exemption because it meets more than two of the eight criteria. The proposed design does not require any variances, is located on a large lot allowing significant setback from the street, detrimental non-historic additions are being removed, and the interior spaces of the historic house are being maintained with the same number of usable floors. Staff finds Design Guideline 10.6 related to design compatibility and the new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time is not met because it does not meet all of the sub-bullets related to this guideline. In order to promote design compatibility between the new addition and the historic landmark, the applicant needs to consider two of the three aspects of the new addition to strongly relate to the historic landmark: form, materials, and fenestration. Staff has identified the following elements pertaining to the form of the proposed addition for restudy to promote a strong relationship between the landmark and the addition: extended skylight on the gable roof and the secondary entry screen walls. These proposed elements detract from the overall form of the addition that is derived from the historic landmark. The selected building materials for the new addition appears to be a purposeful departure from the historic landmark but refers back to creating various patterns using the new material as seen on the historic landmark, however, the material choice itself does not strongly relate back to the materials found on the historic landmark. The design choices made for fenestration maintains solid and semi-void ratios on the front façade but this is not represented throughout the entire addition, therefore, not perceived as a strong visual relationship. Staff finds Design Guideline 10.8 related to the mass and scale of the new addition is not fully met. This guideline specifies the preference of the new addition having a lower than or similar height when compared to the historic landmark. The proposed new addition is slightly taller than the historic house. Staff finds Design Guideline 10.9 references multiple design considerations for the connecting element and the new design does not meet all of these considerations. This guideline specifically mentions the ideal width of the connecting element to be no more than a passage between the new addition and the historic landmark. Since the site conditions support a side by side addition and a longer than typical connecting element, staff finds additional discussion is necessary to determine if a passage way connecting element is the best solution for this site. Staff recommends a restudy of the width to the minimum requirement necessary per the design guidelines. Deck space above a connecting element is also not allowed according to this standard unless the visibility is limited or shielded. The proposed design for a roof deck faces Gibson Avenue and will be highly visible from the street. Due to the proposed length of 30’, this will not be perceived as a minimal feature and create additional massing and height with the railing requirements. Staff recommends this element be removed. P102 IV.B. Page 18 of 18 Staff finds Design Guideline 10.10 related to the placement of the new addition in relationship to the historic landmark to minimize visual impact are not met. Although the location of the new addition to the side of the historic landmark is seen as an acceptable location due to the lot configuration and the restoration of the historic footprint of the two relocated buildings, the forward placement of the new addition compared to the historic landmark creates a condition that does not minimize visual impact. Staff finds Design Guideline 10.12 & 2.5 which deals with obscuring/covering historic building materials and historic architectural features may not be met if investigation reveals historic material is being covered by the new connecting element. Re-evaluating this area following material investigation will be necessary, but at present, reducing the covered area as much as possible is recommended. Design Guideline 9.8 indicates that relocation to a new site is highly discouraged, however, this project has received approval for relocation to a new site because it is not in its original site and relocation has been determined to provide the best historic preservation outcome for the two historic structures on 333 Park Avenue. In summary, staff recommends restudy to meet design guidelines dealing with the design of the new addition and the connecting element. P103 IV.B. From:Justin Forman To:Sarah Yoon Cc:Ian Gray Subject:RE: HPC Referral Project: 931 Gibson Date:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 10:47:32 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Sarah: Good morning. Below are Engineering’s comments, please edit/insert as appropriate. Ian I wanted to copy you, because I know we will have to work together on sidewalk/curb/gutter. 1.If project is applying for a “phased” permit. The entire civil design (included but not limited to curb/gutter, sidewalk, utility lines, drainage) must be approved prior to starting any phase. 2.Project will need to coordinate sidewalk and utility placement with Engineering & Parks Department’s to ensure trees that need to remain are properly accounted for. 3.How is project handling drainage? This project is in the Hunter/Smuggler Drainage Basin and is required to make sure the system can handle the water quality capture volume and detention for the minor and major storm events as defined by the Urban Runoff Management Plan. Address all drainage requirements per 1.3.1 Drainage in the Engineering Design Standards. 4.In the past there was a Holy Cross Electric Easement that ran along the southside of the property (Book 304, Page 658). Is this easement still active along the property? If so, please show on survey. 5.Utilities have not been shown on the Conceptual Design, project should confirm proposed layouts of utilities to ensure no major conflicts and standards are met. Project should ensure that Utility providers can properly serve residence. Call with any questions. Thank you. S.Justin Forman, PE, CFM Senior Project Manager I Engineering Department City of Aspen justin.forman@cityofaspen.com O: (970) 429-2783 C: (970) 319-2210 EXHIBIT B - Referral Comments P104 IV.B. From:David Radeck To:Sarah Yoon Subject:FW: 333 Park - 931 Gibson Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 11:49:48 AM Attachments:image001.png image005.png Hi Sarah, Per our conversation today, please add that Parks would like to see a plan sheet that shows all of the trees that are being requested for removal. A tree removal permit will be required for these removals. Other trees impacted along the route will require a specific property owners permission letter and possibly a tree removal permit (if required). I have highlighted some of Ian’s comments below, but please refer to the all of Ian’s initial email from July 31st for the balance of Parks comments. Thank you. David Radeck Project Technician Parks Department 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970.429.2025 f: 970.920.5128 www.cityofaspen.com To apply for a Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit, register here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SFNewUser Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit Online Permit Application: https://cityofaspen.force.com/applicantportal/s/login/? startURL=%2Fapplicantportal%2Fs%2F&ec=302 If you need assistance for the online portal, please contact customer support: sfsupport@cityofaspen.com or call 970-920-5065 From: Ian Gray Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 1:27 PM To: Sarah Yoon <sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com> P105 IV.B. Cc: Flynn Stewart-Severy <flynn@fandmarchitects.com>; David Radeck <david.radeck@cityofaspen.com> Subject: 333 Park - 931 Gibson Hi Sarah, I wanted to update my comments related to the 333 Park Landmark moving to the 931 Gibson site. I have had further meetings with the applicants and their designees in the past month to review and walk the proposed transportation route via Park Circle. As requested, the applicants have a certified arborist on their team and have verbally committed to working with Aspen Tree Service. These services will be paid for by the applicant. Some of the pruning that will be required falls outside of recommended best practice for both clearance above roadways and live crown ratios; however, it is reasonable to believe that these trees will survive the required pruning to move the house. My original comments related to COA assets/trees which would be affected during the move are included below as well additional notes to other trees requiring attention not previously addressed. I have not commented on any trees on private property which might require pruning— permission for any pruning would be required from any affected property owners prior to Parks signing off on the plan. Any tree removals would also require owner permission as well as tree removal permits from the Parks Department. - 410 Park, corner - remove 2 smaller stems of multi-stem cottonwood and remove two low branches higher in the canopy - 414 Park, Condos - remove 4 low limbs on multi-stem cottonwood - 511-512 Spruce Street - raise and reduce 4 crabapple trees - 860 Gibson Street – multi stem cottonwood near entrance to trailer park would need raising by removing 3 or four low branches - 851 Gibson - raise street side of lodgepole pine - 931 Gibson - 2 or 3 cottonwoods on opposite side of the street to the receiving site would need raising I am not in favor of removing any of the cottonwood stems at 927 Gibson west of the entrance to the receiving site – these trees should be protected. With a modicum of pruning I believe trees on both sides of the road in the vicinity of the receiving site can be protected from impacts from the house moving. The contractor indicated that it should be feasible to roll past the entrance to the east and then back the unit into the site thereby largely avoiding the trees at the west side entrance. The Park Circle route is an improvement over the two previous routes proposed by the applicant and has the least amount of tree impacts. The overall scope of the project is fairly straightforward. Parks will not need to issue any permits for the COA trees/assets, but I will need to process a work order for the necessary pruning. I hope this helps clarify the Parks Department position. As with any new development/construction, my previous comments regarding the document submission requirements for the receiving site still apply. P106 IV.B. Kind regards, Ian Gray City Forester Parks Department 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970.429.2031 ian.gray@cityofaspen.com www.cityofaspen.com P107 IV.B. From:Bob Narracci To:Sarah Yoon Subject:HPC Referral Project: 931 Gibson / Revised Plans Dated 2/12/2019 Date:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 3:27:33 PM Attachments:image001.png Sarah: Following, please find the Zoning comments based on the revised plan set dated 2/12/2019: 1. The driveway screen walls are fences, and per Land Use Code Section 26.575.020.(E).5.(p), “Fences and hedges less than forty-two (42) inches in height, as measured from finished grade, are permitted in all required yard setbacks. Fences and hedges up to six (6) feet in height, as measured from finished grade, are permitted only in areas entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building façade which is closed to the Street”. 2. On the rear Master Bedroom deck, the brick screen wall may be only the height necessary for building code compliance (36”). 3. The proposed skylight on the new structure does not appear to satisfy the language in the Land Use Code (Section 26.575.020.(F).4.(m), which states “A skylight or light tube typical of industry standards and meeting minimum Building Code standards shall not be counted towards maximum permissible height”. 4. The proposed chimney on the historic resource must meet the Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations language in Land Use Code (Section 26.575.020.(F).4.(a), which allows chimneys to extend no more than ten (10) feet above the height of the building at the point the device connects. For roofs with a pitch of 8:12 or greater, these elements may not extend above the highest ridge of the structure by more than required by adopted building codes or as otherwise approved by the Chief Building Official to accommodate safe venting. 5. Floor Area of the existing house must be verified by the Zoning Enforcement Officer with the building permit application. 6. Please show the location of a hot tub, if such is contemplated, in compliance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.020.(E).5.(m). 7. Please show the location of any proposed AC units, in compliance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.020.(E).5.(n). Please let me know if I may be of further assistance, Thank you, Bob P108 IV.B. Bob Narracci, AICP Community Development Department Zoning Administrator 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 P: (970) 429-2754 www.cityofaspen.com www.aspencommunityvoice.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contained in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. P109 IV.B. RECEPTION#: 654054, R: $53.00, D: $0.00 DOC CODE: APPROVAL Pg 1 of 9, 02/19/2019 at 02:01:41 PM Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO NOTICE OF APPROVAL FOR STREAM MARGIN EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 PARK AVENUE, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A. Parcel ID No. 2737-181-00-017 APPLICANT: BMH Investments, LTD 1001 FANNIN STREET,#3850 HOUSTON,TX 77002 SUBJECT&SITE OF AMENDMENT:333 Park Avenue ASPEN,CO 81611 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting an administrative Stream Margin Exemption approval to demolish non-historic additions and stabilize the historic buildings that will remain on the site until they are relocated to 931 Gibson Avenue. REQUESTED REVIEW: Stream Margin Exemption per Section 26.435.04o.B related to proposed demolition of non-historic additions located within 100' of the Roaring Fork River's high water line. The Community Development Director is the final review authority. BACKGROUND: Historically designated in 1995 (Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1995), 333 Park Avenue contains two Victorian era structures moved to this location from Main Street in the 1960s. During this relocation, the front of the historic house was oriented to face the Roaring Fork River, and several bandit units were added around the historic structures over the years. City Council granted the applicant approval to relocate the two historic structures at 333 Park Avenue to 931 Gibson Avenue and historically designate 931 Gibson Avenue following the safe relocation of the historic structures to this site. Subsequently, the historic designation on 333 Park Avenue will be rescinded after relocation (Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2018). PROPOSAL: Prior to relocation of the two historic structures, the non-historic additions are to be removed and the remaining historic structures will be stabilized under the supervision of a structural engineer and relevant City departments. Asbestos and lead paint mitigation will occur before demolition of the non-historic additions. Other than structural elements needed to stabilize the remaining historic structures following abatement and demolition, no new development is proposed on this site for this approval. As part of this scope of work, the applicant requests the construction fencing be in place for a maximum time period of 18 months from building permit issuance. 333 Park Avenue Stream Margin Exemption Page I of 6 P110 IV.B. STAFF EVALUATION: Stream Margin Review is required because demolition is considered development; however, since no expansion is proposed there will be no increase in floor area or increase in site coverage within the ioo-year flood plan. The proposed demolition will not cause the remaining structure to extend any closer to the high water line and 333 Park Avenue does not have an approved building envelope. Following the demolition of existing non-historic additions, the remaining historic structures will remain on site until the building foundation is complete on the receiving site. Engineering and Construction Management Plan (CMP) regulations will require site stabilization on 333 Park Avenue following the removal of the non-historic additions. The criteria for erosion prevention and sediment control must be addressed. See the Stormwater Management section of the CMP Manual for more details. Site stabilization includes drainage patterns before and after demolition and irrigation and planting measures. The applicant must repair damaged areas within the Top of Slope and 15 feet setback to riparian condition as outlined within the Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). All disturbed areas must be established with reasonable completion to ensure the neighbors and river are not negatively affected. The proposal does not require the removal of any trees on the site for this scope of work. The proposed silt fence along the top of slope avoids disturbing the trees nearby. Additionally, the applicant proposes to place protective fencing around the trees located towards the south east corner of the property. Staff finds this application meets the required criteria for a Stream Margin Exemption. Please see Exhibit C for Review Criteria. Engineering and CMP reviews require site stabilization following demolition. According to the approvals granted by City Council, the allocation of any fee credits for demolition work on 333 Park Avenue shall remain with the parcel where the structures are currently located, and credits shall only be given for legally established floor area. The non- historic additions, including the basement, proposed for demolition are identified as bandit units that were not legally established, therefore, no reconstruction credits will be given for these units. As a result, the applicant requests a total floor area credit of 1,882.04 square feet for only the historic structures. Staff finds that the total floor area of the historic structures to be correct and the request for this credit is in compliance with the approved City Council ordinance. The applicant has requested for the construction fence to remain in place for a maximum of 18 months from building permit issuance for 333 Park Avenue. According to the CMP submitted with this application, the proposed construction fence is a 6-0" tall chain-link fence faced with 333 Park Avenue Stream Margin Exemption Page 2 of 6 P111 IV.B. a mesh visual screening material. The placement of this fence will include the public right-of- way and the east and west side yards of the property (Figure 1). The proposed fencing material is only permitted under CMP regulations (Section 4.5 of CMP) and the duration of construction fencing is defined by an active permit. Due to the unique conditions and scope of work on this site, there are concerns related to protecting the historic structures and securing the stream margin area. As a provisional approval, an extension of the CMP approved fence to remain up for no more than 30 days beyond the completion of work for the permit is permitted. Beyond this extension, the applicant is required to remove the construction fencing and any other aspects of construction mobilization, subject to the IBC/IRC code and the CMP Manual. For the purposes of securing the site, the applicant may submit for a fence permit that complies with the Land Use Code without additional stream margin review. fit RESOEMIQ STUTURE Proposed construction fence BEr Figure 1: Site plan with proposed construction fence and job site configuration 333 Park Avenue Stream Margin Exemption Page 3 of 6 P112 IV.B. Staff finds that the proposed construction fence meets the CMP requirements and will be permitted to remain with an active building permit, pursuant of Engineering and CMP review criteria. If no active work related to demolition and site stabilization occurs on site, following the 3o day extension, the applicant will be required to remove the construction fence but may apply for a fence permit as outlined in the conditions for approval. DECISION: The Community Development Director finds the application for Stream Margin Exemption to be consistent with the review criteria (Exhibit C) and thereby, APPROVES the request,with the following conditions: 1. Following is the anticipated permit order: o Repair Permit (#0003.2o19.ARBK). o Demolition Permit, which will include stabilization of the site. o Timing of relocation to 931 Gibson to be established through HPC review process. 2. At the time of issuance of demolition permit, the following is required: o Bond amount of$45,000 for the two historic buildings. o Narrative for irrigation and planting measures for immediate stabilization of the site after demolition. o Drainage patterns of the site before and after demolition. 3. The demolition calculations totaling 1,882.04 square feet for the two historic structures to remain as credits on 333 Park Avenue, is confirmed. 4. Pursuant to the CMP requirements, Section 3.2, public notification of surrounding neighbors within 300 ft radius will occur prior to work commencement. S. The following fencing is permitted: o Construction fence as approved in CMP for the repair permit may be extended to cover work occurring under the demolition permit. o The approved construction fence is permitted to remain up for no more than 30 days beyond final work in the demolition permit as a provisional approval. Construction fencing pursuant to another subsequent active permit within the 3o days shall supersede this request. o The applicant may submit for a fence permit that complies with height and materials in the Land Use Code without additional stream margin review for the purposes of site security, if one is needed following the removal of the construction fence. 333 Park Avenue Stream Margin Exemption Page 4 of 6 P113 IV.B. APPROVED BY: GIN"A-)i J ssica Garro j Date ommunity Development Director Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description (Recorded) Exhibit B - Demolition and Floor Area Calculations (Recorded) Exhibit C - Review Criteria and Staff Findings (In file) Exhibit D - Application (In file) 333 Park Avenue Stream Margin Exemption Page 5 of 6 P114 IV.B. EXHIBIT A: Legal Description of Address 333 Park Avenue A tract of land situated in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 and in the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado. Said tract is part of the Lone Pine M.S. 1910 and the Mollie Gibson Lode, M.S.4281 Am and is more fully described as follows: Beginning at the West Corner of Lot 1, Sunny Park Subdivision, whence corner No. 3 of said Mollie Gibson Lode bears N 43°40'00" W 146.00 feet and S ,38-00'00" W 100.00 feet; thence S 46°20'00" W 1o.00 feet to a point on the centerline of a road easement as shown on a plat recorded in Book 4 at Page 398 of the records of Pitkin County; thence following said centerline 16.23 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 40.00 feet, the chord of which curve bears S 5597'30" E 16.12 feet; thence S 66° 55'00" E 49.99 feet along said centerline; thence S 32° 09'58" W 13.39 feet; thence S 50° 17'00" W 130.26 feet; thence N 340 17'00" W 59.99 feet; thence N 52° 40'00" E 34.33 feet; thence N 4340'00" W 32.60 feet; thence N 46. 20'00" E 86.00 feet; thence S 43° 40'oo" E 32.00 feet to the point of beginning. 333 Park Avenue Stream Margin Exemption Page 6 of 6 P115 IV.B. O l\3Y1tlbd349NQY'tfiN3!$tl]OAI[J O C C O b a.eJ EEE g YS OI j O z m y m_ 2 X W a g 00 s o a Y a0 b a t x O O a u O O r O H3 I a$ P116 IV.B. vurodaa wmire reesvn io Q uaa o.Yry o c kis"" Al' isnOH NNVH IJMi roc N Z Z Z 90 25 f z O z el O 1 a a Y i ISI 9 E ` I y8 s 4 ! i u 3" i 3 . S II 7 3' f P117 IV.B. Off' 1\3WLdtld3G 9NQIV1E N3c50>D li" U •n$$ 6 0ErR LL0 cV O 2 I~i p LL Q y Nf y i FFLL y ON NI m' n i T_________ -- tl 11 I d Q I I 1\ 1 I KS za FI 9 Q R d CC d C i i C A A 8 8 A d t r all re a asp P118 IV.B. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM January 31, 2019 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission c/o Ms. Sarah Yoon City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 931 Gibson Avenue Conceptual Review Application Dear Commission and Ms. Yoon: Please accept our application for Conceptual Major Development for a single family residence at 931 Gibson Avenue. In July 2018, HPC supported the relocation of the two historic landmarks at 333 Park to 931 Gibson Avenue. In August 2018, City Council concurred with HPC’s recommendation and approved Ordinance 20-1028 (attached as Exhibit K) to allow the relocation of the landmark, and transfer of historic designation from 333 Park to 931 Gibson, with specific conditions of approval. The conditions of approval are: 1) A future lot split is prohibited unless approved by City Council Response – A single family residence is proposed. 2) The property shall contain a single driveway and single curb cut. Response – a single driveway and curb cut is proposed. 3) The property shall not be eligible for a floor area bonus, pursuant to Section 26.415.110.F, as may be amended. The property is hereby granted the establishment of one Transferrable Development Right (TDR), pursuant to Section 26.415.110.L. The establishment of this TDR shall be in addition to the underlying floor area allowed for the subject property, as prescribed in the underlying zone district. Response – A FAR bonus is not requested. No variations are requested in this application. 4) Install a continuous sidewalk along the subject property on Gibson Avenue in accordance to the Engineering Master Plan requirements pursuant to the Engineering Design Standards. Response – As noted on the proposed site plan, a sidewalk in front of the subject property will be installed if consistent with the Engineering Master Plan. In order to protect the historic landmarks at 333 Park, an administrative stream margin application is currently being processed to allow the removal of non-historic additions, lead paint abatement, asbestos abatement, and the stabilization of character defining features as approved by City Council via Ordinance 22-2018, Sections 1 & 7. P119 IV.B. 931 Gibson HPC Conceptual Review As part of the effort to immediately protect the historic landmarks, this application respectfully requests the ability to relocate the two landmarks from 333 Park to 931 Gibson this fall with the issuance of a phased permit to demolish the existing home, dig the approved foundation, and to place the historic buildings on their permanent foundation. The historic buildings are the top priority for this project, and the ability to move them as soon as possible to protect historic features and to greatly improve the overall safety of the buildings and the site at 333 Park is tantamount. Relocation procedures are discussed in Exhibit B. Background The building located at 333 Park Avenue was originally located at 112/114 East Main Street. The two story Victorian style residence was built in 1889 by M.C. Jacobs. While located at 112/114 East Main Street, the building was initially a residence and was later operated as the Columbine Lodge by Mabel Beckerman in the 1950s. In the fall of 1961, Mabel ran an advertisement in the Aspen Times to sell the buildings on the property. The land had been purchased by Fritz Benedict to construct the Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict designed Pitkin County Library (currently Design Workshop). Dieter Bibbig and his mother Gertrude purchased the structures and moved them to their riverfront property at 333 Park Avenue. The front of the Victorian was positioned away from the road to face the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain and the small one story addition shown below was moved to the side of the 333 Park property. Figure 1: circa 1890s Main Street. Figure 2: Columbine Lodge P120 IV.B. 931 Gibson HPC Conceptual Review Gertrude Bibbig operated a day care out of the house. Until recently, Dieter rented the property. In 2017 Dieter sold the home to the Hendry family. Historic Preservation Approach The request to relocate the two historic resources, after removing the non-historic additions, involves shifting the historic designation from 333 Park to 931 Gibson to guarantee that the property containing the landmarks is protected. All non-historic additions are proposed to be demolished prior to relocation of the resources (detailed preservation plan is included as Exhibit B). The design team has met with multiple city departments and Bill Bailey House Movers to discuss the preferred route to move the buildings to Gibson. The buildings were already moved once, and Bill is confident that they can withstand another relocation (see letter included as Exhibit B). The proposed relocation route is discussed in Exhibit B as is a preliminary preservation plan. The proposal for Conceptual Major Development Review is for a single family residence, as requested by City Council and the neighbors. One of the Hendry’s goals was to leave as many trees as possible on the site and to celebrate, and actually use, the landmarks as functional space. The landmarks are proposed along the west property line facing Gibson Avenue with the connecting element and the new addition behind the existing vegetation. No setback variations are requested. The restored front porch sits at the front setback line and all lightwells are located within the building envelope. A summary of the design is found below. All pertinent conceptual HP design guidelines are addressed in Exhibit A. Massing and connecting element The proposed massing of the new two story addition is closely related to the massing of the two landmarks: the footprint of the historic is about 1,267 sf of floor area and the addition is 1,406 sf of floor area (not counting the connecting element). The widths of the landmark and the two story addition are both 25 ft. with a 30 ft. long by 16 ft. wide one story connector between the buildings. The 25 – 30 – 25 rhythm is similar to the density and building/lot widths found on Main Street in the 19th century. The gable roof form and the rectangular footprint are similar to the landmark while the window details in the addition are a product of their own time. Preliminary materials are shown on the elevations. Figure 3: Photograph in Aspen Times of one story historic addition. Figure 4: November 1964. Photograph taken from Roaring Fork River facing Red Mountain. Figures 5 & 6: Existing photographs of 333 Park landmark. P121 IV.B. 931 Gibson HPC Conceptual Review Figure 7: Proposed rendering with existing trees. The one story historic addition is located in its original location behind the landmark. A dining room is proposed within the small one story room with large windows and a door that opens onto the patio. The walls of the one story historic building no longer exist and there is no photographic evidence of what was original. Figure 4 above shows three double hung windows and a door in 1964 after the building was moved. Rather than guess at the original condition, the proposal is similar to the 1964 photograph. The main entrance to the house uses the historic front porch and historic entry. The desire to maintain the historic stair and the second floor within the landmark, and the goal to not request any setback variations, resulted in a proposal for an above grade connecting element at the side of the landmarks to link old and new construction. The connector is located on the historic façade that is currently engulfed in non-historic additions at 333 Park. The reconstructed ‘exterior’ siding on the landmark is proposed to be carried through to become the ‘interior’ wall of the kitchen. The Gibson lot is just under 15,500 sf in size which allows the new two story construction to be pushed 25 ft away from the landmarks. The connecting element is one story in height with a rooftop deck. The connecting element is setback 50 ft from the property line at Gibson Avenue, minimizing any adverse visual impacts of the rooftop deck. Traditionally, connecting elements are 10 ft. long and serve as a hallway; however, the large size of the 931 Gibson lot supports a more useful connecting element that serves as the kitchen and the center of the home linking the historic to the new construction. Putting the kitchen in this area also allows the footprint of the new two story addition to reference the footprint of the landmarks. The north and south walls of the connector are glazing, and the south wall opens up to a patio. P122 IV.B. 931 Gibson HPC Conceptual Review The two car garage, which was suggested by HPC members in July, is located near the front of the lot to maximize solar gain, to minimize driveway hardscape, and to use existing heavy vegetation to block and to shade the garage rather than living space. Detaching the garage from the living space resulted in much more mass on the site as viewed from Gibson Avenue. We have run through many different iterations of this project and we feel that this is the best solution for the landmark. We look forward to walking HPC through the design process and to answer any questions. Please contact me if you would like more information to complete your review. sara@bendonadams.com or 970-925-2855. Kind Regards, Kind Regards, Sara Adams, AICP Principal BendonAdams, LLC Figure 8: Proposed site plan. P123 IV.B. 931 Gibson HPC Conceptual Review Attachments: A - Conceptual HP Design Guidelines. B – Relocation and preliminary preservation plan. C - Land Use application. D - Signed fee agreement. E - Pre-application summary. F - Proof of ownership. G – Authorization to represent. H – HOA form. I – Vicinity map. J – HPC meeting minutes July 11, 2018. K – City Council meeting minutes August 27, 2018 & Ordinance 22, Series of 2018. L - List of owners within 300’. M – Stamped survey dated January 2018. N – Plans, Elevations and Renderings. P124 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Exhibit A – Conceptual Design Review 26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a historic district. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be 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 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below: Streetscape 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. Response – The proposed location of the landmark respects the original location on Main Street and is similar to other historic properties along Gibson Street and Matchless Street. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable. • Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones. • Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add landscape. • Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged. • Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas. P125 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a case by case basis. Response – n/a. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. • Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets. • Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to the alley. Response – n/a. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. • If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. • Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. Response – City Council requires a single curb cut, which is proposed for the single family home. The driveway is located 55 feet from the landmarks. The proposed material will be provided during Final Design Review to demonstrate compliance with this guideline. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. Response – The historic hierarchy of spaces will be restored at the 931 Gibson property, which is unattainable at the 333 Park property. A simple straight walkway from the street to the restored front porch, similar to that historically found along Main Street, is proposed at 931 Gibson. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. Response – A simple walkway perpendicular from the street to the front porch is proposed. Paving material will be proposed as part of the Final Review application. The width of the walkway will be about 3 feet. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. P126 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. Response – Ample open space is proposed around the historic building as shown on the site plan. Open space is used to highlight the landmarks and existing trees and vegetation blocks views of the addition. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. Response – Storm water design is considered as part of the new site as is positive drainage away from the landmark in its new location at 931. There is a large amount of permeable undeveloped open space proposed on the property. 1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. Response – n/a. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape. • Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred. Response – Built-in furnishings and grills are contemplated for the rear patio and will not be visible from the street or attached to the landmark. These features will be further developed for Final Review after the massing and building placement is approved by HPC. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. • If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. • The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. P127 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. Response – The property is heavily vegetated along Gibson Avenue (see photos below). While there are no ‘landmark” trees and shrubs, the majority of the trees are to be protected during construction and maintained. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. P128 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. • In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. Response – Simple landscaping is proposed around the historic structures and will be more developed for Final Review. Existing trees on the site are preserved. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. Response – Low plants and ground cover will be used around the landmark to not obscure the extensive restoration that is proposed. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. • Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. • Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-by-case basis. • Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. • Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. • Landscape uplighting is not allowed. Response – Landscape lighting is not proposed at this time. P129 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review 1.15 Preserve original fences. • Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved, removed, or inappropriately altered. • Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair. • Replacement elements must match the existing. Response – An original fence does not exist and there is no documentation of an original fence in the historic photographs. Fencing is not proposed as part of the Conceptual Review; however, this may be added to the final design application for review as the project is further developed. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. Response – n/a. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. • Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the character of a property. Response – No fence is proposed at this time. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. • The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of significance. • A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations. • Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. • A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not oversized. Response – n/a. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. • A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature. • For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket. • For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. Response – n/a. P130 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. • A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B. Response – n/a. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls • Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size and finish. • Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed. • Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate. Response – n/a. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. • All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure. Response – n/a. 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Response – The site is not proposed to be regraded. The historic relationship of the building to grade is proposed to be restored based on historic photographs of the building on Main Street. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. • An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape should be done before the beginning of any project. • The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved. Response – n/a 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. • Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape. • Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures. • Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site. • All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work. P131 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features. • Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible. Response – There is no historic landscape design at 931 Gibson. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. • Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation. • Minimize the visual impact of new parking. • Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically. Response – Parking is located in a two car garage 55 feet away from the landmarks. Driveway length and location are minimized to the best extent practicable. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. • Protect established vegetation during any construction. • If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species. • New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species. • Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site. • Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements. Response – Existing trees are preserved and protected in this proposal. Restoration Materials 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. • Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. • Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. • If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. • Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building. P132 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. • If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish. • Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. • Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. • Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. • Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. • Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. Response – Original material with integrity will be restored or repaired. Any replacement materials will match the original as described in Guideline 2.3, original building materials will not be covered. Any non-historic layers will be removed and either replaced or repaired with matching material. Please reference Exhibit B for the preservation plan. Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. • Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows. • Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them. • Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass for the repair. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. • Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. • Do not change the size of an original window opening. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. • If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well. P133 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. • Changing the window opening is not permitted. • Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. • A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. • The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. • Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc. • Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade. • Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window. • Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. • If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub- frames or panning around the perimeter. A storm window should not include muntins unless necessary for structure. Any muntin should be placed to match horizontal or vertical divisions of the historic window. P134 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Response – Original window openings will be restored, including the original dormers if needed. Deconstruction of the interior may reveal original openings. Sash profile and other window details will match the original windows found on the upper floors – these details will be provided in the Final design application for review. The one story landmark will be restored along the west façade with a door and porch element. The only evidence of windows on the one story building is in a 1964 photograph (at right) after the home was relocated to 333 Park. The windows are located on the east elevation of the one story landmark – the openings are proposed to remain, and a door added to provide to access the patio. It is important to note that the east and west walls of the one story landmark no longer exist. The doors are consistent with guideline 6.5 which does not support guessing at historic details. Doors 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. • Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, 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. • Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. • Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. • A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. • A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered. • Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties. P135 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. • Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource. • Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the building and should be a product of its own time. • Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure. 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. • Match the material, frame design, character, and color of the primary door. • Simple features that do not detract from the historic entry door are appropriate for a new storm door. • New screen doors should be in character with the primary door. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. • When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of the building. • On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads. Response – Original door openings will be preserved and restored. The original front entrance and door will face the street and be restored as the primary entrance. Historic hardware remains on the exterior of the home, it will be stored during construction, and reused in its original location on the front door. Porch 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. • Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and spacing of balusters. • Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. • Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. • Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. P136 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • Match original materials. • When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony • Steps should be located in the original location. • Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc. • Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps. 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. • If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony. Response – The front porch will be restored to match the historic photographs of Mabel when the house was on Main Street. Some original front porch materials and turned posts still exist at 333 Park. Form, character and details will be repaired or replaced as deemed necessary by staff and monitor. Most of this work is expected to be finalized in the field. Please refer to Exhibit B for the preservation plan. Sanborn Maps indicate a side porch on the one story historic addition which is proposed to be restored. The details of the porch are unknown, so simple turned posts are proposed. The footprint will match the measurements from the historic maps. Architectural Details 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. • Repair only those features that are deteriorated. • Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. • On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. • Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. • Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. P137 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. • The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the 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. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. • Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. • Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. Response – Architectural details will be repaired when possible. Any replacement pieces will be based on original design. While the building is in a deteriorated state, there are many original architectural details that will be restored and will guide accurate restoration of the landmark. Roof 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be appropriate on an addition. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. • Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures. • Locate vents on non-street facing facades. P138 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. • Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists. 7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. • A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary, character defining façade. • A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. • The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. • While dormers improve the livability of upper floor spaces where low plate heights exist, they also complicate the roof and may not be appropriate on very simple structures. • Dormers are not generally not permitted on AspenModern properties since they are not characteristics of these building styles. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. • If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non- reflective finish. • Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured. • A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a secondary structure from that time period. • A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. • Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. • Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building. P139 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. • When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details. • If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. The determination of significance is based on documentation of the construction date of the outbuilding and/or physical inspection. A secondary structure that is related to the period of significance of the primary structure will likely require preservation. Response – The roof is proposed to be restored to its original configuration with the original dormers and the decorative tin roof material. The two existing dormers do not currently match – it is uncommon to have different dormers on a building of this style. The proposal is to work with staff and monitor in the field to determine whether the dormers are both original and if any reconstruction is needed. Gutters are not proposed at this time. The existing secondary structure will be restored to its original configuration behind the landmark. Secondary Historic Addition 8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure. • Any proposal to attach a secondary structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • The position and orientation of the structure • should be maintained except when HPC finds that an alternative is the best preservation option. • Some AspenModern properties incorporated garages and carports into the architecture. This pattern should be maintained. 8.3 Do not add detailing or features to a secondary structure that are conjectural and not in keeping with its original character as a utilitarian structure. • Most secondary structures are basic rectangular solids, with simple finishes and no ornamentation. 8.4 When adding on to a secondary structure, distinguish the addition as new construction and minimize removal of historic fabric. • Additions to a secondary structure must be smaller in footprint than the original building and lower in height. Maintaining the overall mass and scale is particularly important. • Do not alter the original roof form. • An addition must be inset from the corners of the wall to which it attaches. 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. 8.6 Preserve original door and window openings and minimize new openings. P140 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • If an original carriage door exists, and can be made to function for automobile use, this is preferred. 8.7 If a new garage door is added, it must be compatible with the character of the historic structure. • The materials and detailing should be simple. 8.8 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary structure to a functional use is encouraged. • The reuse of any secondary structure should be sensitive so that its character is not lost. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. • For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. • HPC may insist on the removal of non- historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. Response – The secondary historic addition was originally attached to the rear of the two story Victorian. The addition is proposed to be living space, which aligns with its historic use as an extension of the main house. Original openings are unknown with the exception of a door that is shown in the 1961 Aspen Time photograph (at right). Simple openings and details are proposed in keeping with the simple nature of this secondary structure. New Addition 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significant in its own right. Response – The historic one story addition is proposed to be preserved as noted above. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. Response – Non-historic additions are to be removed as approved by City Council via Ordinance 22, Series of 2018. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. P141 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review • A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. • An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. • An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. • Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. Response – The proposed new addition has a similar rectangular gable roof form but is much more simplified to be secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. The addition is attached through a connecting element that is about 16 ft. wide and attached to the historic facade that has already been altered with the bandit units at 333 Park. The connecting element hits beneath the restored fishscale band and is setback over 16 ft. from the front façade of the landmark. The detailing of the addition is being developed – the concept is to use brick patterns to reference some of the patterning in the landmark in a subtle and supportive way that is clearly a product of its own time. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. • The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. • The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story P142 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. Response – 931 Gibson is about 15, 500 sf in size which is exponentially larger than typical historic lots found in the original townsite of Aspen. The ground floor comparison of historic versus the new two story addition is 1,267 sf historic floor area to 1,406 sf of new floor area. The connecting element is about 523 sf in size. A primary goal of this project is to fully utilize the historic landmark as integral to the home. Preservation of pocket doors, the original staircase, and the second floor are incorporated into the proposed project. These preservation decisions drove the request for a 30 ft. x 16 ft. connecting element for a central kitchen that links the historic to the new addition. The above grade new addition is modest in size and footprint and is largely consumed by a two car garage and access to the large basement space (which houses most of the bedrooms) and the upper floor master bedroom suite. The project does not meet the suggested floor area restriction and requests an exception considering the following: o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource. The footprint of the addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the design is similar to the scale and proportions of the landmarks. o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource. The project proposed substantial demolition and removal of non-historic additions that are detrimental to the landmarks, and a full restoration of two landmark buildings. o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically. The interior of the resource is fully utilized including interior features that are not within HPC’s purview or required to be preserved including the original stair, original pocket doors, and original hardware. The second floor is proposed to remain and to function as a bedroom. o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed. There are no variance requests in this application. P143 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review 10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at least 10 feet. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: • The connector element that links the new and old construction is a breezeway or transparent corridor, well recessed from the streetfacing side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two story construction that appears directly behind the one story historic resource is minimal • The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource • The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource • The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically • There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed • The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or • The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. Response – n/a. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. Response – The addition is proposed to support the landmark through form and footprint. A simplified and modern interpretation of the historic detailing is proposed through brick application on the addition. Brick is a traditional material in Aspen that supports and does not compete with the decorative wood of the landmarks. Proposed windows are traditional in shape (rectangular), have a similar rhythm to the landmark windows, but feature divided lights that are clearly different from the landmark’s traditional double hung windows. P144 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. • Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. An addition can not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. Response – n/a. 10.8 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. Response – The proposed addition is slightly taller than the landmark due in part to a change in grade on the site. The two story addition is 30 ft. away from the landmark and is largely obscured by the heavy vegetation that will be maintained on the site. The buildings are intended to read as separate with a one story connecting element that is setback from the front property line by 50 ft. The size and scale of the new addition is subordinate and supportive of the landmark. 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. • Only a one-story connector is allowed. • Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall. • In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave. • The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic resource. • Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information. Response – This design guideline is geared more toward the traditional connecting element located behind a landmark to link new and old construction. This project is unique in that an original one story addition is proposed to be restored behind the landmark, which pushes a connecting element to the side of the landmark where there is already a non-historic addition proposed to be removed. The main entrance to the house uses the historic front porch and historic entry. The desire to maintain the historic stair and the second floor within the landmark, and the goal to not request any setback variations, resulted in a proposal for an above grade connecting element at the side of the landmarks to link old and new construction. The connector is located on the historic façade that is currently engulfed in non-historic additions at 333 Park. The reconstructed ‘exterior’ siding on the landmark is proposed to be carried through to become the ‘interior’ wall of the kitchen. P145 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review The Gibson lot is just under 15,500 sf in size which allows the new two story construction to be pushed 25 ft away from the landmarks. The connecting element is one story in height with a rooftop deck. The connecting element is setback 50 ft from the property line at Gibson Avenue, minimizing any adverse visual impacts of the rooftop deck. Traditionally, connecting elements are 10 ft. long and serve as a hallway; however, the large size of the 931 Gibson lot supports a more useful connecting element that serves as the kitchen and the center of the home linking the historic to the new construction. Putting the kitchen in this area also allows the footprint of the new two story addition to reference the footprint of the landmarks. The north and south walls of the connector are glazing, and the south wall opens up to a patio. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially 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 primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Response – The connecting element is setback from the front façade of the landmark by over 16 ft. The depth of the lot and the restored one story historic addition push the addition to the side of the primary building. The majority of floor area for the project is located in the basement to alleviate above grade massing impacts on the landmark. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. Response – A gable roof is proposed for two story addition. A flat roof is proposed for the connecting element. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. Response – The connecting element is attached to an area of the landmark that is already engulfed in a non-historic addition. The addition is tucked beneath the decorative fishscale band to not interrupt the restored architectural feature. As noted above, the reconstructed ‘exterior’ siding on the landmark is proposed to be carried through to become the ‘interior’ wall of the kitchen. 10.13 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of the historic building. Response – n/a. P146 IV.B. Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review 10.14 Set a rooftop addition back from the street facing façades to preserve the original profile of the historic resource. • Set the addition back from street facing façades a distance approximately equal to its height. Response – n/a. 10.15 The roof form of a rooftop addition must be in character with the historic building. Response – n/a. P147 IV.B. Exhibit B Relocation Exhibit B – Relocation 26.415.090. Relocation of designated historic properties. The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Response: In August 2018 City Council granted relocation approval, based on a recommendation from HPC, to move the two landmarks from 333 Park to 931 Gibson. The design team met with Bill Bailey House Movers and with City referral departments to discuss the safe relocation of the historic buildings. First, a letter is attached from Bill Bailey determining that the historic homes are capable of withstanding relocation. The design team will continue to work with the City to determine appropriate tree replacement, curb and gutter replacement and other minor mitigation measures required as part of the relocation route (shown below). All directly impacted property owners along the route have provided support for the relocation. This project is unique and requires special consideration to develop the best preservation plan. The buildings are already approved for relocation and are currently being prepared for the move – non- P148 IV.B. Exhibit B Relocation historic additions are being removed, asbestos and lead paint is being abated, and interiors are being stabilized in preparation for the move. The best preservation approach is to move the buildings as soon as possible onto their permanent foundation. The current location on the sloping site above the Roaring Fork River poses risk to character defining features such as the cantilevered historic front porch. Since this project is already phased, we respectfully request approval to apply for a foundation permit and a relocation permit to move the historic buildings onto their permanent foundation at 931 Gibson as soon as possible to being restoration work and to ensure that the buildings do not further deteriorate at 333 Park. The permit would be submitted for review after the completion of City Council call-up of the Conceptual HP approval, and prior to Final Design approval by HPC. We commit to submitting a final HP design application prior to the issuance of the relocation permit for 931 to show our commitment to this project. We look forward to discussing this request with you and staff and we are open to any conditions of approval that may facilitate moving this project forward with the safety of the historic landmarks as the top priority. P149 IV.B. Exhibit B Relocation 9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the historic fabric. • This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting of financial assurances as a building relocation. Response – n/a. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. • Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. • In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. • If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. Response – Relocation does not result in the loss of original historic material. The building has been moved before and is able to withstand another relocation without significant damage to the building. Non- historic additions will be removed and the few original windows will be protected during relocation. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. • A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. • Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. Response – The new location at 931 Gibson allows the structure and historic addition to be placed in a position similar to its historic orientation. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. P150 IV.B. Exhibit B Relocation • Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. • Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. Response – One of the main reasons to relocate the structure to 931 Gibson is to restore the historic relationship of the building to grade. The slopes at 333 Park render this goal impossible. The design team will use the historic photographs of the building in its original location to accurately recreate the relationship to grade. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. Response – The new foundation will match the original shown in the photographs. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. Response – Lightwells are minimized and pulled away from the front facade to avoid conflicts with the restored front porch. Lightwells are adjacent to building walls, are not located within walking surfaces, and will be protected with a flat grate as allowed by Building Code. 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. • The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. P151 IV.B. Exhibit B Relocation • During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. Response – Bill Bailey House Movers is responsible for the majority of relocated homes in Aspen. All measures will be taken to protect the home to ensure safe relocation. 9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged. • Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative. Response – The buildings were relocated in 1961 to 333 Park which greatly compromised the historic integrity of the resources, not to mention violating many current Land Use Code requirements such as stream margin review and setbacks. The opportunity to restore the landmark and historic addition accurately in a location similar to its original lot on Main Street is a special circumstance that does not occur very often (if ever). This is the best preservation method for the historic buildings and the only preservation alternative to restore the historic addition behind the two story landmark and to maintain the historic building orientation to the street. P152 IV.B. exhibit B P153 IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSESITE PLAN - EXISTING CONDITIONS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-001333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 17915 7920 7925 792 9 7929 79307931 7932 79337933 7934 7934 7935 793 6 7937 793779387940 7940 7941 794279437943 794479447935BUILDING ENVELOPEPROPERTY LINEEDGE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT 20' -0 "ROAD/UT IL ITY EASEMENT TOP OF SLOPE PER COA EXISTI N G DITCH FLOO D PLAIN LINE MEAN HIGH WATE R LINE EXISTING DITCH TOP OF SLOPE PER COA EDGE OF EXISTI N G PAVE M E N T SITE PLAN Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PARK AVE ROARING FORK RIVER HISTORIC RESOURCE HISTORIC RESOURCE NON-HISTORIC ADDITIONS SITE PHOTO 1 - LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM ROAD EASEMENT NTS 2 SITE PHOTO 2 - LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM TOP OF SLOPE NTS 3 SITE PHOTO 3 - LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM NEIGHBORS DRIVEWAY NTS 4 HISTORIC RESOURCE HISTORIC RESOURCE HISTORIC RESOURCE HISTORIC RESOURCE exhibit B P154IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEFLOOR PLANS - EXISTING CONDITIONS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-002333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1Hot Tub KITCHEN 010 KITCHEN 002 LIVING 003 BEDROOM 004 MECHANICAL ROOM 005 BATH 006 STAIRWELL 007 BEDROOM 008 LIVING 009 BATH 011 PATIO 012 PATIO 013 BATH 001 17'-2" 02 12'-1 1/4" 03 25'-2" 0401 33'-1 1/4"B 4'-8"C A 21'-8 5/8"WB 14'-3 7/8"WC 4'-5"WD WA EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE Open to below KITCHEN 109 KITCHEN 101 FOYER 102 LIVING 103 DINING 104 BEDROOM 105 STAIRWELL 106 BEDROOM 107 LIVING 108 FOYER 110 BATH 111 DECK 112 DECK 113 ENTRY 114 ENTRY 115 CLO. 102A 1234 HP-007 17'-2" 02 12'-1 1/4" 03 25'-2" 0401 33'-1 1/4"B 4'-8"C A 21'-8 5/8"WB 14'-3 7/8"WC 4'-5"WD WA EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE GENERAL PLAN NOTES - EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED FOR THEIR HISTORICAL RELEVANCE. 2. ANY HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT SHOULD BE USED AS TEMPLATES FOR NEW WORK AND FOR RESTORATION OF ELEMENTS. ALL NEW AND RESTORATION RELATED WORK SHOULD MATCH PROFILES OF EXISTING HISTORICAL MATERIALS. 3. THE PRINCIPLE AIM OF ANY WORK MUST BE TO HALT THE PROCESS OF DETERIORATION AND STABILIZE THE ITEM'S CONDITION. REPAIR IS A SECOND OPTION WHICH BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE PRESERVATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE MID-TO LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. REPAIR SHOULD ALWAYS BE BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF MINIMAL DISTURBANCE. 4. THE TRUE EXTENT OF THE HISTORIC PLANS ARE UNKNOWN. A CAREFUL AND PROGRESSIVE DEMOLITON OF THE BUILDINGS MUST TAKE PLACE TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE HISTORIC RESOURCES. 5. REGULAR INSPECTION FROM CITY OF ASPEN HPC MUST TAKE PLACE DURING DEMOLITION AND PROTECTIVE BRACING. 6. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN A WORKMANLIKE OR CRAFTMANLIKE MANNER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, CITY OF ASPEN, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS. 7. CONTRACTOR TO SCHEDULE MEETING WITH ARCHITECT, OWNER, AND CITY OF ASPEN PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION TO REVIEW MATERIAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINE MATERIAL REPLACEMENT RUBRIC. SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES 1. LOREM IPSUM P155IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEFLOOR PLANS - EXISTING CONDITIONS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-003333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1BATH 203 HALL 202 BEDROOM 206 BEDROOM 207 BEDROOM 201 STAIR 204 CLOSET 205 ATTIC 208 ATTIC 209 17'-2" 02 12'-1 1/4" 03 25'-2" 0401 33'-1 1/4"B 4'-8"C A 21'-8 5/8"WB 14'-3 7/8"WC 4'-5"WD WA EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE 17'-2" 02 12'-1 1/4" 03 25'-2" 0401 33'-1 1/4"B 4'-8"C A 21'-8 5/8"WB 14'-3 7/8"WC 4'-5"WD WA EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLAN Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE GENERAL PLAN NOTES - EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED FOR THEIR HISTORICAL RELEVANCE. 2. ANY HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT SHOULD BE USED AS TEMPLATES FOR NEW WORK AND FOR RESTORATION OF ELEMENTS. ALL NEW AND RESTORATION RELATED WORK SHOULD MATCH PROFILES OF EXISTING HISTORICAL MATERIALS. 3. THE PRINCIPLE AIM OF ANY WORK MUST BE TO HALT THE PROCESS OF DETERIORATION AND STABILIZE THE ITEM'S CONDITION. REPAIR IS A SECOND OPTION WHICH BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE PRESERVATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE MID-TO LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. REPAIR SHOULD ALWAYS BE BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF MINIMAL DISTURBANCE. 4. THE TRUE EXTENT OF THE HISTORIC PLANS ARE UNKNOWN. A CAREFUL AND PROGRESSIVE DEMOLITON OF THE BUILDINGS MUST TAKE PLACE TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE HISTORIC RESOURCES. 5. REGULAR INSPECTION FROM CITY OF ASPEN HPC MUST TAKE PLACE DURING DEMOLITION AND PROTECTIVE BRACING. 6. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN A WORKMANLIKE OR CRAFTMANLIKE MANNER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, CITY OF ASPEN, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS. 7. CONTRACTOR TO SCHEDULE MEETING WITH ARCHITECT, OWNER, AND CITY OF ASPEN PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION TO REVIEW MATERIAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINE MATERIAL REPLACEMENT RUBRIC. SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES 1. LOREM IPSUM P156IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEELEVATIONS - EXISTING CONDITIONS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-004333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1NORTH EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE SOUTH EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE11'-11 1/2"3'-4"ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE NORTH EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING NTS 3 SOUTH EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING NTS 4 SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES 1. LOREM IPSUM GENERAL ELEVATION NOTES 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. 2. COORDINATE ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS. 3. ALL INTERIOR PAINT FINISHES TO REMAIN. NEWI NTERIOR PAINT IS LIMITED TO ROOM 104. 4. PROVIDE BLOCKING, IN-FILL FRAMING, FURRING, AND SHIMS AS NECESSARY TO INSTALL AND RESTORE WALLS, CEILINGS, AND FLOORS. MODIFY EXISTING FRAMING AS NECESSARY TO ACCEPT: WALL & CEILING FINISHES, FLOORING, TRIM, AND ME EQUIPMENT. RESECURE ALL EXISTING FURRING, FRAMING, AND INTERIOR FINISHES. REPLACE ALL DETERIORATED FURRING, FRAMING, AND INTERIOR FINISHES AS NECESSARY. 5. REMOVE DEBRIS FROM INTERIOR OF STRUCTURE, BROOM CLEAN ALL SURFACES. 6. REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEMBERS FOLLOWING STRUCTURAL REPAIRS. 7. WHEN POSSIBLE SALVAGED MATERIALS, STORED ON SITE, SHOULD BE USED FOR REPAIRS TO HISTORIC MATERIALS (SEE STORAGE LOG). 8. FLOORS CATALOGUE FLOORING, TEMPORARILY REMOVE FLOORING FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, REINSTALL EXISTING FLOORING AND INFILL MISSING BOARDS WITH SALVAGED BOARDS STORED ON SITE, IF ADDITIONAL FLOORING IS REQUIRED MATCH EXISTING IN SIZE, PROFILE, AND MATERIAL. 9. CEILINGS CATALOGUE CEILING BOARDS ON FIRST FLOOR, TEMPORARILY REMOVE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND INSTALLATION OF INSULATION, REINSTALL EXISTING CEILING AND INFILL MISSING BOARDS WITH SALVAGED BOARDS STORED ON SITE, IF ADDITIONAL CEILING BOARDS ARE REQUIRED MATCH EXISTING IN SIZE, PROFILE, AND MATERIAL. NEW STRUCTURAL MEMBERS TO BE INSTALLED AT SECOND FLOOR, FLOORING JOISTS WILL REQUIRE THE CEILING TO BE RE-INSTALLED ~1 3/4" LOWER THAN THE CURRENT LOCATION. 10. CATALOGUE, REMOVE, AND STORE CARDBOARD FROM ALL SURFACES. 11. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SHOULD BE USED AS TEMPLATES FOR NEW WORK AND FOR RESTORATION OF ELEMENTS. ALL NEW AND RESTORATION RELATED WORK SHOULD MATCH PROFILES OF EXISTING MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. THE PRINCIPLE AIM OF ANY WORK MUST BE TO HALT THE PROCESS OF DETERIORATION AND STABILIZE THE ITEM'S CONDITION. REPAIR IS A SECOND OPTION WHICH BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE PRESERVATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE MID-TO LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. REPAIR SHOULD ALWAYS BE BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF MINIMAL DISTURBANCE. 13. REMOVE TEMPORARY STABILIZATION & CRIBBING MEMBERS AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, ALL STABILIZATION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO METAL I-BEAMS, WOOD, FASTENERS) AND CRIBBING ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO PROJECT COMPLETION. SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES: 1. LOREM IPSUM LAKSJDLKFJA;LSKJD P157IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEELEVATIONS - EXISTING CONDITIONS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-005333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1NORTH WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE SOUTH WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCESOUTH WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING NTS 3 NORTH WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING NTS 4 SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES 1. LOREM IPSUM GENERAL ELEVATION NOTES 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. 2. COORDINATE ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS. 3. ALL INTERIOR PAINT FINISHES TO REMAIN. NEWI NTERIOR PAINT IS LIMITED TO ROOM 104. 4. PROVIDE BLOCKING, IN-FILL FRAMING, FURRING, AND SHIMS AS NECESSARY TO INSTALL AND RESTORE WALLS, CEILINGS, AND FLOORS. MODIFY EXISTING FRAMING AS NECESSARY TO ACCEPT: WALL & CEILING FINISHES, FLOORING, TRIM, AND ME EQUIPMENT. RESECURE ALL EXISTING FURRING, FRAMING, AND INTERIOR FINISHES. REPLACE ALL DETERIORATED FURRING, FRAMING, AND INTERIOR FINISHES AS NECESSARY. 5. REMOVE DEBRIS FROM INTERIOR OF STRUCTURE, BROOM CLEAN ALL SURFACES. 6. REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEMBERS FOLLOWING STRUCTURAL REPAIRS. 7. WHEN POSSIBLE SALVAGED MATERIALS, STORED ON SITE, SHOULD BE USED FOR REPAIRS TO HISTORIC MATERIALS (SEE STORAGE LOG). 8. FLOORS CATALOGUE FLOORING, TEMPORARILY REMOVE FLOORING FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, REINSTALL EXISTING FLOORING AND INFILL MISSING BOARDS WITH SALVAGED BOARDS STORED ON SITE, IF ADDITIONAL FLOORING IS REQUIRED MATCH EXISTING IN SIZE, PROFILE, AND MATERIAL. 9. CEILINGS CATALOGUE CEILING BOARDS ON FIRST FLOOR, TEMPORARILY REMOVE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND INSTALLATION OF INSULATION, REINSTALL EXISTING CEILING AND INFILL MISSING BOARDS WITH SALVAGED BOARDS STORED ON SITE, IF ADDITIONAL CEILING BOARDS ARE REQUIRED MATCH EXISTING IN SIZE, PROFILE, AND MATERIAL. NEW STRUCTURAL MEMBERS TO BE INSTALLED AT SECOND FLOOR, FLOORING JOISTS WILL REQUIRE THE CEILING TO BE RE-INSTALLED ~1 3/4" LOWER THAN THE CURRENT LOCATION. 10. CATALOGUE, REMOVE, AND STORE CARDBOARD FROM ALL SURFACES. 11. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SHOULD BE USED AS TEMPLATES FOR NEW WORK AND FOR RESTORATION OF ELEMENTS. ALL NEW AND RESTORATION RELATED WORK SHOULD MATCH PROFILES OF EXISTING MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. THE PRINCIPLE AIM OF ANY WORK MUST BE TO HALT THE PROCESS OF DETERIORATION AND STABILIZE THE ITEM'S CONDITION. REPAIR IS A SECOND OPTION WHICH BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE PRESERVATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE MID-TO LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. REPAIR SHOULD ALWAYS BE BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF MINIMAL DISTURBANCE. 13. REMOVE TEMPORARY STABILIZATION & CRIBBING MEMBERS AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, ALL STABILIZATION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO METAL I-BEAMS, WOOD, FASTENERS) AND CRIBBING ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO PROJECT COMPLETION. SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES: 1. LOREM IPSUM LAKSJDLKFJA;LSKJD P158IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEELEVATIONS - EXISTING CONDITIONS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-006333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1NORTH WEST ROOF ELEVATION - EXISTING Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE OUTLINE OF EXISTING ADDITION ALL HISTORIC RESOURCES IN THIS AREA ARE UNKNOWN. NEED TO BE DISCOVERED. ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE SOUTH WEST ROOF ELEVATION - EXISTING NTS 3 NORTH WEST ROOF ELEVATION - EXISTING NTS 2 SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES 1. LOREM IPSUM GENERAL ELEVATION NOTES 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. 2. COORDINATE ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS. 3. ALL INTERIOR PAINT FINISHES TO REMAIN. NEWI NTERIOR PAINT IS LIMITED TO ROOM 104. 4. PROVIDE BLOCKING, IN-FILL FRAMING, FURRING, AND SHIMS AS NECESSARY TO INSTALL AND RESTORE WALLS, CEILINGS, AND FLOORS. MODIFY EXISTING FRAMING AS NECESSARY TO ACCEPT: WALL & CEILING FINISHES, FLOORING, TRIM, AND ME EQUIPMENT. RESECURE ALL EXISTING FURRING, FRAMING, AND INTERIOR FINISHES. REPLACE ALL DETERIORATED FURRING, FRAMING, AND INTERIOR FINISHES AS NECESSARY. 5. REMOVE DEBRIS FROM INTERIOR OF STRUCTURE, BROOM CLEAN ALL SURFACES. 6. REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEMBERS FOLLOWING STRUCTURAL REPAIRS. 7. WHEN POSSIBLE SALVAGED MATERIALS, STORED ON SITE, SHOULD BE USED FOR REPAIRS TO HISTORIC MATERIALS (SEE STORAGE LOG). 8. FLOORS CATALOGUE FLOORING, TEMPORARILY REMOVE FLOORING FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, REINSTALL EXISTING FLOORING AND INFILL MISSING BOARDS WITH SALVAGED BOARDS STORED ON SITE, IF ADDITIONAL FLOORING IS REQUIRED MATCH EXISTING IN SIZE, PROFILE, AND MATERIAL. 9. CEILINGS CATALOGUE CEILING BOARDS ON FIRST FLOOR, TEMPORARILY REMOVE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND INSTALLATION OF INSULATION, REINSTALL EXISTING CEILING AND INFILL MISSING BOARDS WITH SALVAGED BOARDS STORED ON SITE, IF ADDITIONAL CEILING BOARDS ARE REQUIRED MATCH EXISTING IN SIZE, PROFILE, AND MATERIAL. NEW STRUCTURAL MEMBERS TO BE INSTALLED AT SECOND FLOOR, FLOORING JOISTS WILL REQUIRE THE CEILING TO BE RE-INSTALLED ~1 3/4" LOWER THAN THE CURRENT LOCATION. 10. CATALOGUE, REMOVE, AND STORE CARDBOARD FROM ALL SURFACES. 11. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SHOULD BE USED AS TEMPLATES FOR NEW WORK AND FOR RESTORATION OF ELEMENTS. ALL NEW AND RESTORATION RELATED WORK SHOULD MATCH PROFILES OF EXISTING MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. THE PRINCIPLE AIM OF ANY WORK MUST BE TO HALT THE PROCESS OF DETERIORATION AND STABILIZE THE ITEM'S CONDITION. REPAIR IS A SECOND OPTION WHICH BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE PRESERVATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE MID-TO LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. REPAIR SHOULD ALWAYS BE BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF MINIMAL DISTURBANCE. 13. REMOVE TEMPORARY STABILIZATION & CRIBBING MEMBERS AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, ALL STABILIZATION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO METAL I-BEAMS, WOOD, FASTENERS) AND CRIBBING ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO PROJECT COMPLETION. SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES: 1. LOREM IPSUM LAKSJDLKFJA;LSKJD SOUTH EAST ROOF ELEVATION - EXISTING Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ASSUMED HISTORIC RESOURCE P159IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEWALL DEMOLITION PLANS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-008333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1NOTES: 1.Demolition consists of removal of ALL NON-historic structures with a specific focus on detaching the landmark from site built elements and preparing it to be moved. All known and unknown historic elements to be protected. 3. All demolition to be progressively deconstructed in layers to determine historic materials and structure. Non-historic structural elements will not be demolished unless approved by a structural engineer in accordance to structural bracing plans. Wall F (west) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"F Wall C (south) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C Hot Tub Basement Plan Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 A B C F D E 2nd Level Plan Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 A B C GH F E Attic Attic Open to below BATH 111 1st Level Plan Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 A B C F D E 2'-0"Wall A (north) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A Wall B (east) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"BWall D (east) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D Wall G (upper west) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"G Wall H (upper east) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"H Wall E (south) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"EP160 IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEROOF DEMOLITION PLANS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-009333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1Roof Plan Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 11.2:1212:1212:1211.2:12 12:12 12:1212:1212:1212:1212:120:0 8.4:12 8.4:12 0:04.4:122:1212:1212:1212:12 10.9:12 10.9:12 9.4:129.4:122:12Existing Historic Roof to Remain Existing Non-Historic Roof to be Removed NOTES: 1.Demolition consists of removal of ALL NON-historic structures with a specific focus on detaching the landmark from site built elements and preparing it to be moved. All known and unknown historic elements to be protected. 3. All demolition to be progressively deconstructed in layers to determine historic materials and structure. Non-historic structural elements will not be demolished unless approved by a structural engineer in accordance to structural bracing plans.P161IV.B. UP6'-9"H2 32'-11 1/4"H3 17'-1"H4 H1 25'-0" 0201 4 A3.1 A3.11A3.1 2 3A3.1MAIN LEVEL PLAN - PROPOSED PRESERVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 BECKERMAN HOUSEPROPOSED HISTORIC PLANS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-010333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1GENERAL PLAN NOTES - EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED FOR THEIR HISTORICAL RELEVANCE. 2. ANY HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT SHOULD BE USED AS TEMPLATES FOR NEW WORK AND FOR RESTORATION OF ELEMENTS. ALL NEW AND RESTORATION RELATED WORK SHOULD MATCH PROFILES OF EXISTING HISTORICAL MATERIALS. 3. THE PRINCIPLE AIM OF ANY WORK MUST BE TO HALT THE PROCESS OF DETERIORATION AND STABILIZE THE ITEM'S CONDITION. REPAIR IS A SECOND OPTION WHICH BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE PRESERVATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE MID-TO LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. REPAIR SHOULD ALWAYS BE BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF MINIMAL DISTURBANCE. 4. THE TRUE EXTENT OF THE HISTORIC PLANS ARE UNKNOWN. A CAREFUL AND PROGRESSIVE DEMOLITON OF THE BUILDINGS MUST TAKE PLACE TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE HISTORIC RESOURCES. 5. REGULAR INSPECTION FROM CITY OF ASPEN HPC MUST TAKE PLACE DURING DEMOLITION AND PROTECTIVE BRACING. 6. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN A WORKMANLIKE OR CRAFTMANLIKE MANNER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, CITY OF ASPEN, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS. 7. CONTRACTOR TO SCHEDULE MEETING WITH ARCHITECT, OWNER, AND CITY OF ASPEN PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION TO REVIEW MATERIAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINE MATERIAL REPLACEMENT RUBRIC. SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES 1. LOREM IPSUM P162IV.B. DN6'-9"H2 32'-11 1/4"H3 17'-1"H4 H1 25'-0" 0201 4 A3.1 A3.11A3.1 2 3A3.1UPPER LEVEL PLAN - PROPOSED PRESERVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 BECKERMAN HOUSEPROPOSED HISTORIC PLANS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-011333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1GENERAL PLAN NOTES - EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED FOR THEIR HISTORICAL RELEVANCE. 2. ANY HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT SHOULD BE USED AS TEMPLATES FOR NEW WORK AND FOR RESTORATION OF ELEMENTS. ALL NEW AND RESTORATION RELATED WORK SHOULD MATCH PROFILES OF EXISTING HISTORICAL MATERIALS. 3. THE PRINCIPLE AIM OF ANY WORK MUST BE TO HALT THE PROCESS OF DETERIORATION AND STABILIZE THE ITEM'S CONDITION. REPAIR IS A SECOND OPTION WHICH BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE PRESERVATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE MID-TO LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. REPAIR SHOULD ALWAYS BE BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF MINIMAL DISTURBANCE. 4. THE TRUE EXTENT OF THE HISTORIC PLANS ARE UNKNOWN. A CAREFUL AND PROGRESSIVE DEMOLITON OF THE BUILDINGS MUST TAKE PLACE TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE HISTORIC RESOURCES. 5. REGULAR INSPECTION FROM CITY OF ASPEN HPC MUST TAKE PLACE DURING DEMOLITION AND PROTECTIVE BRACING. 6. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN A WORKMANLIKE OR CRAFTMANLIKE MANNER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, CITY OF ASPEN, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS. 7. CONTRACTOR TO SCHEDULE MEETING WITH ARCHITECT, OWNER, AND CITY OF ASPEN PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION TO REVIEW MATERIAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINE MATERIAL REPLACEMENT RUBRIC. SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES 1. LOREM IPSUM P163IV.B. UP DN6'-9"H2 32'-11 1/4"H3 17'-1"H4 H1 25'-0" 0201 4 A3.1 A3.11A3.1 2 3A3.1ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED PRESERVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 11.2:1211.2:12 12:1212:1212:12 12:1212:1212:12 10.9:1210.9:12 9.4:129.4:1212:12 12:122:12 BECKERMAN HOUSEPROPOSED HISTORIC PLANS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-012333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1GENERAL PLAN NOTES - EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED FOR THEIR HISTORICAL RELEVANCE. 2. ANY HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT SHOULD BE USED AS TEMPLATES FOR NEW WORK AND FOR RESTORATION OF ELEMENTS. ALL NEW AND RESTORATION RELATED WORK SHOULD MATCH PROFILES OF EXISTING HISTORICAL MATERIALS. 3. THE PRINCIPLE AIM OF ANY WORK MUST BE TO HALT THE PROCESS OF DETERIORATION AND STABILIZE THE ITEM'S CONDITION. REPAIR IS A SECOND OPTION WHICH BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE PRESERVATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE MID-TO LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. REPAIR SHOULD ALWAYS BE BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF MINIMAL DISTURBANCE. 4. THE TRUE EXTENT OF THE HISTORIC PLANS ARE UNKNOWN. A CAREFUL AND PROGRESSIVE DEMOLITON OF THE BUILDINGS MUST TAKE PLACE TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE HISTORIC RESOURCES. 5. REGULAR INSPECTION FROM CITY OF ASPEN HPC MUST TAKE PLACE DURING DEMOLITION AND PROTECTIVE BRACING. 6. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN A WORKMANLIKE OR CRAFTMANLIKE MANNER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, CITY OF ASPEN, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS. 7. CONTRACTOR TO SCHEDULE MEETING WITH ARCHITECT, OWNER, AND CITY OF ASPEN PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION TO REVIEW MATERIAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINE MATERIAL REPLACEMENT RUBRIC. SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES 1. LOREM IPSUM P164IV.B. 12 11.2 12 11.2 HISTORIC MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY. 100'-0" HISTORIC 2ND LEVEL T.O. PLY. 110'-9" ELEVATION AT 1/3 SPAN OF ROOF 119'-7 1/2"20'-8 1/4"PROPOSED GRADE NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED PRESERVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ASSUMED LOCATION OF HISTORIC CHIMNEY - FROM HISTORIC PHOTOS PROPOSED CHANGE OF WINDOW BACK TO ORINGINAL FROM PHOTOS EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED PRESERVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 HISTORIC MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY. 100'-0" HISTORIC 2ND LEVEL T.O. PLY. 110'-9" UNKNOW WALL OF HISTORIC RESOURCE. ASSUMED SIDING AND WINDOW FROM HISORIC PHOTOS. ASSUMED LOCATION OF HISTORIC CHIMNEY - FROM HISTORIC PHOTOS UNKNOW WALL OF HISTORIC RESOURCE. ASSUMED SIDING AND WINDOW FROM HISORIC PHOTOS.BECKERMAN HOUSEPROPOSED HISTORIC ELEVATIONS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-013333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES 1. LOREM IPSUM GENERAL ELEVATION NOTES 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. 2. COORDINATE ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS. 3. ALL INTERIOR PAINT FINISHES TO REMAIN. NEWI NTERIOR PAINT IS LIMITED TO ROOM 104. 4. PROVIDE BLOCKING, IN-FILL FRAMING, FURRING, AND SHIMS AS NECESSARY TO INSTALL AND RESTORE WALLS, CEILINGS, AND FLOORS. MODIFY EXISTING FRAMING AS NECESSARY TO ACCEPT: WALL & CEILING FINISHES, FLOORING, TRIM, AND ME EQUIPMENT. RESECURE ALL EXISTING FURRING, FRAMING, AND INTERIOR FINISHES. REPLACE ALL DETERIORATED FURRING, FRAMING, AND INTERIOR FINISHES AS NECESSARY. 5. REMOVE DEBRIS FROM INTERIOR OF STRUCTURE, BROOM CLEAN ALL SURFACES. 6. REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEMBERS FOLLOWING STRUCTURAL REPAIRS. 7. WHEN POSSIBLE SALVAGED MATERIALS, STORED ON SITE, SHOULD BE USED FOR REPAIRS TO HISTORIC MATERIALS (SEE STORAGE LOG). 8. FLOORS CATALOGUE FLOORING, TEMPORARILY REMOVE FLOORING FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, REINSTALL EXISTING FLOORING AND INFILL MISSING BOARDS WITH SALVAGED BOARDS STORED ON SITE, IF ADDITIONAL FLOORING IS REQUIRED MATCH EXISTING IN SIZE, PROFILE, AND MATERIAL. 9. CEILINGS CATALOGUE CEILING BOARDS ON FIRST FLOOR, TEMPORARILY REMOVE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND INSTALLATION OF INSULATION, REINSTALL EXISTING CEILING AND INFILL MISSING BOARDS WITH SALVAGED BOARDS STORED ON SITE, IF ADDITIONAL CEILING BOARDS ARE REQUIRED MATCH EXISTING IN SIZE, PROFILE, AND MATERIAL. NEW STRUCTURAL MEMBERS TO BE INSTALLED AT SECOND FLOOR, FLOORING JOISTS WILL REQUIRE THE CEILING TO BE RE-INSTALLED ~1 3/4" LOWER THAN THE CURRENT LOCATION. 10. CATALOGUE, REMOVE, AND STORE CARDBOARD FROM ALL SURFACES. 11. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SHOULD BE USED AS TEMPLATES FOR NEW WORK AND FOR RESTORATION OF ELEMENTS. ALL NEW AND RESTORATION RELATED WORK SHOULD MATCH PROFILES OF EXISTING MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. THE PRINCIPLE AIM OF ANY WORK MUST BE TO HALT THE PROCESS OF DETERIORATION AND STABILIZE THE ITEM'S CONDITION. REPAIR IS A SECOND OPTION WHICH BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE PRESERVATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE MID-TO LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. REPAIR SHOULD ALWAYS BE BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF MINIMAL DISTURBANCE. 13. REMOVE TEMPORARY STABILIZATION & CRIBBING MEMBERS AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, ALL STABILIZATION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO METAL I-BEAMS, WOOD, FASTENERS) AND CRIBBING ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO PROJECT COMPLETION. SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES: 1. LOREM IPSUM LAKSJDLKFJA;LSKJD COLUMBINE LODGE HISTORICAL PHOTO NTS 3 1964 SECONDARY HISTORIC PHOTO NTS 4P165 IV.B. 12 12 12 11.2 Assumed Final Grade HISTORIC MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY. 100'-0" ELEVATION AT 1/3 SPAN OF ROOF 119'-7 1/2" SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED PRESERVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 HISTORIC 2ND LEVEL T.O. PLY. 110'-9" PROPOSED WRAPPING OF FISH SCALE SIDING BAND UNKNOW WALL OF HISTORIC RESOURCE. ASSUMED SIDING AND WINDOW FROM HISORIC PHOTOS. WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED PRESERVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 HISTORIC MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY. 100'-0" HISTORIC 2ND LEVEL T.O. PLY. 110'-9" Assumed Final Grade UNKNOW WALL OF HISTORIC RESOURCE. ASSUMED SIDING AND WINDOW FROM HISORIC PHOTOS. ASSUMED LOCATION OF HISTORIC CHIMNEY - FROM HISTORIC PHOTOS ASSUMED LOCATION OF HISTORIC WINDOW (TBD)BECKERMAN HOUSEPROPOSED HISTORIC ELEVATIONS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/29/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-014333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES 1. LOREM IPSUM GENERAL ELEVATION NOTES 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. 2. COORDINATE ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS. 3. ALL INTERIOR PAINT FINISHES TO REMAIN. NEWI NTERIOR PAINT IS LIMITED TO ROOM 104. 4. PROVIDE BLOCKING, IN-FILL FRAMING, FURRING, AND SHIMS AS NECESSARY TO INSTALL AND RESTORE WALLS, CEILINGS, AND FLOORS. MODIFY EXISTING FRAMING AS NECESSARY TO ACCEPT: WALL & CEILING FINISHES, FLOORING, TRIM, AND ME EQUIPMENT. RESECURE ALL EXISTING FURRING, FRAMING, AND INTERIOR FINISHES. REPLACE ALL DETERIORATED FURRING, FRAMING, AND INTERIOR FINISHES AS NECESSARY. 5. REMOVE DEBRIS FROM INTERIOR OF STRUCTURE, BROOM CLEAN ALL SURFACES. 6. REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEMBERS FOLLOWING STRUCTURAL REPAIRS. 7. WHEN POSSIBLE SALVAGED MATERIALS, STORED ON SITE, SHOULD BE USED FOR REPAIRS TO HISTORIC MATERIALS (SEE STORAGE LOG). 8. FLOORS CATALOGUE FLOORING, TEMPORARILY REMOVE FLOORING FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, REINSTALL EXISTING FLOORING AND INFILL MISSING BOARDS WITH SALVAGED BOARDS STORED ON SITE, IF ADDITIONAL FLOORING IS REQUIRED MATCH EXISTING IN SIZE, PROFILE, AND MATERIAL. 9. CEILINGS CATALOGUE CEILING BOARDS ON FIRST FLOOR, TEMPORARILY REMOVE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND INSTALLATION OF INSULATION, REINSTALL EXISTING CEILING AND INFILL MISSING BOARDS WITH SALVAGED BOARDS STORED ON SITE, IF ADDITIONAL CEILING BOARDS ARE REQUIRED MATCH EXISTING IN SIZE, PROFILE, AND MATERIAL. NEW STRUCTURAL MEMBERS TO BE INSTALLED AT SECOND FLOOR, FLOORING JOISTS WILL REQUIRE THE CEILING TO BE RE-INSTALLED ~1 3/4" LOWER THAN THE CURRENT LOCATION. 10. CATALOGUE, REMOVE, AND STORE CARDBOARD FROM ALL SURFACES. 11. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SHOULD BE USED AS TEMPLATES FOR NEW WORK AND FOR RESTORATION OF ELEMENTS. ALL NEW AND RESTORATION RELATED WORK SHOULD MATCH PROFILES OF EXISTING MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. THE PRINCIPLE AIM OF ANY WORK MUST BE TO HALT THE PROCESS OF DETERIORATION AND STABILIZE THE ITEM'S CONDITION. REPAIR IS A SECOND OPTION WHICH BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE PRESERVATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE MID-TO LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. REPAIR SHOULD ALWAYS BE BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF MINIMAL DISTURBANCE. 13. REMOVE TEMPORARY STABILIZATION & CRIBBING MEMBERS AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, ALL STABILIZATION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO METAL I-BEAMS, WOOD, FASTENERS) AND CRIBBING ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO PROJECT COMPLETION. SHEET SPECIFIC NOTES: 1. LOREM IPSUM LAKSJDLKFJA;LSKJD HISTORICAL FIRE MAP NTS 3 HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTO NTS 4 HISTORICAL MOVING PHOTO NTS 5P166 IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSESECTIONS / DETAILS PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/30/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-021333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1Historic 7" Dutch Lap Siding1"x8" Historic Dutch Lap Siding Scale: 3" = 1'-0"1 FASTEN THROUGH TONGUE FASTEN THROUGH BASE OF SIDING ABOVE TONGUE. MATCH NAIL SPACING OF EXISTING LAP SIDING CHANNEL BACK FACE OF SIDING TO PREVENT CUPPING BEVEL DUTCH LAP TO MATCH EXISTING BEVEL1 1/4"5 3/4"8"PAINTED WOOD DUTCH BEVEL LAP SIDING Historic Fishtail Shingle Siding5" Fish Scale Historic Shingle Siding Scale: 3" = 1'-0"2 FASTEN THROUGH TOP 1/3 OF SHINGLE 5"PAINTED WOOD FISH SCALE SHINGLE SIDING 1'-3 1/2"Fish Scale Siding Photo Dutch Lap Siding Photo ACCESSORY HISTORIC RAKE BOARD PROFILES Scale: 3" = 1'-0"7 DUTCH BEVEL LAP SIDING 1X8 WOOD RAKE BOARD WOOD SHOE MOULDING 1X10 WOOD SOFFIT 1X6 WOOD FASCIA WOOD CROWN MOULDING METAL DRIP EDGE WOOD SHAKE ROOFING EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE MAIN HISTORIC EAVE PROFILES Scale: 3" = 1'-0"5 1X SOFFIT DUTCH BEVEL LAP SIDING 1X FASCIA CROWN MOULDING COVE MOULDING EXISTING ROOF STRUCTUREEXISTING WALL STRUCTURE METAL DRIP EDGE FLASHING TIN ROOFING 1X61X12MAIN HISTORIC RAKE BOARD PROFILES Scale: 3" = 1'-0"6 1X SOFFIT DUTCH BEVEL LAP SIDING 1X FASCIA CROWN MOULDING COVE MOULDING EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE METAL DRIP EDGE FLASHING TIN ROOFING 1X61X61X10 Typical Main Historic Porch Column Scale: 3" = 1'-0"9 GENERAL NOTE: SOME COLUMNS HAVE BEEN CUT SHORTER AND MOVED TO VARIOUS LOCATIONS. MAY NEED TO TURN NEW COLUMNS OR CREATE COLUMN EXTENSIONS FOR EXISTING REMNANTS. 5 1/2"1 1/2"1 1/2"1 1/2"1 1/2"1 1/2"3/4"1'-0 1/2"3/4"3/4"1'-0 1/2"3/4"1 1/2"1 1/2"1 1/2"1 1/2"1 1/2"2'-0"2'-0"7'-7"MAIN HISTORIC CORNER BOARD (PLAN) Scale: 3" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE 1X6 WOOD CORNER BOARD DUTCH BEVEL LAP SIDING RUNS BEHIND CORNER BOARD MAIN HISTORIC WATER TABLE (SECTION) Scale: 3" = 1'-0"4 DUTCH BEVEL LAP SIDING WOOD PAINTED WATER TABLE 1X6 HORIZONTAL BELLY BOARD APPLIED OVER BLOCKING FISH SCALE SIDING (ASSUMED TO BE INSTALLED OVER BLOCKING)EXISTING WALL STRUCTUREACCESSORY HISTORIC EAVE PROFILES Scale: 3" = 1'-0"8 1X SOFFIT DUTCH BEVEL LAP SIDING 1X FASCIA CROWN MOULDING COVE MOULDING EXISTING ROOF STRUCTUREEXISTING WALL STRUCTURE METAL DRIP EDGE FLASHING WOOD SHAKE ROOFING 1X61X12P167IV.B. Thursday, June 14, 2018 851 and 855 Gibson Duplex and Pine Tree (top) & Lampost (bottom) Facing Northwest Facing Northwest 5 Thursday, June 14, 2018 Nearing the Intersection of Gibson and Neale (Electrical Lines can also be viewed) Facing Southeast Facing Northwest 6 Thursday, June 14, 2018 • As the truck moves down Gibson Ave. there is a tall pine (possibly bristlecone?) in the ROW in front of the duplex at 851 and 855 Gibson. This tree may need limbed up. It is across from the historic log cabin structure that is integrated into the wood plank fence. (see photo below). Shortly before this tree is a lamppost that will need to be evaluated if it needs to be removed temporarily. •The low hanging tree at 925 Gibson may need limbed up. •All other trees on Gibson should be able to be netted and pulled back. •At the intersection of Gibson and Neale there are some low- hanging electrical lines (Holy Cross). Thunder Construction is meeting with Holy Cross to review potential for disconnecting the service, lifting the wires, and or burying the wires under the road. 931 Gibson: Comments made at Landmark’s destination site •Cottonwoods on NW corner of lot may need removed to permit trailer and house to back up and unload properly. •Justin Forman stated that he did not believe this alternate route would pose any major issues with the Engineering Department and most of the review process will be dictated by Ian Gray of the Parks Department and Sarah Yoon of HPC. Street signs may need to be dropped along the way but in general this seemed to be a more preferable route for his department. Confirm with City of Aspen Electric if lampposts need removed. Justin advised that Aspen Electric would not be too excited about this, and if possible we should try to avoid it. •Ian Gray emphasized that the trees that held highest priority in his mind were the cottonwoods located on the destination property: 931 Gibson Ave property. His preference is to protect the cottonwoods on the NW corner of 931 Gibson. There are choke cherries and less valuable trees and shrubs East of these cottonwoods that can be removed or limbed up if needed. If Bill Bailey can drive past the lot and then back his trolley in to avoid removing the cottonwoods it is preferable. There is a utility pedestal next to the mailbox at 931 Gibson that may need reviewed if this approach is taken. As of now Ian is not sure that the cottonwoods will be permitted to be removed. If they are permitted… mitigation is a definite. •Patrick Harris stated that with regards to the Construction Management Plan, most of these items could and would be reviewed at the time the building permit was applied for. Pat reminded all parties that any neighbors within 300’ of the entire route should be notified, not just neighbors who are within 300’ of the originating and destination sites. 3 Thursday, June 14, 2018 Comments while walking to 931 Gibson via Park Ave. • Many of the same comments apply to getting the historic landmark out of the existing lot and out of the Park Ave. cul-de-sac. Please see comments above. • 414 Park Circle - Smuggler Mountain Apartments. There is a group of cottonwoods in the ROW on the east side of the street (see photo right) that have low hanging limbs. Ian Gray estimated that 4 limbs will need to be removed and/ or limbed up. • Parking spaces in the ROW may need to be reserved/rented at 409 and 415 Park Circle. These spaces are on the west side of the street across from the Smuggler Mountain Apartments. • The route from 409 Park to the start of South Ave. (or approximately the start of the Smuggler Mountain Trailer Park) is clear and there are no obstructions. • Shortly after the entrance to the Smuggler Trailer Park there are a group of aspens in the ROW on South Ave. that may need to be netted and pulled back to avoid damage to some limbs that are in close proximity to the vertical edge of the curb. (See photo right) • Turn left onto Gibson Ave. According to Googlemaps Gibson Ave. turns into Neale Ave and then back into Gibson Ave. The street names are used interchangeably from here on out. • After the intersection with Maple Lane there is a small speed bump. The tree at this location may need to be limbed up or netted. 2 Truck-Beams-Dolly Configuration for moving 333 Park Ave Rear truck tires Text Dolly tires BECKERMAN HOUSERELOCATION PLAN PBW JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEFSS 17042 333_Park_Historic Preservation Plan.vwx 1/30/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSHP-022333 Park AveAspen, CO 81611CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT1/29/19HPC REVIEW 1Thursday, June 14, 2018 South Ave. between Race St. and Walnut St. Facing West Intersection of South Ave and Race Facing East 4 Thursday, June 14, 2018 F&M Architects 333 Park Landmark to 931 Gibson (#2) Route Walk-through #2 (via Park Ave.) Attendees: owners: Brian and Shelly Hendry owner representation: Monty Thompson, Thunder Construction Sara Adams, BendonAdams Flynn Stewart-Severy, F&M Architects Josh Rice, Woody Creek Engineering city representation: Sarah Yoon - City of Aspen - HPC Justin Forman - City of Aspen - Engineering Ian Gray, City of Aspen - Forrester Pat Harris, City of Aspen - CMP Key Original Comments New City Comments (Route Specific) New City Comments (General) Owner Team Comments For the sake of clarity many of the original walk-through comments remain in this document to reiterate that they are still required as part of the approval process. and will need to be addressed. 333 Park: Comments made at Landmark’s originating site •An agreement will be needed with all owners on our dead-end cul-de-sac of Park Ave. so that we can block their driveway/alley for a day +/-. •Police will need two week notice prior to the move. •Provide an outline to the City of schedule for moving both structures and estimated duration to move each structure. Which structure will be moved first? It was preliminarily estimated that each structure will take one day to move; however, the secondary historic structure will most likely be quicker as it is much smaller and clearances are much more manageable. •Justin Forman stated that the house will need to be moved in either April/May or September/ October. These are currently considered Aspen’s off-season windows. Ideally the move will occur between 10am and 3pm to avoid rush hour traffic conditions. •Address how emergency access will be handled during the move? •The bus route will be affected and will need to be temporarily modified. •Owner team will need to provide Bill Bailey’s trailer dimensions, specifically: wheel base dimensions and wheel track dimensions to confirm where anticipated pinch points will occur based on existing ROW widths and curbs. •Bill Bailey issued a diagram with dimensions to demonstrate the house loaded onto the truck beams and dolly. See Appendix A. Diagrams, Maps, and Pinch Point Elevational Schematics will be provided. •Bailey/Thunder to call dispatch at the beginning and end of each house pick. •Need to obtain copy of King St Park Ave & Gibson Ave. sidewalk plan - talk to Mike Horvath, City of Aspen Engineering. •Superfund Map shows that neither 931 Gibson, nor 333 Park Ave are superfund sites. 1 FRONT TRUCK TIRES REAR TRUCK TIRES HOUSE OUTLINE 25'X33' 45' LONG MAIN BEAMS DOUBLE I WELDED 60#/FT DOLLY TIRES BAILEY HOUSE MOVERS TRUCK-BEAMS-DOLLY CONFIGURATION FOR MOVING 333 PARK AVE TO 931 GIBSON AVE NOTE: BOTTOM OF FLOOR JOISTS WILL TRAVEL AT 3'-10" OR GREATER Map data ©2019 Google 200 ft 4 min 0.7 mile via Park Cir 3 min without tra c Drive 0.7 mile, 4 min333 Park Ave, Aspen, CO 81611 to 931 Gibson Avenue, Aspen, CO RELOCATION ROUTE P168IV.B. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ Applicant: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_______________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:________________________________________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 931 Gibson Ave 931 Gibson: Section: 7 Township: 10 Range: 84 LAND IN SE4 OF SEC 7-10-84 DESC BY M/B BK 513 PG 942, TRACT OF LAND IN THE SUNSET LODE USMS 5310 DESC BY M/B BK 513 PG 945 FROM THE BOARD OF PITKIN CO COMM 0% 0 ACRESSUNSET LODE, U.S.M.S. 5310 931 Gibson: 2737-074-00-004 BMH Investments 1001 Fannin St. #3850, Houston, TX 77002 713-725-1851 hendrybrian@mac.com BendonAdams, Sara Adams and F&M Architects, Flynn Stewart-Severy 300 So. Spring St., #202, Aspen, CO 81621 970-925-2855 x2 sara@bendonadams.com 931 Gibson: single family home built in 1987. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) remove non-historic additions on landmark, demolish home at 931 Gibson, relocate landmark to 931 Gibson and complete full restoration of landmark and construct an addition. Delist 333 Park property from historic inventory and list 931 Gibson on historic inventory after landmark is relocated. Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split Exhibit C P169 IV.B. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in Conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances Increased Density Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Park Dedication Fees Conditional Uses Tax Credits Exemption from Growth Management Quota System P170 IV.B. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Existing:___0_____Proposed:_____0____________ Existing:___1_______Proposed:______1________ Proposed % of demolition: __100%____ DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ 931 Gibson BMH Investments, represented by BendonAdams and F&M Architects 931 Gibson Avenue R-15A931Gibson: 15,497 sf 931 Gibson: 15,497 sf 4,530 25 25 2 n/a n/a 25' 10' living / 5' basement 10' 10' n/a 10' Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: _______________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): __________none. any identified slopes on survey result from development and are not natural. P171 IV.B. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Property Owner ("I"): Address of BMH Investments LTD Property: 931 Gibson Ave (Subject of application) Phone No.: 713-725-1851 Email: hendrybrian@mac.com Billing Address: (send bills here) 1001 Fannin St. #3850 Houston, TX 77002 I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $._975 __ flat fee for _PARKS ___ _ $. _____ flat fee for ___________ _ $. __ $. _____ flat fee for ___________ _ For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $_1,950 _____ deposit for __ 6 ____ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $_325 _____ deposit for __ 1 ___ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $ __ Received $ __ _ Pro�/1� Name: 16R1k{ tter/01<.t. Title: ______ _ March, 2016 City of Apen I 130 S. Galena St. I (970) 920 SOSO exhibit D P172 IV.B. exhibit E P173 IV.B. • • • • • exhibits C & D E F G H P174 IV.B. ¼ L I M A B N N N P175 IV.B. exhibit F P176 IV.B. P177 IV.B. P178 IV.B. P179 IV.B. P180 IV.B. P181 IV.B. P182 IV.B. P183 IV.B. P184 IV.B. P185 IV.B. P186 IV.B. P187 IV.B. Exhibit G P188 IV.B. Exhibit H P189 IV.B. 113 122 111 121 110 993 995 932 975 508 510 210 208 200 982 980 500 505 501 930 920 990 935 931 129 231 229 227 225 328 326 425 127 125 123 121 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 228 226 224 222 424 1050 409 415 990 1000 1040 414 985 988 980 996998 950 940 515 407 753 938 927 910 925 855 851 860 110 119 117 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 925 932 114 113 109 111 115 117 119 920 930 925 935 936 955 955 223 221 324 322 325 220 218 115 113 111106 108 730 931 Gibson Vicinity Map Historic Sites Parcel Boundary 1/16/2019, 3:10:16 PM 0 0.03 0.050.01 mi 0 0.04 0.090.02 km 1:2,257 CityofAspenGIS; City of Aspen Community Development | The CityofAspen GIS Department presents the information on this website as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information is accurate. The CityofAspen GIS Department exhibit I P190IV.B. 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent were Sheri Sanzone and Willis Pember. Staff present: Linda Manning, City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Greenwood said she was not here for that meeting, but she read the minutes and it seemed interesting. Mr. Blaich moved to approve the draft minutes for June 13th, 2018, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Halferty entered the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko said the Meadows is looking pretty amazing. They did it pretty quickly and amazingly. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Ms. Simon said she is recusing herself from 330 Park and 931 Gibson. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she will speak with Mr. Halferty and Mr. Kendrick tomorrow about St. Mary’s. She will discuss by email tomorrow along with two projects to show Mr. Blaich shortly. Ms. Greenwood asked if all the projects are covered. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t think so and she has a few upcoming requests. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon reminded everyone that they have been invited to an opening reception for St. Mary’s sanctuary project on Sunday. She also sent them an email asking for a special meeting on Aug 1st. We do have a quorum, but she would like to know if anyone cannot make it. Mr. Pember is unavailable. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon issued one for 520 E. Hyman, which is the building where I Pro is for some work on the third-floor penthouse unit. We also issued one for a remodel of the space where BB’s kitchen was. She also received an application for 501 E Hyman for an addition between Clark’s and Marcus. This application is to add a new entry door to the non-historic addition. After discussing with the building department, we felt this was resolved in a way that met guidelines and did not need HPC review. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said everything is in order. CALL UP REPORTS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 333 Park and 931 Gibson Sarah Yoon exhibit J P191 IV.B. 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 This involves the relocation of the historic residence to new lot on 931 Gibson. Currently, 333 Park is in the R6 zone district. The rear property faces the Roaring Fork River. 333 Park contains two historic resources, which are proposed to be relocated. It was located to this site in the 1960s from Main Street. It was designated historic in 1995. 931 Gibson is in R15A zone district. Currently, there is a residential building on this site with a demo permit that has expired. The applicant is exploring different routes for relocation. The review requests are as follows: approval of demo of non-historic additions, relocation of 2 historic resources to the new site and rescinding the historic designation from 333 Park. For 931 Gibson, the applicant is requesting approval of relocation to this site and the designation of the property to protect the historic resources, the design approval for a basement and above ground addition which has a 10-ft. connector and 10 ft. one car garage along with demolition of the residence on the current lot. The applicant is requesting dimensional variances for the front and rear yard setbacks and the 500- sq. ft. bonus. On page 2 of the staff memo, it outlines the review process as it will involve Council heavily in the review process. The applicant proposes to restore the original Sanborn map footprint configuration of the two historic resources and reorient the front façade back to street facing, which will increase its visibility. Ms. Yoon showed images of the original footprint. In reviewing the criteria for relocation, 333 Parkis not in a historic district and the resource will not have any adverse impacts on area. It is an acceptable alternative in this case and they meet all three of the additional criteria. There is an argument that the current location is over 50 years and of historical importance. The applicant has proposed to restore the historical character. They have also proposed a minor addition to the rear of the resource, which is in compliance with HPC guidelines. With the relocation, staff has concerns with the changes in allowable floor area on the accepting site. The new calculations differ from what was in the packet and are being passed out at the meeting. The lot sizes are significantly different from each other so the relocation will increase the floor area by 922 ft., not including the floor area bonus. The historic resource will now allow two detached units on the site, which was not allowed prior to the relocation. Regarding the demo criteria, the demo of all non-historic additions is supported. The applicant expressed that the first design, is the preferred designed. Staff has concerns with the connector, the site placement of the garage and request of the front setback variation. The applicant has provided a revised design that redesigned the connector from 5 to 10 feet in length and the above grade addition has been reduced to a single car garage to 250 from 500. In this design, the applicant has extended the connecting element to 10 ft. and reduced the above grade addition. They also moved back the addition so the variation will only be for the front porch. They are still asking for the sub grade variation for the living space. They do request the 500-sq. ft. bonus for their preservation efforts and want it for the Gibson space and meets six of the eight criteria for the bonus. HPC may grant up to 500 sq. ft., not on rights, but merits. Staff supports relocation of the historic resource with exception of the sub grade variation. The lot can accommodate for the basement without a variation. HPC will need to determine the following issues: $150,000 deposit necessary for relocation of the outbuilding, the granting of the floor area and the total amount and the granting of the front and rear yard setbacks. Ms. Greenwood said they discussed at the site, the potential of the front porch as historic. She said it is not represented in the presentation. Ms. Yoon said the Sandborn map footprint indicated a porch. Ms. Greenwood said that needs to be communicated. She also asked what is your thinking on the setback variance for below grade and not supporting it. Ms. Yoon said the new site has the capacity for the basement and it would not require the variance. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams of Bendon Adams, Flynn Stewart-Severy of F&M Architects, Brian Hendry, owner and Monty Thompson of Thunder Construction Mr. Hendry introduced himself and said he has a wife, Michelle. We have four kids and two dogs and have been coming here for 16 years and spend three months a year here. We first saw the property P192 IV.B. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 about seven years ago and we saw it for sale last summer and jumped on it. We love the house and the location. We are looking forward to restoring it to its original condition and we have spent the last year developing a plan for what we can do with the house. Ms. Adams said they have a long list of requests on the screen, but it’s a basic concept to pick up the two historic resources, remove the non- historic additions and move them to a more appropriate location and swap the historic designations. We are requesting conceptual approval for a one car garage. We are requesting a floor area bonus with a condition that it be completely allocated to a future detached home on the Gibson property and we are fine with it being allocated to below grade space. This property was constructed in 1889 by the Jacobs family and was located on a 3K sq. lot., but proposed to be on a 5K lot. The setback was 14 feet so this is part of why we feel the variance is appropriate. You can see the one story historic addition from the street and the barn along the alley. It changed hands a few times after Jacobs constructed it and in 1961 the land under the house was purchased. Mable placed an ad to sell the historic building. The Bibbig’s purchased the property and moved it to Park in 1962. The historic building has survived till today. Ms. Adams showed images of the facades as they are today. They went through four iterations within 333 Park before asking for relocation and worked on this for about a year. There are stream margin setbacks, R6 and 45-degree angle progressive height setbacks to work within. All required a lotof variances and no visibility to the street. Flynn scaled the Sanborn map and Brian found the Gibson property and we found that the Sanborn fits on this property with some massaging. We have been working with parks to find an acceptable route and we have now met with them twice and are still working with them to come up with a route that will work with everyone. Priorities are to fully restore the landmark, bring back the original Main Street configuration and have some street presence. 931 Gibson isa large flat lot and the intention is to move all the floor area not used by the landmark and designate it to a detached single- family home. There would be two homes on this lot and the floor area of a duplex on this lot is comparable to what we are asking for and we think it is better for the neighborhood. The new building would be under HPC purview since it would be a designated lot. There would be less density than the original Main Street location. Looking at context, Ms. Adams showed a map of the designated properties and showed an image of the original proposal with a two-car garage and a five-foot connector. All of the new square footage is below grade and we would be requesting the 500-sq. ft. bonus be allocated to the new home. They are fine with the preference that the bonus be used below grade. The level of restoration is not just physical, but we would be restoring context. This is a serious preservation effort going on here. We are requesting two setback variations to realign the historic addition and add the garage. The garage meets the 5 ft. above grade setback but needs the below grade variation. For the front yard setback, the preservation approach was to have the landmark be prominent along the street. The new detached building, proposed in the future, will be required to meet the 25-foot setback line and this is just for the landmark. As for the alternate option, the only way to elongate the connector from 5 to 10 feet, is to lose a garage bay. We would be pulling the landmark façade to the 25-foot setback line. We are still requesting the below grade setback variance for 5 feet. We don’t prefer the one car garage option and feel strongly that the front yard setback should match those along Main Street. We are requesting a decision tonight as we have another step to go with City Council. This is a unique project and a great opportunity. Mr. Kendrick asked when was the property designated historic. Ms. Adams said 1995. Mr. Kendrick asked if there were any incentives given atthat time and Ms. Adams said no, it was a blanket designation. P193 IV.B. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 Ms. Greenwood asked what part of 931 Gibson is being designated and Ms. Adams said the entire parcel. Ms. Greenwood asked why are we not seeing what is being proposed for the new building because this is a serious problem moving forward without that building. Ms. Garrow said when we looked at the code, we would prefer to see the 2nd building, but it is not required. The criteria for granting the floor area bonus are really about the preservation effort of the historic resource itself and not about the additions of the separate building, so they felt comfortable moving forward. The entire lot is being designated, so at whatever point in the future they decided to move forward with a second building, it would fall under HPC’s purview. Ms. Garrow said this is a unique proposal and made sense to them to move forward. Ms. Greenwood said she finds that to be very odd because we grapple with the bonus and mass and scale on historic properties so it feels contrary to what we do on this board. She said she has a serious problem with that and it probably should have been discussed. Ms. Garrow said that one option on the bonus is that the decision will not be made until the second structure is proposed. Ms. Greenwood said this is not what my clients have dealt with doing almost the same thing. The lack of consistency with interpretation of the codes is disturbing. Since it is in the R15 zone, when it is a duplex you can see the reason for a deep setback, so did you ever consider asking for less of a setback so you could maintain a two-car garage. Ms. Adams said we would be open to that. We wanted to be sensitive to the requests we came in with. We want to be sensitive to the neighbors and their 25- foot setbacks. Ms. Greenwood asked if they anticipate the new building will have a 25-foot setback. Ms. Adams said we would be coming in with the 25-foot setback and we understand how the board feels about setbacks. Mr. Stewart- Severy agreed with Ms. Adams and said because it comes under HPC purview, it would be addressed. Having the historic home sit in front of the new development is a nice gesture. Mr. Kendrick asked if the FAR can be based on the quality of the restoration, conditionally once the project is complete and Ms. Garrow said there is a lot of discretion given to HPC so if you wanted to add conditions based on additional review, you have the latitude to condition it. PUBLIC COMMENT: 1. Alan Becker, neighbor on Matchless Drive, concerned with additional structures. We don’t know what they are going to be or look like. Mr. Becker sked what the intention for the property is and said he is concerned with what the 5-foot setback on the rear of the property means. Ms. Greenwood explained. Mr. Becker said he generally likes to know the proposed usage and intent for the additional structures. He asked what the estimated timeframe for the historic and new structures would be. Ms. Adams said Brian and Shelly own the property and they are trying to figure out the intent. They are not sure if they can fit their four kids and two dogs on the property. The historic home is about 2000 square foot of floor area and the detached structure would be about 2500 sq. ft. and 500 with the bonus. If the bonus is allocated to the basement, that is what we will do. Ms. Garrow said as staff, we struggled a little bit with what you do with the bonus and it does meet the criteria. Not knowing what a 2nd building will look like, we said if the bonus is granted, we prefer it will be located in the basement knowing it will be difficult to parse out. If HPC is uncomfortable with that language, we can remove it. Ms. Adams said if you grant the bonus, it will be 3000 square feet of FAR and that is 1000 square feet more than the landmark. Mr. Becker said my old understanding was the bonus is up to 500 sq. ft. Ms. Greenwood said that is correct. 2. David Harris, lives at 117 Neale Ave in a historic resource. He said these kinds of projects are really good things as long as they are done in a complete manner. Regarding the front yard setback, my porch sits 10 feet off the sidewalk. In zones where you have a 25-foot setback, they are dead places, so I encourage you to take a look at that. What is better than having people P194 IV.B. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 enjoy each other. What goes along with that is a sidewalk, is there is “staff” who have decided that sidewalks are inappropriate in our neighborhoods, so please make sure there is a sidewalk. Ms. Greenwood asked if engineering is requiring you to put in a sidewalk. Ms. Garrow said it will be required. Because the zone allows there to be 2 separate buildings, you should try to master plan the site. Mr. Lai said he is not familiar with his house but if he prefers the traffic in front of your house, I would like to take a look atthat. 3. Mike Maple asked when was the last time other than the relocation of Zupancis, that there was a relocation like this and how often does this happen. Ms. Garrow said it is a very unique project and there were two of these types of relocations, one in 1988 – 134 ½ West Hopkins moved and the Zupancis. There were a lot of properties moved in the 60s and 70s. This is a gigantic site and quite unusual. Mr. Maple said his family owned and occupied the adjacent property for 50 years. It’s a brilliant plan to create development in excess of 3 million dollars. This is asking for too much. The idea of two structures plus FAR bonus is asking for 18% increase of development potential. If the home was being relocated to a historic area, it may be appropriate. 4. Christine Dodaro, lives across the street. She doesn’t think the mailing said what will be built on the second part of the lot and is concerned about that. Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment. Ms. Adams said as for the development of the second lot, it would be a single-family home. It is nice to hear mike’s comments and we have put our best foot forward with a good solution. It comes with some tradeoffs and it will be a single-family home that will meet your design guidelines. We are open to phasing in the bonus. Mr. Hendry said he is not a developer and their intention was to buy one house, but this has escalated due to scenarios that developed once we built the house. Our intention is not to disturb or be a hindrance to your mother and father. Our intention is to stay in the house. Mr. Stewart- Severy said the garage we proposed is based off the Sandborn maps and it is depicted more off a barn than anything else. The vertical height is up for debate and the original barn was taller than the single- story structure. Ms. Greenwood summarized the issues and said that staff is asking for a demo of non-historic addition, relocation of Victorian to a non-historic site creating a new landmark designation where one never existed. Staff feels like we should give them a 500-ft. bonus. Mr. Halferty said the proposed development has strong merits. The relocation would add some prominence to Gibson. He is ok with some of the variances. The FAR bonus is hard to get his hands around since it is on a lot where there is no house. It is hard to allocate whether it is sub or above grade when we don’t know the architecture. He thinks the last iteration with the garage in the back is admirable and the connecting element works. It is a large lot and the proposed foot print works. The presence towards Gibson works and conforms to the guidelines. He needs to look more at site planning for garage access. In defense of applicants they have not gone through the design of the other lot, but it would be nice to see it. The project is on its way and it is a strong restoration effort. The FAR bonus is questionable, but he is not saying it is not warranted. He is curious as to where the receiving site would be. He is in favor of the partial demo and the setback variance. He is curious of the receiving area and site location of FAR bonus. P195 IV.B. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 Mr. Lai said regarding the rear setback, he is ok with it as it is reasonable with the garage. It is logical to put the barrier wall below, under it. At the beginning, he was in favor of keeping the 25 feet in the front, but has been persuaded by Mr. Harris that there may be a social advantage to it. He agrees with the chair on the 500-foot bonus, but is skeptical about bonuses generally. He would need to be persuaded that the preservation is exemplary. Mr. Kendrick said this is an interesting solution to a difficult problem. He likes that the two historic pieces are coming back together in an original configuration and is fine with the setback. He does have a problem with the FAR bonus with not knowing what the new building will look like. I know I will not be in favor of any setbacks for the new building. Moving the building is giving it a lot of value. Mr. Moyer said he is totally in favor of the renovation and removal of the additions of the resource and he is in favor of moving it to the new site. He would like to see a two-car garage and seeing it closer to the sidewalk. We know there will be a structure on the corner and recreating the vitality would be helpful. He has no issue with the rear setback. He does not have an issue with the bonus ifit is underground. Most of the time, he is totally against giving any type of bonus especially redoing a resource that has been unknown for a number of years. It is interesting, we know we could have an 8000 plus structure and we are getting much less and it will creates more of a neighborhood and I’m willing to allow a little discretion. Ms. Berko said for her, underground doesn’t count and she doesn’t quite understand that. She thanked Ms. Adams for doing the research about the property. Thank you all for the public comment. It is a wonderful building that should be seen. Until Mr. Harris brought up the sidewalk and the setbacks, I wasn’t for them. I would like to see them tied to the requirement of a sidewalk. I like the revision of the 10-foot connector. I’m not sure why if you move it forward why you need the rear yard setback. He’s having a hard time with the bonus. I don’t know what is going to be there. Tying it to what Main Street was doesn’t mean much since none of us know it from there. It’s less important to recreate the Main Street situation. It leaves a potentially huge structure next door. Mr. Moyer said in the 1990s, we had a concept with shared driveways. That will happen here. Prior to that, there were a lot of projects that weren’t that great. I would like to see the sidewalk here and the new project will be set back 25 feet. Mr. Blaich said this is a commendable project. The owner and staff worked hard on getting it resolved. He heard some objections that he hadn’t considered. I would be in favor of a 2-car garage. I’ve watched that neighborhood change over the years. Ms. Greenwood personally feels, given a 6000-square foot lot, she is totally in favor of the demo and moving the structure. Being able to do that is your bonus. As Mr. Maple pointed out, you are getting a lotof development rights by getting a historic designation where one doesn’t exist. For me, you got a bonus by that. Not a square foot one, but a development one. Regarding the setbacks, I don’t think it is appropriate to have a 5 foot one for a garage you don’t access off the alley. Maybe the garage is in the wrong location. New construction should be a product of its own time. In an R zone, the rear yard setback is 10 feet. Given a site of this size, the rear set back should be 10 feet. I don’t think anyone is in favor of the 500-square foot bonus. I’m not in favor of the setback for the garage. I would rather see a lesser set back up front. The demo of the historic addition and moving it is a great idea. The whole site becoming historic is a lot to grant somebody. P196 IV.B. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 Ms. Garrow said that after listening to the comments, she has a suggestion. It seems like you are in favor of the demo and relocation. If you are inclined to approve the demo, relocation and change in historic designation, we can include an update to show both buildings after council approval then the floor area bonus could be awarded at conceptual. Ms. Greenwood said the conceptual major development is not ready to be assessed. Ms. Garrow said the suggestion is to take the bonus off the table. If HPC supports the design and grants the conceptual, we can make the recommendation to council to add a condition and there be an amended conceptual before final. Ms. Greenwood asked why we can’t approve the relocation and continue the conceptual. Ms. Garrow said you would only be making a recommendation to council. The issue is when council approves the ordinance, we would have no idea where the building is going. Ms. Greenwood asked what is wrong with that. She said she would push for a two-car garage. Ms. Garrow said it looks like the applicant is amenable to pulling the conceptual out and just making a recommendation on the relocation and partial demolition. Mr. Moyer said let’s keep it simple and give them the permission to move and come up with something better than what they have now. Ms. Greenwood said the restoration effort is excellent, but the garage could use some work. Mr. Stewart-Severy asked what she meant and Ms. Greenwood said this is just to be sensitive to the neighbors. With a site that large, it should be 10 feet off the property line. MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to approve resolution #9 for recommendation to City Council to approve the relocation from 333 Park to 931 Gibson, rescinding the designation at Park and adding designation to Gibson and landmark relocating building and removing non-historic parts. This is only section 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Sections 2, 3, 4 and 6 have been deleted. Mr. Kendrick seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Kendrick, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 7-0, motion carried. Ms. Garrow stated that if council approves the demo and relocation, the applicant will come back after city council. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 6:30 p.m. Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P197 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................... 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 Resolution #116, Series of 2018 – Electrical Standards Upgrade ........................................................ 5 Resolution #125, Series of 2018 – Contract with HDR Engineering, Inc for SHIFT Data Support and Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Resolution #123, Series of 2018 – CORE REMP Request ................................................................... 5 Resolution #124, Series of 2018 – Shift Contract with Miles App ....................................................... 5 Resolution #114, Series of 2018 – Third Party Engineering Development Review Services .............. 5 Resolution #126, Series of 2018 – 7th and Main St Concrete Paving and Waterline Improvements .... 5 Board Appointment ............................................................................................................................... 5 Resolution #103, Series of 2018 – 7th Galena and Main Street Bus Stop and Pedestrian Improvements Project ................................................................................................................................... 5 Minutes – August 13, 2018 ................................................................................................................... 5 ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2018 – 500 W. Main Street – Historic Landmark Lot Split, TDRs, Special Review and Variations ..................................................................................................................... 5 ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2018 - 333 Park / 931 Gibson – Relocation ............................................ 9 RESOLUTION #122, SERIES OF 2018 – 305 S Mill St. – Grey Lady Restaurant – Temporary Use ...... 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION ............................................................................................................................. 13 RESOLUTION #130, SERIES OF 2018 – Amend Extend Contract for 517 E Hopkins 204 S Galena .... 14 ORDINANCE #19 & # 20, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 10.5 of the Charter regarding enterprise fund bonding .............................................................................................................. 15 ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 11.4 of the Charter regarding franchises. ................................................................................................................................................... 16 exhibit K P198 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 9 TDRs go away. To do any TDRs would require a lot split and that would permit free market and for that reason I won’t support this. Councilwoman Mullins said in response to that we started because it is a restoration of a building. It is sounding like that becomes more and more challenging if there are no TDRs available to sell. We do want to focus on they are restoring the building and doing a beautiful job. We want to make sure that can happen. Councilman Frisch said if a certain amount of TRDs are severed the development will probably be gone. I think you are going to be selling all of them or maybe one or two. My dream would be they get all 7 TDRs and go remodel the building and an affordable housing project pencils out for them. I think the question is if more than a few TDRs leave the space it becomes almost undevelopable. I want to make sure the restoration happens. I think we come down to how many TDRs. Mayor Skadron said we have four different directions. I think this is the perfect example of TDRs as an appropriate preservation tool. I think this project is exemplary. I think that satisfies the requirement of the public amenity space. It would be my preference that the applicant sells all the TDRs at some point and while I can’t use the applicants character or commitment to the character or love of building or love of place as a criteria to satisfy what’s before me, I can find that criteria for historic lot split for the TDRs for special review and commercial design review are satisfied and I’m willing to support this as presented and move forward and that is the appropriate direction to go. Councilman Frisch said I appreciate that. The downside in Ann’s mind and a little of mine is we could see that lot be left with 250 square feet and nothing more. Mayor Skadron replied yes. Councilwoman Mullins said she will support this as I can’t get support for my partial TDR suggestion. I don’t want to risk losing the lot split and probably then losing the restoration of the building. What I’ll do is hope that not all the TDRs get sold and at some point you can develop a small affordable housing structure to fill in the gap on Main Street. The main focus is to get the restoration completed. Mayor Skadron said say not all the TDRs get sold is the transfer of the 750 a protection against unwanted development that the 26 letter writers don’t want. Ms. Simon replied I don’t think so. It may get accommodated in the set backs anyways. It might create a squished building that wouldn’t fit. It is probably best just left alone. The owner will make the best decision for the lot. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2018 - 333 Park / 931 Gibson – Relocation Sarah Yoon, community development, told the council this application is for the relocation of the historic resource, demolition of all non-historic additions, rescinding of designation if relocation to the new sit is approved and designation after receiving of the historic resources to the new site. The historic buildings were originally located on a 3,000 square foot lot on Main Street. The applicant proposes to focus on restoration of the resource including a full exterior restoration, relocating and restoring the original Sandborn configuration, reorienting the front façade back to street facing and increasing the visibility of the historic residence. They have also been working with parks and engineering on the logistics of the relocation. HPC recommends in favor of relocation. Questions from 1st reading. More information about allowable development on both lots. Lot 333 is currently over allowable and they are not proposing any more development. Allowable is based on new lot areas. 1 TDR will also be allowed to be landed. 931 is 15,000 square feet and in R15A. Allowable for a single family is 4,000 square feet. If the lot is designated it will allow two detached dwelling units but the floor area will remain. If designated, all proposed designs will be subject to the HP design guidelines. Question in regard to relocation examples. Prior to HPC many structures were relocated. 134 ½ Hopkins was relocated from Spring Street but it did not have landmark status. A more recent case is the 2016 relocation of the Zupancis cabins to the Marolt property. P199 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 10 Site context for the receiving site. The Sandborn maps are used for accuracy. Gibson is not noted on these maps, so the Aspen Willits maps were used. HPC and staff recommends approval for the relocation. Sara Adams, representing the application, said the application is for relocation and designation and a one car garage behind the landmark. We wanted to show intent to move the landmark to Gibson but are not prepared to show the new building for Gibson. HPC preferred we come to your first, withdraw the conceptual application then come back with a conceptual application for both homes at Gibson and go through the regular process. HPC voted 7 to 0 in favor of relocation, demolition and designation. We will return to them and be subject to whatever code is in place when we submit our application. She showed a photo of Main Street in the 1890’s. The home was originally constructed in 1889 by the Jacobs family. Mabel and John Beckerman purchased the property in 1892. In 1961 the land was purchased and Mable placed an ad in the paper to sell the building. She showed a photo with the one story home and two story addition. A lot of the historic building is intact. The home is perched above the river. She showed images with non historic additions of what would be removed. She showed an image with the restrictions on 333 Park and how they tried to fit the home on the property. We had to find an acceptable relocation method that would increase the character and integrity of the building. The integrity s core increases by 25 points when the building is moved to Park. Priorities for the project include a fully restored building, original configuration with the secondary historic building attached at the rear, brining street presence and remove the stream margin non conformities at 333 Park. Brian found 931 Gibson. It is a 15,500 square foot relatively flat lot. The relationship to grade would be restored. The entire lot is proposed to be designated. There is no proposal for a historic lot split. There is no change to the allowable floor area. We are proposing two detached single family homes with single family floor area. Councilman Hauenstein asked are all the garages two car garages for 333. Ms. Adams replied yes. The requirement is a two car garage. Councilman Hauenstein asked if a single car garage is used on the 333 parcel is there a scenario where it fits in. Ms. Adams replied no, the service space would still be off the property. Councilwoman Mullins said this lot, you could do a lot split but there is no room for a second building. Ms. Yoon said yes. Councilwoman Mullins said the other lot is 15,000 square foot, receives a designation so you can put the two structures there. How can you get the two structures there if it is not a lot split. Ms. Garrow replied it is allowed by the underlying zoning. Councilman Myrin said page 291 show the property on a 3,000 square foot lot. How many examples from HPC when no variances are granted. Ms. Garrow said each site is different. Typically, something is requested, setback or change in parking, a floor area bonus. Councilman Myrin said so that could happen here going back to HPC. Are there other examples where it wasn’t historic then became historic. Ms. Garrow said those were the two examples we outlined in the memo with relocation. There are a handful of Aspenmodern that we didn’t analyze. It is rare. Councilman Frisch said on one hand we are all concerned about moving not just homes around but if HP was around in the 60’s no one would have allowed the home to be dropped there and faced that way. I’m not sure if this goes through other people won’t be looking for other places to do it. It becomes a density issue. The plan is to move the building to 931 then there is an undesignated undeveloped piece of property. Ms. Yoon replied correct. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Sandy Maple said his parents live next door to the Gibson lot. The lot was designated in 1995 so we should be done. There is no reason to change that except perhaps to remove the non-historic P200 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 11 parts of it. The 931 Gibson lot is a large lot in a low density area. To allow two buildings there increases the density. It is a rectangular lot that requires no variances. The easiest thing to do would be deny the request. If council allows them to do this at least ensure the lot cannot be split. 2. Daryl Cramer on behalf of Jeffrey and Janet Beck said obvious with only two instances in the last 50 years this is an extraordinary event. One thing that sticks out is the density bonus from this move. We have concerns about massing, ingress/egress and lot splits. 3. Sally Golden said 333 Park is a hidden landmark that faces the wrong direction. She feels that the proposal to move to Gibson is the best preservation approach. 4. Bill Stirling said the HP program needs a lot of tools. Very little was in place in the 80s. This in no way opens Pandora’s box and the few examples given by staff is indicative of that. He strongly feels that council should recommend relocation and designation. 5. Daryl suggest the ordinance be subject to conditions and only one structure not two. If not that then not split. 6. Adam Rothberg, 931 Gibson, what I was going to build was dramatically bigger than what they are proposing. My only issue is that I didn’t think of it. Part of the requirement is a sidewalk. It makes so much sense. It is not without a huge expense to move all that. This is a unique situation and a good idea. 7. Jeffrey Beck, neighbor, when I bought my home I assumed next to me I would have one home. At the very least this lot should be deed restricted. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Ms. Garrow said in terms of floor area and density, if approved, the floor area and density will be the same as allowed today. Without designation it has to be attached in a duplex. The floor area and density remain the same. Ms. Yoon said historic designation adds a layer of design review that is not currently at Gibson. It allows the neighborhood to comment and request feedback and participate in the review. Councilwoman Mullins said it is an interesting idea. One thing I keep going back to is I’m very concerned with the integrity of the HP program. We’ve got a lot of different tools to restore our resources. You don’t want to manipulate those tools that it becomes a detriment to the program. The reason for rescinding a designation is the property no longer meets the criteria. I’m not convinced what you are presenting is strong enough to chip away at our HP program. The idea it is not seen from the road, it is. The idea of putting all sorts of conditions on the development of the lot is what I objected to on the previous application. My biggest concern is this somewhat effects the integrity of the program. Ms. Garrow said only upon the relocation does the designation occur. Councilman Frisch said is the land underneath the sight worth anything to the program. How much value should we put on it. Because this has already been moved once that’s where staff is suggesting there is some flexibility. Councilman Myrin said if it stays where it is it seems in scale with the space. TDRs could go to the Gibson lot and be built without council review. Rather than moving the house I would move development rights. Mr. True said that is not the application that is in front of you here. Councilman Myrin said I’m not supportive of relocating. I don’t think it adds to the historic character of the parcel by relocating. Councilwoman Mullins said this program is under attack because it is viewed as a money making deal. This looks a lot like those other deals. Brian Hendrys, owner, said it is not about making money but P201 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 12 trying to move my family to this town. What if we remove the driveway and garage from the historic home. Councilman Frisch said he is open to having the historic structure moved. I believe HPC was right in what they were trying to do. I want to see one owner, one house one garage. Councilman Hauenstein said he is open to moving the structure to 931 but I don’t want to do that without more definition about what is going to happen to 931. I want to see a sidewalk and one building structure and assurances to us that it is not just another HPC money making deal. I’m not prepared to make a final decision tonight. I’m open to moving the resource. Councilwoman Mullins said one of the things we need to understand if we approve moving the house with one garage and one driveway is maybe it stays there with you as an owner, but would it stay that way forever. Mayor Skadron said I think relocation is the best preservation opportunity for the resource. The current location isn’t the original location. 931 could be argued to be a better landing site. I appreciate that HPC supported this. I think it is the best solution for the resource. Relocating allows the historic relationship to be more appropriate. I’m persuaded it will not result in more density or impact to the neighbors. Councilman Frisch said what I want to see is a single ownership and one house. Mr. True said it sounds like a continuance is appropriate. We can work to get a process for some of the protections council is looking for. Mayor Skadron said he could move this forward tonight because he finds that the relocation review criteria, the demolition review criteria and the rescinding designation and historic designation criteria are satisfied. What I’m not hearing from my fellow councilmembers are objections to those criteria. Councilman Myrin said against the criteria 26.415.090 page 237 number 2, I don’t think it contributes to the overall character of the historic parcel to move this and I think it will have an adverse impact on the property. Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #22, Series of 2018 to September 17, 2018; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #122, SERIES OF 2018 – 305 S Mill St. – Grey Lady Restaurant – Temporary Use Ben Anderson, community development, stated over the last five years there have been requests for a temporary structure. It is a clear plastic covering and walls made of grey canvas. The request is for 120 days including a request for a Saturday market. To clarify one thing in the memo, there was a requirement from last year where the structure was to come down at end of April. The roof came down and the walls remained. At some point during the summer the roof went back up. For a period of time the conditions were met. Our concern is around the commercial design guidelines. Ryan Chadwick, owner, said I have a clear plastic top and the sides rolled up. If it’s not on there perfect I can’t take it down. With the top on I don’t have to use heat. I applied for a removable permit for the top and it was approved a few years ago. Last year I had sail boat sails on the roof, this year we put the clear top on. He showed a video from the market last year. I’m not supposed to be here now because my lease was to end but the landlord keeps extending it. Siam Castillo, market manager, said we did 25 markets with 25 vendors. The restaurant was there for us whatever we needed. I ‘ve had a bunch of new people ask me about it for this year. P202 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 13 Mayor Skadron asked do the additional seats generate additional business. Mr. Chadwick said it depends, during the busy weeks it does. We would have live music in there. It’s nice to have the lights on in there. Councilwoman Mullins said she did go to the market more than a few times. Some days it was slow some days it was quite good. It was a real benefit to the mall. Ms. Garrow said there may have been some confusion on the resolution. We did a site visit and the roof was gone. If council is inclined to approve this I would suggest language that it is crystal clear that the roof needs to be gone. There is an old approval for a retractable canopy that supersedes this. I would rather have a clear covering. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to have the winter market there again. I don’t like to have this misunderstanding about what is there. I would like to see all the stuff gone until December. Councilman Myrin said the memo mentioned $6,769 in mitigation. Mr. Anderson said that was based on the days we think it has been up. There was growth management paid for. That figure was an estimate on the roof covering. Staff recommendation was not to include it. Councilman Myrin said my feeling is this is what we need. Without restaurants and without housing this town will not work. I support this. Councilman Hauenstein said with the conditions it comes down on the 20th of April. Ms. Garrow said we would ask you set a date that the roof needs to come off now then after the season. Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of staff recommendation as well as getting the Saturday market to end up at a different place in town. Mayor Skadron said one of the benefits of this including the market was the improved corner esthetic. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin moved to approve Resolution #122, Series of 2018 with amendment to Section 1 that the covering and walls are removed within 7 days and all come down within 7 days of April 20, 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor except Councilman Frisch. Motion carried. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. True recommend council go in to executive session and continue the remainder of the agenda for tomorrow. Staff recommends pursuant to C.R.S. 24.6.402 (4) (a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions; (e)Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations and instructing negotiators related to Goshorn & Goldenberg v City of Aspen 2017CV12 and 20107CV and the Contract for purchase of E. Hopkins and 204 S Galena spaces. At 11:35 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. At 12:30 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Hauenstein moved to continue the regular meeting to August 28, 2018 at 4:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. August 28, 2018 At 4:10 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the continued regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin, Frisch, Mullins and Hauenstein present. P203 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 14 Mr. True recommend council go in to executive session. Staff recommends council go in to executive session pursuant to C.R.S. 24.6.402 (4) (a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions; (e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations and instructing negotiators related to Goshorn & Goldenberg v City of Aspen 2017CV12 and 20107CV and the Contract for purchase of E. Hopkins and 204 S Galena spaces and another litigation issue. Councilwoman Mullins moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. At 4:35 p.m. Councilman Hauenstein moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #130, SERIES OF 2018 – Amend Extend Contract for 517 E Hopkins 204 S Galena Mayor Skadron said Mark Hunt has agreed to extend his contract until December if the matter goes on the ballot. He can terminate the contract if we don’t put it on the ballot. It would be an either or between his option and Ordinance 4. Putting this on the ballot is conditioned on the litigants, Toni Kronberg, Steve Goldenberg and Marcia Goshorn dropping the lawsuit. Mayor Skadron opened public comment. 1. Pam Alexander said it is never too late to make the best decision. She asked if we can have more than two things on the ballot. She said it might be time to re-evaluate. 2. Andrew Sandler said this is an amazing opportunity that the private sector is collaborating with the public sector. The building on the park looks like a wall blocking some of the views and is uncalled for. I understand the desire to remodel and the opportunity to have everyone in the core make sense. 3. Peter Fornell asked what are the political ramifications for the community if the voters don’t want either one. Where do we go if the message is delivered in a negative way twice. 4. Phyllis Bronson said historically most citizens don’t pay attention until things are up against the wall. This has been a long process and the time is now to start making decisions. My perception was obscured by the lawsuits. I support 517 and 204. I want to keep city hall historic. For me the perception was the project at the Daily News building was linked to the lawsuit and it never was. The potential for connectivity of the old railroad bed is extraordinary with the civic master plan. She would also like to see Connor park part of the plan and revitalized. 5. Jim Farey said he does not see a public building being the highest and best use of the Rio Grande property. 6. Andrew Sandler said the private sector is the driving engine behind the economy. A job at the city is not a career opportunity for most people. You shouldn’t look at it as a life time career for them. 7. Toni Kronberg said this is one of the best decisions by council to give the voters a choice. I’m good with the choice. We have to accept whatever the choice is. Mr. True said if council wishes to place two options on the ballot, we need to have that language approved no later than September 7th. The first step is to approve the amended contract with Mr. Hunt. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins said to clarify we are talking about a contract tonight, not the ballot issue. Councilman Hauenstein said tonight we have to decide if we are going to extend the contract. We have accepted that we need to have city offices for our staff. Both offices are viable. If we go to a ballot whatever is decided will be much better than what staff has been working with. To me, it centers around the vision of north of Main to the river. What does the community want that space to be. Going forward P204 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 15 there will be numbers and discussions. I hope we honor the truth and the facts. The city has received an appraisal for the property across the street and we will have discussions about those numbers. The community can decide on how much vitality and where they want it. I support putting this on the ballot with the condition that the lawsuits are dropped regardless of the outcome of the election. Councilman Frisch said while I’m happy to make the decision at the council table I’m happy to go to the voters. Thanks to Scott and Jack for all the work. Councilman Myrin said thank you to all the people who signed the petition even if your name wasn’t acknowledged by the city. Thanks to Marcia and Steve and others who made the right to vote. Without the community we wouldn’t be where we are tonight and the government would be running without the community. Councilwoman Mullins said the decision tonight is to extend the contract with Mark Hunt and perhaps put it on the November ballot. There are a lot of steps before it is on the ballot. There are conditions that are non negotiable before it goes on the ballot. Councilman Myrin said if you have conditions that are non negotiable I think you should share them with the community tonight. Mr. True said the key condition to move forward with the ballot is to come up with the proper language that the city determines and the litigation that resulted from the failure to obtain the proper number of signatures is dismissed. I cannot suggest you go forward with a ballot issue unless no matter what the result was that the litigation is dismissed with prejudice. That is the fundamental condition of placing anything on the ballot. There are terms that would need to be discussed involving the ultimate settlement of that case but that is the fundamental condition. We will work with the litigants and their attorney with resolving this. We have a deadline of September 7. I have a resolution to approve the agreement to approve an amend and extend contract. The resolution just approves the amend extend agreement. It extends the deadline for due diligence until December 3rd. It does take the county a little bit of time to certify the election. It does contain a condition in the event we do not put the matter on the ballot by September 7 or allows for the approval of the Hunt project that Mr. Hunt can terminate the contract. Following this we will work on the other terms and the ballot language. My goal would be to present that by next Tuesday. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Resolution #130, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein; yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #19 & # 20, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 10.5 of the Charter regarding enterprise fund bonding Mr. True said there are two alternate ordinances for charter amendments. They address the issue brought forward in the work session and first reading regarding an inconsistency with the charter and TABOR. TABOR allows enterprises to issue bonds without going to an election. We are stuck because the charter also says enterprise bonds have to go to an election. We are cross ways with TABOR and trying to clean it up. There are alternatives here because at the work session Councilman Myrin suggested we have a limit to it. One has a limit that an enterprise can only issue a bond without an election if it is 10 million dollars or less. We are proposing that it would be good if our charter was consistent with TABOR. Councilwoman Mullins said she thinks we should adopt the one without any conditions. Councilman Frisch said some of us might want a limit some of us might not. It should be indexed in some way if we have a limit. P205 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 16 Mayor Skadron open the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Mr. True said theoretically you could put both on the ballot and the one with the most yes votes wins. Councilman Frisch said it’s not worth it to me. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, no; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Ordinance #20, Series of 2018 not voted on since Ordinance 19 adopted. ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 11.4 of the Charter regarding franchises. Mr. True said this will remove franchise agreements from being adopted by the electorate. They have always passed. They are very complicated issues with a significant amount of legalese. It’s not that the voters can’t sift through it. There are some franchise agreements if elections are even allowed. Most communities do not place them in front of the electorate. I don’t see it generating a lot of discussion in the election. It is consistent with other communities in the valley. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #21, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 5:50 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk P206 IV.B. ORDINANCE #22 SERIES OF 2018) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, RESCINDING DESIGNATION, DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 PARK AVENUE AND 931 GIBSON AVENUE,AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT A PARCEL ID: 2737-181-00-017 PARCEL ID: 2737-074-00-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from BMH Investments, LTD, owner of 333 Park Avenue and contract purchaser for 931 Gibson Avenue, see Exhibit A for legal description, requesting approval for the following: Relocation- (Section 26.415.090) for the relocation of the two historic buildings from 333 Park Avenue (R-6 Zone District) to 931 Gibson Avenue (R-15A Zone District). Demolition- (Section 26.415.080) of non-historic additions found on 333 Park Avenue before the relocation of the historic buildings. Rescindina Designation- (Section 26.415.050) of 333 Park Avenue if relocation of the historic buildings is approved. Designation- (Section 26.415.030) of 931 Gibson Avenue if relocation of the historic buildings is approved; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments on the Application from the City Engineering, Building, and Parks Departments; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the proposed application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on July 11, 2018, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard by the Historic Preservation Commission, and recommended approval with conditions by Resolution No. 9, Series of 2018, by a vote of seven to zero (7—0). WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, a summary of public outreach was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304, and the public was provided full access to review the Application; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director, the Historic Preservation 111 111 1111 11 1111 1 h 111111 1111$ 11111 IN1111111111 1111 Ordinance#22, Series of 2018 RECEPTION#: 651282, R: $38. 00, D: $0.00 333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave. DOC CODE: ORDINANCE Page 1 of 6 Pg 1 of 6, 10/17/2018 at 01:46:17 PM Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO P207 IV.B. Commission, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on August 13, 2018, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2018 with conditions, on First Reading by a three to zero (3 —0)vote; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 17, 2018, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2018, by a three to two (3 —2) vote, approving Relocation, Demolition, changes to Historic Designations and associated land use reviews for 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson Avenue; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council grants 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson Avenue land use review approvals for Relocation of two (2) historic buildings from 333 Park to 931 Gibson, demolition of non-historic elements on 333 Park Avenue, and Rescinding of Designation at 333 Park Avenue and Designation of 931 Gibson Avenue following relocation, subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein. The designation on 333 Park Avenue shall be removed and the designation on 931 Gibson Avenue shall be added only upon safe relocation of the historic resources to 931 Gibson Avenue, as determined by the Chief Building Official and Historic Preservation Officer. The location of the historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the City of Aspen Community Development Department. The following conditions shall apply to 931 Gibson Avenue after the safe relocation of the historic resources and the historic designation of the property: 1. A future lot split is prohibited unless approved by City Council. 2. The property shall contain a single driveway and single curb cut. 3. The property shall not be eligible for a floor areas bonus, pursuant to Section 26.415.110.F, as may be amended. The property is hereby granted the establishment of one (1) Transferable Development Right (TDR), pursuant to Section 26.415.110.L. The establishment of this TDR shall be in addition to the underlying floor area allowed for the subject property, as prescribed in the underlying zone district. Ordinance#22, Series of 2018 333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave. Page 2 of 6 P208 IV.B. 4. Install a continuous sidewalk along the subject property on Gibson Avenue in accordance to the Engineering Master Plan requirements pursuant to the Engineering Design Standards. Section 2: Historic Preservation, Maior Review A separate application for Historic Preservation Major Development will be submitted for HPC review. The project shall be subject to applicable code requirements, in place at the time of application. The application shall include an updated Relocation Plan, for review by the Parks and Engineering Departments. Approval of the Relocation Plan is required prior to issuance of a building permit for work on 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson Avenue. Section 3• Parks The relocation of the historic structures will require pruning to trees. The Relocation Plan shall address all applicable Parks Department requirements to ensure protection and minimal impacts to trees. Pruning of City trees for the relocation requires a certified arborist under the supervision of the City Forester, and paid for by the applicant. Permission for any pruning on private property will be required from private property owners prior to Parks signing off on the plan. Any tree removals require owner permission as well as tree removal permits from the Parks Department. Section 4: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. A major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards is required with building permit submittal. Section 5: Building Permit As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the house and outbuilding can be moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structures, must be submitted with the building permit application. In addition, the applicant must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier's check in a form acceptable to the City Attorney in the amount of $30,000 for the historic house and $15,000 for the historic outbuilding to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process. Section 6: Impact Fees and School Land Dedication Any applicable fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The allocation of any fee credits for demolition work on 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson Avenue shall remain with the parcel where the structures are currently located. Credits shall only be given for legally established floor area. Section 7: Stream Margin Review Ordinance#22, Series of 2018 333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave. Page 3 of 6 P209 IV.B. The applicant shall apply for a Stream Margin review for the demolition work on 333 Park Avenue as an administrative review prior to submission of a building permit for the project. Section 8: Existing Litigation This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 9: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 10: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described properties: 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson Avenue. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Ordinance#22, Series of 2018 333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave. Page 4 of 6 P210 IV.B. Section 11: Public Hearins A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 27th day of August, 2018, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13 day of A03LIS 2018. Steven Ska ron, Mayor CA TEST. n I Linda Manning, City Cler FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 2018. 1 Steven Sk on, Mayor ATESST%- Manning, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ejigmles R. True, City Attorney Ordinance #22, Series of 2018 333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave. Page 5 of 6 P211 IV.B. ATTACHMENT A: Legal Description of Addresses 333 Park Avenue A tract of land situated in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 and in the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado. Said tract is part of the Lone Pine M.S. 1910 and the Mollie Gibson Lode, M.S. 4281 Am and is more fully described as follows: Beginning at the West Corner of Lot 1, Sunny Park Subdivision, whence corner No. 3 of said Mollie Gibson Lode bears N 43°40'00" W 146.00 feet and S 38°00'00" W 100.00 feet; thence S 46020'00" W 10.00 feet to a point on the centerline of a road easement as shown on a plat recorded in Book 4 at Page 398 of the records of Pitkin County; thence following said centerline 16.23 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 40.00 feet, the chord of which curve bears S 55°17'30" E 16.12 feet; thence S 66° 55'00" E 49.99 feet along said centerline; thence S 32° 09'58" W 13.39 feet; thence S 50° 17'00" W 130.26 feet; thence N 34° 17'00" W 59.99 feet; thence N 52° 40'00" E 34.33 feet; thence N 43°40'00" W 32.60 feet; thence N 46° 20'00" E 86.00 feet; thence S 43° 40'00" E 32.00 feet to the point of beginning. 931 Gibson Avenue Parcel 1: A Parcel of Land situated in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence corner No. 11 of the East Aspen Additional Townsite bears South 54' 52'17" East 58.10 feet; Thence South 34°54'00" West 46.63 feet to The True Point of Beginning; Thence North 63058' 00" West 185.12 feet; Thence South 15°30'00" West 86.60 feet; Thence South 63°54'00" East 155.54 feet; Thence North 34°45' 00" East 88.30 feet to The Point of Beginning. Parcel 2: A Tract of Land situated in the Sunset Lode, U.S.M.S. No. 5310, being more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly side line of said Sunset Lode whence Corner No. 10 of East Aspen Additional Townsite bears North 34°45' East 46.63 Feet; Thence North 63° 58' West 185.12 feet to a point on the Westerly side line of said Lode; Thence following said Westerly side line North 15°30" East 17.03; Thence South 62°54'41" East 150.27 feet; Thence 39.76 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 295.57 feet to a point on said Easterly side; Thence following said Easterly side line South 34°45' West 10.70 feet to The Point of Beginning. Together with any property lying Northerly of the above described property and the Southerly line of Gibson Avenue. Ordinance #22, Series of 2018 333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave. Page 6 of 6 P212 IV.B. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273707400004 on 01/30/2019 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com exhibit L P213 IV.B. ELA CHARLES S ASPEN, CO 81611 140 MAPLE LN ISAAC THOMAS D REV TRST ASPEN, CO 81611 975 KING ST CRAVEN ELLYN KATHLEEN ASPEN, CO 81611 124 MAPLE LN THALBERG K MARITAL INC TRUST BOZEMAN, MT 59715 128 HITCHING POST RD GIBSON MATCHLESS LLC ATLANTA, GA 30324 1924 PIEDMONT CIR NE BLEEKER STREET REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 22 DOUGHERTY THOMAS P WILMINGTON, DE 19808 5317 LIMESTONE RD HATANAKA HOWARD I ASPEN, CO 81611 980 KING ST LEILA KING LLC SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 4 EMBARCADERO CTR # 1900 FOERSTER JAMES ASPEN, CO 81611 0134 MAPLE LN FARR TENA D SPRECKELS, CA 93962 PO BOX 7534 LANG DONALD W ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4166 CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST BECKER ALAN K TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 950 MATCHLESS DR LAWRENCE LARRY S QPR TRUST LA JOLLA, CA 92037 8560 RUETTE MONTE CARLO ALVIS MARCI L HOUSTON, TX 77040 8827 W SAM HOUSTON PKWY N #200 BREBNER RICHARD ASPEN, CO 81611 124 MAPLE LN KASABACH JACQUELYN A ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4166 WEISMAN FAMILY LP MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55406 2708 IRVING AVE S PATTERSON KAREN & CHARLES ASPEN, CO 81611 129 MAPLE LN HEARTSTONE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 151 ALVIS STEVEN D HOUSTON, TX 77040 8827 W SAM HOUSTON PKWY N #200 SACHSE TODD DETROIT, MI 48226 1528 WOODWARD AVE #600 990 KING ST UNIT #4 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 1295 RIVERSIDE DR GIBSON 910 LLC CHICAGO, IL 60614 1871 N HOWE JUNGQUIST DAVID J REV TRUST SAINT PAUL, MN 55128 6348 HWY 36 BLVD #8 SHEEBER AIMEE ASPEN, CO 81611 138 MAPLE LN WARMING SOLVEIG ASPEN, CO 81611 120 MAPLE LN GIRVIN LINDA A ASPEN, CO 81611 414 N MILL ST CAIN JOHN J TRUST SUNRIVER, OR 97707 18160 COTTONWOOD RD #375 P214 IV.B. 981 KING STREET LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3123 DODARO CHRISTINE & PETER ASPEN, CO 81611 930 MATCHLESS DR WAGAR RICHARD H ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9063 CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST RYAN MARTHA ASPEN, CO 81611 127 MAPLE LN BECK JEFFREY L & JANET SUE DALLAS, TX 75254 6211 RAINTREE CT BROWNELL CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 996 GIBSON AVE BENZIGER KATHERINE ASPEN, CO 81611 1050 MATCHLESS DR #2 WAGAR RICHARD H ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9063 KNIGHT ERIC ASPEN, CO 81611 138 MAPLE LN BYARD ANNE/MORRIS JAMES LIV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 860 GIBSON AVE HAT COLORADO LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 10866 WILSHIRE BLVD #1100 SHOAF JEFFREY S ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3123 HARRIS DAVID E & PATRICIA ASPEN, CO 81611 117 NEALE AVE FARR TENA D 1989 TRUST SPRECKELS, CA 93962 PO BOX 7534 SMALLS RAY ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3197 MAPLE CHARLES A & BRYCE M ASPEN, CO 81611 1250 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 990 KING ST UNIT #2 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 1295 RIVERSIDE DR DIBELLO JACQUELINE ASPEN, CO 81611 990 KING ST # 1 MAINIAC PROPERTIES LLC SCARBOROUGH, ME 04074 201 US ROUTE 1 #226 17 QUEEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 1315 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR RUGGIERI LISA ANN ASPEN, CO 81611 136 MAPLE LN JUNGQUIST TERRI L REV TRUST SAINT PAUL, MN 55128 6348 HWY 36 BLVD #8 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL ASPEN, CO 816112179 130 MAPLE LN PATRICIA CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 980 KING ST HAMILTON VIRGINIA RUTH ASPEN, CO 81611 0134 MAPLE LN DWS FAMILY TRUST DALLAS, TX 75201 1918 N OLIVE STREET #1901 WALDRON K BRENT ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4900 LAWRENCE MARA B QPR TRUST LA JOLLA, CA 92037 8560 RUETTE MONTE CARLO RACQUET CLUB CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1000 MATCHLESS DR P215 IV.B. SURVIVORS TRUST ALAMEDA, CA 94501 1352 BAY ST URBAN BLIGHT CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 925 GIBSON AVE MEADOWS JEAN R & STANLEY H HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 538 HILLSIDE DR FUENTE DAVID & SHEILA BOCA RATON, FL 33431 701 TERN POINT CIR SNOW ORCHID LLC MENLO PARK, CA 94025 1125 SAN MATEO DR KETAI JAMES A DETROIT, MI 48226 1528 WOODWARD AVE #600 VARE DARLENE DESEDLE TRUST SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 1024 19TH ST #7 LIPSEY WILLIAM S ASPEN, CO 81611 955 KING ST ROCKY MTN PROPERTY II LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 73 SMUGGLER GROVE RD TEUSCHER JONATHAN W & ANNETTE L ASPEN, CO 81611 126 MAPLE LN GREENWOOD WILLIAM S ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4778 SMUGGLER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ASPEN, CO 81611 OAK LN, COTTONWOOD LN, MAPLE LN PERKINS WENDY LIVING TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 122 MAPLE LN BELINDA BEE CONDO ASPEN, CO 81611 990 KING ST P216 IV.B. XXXXXXX X X XEEEEE X X XXXXXXXXGGGGG GG G G G GS 29°17'09" W 103.44'N 62°54'41" W 118.62'∆=7°42'27"R=295.57'L=39.76'ChB=N59°03'28"WChL=39.73'N 3 4 ° 4 5 ' 0 0 " E 95. 0 7 'S 66°34'00" E 83.50'S 63°54'00" E 66.25'37.40'34.40'37.40'34.40'26.8'27.9' 35.6'87.3'GRAVELPARKINGCONCRETEDRIVEWAYADJOINER TENTSHEDSHEDADJOINER HOUSEADJOINER HOUSE#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #16129TBM EL=7933.87'CATV PED.BOULDERBOULDERWALLTIE R E T . W A L L (TYP. )PAVER PATIO (TYP.)UPPER LEVELWOOD DECKLOWERLEVELWOOD DECKCON C R E T E W A L K TWO STORY WOODFRAME HOUSEWITH BASEMENT931 GIBSON AVENUEWINDOWWELLWINDOWWELLWO O D D E C K STEP SWOODDECKCON C . R E T . W A L L STEP S STEP S STEP S TIE RE T . W A L L ( T Y P . )FENCE(TYP.)FENCE(TYP.)FENCEFENCESTONE WALKCONCRETEPATIO BOULDERPK NAIL& SHINERL.S. #37972CONC.WALLCONCRETEDRIVEWAYSHE D GIBSON AVENUEASPHALTPARCEL 1BK 513 PG 94215,497 S.F.±#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #379721" IRON BAR#5REBAR#5REBARTELE.PED.MAILBOXELEC.METERGASMETERGASLINEBOULDERRET. WALLSTONE WALLCONCRETECURB & GUTTERGRAVELPARKINGC.O.A. GPSQ-159N89°10'36"W1612.08'C.O.A. GPSMONUMENT #4S31°13'19"W789.88'PARCEL 2BK 513 PG 942QUIT CLAIM DEEDBK 758 PG 230LOT ANO PROBLEM JOELOT BNO PROBLEM JOEBEATONBECKMAPLEF.F.EL=7939.65'F.F.EL=7930.40'RIDGEEL=7960.5'10'25'10'10'BUILDING SETBACK PER R-15ABUILDING SETBAC K P E R R - 1 5 A BUILDING SETBACK PER R-15ASTONEWALKRIDGEEL=7962.0'7933 793779367 9 3 87935793479337934793279337932 79327934 WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWOSWWATERSERVICETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SE W E R S E R V I C E P E R A C S D EX-UE EX-UE CTV CTV CTVCABLE TV LINEELECTRICLINETELEPHONELINEWATERLINESEWERMANHOLET1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9T10T11T12T13T14T15T16T17T18T19T20T21T22T23T24T25T26T27T28T29T30T31T32T33T34T35T36T37T38T39T40T41T42T43T44T45T46T47T48T49T50T51T52T53T54T55T56T57T58T59T60T61T62T63T64T65T66T67T68T69SLOPE TABLENUMBER123MIN. SLOPE0.000%20.000%30.000%MAX. SLOPE20.000%30.000%2000.000%COLORSLOPES EXISTING FROM 20% AND ABOVE ARE POSSIBLY MANMADESLOPE TABLENUMBER123MIN. SLOPE0.000%20.000%30.000%MAX. SLOPE20.000%30.000%2000.000%COLORAREA14983.66271.78241.56SLOPES EXISTING FROM 20% AND ABOVE ARE POSSIBLY MANMADENOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW, YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRSTDISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT INTHIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THECERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.ByNO.DateProject NO.RevisionDrawn By:Checked By:Date:Computer File:P.O. Box 1746Rifle, CO 81650Phone (970) 625-1954Fax (970) 579-7150www.peaksurveyinginc.comSNWEPeak Surveying, Inc.Since 2007170341 OF 1931 GIBSON, LLC.CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADOIMPROVEMENT & TOPO SURVEYSIT. IN SE1/4 SEC.7, T10S, R84W931 GIBSON AVENUEJRNJRNAUGUST 28, 2017034.DWG1 05/22/18GENERATE SLOPE ANALYSISJRN201/17/19UPDATE SURVEYJRNIMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENTI HEREBY STATE THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY PEAK SURVEYING, INC.FOR 931 GIBSON, LLC.I FURTHER STATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE,JUNE 16, 2017 AND JANUARY 17, 2019, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY WITHINTHE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTSUPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES, EXCEPT ASINDICATED, AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENTCROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT AS NOTED. I FURTHER STATETHAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.,CASE NO. PCT24522W, DATED EFFECTIVE AUGUST 17, 2015 AND FIND ALL EXCEPTIONS TO TITLETHAT AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE SHOWN HEREON TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGEAND BELIEF. ERROR OF CLOSURE FOR THIS SURVEY IS LESS THAN 1:15,000.BY:___________________________________ JASON R. NEIL, P.L.S. NO. 37935IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYA PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SE1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONPARCEL 1:A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SE1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE CORNER NO. 11 OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDITIONALTOWNSITE BEARS S54°52'17"E 58.10 FEET; THENCE S34°54'00"W 46.63 FEET TO THE TRUE POINTOF BEGINNING; THENCE N63°58'00"W 185.12 FEET; THENCE S15°30'00"W 88.60 FEET; THENCES63°54'00"E 155.54 FEET; THENCE N34°45'00"E 88.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.EXCEPTING THOSE PORTIONS WHICH LIE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF DEEDS RECORDEDFEBRUARY 6, 1970 IN BOOK 246 AT PAGE 672 “CANDREIA PARCEL” AND RECORDED APRIL 12,1982 IN BOOK 424 AT PAGE 966 “ZUPANCIS PARCEL”.ALSO EXCEPTING THAT PORTION AS DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED AUGUST11, 1994 IN BOOK 758 AT PAGE 230.PARCEL 2:A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SUNSET LODE, U.S.M.S. NO. 5310, BEING MORE FULLYDESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY SIDE LINE OF SAID SUNSET LODE WHENCECORNER NO. 10 OF EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE BEARS N34°45'00"E 46.63 FEET;THENCE N63°58'00"W 185.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY SIDE LINE OF SAID LODE;THENCE FOLLOWING SAID WESTERLY SIDE LINE N15°30'0"E 17.03 FEET; THENCE S62°54'41"E150.27 FEET; THENCE 39.76 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING ARADIUS OF 295.57 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID EASTERLY SIDE; THENCE FOLLOWING SAIDEASTERLY SIDE LINE S34°45'00"W 10.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.TOGETHER WITH ANY PROPERTY LYING NORTHERLY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTYAND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF GIBSON AVENUE.EXCEPTING THAT PORTION AS DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1994IN BOOK 758 AT PAGE 230.COUNTY OF PITKINSTATE OF COLORADONOTES:1) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, BUILDINGSETBACKS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN INTHE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., CASE NO. PCT24522W,DATED EFFECTIVE AUGUST 17, 2015.2) THE DATE OF THIS FIELD SURVEY WAS JUNE 16, 2017 AND JANUARY 17, 2019.3) BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF N29°17'09"E BETWEEN THESOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, A PK NAIL AND SHINER IN CONCRETEL.S. #37972 FOUND IN PLACE AND THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID SUBJECT PROPERTY,A #5 REBAR & CAP L.S. #37972 FOUND IN PLACE.4) UNITS OF MEASURE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON IS U.S. SURVEY FEET.5)THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE BOOK 513 PAGE 942, BOOK 513 PAGE 945 RECORDED IN THEPITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE, AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PREPARED BYROCKY MOUNTAIN SURVEYING DATED AUGUST 2015, FILE NO. 15530 AND CORNERS FOUND INPLACE.6) ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON A GPS OBSERVATION UTILIZING THE WESTERN COLORADORTVRN GPS NETWORK (1988 ORTHO DATUM) YIELDING AN ON-SITE ELEVATION OF 7933.87'' ONSOUTHEASTERLY CORNER AS SHOWN. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT.7)THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON FOUND CORNERS AND THE ABOVE MENTIONED SURVEYPREPARED BY ROCKY MOUNTAIN SURVEYING. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BYPSI. ACCORDING TO THE WESTERLY ADJOINING OWNER THE CORNERS ESTABLISHED ARE NOTWHAT HE REMEMBERS AND HE BELIEVES THE BOUNDARY IS ALONG THE WIRE FENCEESTABLISHED BY SAID ADJOINER. PSI HAS CONVEYED THIS INFORMATION TO THE OWNER OFTHE SUBJECT PROPERTY.8) AT THE TIME OF THE JANUARY 17, 2019 FIELD VISIT 18" OF SNOW AND ICE EXISTED ON THEGROUND.NESW0306090120150180210240270300330P e ak Surveying,Inc.0101020405SUBJECTPROPERTYVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'COL OR A D O LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LAND SU RVEYOR JA SO N R. NEIL3793501/17/19exhibit MP217IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSESITE PLAN F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -brick concepts3.vwx 1/30/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA1.1931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 110'-0"REAR SETBACK10'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK 10'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK GIBSON AVE. PROTECTED LAWN793179 3 2 7933793479 3 6 79 3 5 7937 7938Future Sidewalk 25'-0"FRONT YARD SETBACKUP NEW CONST. MECHANICAL 001 LAUNDRY 002 BED 003 MEDIA/GAME ROOM 006 BED 008 tv? BED 007 LANDMARK MECH 009 ENTERTAINMENT ROOM X lock off door HALL 010 ping-pongwdtv credenza UP LIVING 109 fireplace MUD/LNDRY 111 UP GARAGE 112 ENTRY 110 T R T W/D DN PATIO 108 1. HISTORIC TIN ROOFING2. HISTORIC WOOD SIDING3. HSITORIC FISH SCALES4. NEW RUNNING BOND BRICK5. NEW SOLDIER COURSE BRICK6. NEW HERRINGBONE BRICK7. NEW STANDING SEAM ROOFING 8. BRICK SCREENING M HALL 203 M BED 204 M.BATH 201 DN bench CLOSET 202W/D porch DOWN DINING 106 LOUNGE 103 PARLOR 102 PANTRY 105 tv/bookcases POWDER 104 HISTORIC ENTRY 100 UP DN bar 26'-2"16'-3"PROPOSED SITE/LANDCAPE PLAN Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE KEY GRASS TRANSITIONAL PLANTING NATIVE PLANTING ASPHALT PAVERS EVERGREEN TREE REMAINS DECIDUOUS TREE REMAINS TALL GRASS PLANTER EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING DECEVERGREEN TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT50'-0 1/4"26'-0 1/2"PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE P218IV.B. SITE SECTION W/ CONEXT SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"1 BECKERMAN HOUSESITE SECTION F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -brick concepts3.vwx 1/30/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA1.2931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 1P219IV.B. UP NEW CONST. MECHANICAL 001 LAUNDRY 002 BED 003 MEDIA/GAME ROOM 006 BED 008 tv?kingBED 007king LANDMARK MECH 009 ENTERTAINMENT ROOM X lock off door HALL 010 kingping-pongwdtv credenza UP2/A3.11/A3.1 2/A3.01/A3.0 23'-6 3/4"N2 10'-9 1/2"N3 5'-11"N4 17'-0"N5 N1 6'-9"H2 32'-11 1/4"H3 17'-0"H4 H1 25'-0" 0201 25'-0" 0403 6 3/4" 1 1/2" 30'-0" 2.22.1 19'-0" 3.23.1 3'-0"3'-0" PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 A4.3 1 A4.3 1 A4.2 1 A4.2 1 BECKERMAN HOUSEBASEMENT/FOU NDATION PLAN F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -Eric Brickv2.vwx 2/12/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA2.1931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 1UP A3.21 A3.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.1 1 1 A4.3 1 A4.3 21 3 4 THEATRE MECHANICAL LAUNDRY STORAGE GUEST BED GUEST BATH GUEST BED GUEST BATH GUEST BEDGUEST BATH GUEST BED GUEST BATH LIGHTWELL LIGHTWELL LIGHTWELL LIGHTWELL FAMILY ROOM A B C F & M A R C H I T E C T S© COPYRIGHT 2017 F&M Architects, LLC PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitects.com 970.987.2707 SHEET NO. DRAWING: JOB NO.2/12/19 9:12:26 AMA2.1 #### LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLANHENDRY RESIDENCE931 GIBSON AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Issue Date ISSUE: DATE: ISSUE XX/XX/XX ISSUE XX/XX/XX ISSUE XX/XX/XX ISSUE XX/XX/XX SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.1 1 LOWER LEVELP220 IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSE1ST LEVEL PLAN F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -Eric Brickv2.vwx 2/12/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA2.2931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 1LIVING 109 fireplace MUD/LNDRY 111 UP GARAGE 112 ENTRY 110 T R T W/D DN PATIO 108 porch DOWN DINING 106 LOUNGE 103 PARLOR 102 PANTRY 105 tv/bookcases POWDER 104 HISTORIC ENTRY 100 UP DN bar2/A3.11/A3.1 2/A3.01/A3.0 23'-6 3/4"N2 10'-9 1/2"N3 5'-11"N4 17'-0"N5 N1 6'-9"H2 32'-11 1/4"H3 17'-0"H4 H1 25'-0" 0201 25'-0" 0403 6 3/4" 1 1/2" 30'-0" 2.22.1 19'-0" 3.23.1 3'-0"3'-0" PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 A4.3 1 A4.3 1 A4.2 1 A4.2 1 REF.UP UP DN DN DNDN DN A3.21 A3.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.1 1 1 A4.3 1 A4.3 1 A4.1 1 A4.1 DINING ENTRY KITCHEN MUD/LNDRY LIVING CORRIDOR R PARLOR T PANTRY POWDER 21 25' - 0" W/D 3 HISTORIC LOT SPACING 30' - 0"25' - 0" 4 LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE GRILL FIRE-PIT LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE A B C 7' - 4 3/8"32' - 11 1/4"17' - 1"CONNECTOR WIDTH16' - 0"PENETRATION4' - 0"HISTORIC WOOD SIDING BRICK CLADDING PLANTERPLANTER HISTORIC STAIR TO REMAIN HISTORIC POCKET DOORS TO BE REPURPOSED HISTORIC POCKET DOORS TO BE REPURPOSED 1 A4.2 1 A4.2 F & M A R C H I T E C T S© COPYRIGHT 2017 F&M Architects, LLC PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitects.com 970.987.2707 SHEET NO. DRAWING: JOB NO.2/12/19 9:12:27 AMA2.2 #### MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANHENDRY RESIDENCE931 GIBSON AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Issue Date ISSUE: DATE: ISSUE XX/XX/XX ISSUE XX/XX/XX ISSUE XX/XX/XX ISSUE XX/XX/XX SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.2 1 MAIN LEVELP221 IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSE2ND LEVEL PLAN F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -Eric Brickv2.vwx 2/12/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA2.3931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 1M HALL 203 M BED 204 M. BATH 201 king DN bench CLOSET 202W/D DN Bed 203 king Nursery/Kids 201 Hall 200 dormer dormer roof below roof below Bath 202 dresser wardrobe open 2/A3.11/A3.1 2/A3.01/A3.0 23'-6 3/4"N2 10'-9 1/2"N3 5'-11"N4 17'-0"N5 N1 6'-9"H2 32'-11 1/4"H3 17'-0"H4 H1 25'-0" 0201 25'-0" 0403 6 3/4" 1 1/2" 30'-0" 2.22.1 19'-0" 3.23.1 3'-0"3'-0" PROPOSED 2ND LEVEL PLAN Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 A4.3 1 A4.3 1 A4.2 1 A4.2 1 DN DN A3.21 A3.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.1 1 1 A4.3 1 A4.3 1 A4.1 1 A4.1 21 3 4 MSTR. BED MSTR. CLOSET MSTR. BATH ROOF DECK MSTR. DECK GUEST 1 GUEST 2 GUEST BATH CORRIDOR 040 DORMER ABV. DORMER ABV. TUB SKYLIGHT ABV. OPEN TO BELOW RIDGE BEAM ABV. BRICK SCREEN TO ALLOW LIGHT BUT OFFER PRIVACY BRICK SCREEN TO ALLOW LIGHT BUT OFFER PRIVACY BRICK SCREEN WALL TO ALLOW LIGHT BUT OFFER PRIVACY BRICK SCREEN A B C GLASS RAILING HELD 4" OFF HISTORIC GREEN ROOF2' - 7 3/4"12' - 5 1/2"2' - 1"EDGE OF ROOF GREEN ROOF CORRIDOR 1 A4.2 1 A4.2 14' - 7 1/8"F & M A R C H I T E C T S© COPYRIGHT 2017 F&M Architects, LLC PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitects.com 970.987.2707 SHEET NO. DRAWING: JOB NO.2/12/19 9:12:28 AMA2.3 #### UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANHENDRY RESIDENCE931 GIBSON AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Issue Date ISSUE: DATE: ISSUE XX/XX/XX ISSUE XX/XX/XX ISSUE XX/XX/XX SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.3 1 UPPER LEVELP222 IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEROOF PLAN F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -Eric Brickv2.vwx 2/12/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA2.4931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 12/A3.11/A3.1 2/A3.01/A3.0 23'-6 3/4"N2 10'-9 1/2"N3 5'-11"N4 17'-0"N5 N1 6'-9"H2 32'-11 1/4"H3 17'-0"H4 H1 25'-0" 0201 25'-0" 0403 6 3/4" 1 1/2" 30'-0" 2.22.1 19'-0" 3.23.1 3'-0"3'-0" PROPOSED ROOF PLAN Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 A4.3 1 A4.3 1 A4.2 1 A4.2 1 A3.21 A3.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.1 1 1 A4.3 1 A4.3 1 A4.1 1 A4.1 21 3 4 A B C 1 A4.2 1 A4.2 SKYLIGHT PARAPET WALL PARAPET WALL INTEGRATED GUTTER 12" / 12"12" / 12" 12" / 12"12" / 12" GREEN ROOF PERVIOUS PAVERS STANDING SEAM ZINC ROOF STANDING SEAM ZINC ROOF HISTORIC TIN ROOF UNKNOWN ROOFING TBD. RECONSTRUCTED HISTORIC CHIMNEY F & M A R C H I T E C T S© COPYRIGHT 2017 F&M Architects, LLC PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitects.com 970.987.2707 SHEET NO. DRAWING: JOB NO.2/12/19 9:12:29 AMA2.4 #### ROOF PLANHENDRY RESIDENCE931 GIBSON AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Issue Date ISSUE: DATE: SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.4 1 ROOF PLANP223 IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -Eric Brickv2.vwx 2/12/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA3.1931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 1FINISHED GRADE T.O. HISTORIC 1ST LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. HISTORIC 2ND LEVEL 110'-9" NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ELEVATION AT 1/3 SPAN OF ROOF 119'-7 1/2"20'-8 1/4"GLASS RAILING 2'-8" BEYOND FRONT EDGE OF CONNECTOR GLASS RAILING HELD OFF HIST. NATIVE GREEN-ROOF 12 12 HISTORIC ROOF PITCH V.I.F. 12 12 LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE BYND.22'-3 3/4"1'-8 1/2"T.O. 1ST LEVEL 98'-6" T.O. 2ND LEVEL 109'-10" T.O. ROOF DECK 109'-0" ELEVATION AT 1/3 SPAN OF ROOF 122'-6" T.O. SLAB 87'-2" SKYLIGHT 2'-0"11'-4"11'-4"ROOF BYND. LIGHTWELL W/GRATE MATERIAL KEY 1. HISTORIC TIN ROOFING 2. HISTORIC WOOD SIDING 3. HSITORIC FISH SCALES 4. RUNNING BOND BRICK 5. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK 6. RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 7. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 8. RUNNING BOND PROTRUDING BRICK 9. STANDING SEAM ROOFING 10. NEW SHINGLE ROOFING 11. WOOD SIDING 12. WOOD SCREENING P224IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -Eric Brickv2.vwx 2/12/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA3.2931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 1FINAL GRADE EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 T.O. 1ST LEVEL 98'-6" T.O. 2ND LEVEL 109'-10" LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE BYND. T.O. SLAB 87'-2"11'-4"11'-4"FINAL GRADE 3'-0"14'-8" SIDE ENTRANCE BEHIND BRICK SCREEN WALL MATERIAL KEY 1. HISTORIC TIN ROOFING 2. HISTORIC WOOD SIDING 3. HSITORIC FISH SCALES 4. RUNNING BOND BRICK 5. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK 6. RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 7. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 8. RUNNING BOND PROTRUDING BRICK 9. STANDING SEAM ROOFING 10. NEW SHINGLE ROOFING 11. WOOD SIDING 12. WOOD SCREENING P225IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -Eric Brickv2.vwx 2/12/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA3.3931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 1SKYLIGHT 2'-0"12 12 ASSUMED FINAL GRADE T.O. HISTORIC 1ST LEVEL 100'-0" ELEVATION AT 1/3 SPAN OF ROOF 119'-7 1/2" SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ELEVATION AT 1/3 SPAN OF ROOF 122'-6" T.O. 2ND LEVEL 109'-10"22'-11 3/4"T.O. ROOF DECK 109'-0" 12 12 HISTORIC ROOF PITCH V.I.F. 12 12 ROOF PITCH V.I.F.NATIVE GREEN-ROOF T.O. 1ST LEVEL 98'-6" LIGHTWELL T.O. SLAB 87'-2" LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE BRICK SCREEN AT SIDE ENTRY BYND. T.O. HISTORIC 2ND LEVEL 100'-0" MATERIAL KEY 1. HISTORIC TIN ROOFING 2. HISTORIC WOOD SIDING 3. HSITORIC FISH SCALES 4. RUNNING BOND BRICK 5. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK 6. RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 7. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 8. RUNNING BOND PROTRUDING BRICK 9. STANDING SEAM ROOFING 10. NEW SHINGLE ROOFING 11. WOOD SIDING 12. WOOD SCREENING FINISHED GRADEP226 IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -Eric Brickv2.vwx 2/12/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA3.4931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 1WEST ELEVATION - HISTORIC SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROFILE OF ADDITION (BEYOND) T.O. HISTORIC 1ST LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. HISTORIC 2ND LEVEL 110'-9" T.O. SLAB 87'-2" LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE BYND. LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE HISTORIC STAINED GLASS WINDOW FINISHED GRADE 7'-0" T.O. 1ST LEVEL 100'-0"11'-4"MATERIAL KEY 1. HISTORIC TIN ROOFING 2. HISTORIC WOOD SIDING 3. HSITORIC FISH SCALES 4. RUNNING BOND BRICK 5. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK 6. RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 7. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 8. RUNNING BOND PROTRUDING BRICK 9. STANDING SEAM ROOFING 10. NEW SHINGLE ROOFING 11. WOOD SIDING 12. WOOD SCREENING P227IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEBUILDING SECTIONS F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -Eric Brickv2.vwx 2/12/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA4.1931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 1TRANSVERSE SECTION WEST - ADDITION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 T.O. 1ST LEVEL 98'-6" T.O. 2ND LEVEL 109'-10" T.O. SLAB 87'-2" FINISHED GRADE LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE FINISHED GRADE T.O. ROOF DECK 109'-0" 14'-8"3'-0" LIGHTWELL W/GRATE FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN 2'-8"12'-5"1'-9 3/4" MATERIAL KEY 1. HISTORIC TIN ROOFING 2. HISTORIC WOOD SIDING 3. HSITORIC FISH SCALES 4. RUNNING BOND BRICK 5. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK 6. RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 7. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 8. RUNNING BOND PROTRUDING BRICK 9. STANDING SEAM ROOFING 10. NEW SHINGLE ROOFING 11. WOOD SIDING 12. WOOD SCREENING P228IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEBUILDING SECTIONS F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -Eric Brickv2.vwx 2/12/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA4.2931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 1TRANSVERSE SECTION EAST - HISTORIC SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 12 12 T.O. HISTORIC 2ND LEVEL 109'-10" T.O. SLAB 87'-2" FINISHED GRADE LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE BYND. FINISHED GRADE T.O. ROOF DECK 109'-0" T.O. 1ST LEVEL 98'-6" 16'-3"2'-8" GREEN ROOF T.O. HISTORIC 1ST LEVEL 98'-6"10'-0"LIGHTWELL W/ GRATE FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN GLASS RAILINGS DO NOT ATTACH TO HISTORIC MATERIAL KEY 1. HISTORIC TIN ROOFING 2. HISTORIC WOOD SIDING 3. HSITORIC FISH SCALES 4. RUNNING BOND BRICK 5. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK 6. RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 7. ANGLED RUNNING BOND BRICK SCREENING 8. RUNNING BOND PROTRUDING BRICK 9. STANDING SEAM ROOFING 10. NEW SHINGLE ROOFING 11. WOOD SIDING 12. WOOD SCREENING P229IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEBUILDING SECTIONS F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 GIBSON -Eric Brickv2.vwx 2/12/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSA4.3931 Gibson Ave.Aspen CO, 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/30/19HPC REVIEW 1SKYLIGHT 2'-0"LONGITUDINAL SECTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"19'-6"9'-9"10'-0"MASTER BEDROOMGUEST BEDROOM LOUNGE KITCHEN CORRIDOR GUEST BEDROOM GUEST BEDROOMENTERTAINMENT ROOM T.O. SLAB 87'-2" T.O. 2ND LEVEL 109'-10" T.O. ROOF DECK 108'-6" ROOF DECK 10'-0"12 1212 12 T.O. HISTORIC 1ST LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. SLAB 87'-2" T.O. HISTORIC 2ND LEVEL 110'-9" HISTORIC ROOF PITCH V.I.F. FINISHED GRADE FINISHED GRADE T.O. 1ST LEVEL 98'-6"P230IV.B. P231IV.B. P232IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEEXISTING PLANS F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 Gibson Demo&FAR Calcs.vwx 1/28/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSZ-009931 Gibson Ave.Aspen, CO 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/29/19HPC Submittal 1NOTES: 1. THE EXISTING BUILDING ON 931 GIBSON AVE IS TO BE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED FROM SITE. CLOSETBEDROOM LOWER APARTMENT UP UP UP 37'-1 1/2" 02 4'-10" 0301 17'-2 7/8"B 16'-10 1/4"C A EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 37'-1 1/2" 02 4'-10" 0301 17'-2 7/8"B 16'-10 1/4"C A OPEN TO BELOW CLOSET CLOSET LOFTFLOOR TO CEILING 40.38"DN EXISTING 2ND LEVEL PLAN Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 7.5" RISE DN DN DN UP 37'-1 1/2" 02 4'-10" 0301 17'-2 7/8"B 16'-10 1/4"C A EXISTING 1ST LEVEL PLAN Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 5.6:12 SLOPE5.6:12 SLOPE 37'-1 1/2" 02 4'-10" 0301 17'-2 7/8"B 16'-10 1/4"C A EXISTING ROOF PLAN Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"4P233 IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEEXISTING ELEVATIONS F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 Gibson Demo&FAR Calcs.vwx 1/28/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSZ-010931 Gibson Ave.Aspen, CO 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/29/19HPC Submittal 1NOTES: 1. THE EXISTING BUILDING ON 931 GIBSON AVE IS TO BE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED FROM SITE. BELOW GRADE 7'-11"1'-0"8'-0"9"12'-8 3/8"North Elevation 1/4" - 1'A 12 5.6 12 5.6 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 T.O. 2ND FLOOR 100'-0" T.O. 3RD FLOOR 108'-9" T.O. 1ST FLOOR 91'-1" T.O. MIDSPAN OF ROOF 115'-11 1/2"17'-10 1/4"7'-11"1'-0"8'-0"9"12'-8 3/8"BELOW GRADE East Elevation 1/4" - 1'B West Elevation 1/4" - 1'D EXISTING WEST ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 T.O. 2ND FLOOR 100'-0" T.O. 3RD FLOOR 108'-9" T.O. 1ST FLOOR 91'-1" T.O. MIDSPAN OF ROOF 115'-11 1/2"7'-11"1'-0"8'-0"9"12'-8 3/8"East Elevation 1/4" - 1'B BELOW GRADE EXISTING EAST ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 T.O. 2ND FLOOR 100'-0" T.O. 3RD FLOOR 108'-9" T.O. 1ST FLOOR 91'-1" T.O. MIDSPAN OF ROOF 115'-11 1/2" BELOW GRADE 7'-11"1'-0"8'-0"9"12'-8 3/8"North Elevation 1/4" - 1'A South Elevation 1/4" - 1'C 12 5.6 12 5.6 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 T.O. 2ND FLOOR 100'-0" T.O. 3RD FLOOR 108'-9" T.O. 1ST FLOOR 91'-1" T.O. MIDSPAN OF ROOF 115'-11 1/2"P234IV.B. BECKERMAN HOUSEZONING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 Gibson Demo&FAR Calcs.vwx 1/28/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSZ-011931 Gibson Ave.Aspen, CO 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/29/19HPC Submittal 1LEGEND FLOOR AREA DECK FLOOR AREA FRONT PORCH - EXEMPT (Less than 30" Above Grade) PATIO AREA - Counts toward Far when covered > 4' GARAGE AREA CLOSETBEDROOM LOWER APARTMENT UP UP UP 37'-1 1/2" 02 4'-10" 0301 17'-2 7/8"B 16'-10 1/4"C A EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 1265.75 SQ FT B A D 62.72 SQ FT 43.2 SQ FT C100.1 SQ FT 5'-0"37'-1 1/2" 02 4'-10" 0301 17'-2 7/8"B 16'-10 1/4"C A OPEN TO BELOW CLOSET CLOSET LOFTFLOOR TO CEILING 40.38"DN EXISTING 2ND LEVEL PLAN Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 1145.54 SQ FT 91.18 SQ FT5'-0"7.5" RISE DN DN DN UP 37'-1 1/2" 02 4'-10" 0301 17'-2 7/8"B 16'-10 1/4"C A EXISTING 1ST LEVEL PLAN Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 1265.75 SQ FT 67.58 SQ FT 102.73 SQ FT 30.2 SQ FT 94.02 SQ FT 5'-0"5'-0" LOWER LEVEL FLOOR -8'-11"7'-11"LOWER LEVEL FLOOR -8'-11" LOWER LEVEL CLG. -1'-0"7'-11"LOWER LEVEL FLOOR -8'-11" LOWER LEVEL CLG. -1'-0"7'-11"LOWER LEVEL FLOOR -8'-11" LOWER LEVEL CLG. -1'-0"7'-11"279.1 A LOWER LEVEL CLG. -1'-0"35.4 256.4 B 279.1 C 176.3 13.3 256.4 D 170.7 3'-0"6'-10 5/8"6'-8"2'-0" 35'-3 1/8" 35'-3 1/8" 32'-4 5/8" 32'-4 5/8"BECKERMAN HOUSEZONING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS F&M JOB #: SHEET TITLE: COPYRIGHT 2019 PO Box 6762 15 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 info@fandmarchitect.com 970.987.2707 DRAWN: PRINTED: CHECKED:DATEF&M 18014 931 Gibson Demo&FAR Calcs.vwx 1/28/19 F & M A R C H I T E C T SREMARKSZ-011931 Gibson Ave.Aspen, CO 81611City of Aspen Building Dept.1/29/19HPC Submittal 1LEGEND - SUBGRADE WALL CALCULATION EXPOSED WALL AREA SUBGRADE WALL AREA 931 Gibson Existing FAR 931 Gibson. Existing Floor Area Calculations Allowable Single family FAR is 4530 Sq Ft. Main Level Floor Area Calculations Notes Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1265.75 Main Level Garage Gross Floor Area 0.00 Main Level Gross Floor Area TOTAL 1265.75 Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1265.75 Main Level Garage Countable Floor Area 0.00 250 SF exempt. (%50x250) 26.575.020.D.7 R-15A Zone Main Level Countable Floor Area TOTAL 1265.75 Existing 2nd Level Floor Area Calculations 2nd Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1265.75 2nd Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1145.54 -upper most stair openings Proposed Sub-Grade Floor Area Calculations Basement Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1265.75 Basement Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)467.06 36.9% Exposed Wall Area Exempt per 26.575.020.D.8 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch 30.20 Exempt per 26.575.020.D.5 Less than 30” above finished grade Non-covered Patios 0.00 Counts per 26.575.020.D.6 Covered by 5’ overhang Covered patio 194.12 Greater than 4’ overhanging roof, all SF counts Total Deck Floor Area 367.41 Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)679.50 (4530 SF x %15)Up to %15 Exempt per 26.575.020.D.4 Deck/Porch/patio Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)194.12 Exempt per 26.575.020.D.4 Existing Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)3797.25 Existing Total FAR (Sq Ft)3072.47 4530 SF max allowable FAR REMAINING FAR: 1457.53 1P235 IV.B. P236 V.A. P237 V.A. Public Comment - 01 From: bumsranch(ftmail.com To: Sarah Yoon Subject: 931 Gibson Date: Tuesday,February 26,2019 12:18:11 PM Dear HPC, I am writing to support the project at 931 Gibson.It appears all code requirements are met.The current landmark is in horrible shape and with the full restoration of both buildings,this is a win for both the city and the neighbors. Thank you in advance for your support. Randy Cadwallader Randy Cadwallader address:351 Park Avenue Public Comment - 02 From: Laura To: Sarah Yoon Subject: Fwd:931 Gibson project Date: Tuesday,February 26,2019 2:56:48 PM Please find letter below LAURA MAGGOS 970.379.6699 Laura Maggos Properties Begin forwarded message: From: Don Lang<donaldlan,g(acomcast.net> Date: February 25, 2019 at 5:22:19 PM MST To: <laura lauramaggos.com> Subject: 931 Gibson project Dear H PC, have been a 30 year resident at 980 King Street and support the project at 931 Gibson. The project does not ask for any variances and meets the code requirements which is not typically the case in the City of Aspen. The landmark is currently dilapidated and the Hendrys' propose a full restoration of both buildings and a new location that is more suited to the landmark. The addition makes sense and does not overwhelm the landmark. strongly encourage you to approve this project — it is outstanding historic preservation and appropriate new construction all within the parameters of the code. Sincerely, Donald Lang Public Comment - 03 From: Dave Near To: Sarah Yoon Subject: Letter Of Support Date: Tuesday,February 26,2019 3:23:08 PM Dear HPC, Please accept this letter of support for the project at 931 Gibson. The project does not ask for any variances and meets the code requirements which is not typically the case in Aspen. The landmark is currently dilapidated and the Hendrys propose a full restoration of both buildings and a new location that is much more suited to the landmark. The addition makes sense and does not overwhelm the landmark. I strongly encourage you to approve this project—it is outstanding historic preservation and appropriate new construction all within the parameters of the code. Sincerely, Dave Near Front Four LLC 341 Park Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Public Comment - 04 From: Laura To: Sarah Yoon Subject: 931 Gibson,Aspen,CO Date: Tuesday,February 26,2019 3:24:39 PM Sarah, Please find below another letter from Sallie Golden in support of our proposal. Thanking you kindly, Laura LAURA MAGGOS 970.379.6699 Laura Maggos Properties Dear HPC, The 931 project does not ask for any variances and meets the code requirements which does not usually happen. The Hendrys acquired a landmark that needs a lot of attention and repair, and they propose a full restoration of both buildings and a new location that is much more suited to the landmark. The addition makes sense and does not overwhelm the landmark. I strongly encourage you to approve this project—it is an excellent example of historic preservation. Sallie Golden 325 Park Avenue AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Gl '3 <2 Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Ini l -ems ?� k6%f30 ,20 L9 STATE OF COLORADO ) . ss. County of Pitkin ) I, (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the CiVy of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto: 'Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was* composed of letters not less than one inch in height:' Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15).days prior to the public hearing on the_ day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the .mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department,,which contains the information described in Section 26:304.060(E)(2)of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no'rnoTe than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A COPY of the owners,and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicantattests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted.prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(3 0) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate'owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and. new Specially Planned Areas, are subject.to this notice requirement. Rezoning or tett amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey. map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature Therr--foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this day 20ff-,by- e�� NOTICE OF PUBLIC t1EARB10 RE:931 Glbson Avenue Wed e: InFebruary27th,20,9;4:3v PM WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Meeting Location: City Hall,len Council Chambers 130 S.-Galena St.,Aspen;CO 81611 Project Location:931 Gibson Avenue,PID#2737 M c mm].ssion ex fres. 07400 004. Legal deac0 1 n provided below. y Descrl on:The applicant is requesting approval for demolishing the existing non-historic structure on 931 Gibson and siting the two historic buildings from 333 Park to 931 Gibson onto a new basement. Ap• plksnt requests conceptual major development ap- proval for conshuc8ng a new addition. Land Use Revlww: Coneeptual Major Dwel- Notary POlic . ntan - d,Demolitlon. , o�•P-m-e..... DDadWonMMaldnBBody: Historic PreservationCommission • Sf Y3850: ( PC BMHouston,Inv tt ents, LTD, 1001 Fannia KAREN REED PATTERSON More Information: For further information re-� NOTARY PUBLIC Bated to the project,contact Sarah spa m the Cit ATTACHMENTS AS APPLIC LFA of Aspen Community Development Department,136 STATE OF COLORADO S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO,970.920.5144,sareh.yoc, OTARY.ID#19964Q02787 n=1 DescAPtlon: 'Parcel 1: A Parcel a r'SE PUBLICATION My Commission Expires Februmry 15,2020 Land situated in the Soulheast 14 of Section 7, cipal Mend a mo e R ry e�t.,riWbsd ate:a".WH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SI Eng^^1itf^e , NERS AND GOAGENCIES NOTICED VERNMENTAL ' East 56.10 feet; Thence South 34°54'00" Weal VE OW 46.63 feet to The True Point of Beginning;Thence North 63°58'00"West 185.12 feet; Thence South ' 15°30100"West 86.60 feet;Thence South 63°54'00" East 155.54 feet; Thence North 34°4East fT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE 88.30 feet to The Point of Beginning.Parcel 2:A Tract of Land situated in the Sunset Lode,U.S.M.S. No.5310,being more fully described as follows:Be-&ED BY C.R.S. X24-65.5-103.3 ginning at a point 0n the Easterly side line of said Sunset Lode whence Corner No.10 of East Aspen Additional Townsite bears North 34145'East 46.63 Feet;Thence North 631 58'West 185.12 feet to a Fon the Westerly side line of said Lode;Thence following said Westerly side line North 15130"East 17.03;Thence South 62°54'41" East 150.27 feet; Thence 39.76 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 295.57 feet to a point on said Easterly aide;Thence following said Easterly side line South 34°45'West 10.70 feet to The Poin of Beginning. Together with any property lyirg Northerly of the above described property and the 3oulhe line of Gibson Avenue. Published in the Aspen Times on February 7,2019 0000376949 a AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 931 Gibson ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Feb. 27 , 2019_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Sara Adams (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. _x Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the 11 th day of_February , 2019, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _x Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. _n/a_ Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30)days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title,or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. S;� Signature The egomg"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowled ed efpre me this 1!__day of 20_, by c A`Yl5 TARA L. 14ELS014 NOTARY PUBLIC WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL STATE OF COLORADO NO-ARY ID#20,014030017 q 74 Mly Commission Expires Sep,emter25,202 1 My commission expires: l 7,15 Z0 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN • LIST OF THE OWNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 CITY OFASPEN 130 S. Galena Street,Aspen,CO 81611 p: (970)920.5090 w:www.aspenpitkin.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 931 Gibson Avenue Public Hearing: Wednesday, February 27th, 2019; 4:30PM Meeting Location: City Hall, City Council Chambers 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 931 Gibson Avenue, PID# 2737-074-00-004. Full legal description provided in Attachment 1. Description: The applicant is requesting approval for demolishing the existing non-historic structure on 931 Gibson and siting the two historic buildings from 333 Park to 931 Gibson onto a new basement. Applicant requests conceptual major development approval for constructing a new addition. Land Use Reviews: Conceptual Major Development and Demolition. Decision Making Body: Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Applicant: BMH Investments, LTD, 1001 Fannin St.#3850, Houston,TX 77002. More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Sarah Yoon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,Aspen, CO, 970.920.5144, sarah.voon@citvofaspen.com. 1 oil CITY OFASPEN 130 S. Galena Street,Aspen,CO 81611 p: (970) 920.5090 w:www.aspenpitkin.com Attachment 1- Legal Description of Addresses 931 Gibson Avenue Parcel 1: A Parcel of Land situated in the Southeast % of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence corner No. 11 of the East Aspen Additional Townsite bears South 54°52'17" East 58.10 feet;Thence South 34°54'00" West 46.63 feet to The True Point of Beginning;Thence North 6358'00" West 185.12 feet;Thence South 1530'00" West 86.60 feet; Thence South 6354'00" East 155.54 feet; Thence North 34°45'00" East 88.30 feet to The Point of Beginning. Parcel 2: A Tract of Land situated in the Sunset Lode, U.S.M.S. No. 5310, being more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly side line of said Sunset Lode whence Corner No. 10 of East Aspen Additional Townsite bears North 3445' East 46.63 Feet; Thence North 63° 58' West 185.12 feet to a point on the Westerly side line of said Lode;Thence following said Westerly side line North 15°30" East 17.03; Thence South 62°54'41" East 150.27 feet; Thence 39.76 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 295.57 feet to a point on said Easterly side;Thence following said Easterly side line South 34°45' West 10.70 feet to The Point of Beginning. Together with any property lying Northerly of the above described property and the Southerly line of Gibson Avenue. 2 exhibit L Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273707400004 on 01/30/2019 % TKIN IOU NT Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Disclaimer: Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com ELA CHARLES S ISAAC THOMAS D REV TRST CRAVEN ELLYN KATHLEEN 140 MAPLE LN 975 KING ST 124 MAPLE LN ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 THALBERG K MARITAL INC TRUST GIBSON MATCHLESS LLC BLEEKER STREET REV TRUST 128 HITCHING POST RD 1924 PIEDMONT CIR NE PO BOX 22 BOZEMAN,MT 59715 ATLANTA,GA 30324 ASPEN,CO 81612 DOUGHERTY THOMAS P HATANAKA HOWARD I LEILA KING LLC 5317 LIMESTONE RD 980 KING ST 4 EMBARCADERO CTR#1900 WILMINGTON,DE 19808 ASPEN,CO 81611 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94111 FOERSTER JAMES FARR TENA D LANG DONALD W 0134 MAPLE LN PO BOX 7534 PO BOX 4166 ASPEN,CO 81611 SPRECKELS,CA 93962 ASPEN,CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN BECKER ALAN K TRUST LAWRENCE LARRY S QPR TRUST 130 S GALENA ST 950 MATCHLESS DR 8560 RUETTE MONTE CARLO ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 LA JOLLA,CA 92037 ALVIS MARCI L BREBNER RICHARD KASABACH JACQUELYN A 8827 W SAM HOUSTON PKWY N#200 124 MAPLE LN PO BOX 4166 HOUSTON,TX 77040 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 WEISMAN FAMILY LP PATTERSON KAREN&CHARLES HEARTSTONE LLC 2708 IRVING AVE S 129 MAPLE LN PO BOX 151 MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55406 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ALVIS STEVEN D SACHSE TODD 990 KING ST UNIT#4 LLC 8827 W SAM HOUSTON PKWY N#200 1528 WOODWARD AVE#600 1295 RIVERSIDE DR HOUSTON,TX 77040 DETROIT,MI 48226 ASPEN,CO 81611 GIBSON 910 LLC JUNGQUIST DAVID J REV TRUST SHEEBER AIMEE 1871 N HOWE 6348 HWY 36 BLVD#8 138 MAPLE LN CHICAGO,IL 60614 SAINT PAUL,MN 55128 ASPEN,CO 81611 WARMING SOLVEIG GIRVIN LINDA A CAIN JOHN J TRUST 120 MAPLE LN 414 N MILL ST 18160 COTTONWOOD RD#375 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SUNRIVER,OR 97707 981 KING STREET LLC DODARO CHRISTINE&PETER WAGAR RICHARD H PO BOX 3123 930 MATCHLESS DR PO BOX 9063 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN RYAN MARTHA BECK JEFFREY L&JANET SUE 130 S GALENA ST 127 MAPLE LN 6211 RAINTREE CT ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75254 BROWNELL CONDO ASSOC BENZIGER KATHERINE WAGAR RICHARD H 996 GIBSON AVE 1050 MATCHLESS DR#2 PO BOX 9063 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 KNIGHT ERIC BYARD ANNE/MORRIS JAMES LIV TRUST HAT COLORADO LLC 138 MAPLE LN 860 GIBSON AVE 10866 WILSHIRE BLVD#1100 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 LOS ANGELES,CA 90024 SHOAF JEFFREY S HARRIS DAVID E&PATRICIA FARR TENA D 1989 TRUST PO BOX 3123 117 NEALE AVE PO BOX 7534 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 SPRECKELS,CA 93962 SMALLS RAY MAPLE CHARLES A&BRYCE M 990 KING ST UNIT#2 LLC PO BOX 3197 1250 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 1295 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 DIBELLO JACQUELINE MAINIAC PROPERTIES LLC 17 QUEEN LLC 990 KING ST#1 201 US ROUTE 1#226 1315 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ASPEN,CO 81611 SCARBOROUGH,ME 04074 ASPEN,CO 81611 RUGGIERI LISA ANN JUNGQUIST TERRI L REV TRUST CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL 136 MAPLE LN 6348 HWY 36 BLVD#8 130 MAPLE LN ASPEN,CO 81611 SAINT PAUL,MN 55128 ASPEN,CO 816112179 PATRICIA CONDO ASSOC HAMILTON VIRGINIA RUTH DWS FAMILY TRUST COMMON AREA 0134 MAPLE LN 1918 N OLIVE STREET#1901 980 KING ST ASPEN,CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75201 ASPEN,CO 81611 WALDRON K BRENT LAWRENCE MARA B QPR TRUST RACQUET CLUB CONDO ASSOC PO BOX 4900 8560 RUETTE MONTE CARLO 1000 MATCHLESS DR ASPEN,CO 81612 LA JOLLA,CA 92037 ASPEN,CO 81611 SURVIVORS TRUST URBAN BLIGHT CONDO ASSOC MEADOWS JEAN R&STANLEY H 1352 BAY ST COMMON AREA 538 HILLSIDE DR ALAMEDA,CA 94501 925 GIBSON AVE HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 ASPEN,CO 81611 FUENTE DAVID&SHEILA SNOW ORCHID LLC KETAI JAMES A 701 TERN POINT CIR 1125 SAN MATEO DR 1528 WOODWARD AVE#600 BOCA RATON,FL 33431 MENLO PARK,CA 94025 DETROIT,MI 48226 VARE DARLENE DESEDLE TRUST LIPSEY WILLIAM S ROCKY MTN PROPERTY II LLC 1024 19TH ST#7 955 KING ST 73 SMUGGLER GROVE RD SANTA MONICA,CA 90403 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 TEUSCHER JONATHAN W&ANNETTE L GREENWOOD WILLIAM S SMUGGLER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 126 MAPLE LN PO BOX 4778 OAK LN,COTTONWOOD LN,MAPLE LN ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 PERKINS WENDY LIVING TRUST BELINDA BEE CONDO 122 MAPLE LN 990 KING ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 wni -, A', fp TICE PUBLic NO Dat71e: t err �� � � 'n� � � ��• ' \ Purpose: f 4jfl'5�*nr an by r i a a of ►� • t 4 J� R 1 � �. 1 • ''tiM t S i'.I � ��,� {F• •t ^"'tea � �•�t a � .► ���.: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY- to to 15 C Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: fro STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, _ (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the CityQf Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section_of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. 'A copy of the publication is attached hereto. "Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which wascomposed of letters not less than one inch in height.' Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the_day of ) 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the .mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26..304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted-prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(3 0) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and.new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signafure The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowled ed before me this _] day of 201,E ,by- NOTICE yNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE:105 East Hallam Street Public Hearing: WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL . Wednesday,February 27th,2019;4:30PM Meeting Location: City Hall,City Council Chambers My commission expires: ' 130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO 81611 Project Location: 105 East Hallam Street,PID#2735-124-37-002.Le- gally described as the East 25.14 feet of Lot B and the West 8 feet of Lot C,Block 65,City and Townsite of AspenColorado. NOta1 y Pub C Description:The applicant requests approval for re- location of a historic residence onto a new base- ment,and the construction of a new addition.Set- back variations are requested. Land Use Reviews: Major Development,Relo- cKAREN REED PATTERSON ation,and Setback Variations �V� Decision Making Body: Historic Preservation Commission a NOpUSS NOTARY r eOe rC Applicant: 105 East Hallam LLC,623 East ATTAC NTS AS APPLI ABMTE OF COLORADO Hopkins Avenue,Aspen,CF For T7'p T T �/+� NOTARY ID SIN0002767 More Information: For further information re-F TR PURL CAT l'ON �Iu C � C 15,2= C .uyyt latae to the project, evel of Amy Simon m the City of MY Egim 5,2= ' Galena Community t.,Aspe,Development O 970 429.Department, 7 8 rime°`'130 S.GRAPH OF TSE POSTED NOTICE(37 V.7 V,1 - amy.shed in the Asp oen.00m ,THE 0TVATERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED Published in the Aspen Times on February 7.2019 0000376908 L , • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUM-ED BY C.RS. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPE TY: 10,5 EL� ,S Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 20-4 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) L (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) �daayys prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. '� Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the JZ� day of , 20il, to and including the date and time of the public hearin A photog aph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. v�Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inslection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days pri,r to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The Pregoing"Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this day of , 20Lq by 11AM � WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL CAMERON SPENCER CUTCHIN 1 1 Notary Public-State of Colorado My commission expires: t/' ��f 1 Notary ID 20184017762 My Commission Expires Apr 24, 20220'AmbV144 - Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 "M t � r PUBLIC NOTICE :- r Date: Wed.. February 27,2019 Time: 4:30 p m Place: 130 S.Galena St.,Cit Hall,Council Chay Chambers Purpose: HPC will consider an application 105 East Hallam LLC Easby Hopkins Ave 623 East this r Aspen Cor affecting p opera•Applicant relocate historic residence to new base ence onto a basemen and construct a addition.Setback variations are new requested.Required Land Use Approvals:Relocation Development, Major For more infor and Setbackvariation 0 mations 97 � 429-27,8 r x rv� ►�I�rIIIIII(IlrlfIII till l[,1rH IIfIIIf!IfIIIIIIlIIf I[I!11111111 11919 00 N3dStf 1S VN3lb'O S 0£1 N3dSV JO.1110 3�3tl0i - v r•. Rv...r- �... �� r--.®a>: 3 ':cS i• i ii L L9L8 00 uadsy ZOZ 1S buudS oS 00£ S T,9 Cr, swepvUOPUDE] ,,Irllt1ifII,III[fill 1II„trlrl►IfIIIIIIIIIIflll�lll��lt�l►IIIf+I - - - " - 119L8 OO'N3dSV 1S VN31y0 S 0£1 N3dSy JO.1110 tl,�3tlai vsn +..^""... . .: -- 4' ti 0 L19L8 00 uadsy z .�, �,.Y• d 4 a Oz �J rL is ZOZ 1S 6ulfdS OS 00£ swepvu®pu@8 O .M"~M � "fru .M� _� 9•`�� `�....F ��fl��l'_���d1X1 t� t`'f\����L..�