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.20191113
1 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 13, 2019 4:30 PM, City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I.SITE VISIT II.ROLL CALL III.MINUTES III.A.Minutes - October 9 & 23, 2019 coa.hpc.100919.docx coa.hpc.102319.docx IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VII.PROJECT MONITORING VIII.STAFF COMMENTS IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED X.CALL UP REPORTS XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XII.OLD BUSINESS XIII.NEW BUSINESS XIII.A.234 W. Francis Street - Conceptual Major Development, Floor Area Bonus, and Setback Variations, PUBLIC HEARING 234WFrancis_Memo_11.13.19.pdf 234WFrancis_Resolution_11.13.19.pdf ExhibitA.1_HPGuidelinesCriteria.pdf ExhibitA.2_SetbackVariationCriteria.pdf 1 2 ExhibitA.3_FloorAreaBonus.pdf ExhibitB_ReferralComments.pdf ExhibitC_Application.pdf XIV.ADJOURN XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met. Revised April 2, 2014 2 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2019 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Sheri Sanzone, Kara Thompson. Absent were: Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Richard Lai. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner MINUTES: Mr. Blaich moved to approve the minutes of September 25th, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:Ms. Greenwood said HPC got mentioned in the paper yesterday. She said it was so last year and a different mayor. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone said she has two, the first and third items. Mr. Moyer said he was in New York last week and he went to the Tenement Museum. He said it was quite fascinating and went back to the 1800’s. One floor is Irish, one is German, one is Italian, etc. The building itself has been used since the 1800’s, but the upper floors sat vacant since 1930. He went to the Irish floor and said it was pretty awful conditions. It was really uncomfortable. If you ever get a chance to go, considering what we do, you should. It’s a great vignette of New York City and the Five Points area. Ms. Thompson said she visited the museum in high school on a field trip. PROJECT MONITORING:Ms. Simon said she just has the updated list but said Ms. Yoon has two items to discuss with Ms. Thompson after the meeting. CALL UPS: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon said they issued one to replace windows in the Floradora building at 400 W. Main. It’s an unusual building with a big Victorian on the far east end and a confusing addition. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said they are going to start off the next meeting with a site visit to the Institute. They will be submitting an application for the Resnick Center for Herbert Byer studies, which is a new building they will be proposing. She wants to get them out to the site before the snow comes. Mr. Moyer said that he and Ms. Berko went on the historic architectural tour last week with Harry Teague and stopped at Triangle Park. All the boxes and trees are still there, so he made a comment to the group about what HPC is doing, which was well received. As they were standing on the street, they couldn’t see the resource. I would encourage us to be more attentive and Mr. Teague did a great job. Ms. Simon said the city paid for the development of a Bauhaus architecture tour, which goes through the west end. After the Bauhaus celebration was over, we gave it to the historical society to take over. 3 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2019 Ms. Yoon apologized for missing the last meeting and said she was in London for a week. It was nice and the weather was ok. The architecture is fabulous. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon said Ms. Bryan has the notice on the first and last items and Mr. Larimer will be bringing the notice down for his item. Ms. Sanzone exited the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 229 W. Smuggler Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this project received an HPC award last year. It’s a really nice Victorian era home with a detached new house built next to it as a duplex. During HPC approval, there was a small deck allowed on the east side of the historic resource. The little deck provides an area off the kitchen for a barbecue grill and has steps that descend towards the east. It’s fairly undersized and the owner would like something larger and would like to replace with larger platform and stairs which descend towards the north. This requires a setback variation. Staff supports the project. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: John Schenck and Evan Barrett of CCY architects. Mr. Schenck said that Ms. Simon did a great job of summarizing the proposal. One thing to add, is that the original design was meant not to look like a secondary entrance. What we’ve done, is taken the footprint of the existing deck and shifted it to the south and reoriented the stairs to the north. So, now, the owner/occupant can walk out and go towards the patio instead of walking out to the east and going down steps. He showed a couple of views of what it looked like in the spring and the existing condition. The front is not a competing entranceand raising the deck is a benefit to the owners for sure. He said he thinks the building department will be happy to see this change. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. MOTION: Mr. Blaich moved to approve resolution #17, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Sanzone reentered the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 202 E. Main Sarah Yoon Ms. Yoon said this property is currently the consignment shop on Main street and is located in the mixed-use zone district. The applicant is proposing for a single-family use. The application was accepted before the code changes were adopted. Ms. Yoon showed a historic photograph of the miner’s cottage on screen. At the last meeting, the applicant took HPC’s comments into consideration for the redesign of the new addition. Compatibility was pointed out withthe historic resource. They have moved the lightwell that was in question. Staff supports the removal of the spruce tree. We recommend the applicant coordinate discussions with the relevant city departments regarding stormwater mitigation and site excavation. Staff is not in support of the new dormer addition. There is a five-foot connecting element, which is one story and tucks under the historic eave. Staff supports the request for setback variations because it meets the criteria. There is also a request for a parking reduction. The applicant has revised this to accommodate two parking spaces. It was provided 4 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2019 yesterday in an email. The revised design changes the design of the rear elosia. It now fully accommodates for the rear entrance and for the full space of two parking spaces for this residence. Staff is in support of the redesign. In terms of a floor area bonus request, this application is being reviewed under the old benefits requirements. Staff feels they meet all criteria for the floor area bonus and are in support of it. The applicant is also taking a floor area reduction with the change in use. Condition #1 can be removed, and staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 2. removal of new dormer 3. flat grate and lightwells with a curb cut of less than six inches 4. variations – trash enclosure added 5. staff continue discussion with city departments regarding storm water mitigation 6. work with staff and monitor on details 7. excavation discussion with engineering 8. relocation, securities and monies 9. submit for final review within one year within conceptual approval Ms. Greenwood asked them to clarify the granting of the 500 square foot bonus when a new roof has been added. Ms. Yoon said the bonus is granted without the proposed dormer. The roof wasn’t presented in the previous application. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jake Vickery, architect and owner Mr. Vickery said he has a detailed preservation plan at this point. All the historic surfaces stay in place and even the window on the back is staying in place and there is nothing being disturbed. All of our windows, including the corner windows, are all proportioned on the proportion of the existing windows. The elevation has been revised and it became six feet instead of eight feet deep. We recessed the second-floor area. The idea in his mind, is that next door is the historic shed and he felt like this one- story element gestured to that shed. He’s personally conflicted about the dormer. He’d like to keep the original form of the resource intact, and he respects that, but he believesthis dormer, is minimally intrusive with the benefit of additional space and light. Ms. Sanzone asked, regarding storm water concept, if they need to depress that to hold the water in the front yard and Mr. Vickery said the conversation with engineering didn’t get into it that far. Ms. Greenwood asked what the width of the connecting element is and Mr. Vickery said 16’8”. Ms. Thompson asked how far the connector element is set back and Mr. Vickery said 7’4”. PUBLIC COMMENT: Della Pegolotti, Co-owner. Mr. Vickery has put a lot of hard work and time into this to make it right. She has had her store there for over 20 years. Ms. Greenwood said we have recommendations, but the 500 ft. bonus isn’t part of the approval. It’s a really excellent restoration except for the dormer, in her opinion. That is wrong for the preservation and not deserving of the bonus. She is in favor of everything except for this. She is in favor of approving the 500 ft. bonus with no dormer. That needs to be written differently in the resolution. Mr. Halferty agrees and although lovely from the space and not very visible, it’s taking away some of the historic record, so he is not in favor of the dormer. 5 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2019 Ms. Greenwood said she likes that the windows pay respect to the historic windows on the resource. Mr. Blaich said that no one is taking a stance on approving the project without the 500 ft. bonus. Other than that, he shares opinions that have already been stated. Ms. Greenwood said it’s a little jewel, that house, the way it is. Ms. Thompson is in favor of approving the 500 sq. ft bonus without the dormer and she said this is a much better project than what was presented before. She said it’s much more developed and she thanked Mr. Vickery for his hard work. Ms. Greenwood said this is exactly the kind of project we want to see. You might be the last to get a 500 sq. foot bonus. Without the dormer, it’s perfect preservation. She thinks it’s well done. She asked the board if they are in agreement about the dormer and everyone said yes. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the project to include a 500 sq. ft. bonus, a 2 ft. setback reduction, a 5 ft. setback reduction, a 2 ft. setback reduction and up to a 5 ft. side yard setback reduction, which involves the lightwells and trash enclosure and with the following conditions: 2, 3 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. It might be clearerto write in a separate bullet point for the trash enclosure because that requires a rear setback variation. Ms. Bryan said it would be easier to say they are approving resolution #18 as proposed with the following deletions or additions. Ms. Sanzone made an amendment to #5. She would like the storm water design to come back to us for approval instead of being approved by staff and monitor. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve resolution #18, allowing a 500 sq. foot bonus and with the five following variations regarding setbacks as listed in item #4 to include the trash enclosure. Along with the following conditions: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and #5 coming back to HPC for final review, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes. 6-0 roll call vote. Motion carried. Ms. Sanzone exited the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 314 w. Main St. Garrett Larimer Mr. Larimer said this is a special review for a parking waiver. It is located in the mixed-use zone district. The requests include a minor development review for an amendment to a site wall, a special review for a parking waiver, and a historic preservation benefit review for a waiver of the cash in lieu fee for the parking requirement. This is a historic carriage house associated with the Smith Elijah house located on west Main. A historic lot split was approved in 2002, which created two 4500 sq. ft. lots. During the lot split approval, 314 W. Main was a mixed-use building with a residential unit on the upper level. More recently, it has been used as a single-family residence. A change in use application was submitted to be a single-family home. Compliance with parking for a single-family residence in the mixed-use zone district is required. Two onsite parking spaces are required. The applicant submitted a potential parking 6 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2019 configuration with a stacked parking configuration accessed from the alley. In order to accommodate the second parking space, two trees would need to be removed and parks doesn’t want to remove them. The ability to waive the onsite parking space is part of the HP benefit program. Staff is supportive of waiving both spaces and the cash in lieu fee. There is a space to the north, but not enough space to accommodate a legal parking space. The second part is for a minor development review to a historic site wall running along the sidewalk on Main street. This is the only feasible access path. He showed some photos from 1950 and 1975. Staff is supportive of the requested site wall alteration. Staff is in support of both changes including parking and the site wall. Mr. Halferty asked about the site wall and whether there has been any discussion with engineering. Mr. Larimer said that planning staff hasn’t been engaged with engineering and neither has the applicant. Ms. Greenwood said she is curious why they don’t have to pay a cash in lieu fee and Mr. Larimer said the applicant came forward with a parking plan, so the city is giving them a benefit. This was submitted under the prior code and is an HP benefit. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams and Wendy Sturgis, owner Mr. Bendon said there was a parking waiver originally granted by the city and the stone wall hasn’t been addressed to date. Many people have all wiped out on it because it’s the right height to be stumbled over. There was an issue that popped up today, there’s a wall and foundation along the rear that supports the building that may be failing or bulging. It’s on our list of things to do, addressing some drainage issues so we need to reroute to bolster the foundation. The neighbors sent letters to the city about this and we’re all in good communication. Mr. Larimer read a letter entered into the record from CCA Architects on behalf of their client, Dennis Chookaszian, owner of 109 N. 2nd St. (formerly 300 W. Main St.) Ms. Greenwood asked Mr. Larimer what the engineering department will be requiring, and he said he doesn’t know. Mr. Bendon said it’s going to be very minor with no change to the drainage patterns. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve resolution #19, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes, Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0, all in favor. MOTION:Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 7 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2019 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Scott Kendrick. Absent were: Kara Thompson, Sheri Sanzone, Richard Lai, Nora Berko. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Simon about Mr. Guy’s project on Main Street and whether he is raising the whole building or not. Ms. Simon said he let go of the idea as it wasn’t realistic. HPC didn’t ask him to do that anyway. Ms. Greenwood said it would have been a dog and pony show. Mr. Moyer asked if everything is ok with the Crystal Palace and Ms. Simon said they are basically tearing it down and will send everyone a graphic. She said only the first floor of the west facing wall is historic. The building we have been looking at was built in 1977, when they originally tore most of it down. Ms. Simon said the Aspen Times put up an aggravating video which got everyone riled up. Ms. Greenwood agreed and said if people want to know the reality, they should come to our meetings. She said she thought about writing a letter to the editor, but never has. Ms. Simon said the building wasn’t designated historic until 1981 after it was originally torn down. Mr. Blaich said he has told people to go over there and look on the wall at the history as it explains everything. Ms. Greenwood said this type of thing happens all the time. Mr. Halferty asked about the Boomerang and if it’s a demolition by neglect thing. Ms. Simon said they’ve inspected it several times and said it’s held up pretty well. She said they need to go over and button it up and that Mark Hunt has bought it. Mr. Moyer said his original paint job is still holding up well. CONFLICTS: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said she will email everyone to make sure there is a quorum for the November 20th meeting. Mr. Moyer, Mr. Kendrick, Ms. Greenwood and Mr. Halferty said they would be in attendance. Mr. Blaich said he will be traveling most likely. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: Ms. Yoon said 616 ½ W. Main Street was called up in council on Tuesday night for the TDR’s and said it was passed but amended. NEW BUSINESS: 1020 E. Cooper Ave. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 8 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2019 MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to continue to December 11th, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ______________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 9 Page 1 of 10 130 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: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: November 13, 2019 RE: 234 West Francis Street – Conceptual Major Development Review, Setback Variations, and Floor Area Bonus, PUBLIC HEARING. APPLICANT /OWNER: 234 West Francis LLC REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams LOCATION: Street Address: 234 W. Francis Street Legal Description: Lots K, L and M, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-124-17-003 CURRENT ZONING & USE R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) Residential Use PROPOSED USE: No change SUMMARY: The applicant has requested a Conceptual Major Development review for the demolition of non-historic additions, increase of subgrade living space, and the construction of a new rear addition. The applicant seeks setback variations for the existing garage that is proposed to be modified and a 500 sf floor area bonus. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation of this project to restudy the issues identified on page 9 of this memo. Site Locator Map – 234 W. Francis Street 234 10 Page 2 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: 234 West Francis Street is a locally designated landmark and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The 1904 Sanborn Map confirms the current lot includes two historic properties which have since merged into a single 9,000 sf lot in the R-6 zone district. This property contains a two-story Victorian home and a one-story miner’s cabin. The 2000 Historic Inventory Form describes the historic property as lots K, L and M with descriptions of the one-story miner’s cabin as an associated building. In addition to its architectural significance, the property is associated with significant figures such as Judge Davis Waite, and later Herbert Bayer. In the early 90s HPC approved alterations and setback variations to the one-story resource which received Conditional Use approval to be a detached accessory dwelling unit by the Planning and Zoning Commission (Resolution 93-22). A Notice of Approval was issued this year to remove this voluntary deed restriction with conditions (Reception #657651). The building will no longer be a separate dwelling unit. In 1998 the property received HPC approval for the existing rear addition, temporary relocation for a new basement, and setback variations for the garage structure (Resolution 2-1998 and Resolution 17- 1998). Enforcement action took place on this property due to inappropriate construction practices that resulted in the loss of historic material. A remediation plan was reviewed and approved with conditions by HPC to address the situation (Resolution 14-1999). Figure 1 – Sanborn Map, 1904 Figure 2 – Historic Bird’s Eye View, 1893 REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for demolition of non-historic additions and construction of a new addition towards the rear of the historic building. • Setback Variation (Section 26.415.110.C) for the modified garage addition. • Floor Area Bonus (Section 26.415.110.F) request for a 500 sf bonus. The HPC is the final review authority, however, this project is subject to Call-up Notice to City Council. 11 Page 3 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to demolish part of the non-historic addition directly behind the two-story Victorian home but retain and modify the garage structure to the northwest corner of the property. A new above grade addition is proposed. Currently, there are two separate full basements underneath each historic building. The applicant proposes to connect and increase the basement into a single subgrade space. Restoration work is proposed on both historic structures with the request for a 500 sf floor area bonus, and a new request for setback variations is required for the modified garage structure that currently sits within the rear and side yard setbacks. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed Conceptual Major Development design removes non-historic additions/features and concentrates living space below grade. Staff supports the proposed restoration efforts; however, staff is concerned with the proposed above grade addition and the pergola feature connecting the two historic resources together. A new addition, particularly on a corner lot, must achieve design compatibility that complements the historic resource by relating strongly to form. Staff finds the proposed above grade addition reads as an amalgam of unrelated forms at different scales that do not relate to the historic resource, and recommends restudy. With the proposed addition, staff finds that the criteria for a floor area bonus is not met. Staff supports the request for setback variations pertaining to the garage feature but finds the roof form needs to correlate with the recommended restudy of the new addition. The following points go into more detail regarding the proposal for HPC discussion: 1. Site Planning & Relocation: The property is a corner lot located at the intersection of Francis Street and 2nd Street with an alley abutting the rear of the lot. This condition provides three highly visible elevations. Along the periphery of the lot there are large trees that must be maintained and protected. The applicant has been in communication with the City Forester to identify which trees may be removed along the alley. The cluster of trees to the northeast corner of the property must remain and the drip lines for these trees must be protected. The historic resources are to remain in their existing location. Staff finds that the location of the above grade addition is generally appropriate, given the site constraints, but recommends additional study to create more visual porosity when viewing the property from Francis Street. Typically, additions are to be on axis with the historic resource, more so than prominently L-shaped, which significantly conflicts with the width of the historic structure. Staff finds the proposed pergola connecting the two historic buildings to be inappropriate preservation practice that also minimizes positive open space on site (Design Guideline 1.7 and 8.3). The applicant includes a preliminary stormwater plan for the site that includes two drywells and a small retention pond. As indicated in the comments from the Engineering Department, the use of drywells is considered a last resort. Staff recommends continued communication with relevant 12 Page 4 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com City Departments to better define a stormwater plan that is most appropriate for the site. (See Exhibit B for detailed comments.) Figure 3 – Proposed Site Plan Staff finds the general location of the proposed addition towards the southwest corner of the site to be appropriate, but recommends additional study regarding the extent to which the addition extends eastward. This is of particular concern because the tress along the alley push the addition towards the center of the site as perceived from Francis Street. Staff finds the proposed pergola is inappropriate and recommends its removal. Staff recommends the applicant meet with all relevant City Departments to better define the stormwater plan. 13 Page 5 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com 2. Historic Resource – Restoration: There are two historically significant structures on this property. During the 1998 remodel, the exterior of both buildings was altered. The applicant proposes to remove a large lightwell and the non-historic entry facing Francis Street on the one- story miner’s cabin. The windows on the south façade of this structure and the roof ridge are to be restored using historic documentation, and a small addition to the north elevation is to be removed. The applicant proposes to remove the street facing door on the building, which staff finds requires more documentation. The applicant proposes to remove the non-historic porch and reduce the size of the existing lightwells on the east elevation of the two-story Victorian home. The non-historic addition directly behind the resource will be demolished and the dormer and chimney to the rear of the Victorian home will be restored to match historic photographs. The application calls out a number of historic windows to be reopened and restored. Restoration of architectural features require investigation of building fabric and/or historic documentation. Staff finds the plans for preservation and restoration to be appropriate and recommends the applicant work with staff and monitor to verify historic openings and match architectural details to existing conditions and historic documents. 3. New Addition – Form/Materials/Fenestration: The Design Guidelines are more stringent about design compatibility of a new additions for corner lots. The applicant proposes a new addition to the rear of the property with a 10’ long connecting element. The highest point of the above grade addition is lower than the ridge of the two-story Victorian, but the footprint of the addition is large compared to the main house and extends eastward behind both historic resources. According to Design Guideline 10.6, the new addition needs to be recognized as a product of its own time, but visual compatibility must be achieved by relating to two of the following characteristics: form, material and fenestration. Form: Both historic buildings have gabled roofs that define the overall form of the structures, and Design Guideline 10.6 places an emphasis on the importance of compatible form for corner lots. The proposed building forms include a one-story connecting element with a flat roof and two distinct building masses with shed roofs of differing slopes. The proposed second floor addition orients the highest wall towards Francis Street. Although the addition itself is setback from the historic resources when measured from Francis Street, it does not read as subordinate. (Design Guideline 10.3). The massing of the addition viewed from Second Street is complex, multi-layered, confusing and out of character when compared with the simple rectangular mass under one roof form of the historic resource (Design Guideline 10.8). Materials: The historic resources are clad in horizontal wood siding and cedar shingles. Architectural details include fishscale shingles, turned wooden posts and simple wood trim details. The cladding material proposed for the new addition is horizontal cedar siding with cedar 14 Page 6 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com shingles for the roof. The applicant calls out copper flashing, copper clad windows and copper shingles for the fireplace. According to the Design Guidelines, exposed copper was a material that was not historically used in Aspen. When it comes to materials for flashing and gutters on historic resources, the guidelines recommend lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal with a matte finish (Design Guideline 7.8). Excluding the unfinished copper details, the proposed cladding materials relate strongly to the historic resource. Fenestration: Fenestration choices differ significantly between the south and west elevations of the proposed addition. The south elevation viewed from Francis Street show large areas of glazing that deviates from the ratio of openings to solid wall found on the historic buildings. Inversely, the west elevation shows a limited number of openings. Figure 4 – Proposed South Elevation (View from Francis Street) Figure 5 – Proposed West Elevation (View from Second Street) 15 Page 7 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com The design guidelines state that compatibility of form between the new addition and the historic landmark is particularly important on a corner lot. The multiple number of roof forms on the addition competes with the simple forms demonstrated by the historic resource. Staff finds that the proposed design does not strongly relate to the historic landmark when it comes to form and recommends restudy. 4. Setback Variations: The applicant proposes to maintain the existing footprint of the garage but proposes to change the mass and scale of the structure. Setback variations granted by HPC are site-specific approvals that take the overall design compatibility of structures and how they relate to the historic resource into account. Since the proposed design significantly alters the mass and scale of the existing garage structure, new variations are required. The modified garage feature requires the following setback variations to maintain its current location, as proposed: • 3’ rear yard setback reduction • 10’ west side yard setback reduction • 10’ combined side yard setback reduction 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 finds the modified design of the garage structure with alley access follows the desired pattern of the district and mitigates adverse impacts to the historic resources by maintaining the existing distance. Additionally, the historic resources are not being moved and maintaining their existing alignment which is more than the underlying setback requirements per zone district. Staff supports the request for setback variations to maintain the existing footprint of the modified garage structure since it continues to meet all of the required criteria. 5. Floor Area Bonus: The applicant plans to remove non-historic additions and undergo restoration/preservation work on both historic structures. The lot size determines the maximum allowable floor area bonus, and the maximum floor area bonus a 9,000 sf lot may receive is 500 sf. The applicant requests the full 500 sf bonus for this application. The following four criteria must be met in order to be considered for a floor area bonus: 16 Page 8 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significance of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other nonoriginal finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice the above grade square footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 29 incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. See Exhibit A.3 for complete details regarding floor area bonus and staff findings. The applicant proposes to restore areas that have been altered over the years and preserve historically significant features by utilizing historic documents and photographs. The proposed design tries to limit height and above grade square footage; however, staff finds that the addition does not fully maintain the visual integrity of the historic resource as viewed from both streets. Status of the secondary building as a free-standing building is negatively impacted by the proposed pergola. Staff does not support the granting of a 500 sf bonus with the proposed addition. Staff finds a number of criteria for a floor area bonus are met; however, the proposed design of the new addition and pergola feature does not support the integrity of the historic building. Staff recommends restudy of the new addition before awarding any amount of a floor area. 17 Page 9 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will significantly affect the permit review. The following is a summary of comments received. Please see Exhibit C for full comments. Engineering Department: 1. Demonstrate other Best Management Practices (BMPs) were investigated that support the use of drywells as the only solution, and drywells must flow to City system or appropriately sized for detention. 2. Work with Engineering and Parks Department regarding excavation for water service at the front of the property. ROW excavation for a drywell will not be allowed. 3. New water tap must meet all Water Department standards and a 7’ separation between the water service line and the drywell must be maintained. 4. Variances letter required for drywell within 10’ of the property line. 5. Work with Engineering and Parks Department regarding impacts to trees at the rear of the property for excavation stabilization. 6. All adjacent curb and gutter must be replaced. Zoning Department: 1. Clarify location of fireplace on the east side of the property that appears to encroach on the neighbor’s property. 2. Clarify height of proposed new addition. Must be measured from the most restrictive grade. Parks Department: 1. Air spading required at dripline of Spruce tree to the north side of proposed basement. 2. Minimize impact to Spruce tree on the north side of proposed basement when installing piping for proposed bio retention pond. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue this application for further restudy of the following: 1.) Restudy the proposed addition to achieve design compatibility with the historic landmark as outlined in Design Guideline 10.6, 10.8 and 10.11 by strongly relating to form and either materials or fenestration. 2.) Restudy the site plan to increase visual porosity along Francis Street. 3.) Remove proposed pergola that connect the two historic resources. 4.) Work closely with relevant City Departments and provide a better-defined stormwater mitigation plan that minimizes features in highly visible areas. 5.) Investigate historic framing and historic documents before restoration/reconstruction changes are approved, to be reviewed by staff and monitor. 18 Page 10 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #____, Series of 2019 Exhibit A.1 – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit A.2 – Dimensional Variations Review Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit A.3 – Floor Area Bonus/Staff Findings Exhibit B – Referral Comments Exhibit C – Application 19 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SETBACK VARIATION, AND FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, LOTS K, L AND M, BLOCK 48, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-17-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, 234 West Francis LLC, represented by BendonAdams, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variations, and Floor Area Bonus for the property located at 234 West Francis Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 48, 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 Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and WHEREAS, for approval of Floor Area Bonus, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F, Floor Area Bonus; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommends restudy; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on November 13, 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, Setback Variations and Floor Area Bonus for 234 West Francis Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows: 20 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 2 of 3 Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review, Setback Variations, and Floor Area Bonus. HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variations, and a Floor Area Bonus as proposed with the with the following conditions: 1.) HPC herby grants a 500 sq. ft. Floor Area Bonus for the approved design 2.) The following setback variations are approved for the modified garage structure: • 3’ rear yard setback reduction • 10’ west side yard setback reduction • 10’ combined side yard setback reduction 3.) Remove proposed pergola that connect the two historic resources 4.) Work closely with relevant City Departments and provide a better-defined stormwater mitigation plan that minimizes features in highly visible areas 5.) Investigate historic framing and historic documents before restoration/reconstruction changes are approved, to be reviewed by staff and monitor 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 21 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 3 of 3 ATTEST: _________________________________________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 22 Page 1 of 15 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings NOTE: Staff responses begin on page 14 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. 3. 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. 23 Page 2 of 15 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. NOT MET 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. 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.NOT MET 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. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. 1.15 Preserve original fences. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. 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. 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. MET MET MET MET CONDITION Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review Criteria for 234 West Francis Street The applicant is requesting Conceptual Major Development review for site plan and the construction of a new above grade addition. The proposed design must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET CONDITION 24 Page 3 of 15 Chapter 4: Rehabilitation - Doors MET NOT MET 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. 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. 4.7 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. 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. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. 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. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. Chapter 8: Rehabilitation - Secondary Structures MET NOT MET 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. 8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure. 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.NOT MET 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. MET MET CONDITION MET MET MET CONDITION MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET CONDITION MET CONDITION MET MET MET 25 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. 1.5 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. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. 8.6 Preserve original door and window openings and minimize new openings. 8.7 If a new garage door is added, it must be compatible with the character of the historic structure. Chapter 9: New Construction - Excavation, Building Relocation & Foundations MET NOT MET 9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the historic fabric. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. 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. 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. 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. 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. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.NOT MET 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features.MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET 26 Page 5 of 15 • 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. 1.11 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. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. 1.15 Preserve original fences. 27 Page 6 of 15 • 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. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. 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. 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. 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. 28 Page 7 of 15 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. • 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. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. 29 Page 8 of 15 • 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. • Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 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. 30 Page 9 of 15 • 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. 5.6 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. 31 Page 10 of 15 • 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. • 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. 7.4 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. • 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. 7.7 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. 32 Page 11 of 15 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. • 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. 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. 8.5 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. 8.7 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. 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. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. 33 Page 12 of 15 • 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. 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 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. 34 Page 13 of 15 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. 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. 35 Page 14 of 15 • 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. Staff Finding: The applicable sections of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning, relocation, building materials, windows, doors, roofs, porches, building additions, and service areas. All relevant Design Guidelines in Chapter 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 related to the preservation plan need to be reviewed in detail as part of the permit submittal for further historic evidence and/or investigative demolition in order to ensure no historic fabric is being removed. This will be a condition of Final approval. Staff finds Design Guidelines 1.1 and 1.7 regarding provisions for porosity and positive open space on site are not met. Staff is aware of the site constraints related to the trees along the alley and the location of the historic buildings on site, but the proposed footprint of the addition stretches across the rear of the property so that the massing of the addition creates a building pattern that is out of character with buildings of the time period. Meaningful open space on the site is desirable to complement the historic buildings. 36 Page 15 of 15 Staff finds Design Guideline 8.3 which addresses added details and/or features to secondary structures is not met. The applicant proposes a metal pergola between the main entrance of the one-story miner’s cabin and the side entrance of the historic two-story home. This feature is proposed along the south side of the property along Francis Street. This guideline states that adding conjectural features that are not in keeping with the original character of the to a secondary structure are not allowed. In addition, this proposal infills the open space between the structures in a way which staff finds reduces open space on the site. Staff is also not convinced that the east structure was only entered from the side. Further study of a historic street-facing door on that building is needed. Design Guideline 10.3 addresses the design of the new addition to be compatible with the historic resource, which is considered more important for corner lots such as 234 W. Francis since multiple elevations are in clear view. Staff finds the proposed design along 2nd Street is not subordinate or deferential to the historic resource due to the confusing array of forms and shapes that do not relate to the surrounding context. This guideline is not met with the proposed design. Design Guideline 10.6 concerns the design of the new addition to be compatible with the historic resource by considering form, materials, and fenestration. This guideline highlights the importance of corner lots relating strongly to form when designing a new addition. The proposed design strongly relates to building materials but deviates from form. The collection of roof forms and different building heights draws attention to the new addition rather than relating to the historic resource. This guideline is not met with the proposed design. Design Guideline 10.8 addresses size and scale of new additions. Although the highest point of the proposed addition is lower than the ridge line of the historic resource, the irregular forms and scale of the addition does not create a compatible relationship between the new and old structures. Staff finds this guideline is not met with the proposed design. Design Guideline 10.11 addresses the roof form of the new addition. These forms must be simple and compatible with the historic resource. Typically, a pitched roof is considered the most compatible solution for an addition to a Victorian; however, the two shed roofs are on different planes from one another and both create a long plane which is out of scale with the historic home. The combined effect of the different roofs are complex forms and compete with the simple mass and form of the historic buildings on site. Staff finds this guideline is not met. In summary, staff recommends restudy with the listed conditions found in the staff memo. 37 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A.2 Setback Variations 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: Staff finds the modified garage structure, accessed from the alley, follows the desired pattern of the district and mitigates adverse impacts to the historic resources by maintaining the existing distance. Additionally, both historic resources are not being moved and maintaining their existing alignment. Staff supports the request for setback variations to maintain the existing footprint of the modified garage structure since it continues to meet all of the listed criteria. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY 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. MET Review Criteria for 234 West Francis Street As a historically designated property, HPC may grant dimensional variations of the Land Use Code to allow for development in the side, rear and front setbbacks. The applicant is requesting Setback Variations for the remodeled garage. MET Summary of Review Criteria for Setback Variation Request 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 requried by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 38 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit A.3 Floor Area Bonus Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.110.F: Floor Area Bonus: 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is determined by net lot area such that a 3,000-5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a two hundred fifty (250) square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a three hundred seventy five (375) square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount allowed for the lot. If a property is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on the original lot size, though the bonus may be allocated amongst the newly created parcels to the extent permitted. LOT SIZE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA BONUS REQUESTED FLOOR AREA BONUS 9,000 SF 500 SF 500 SF To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following criteria: MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and NOT MET b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significance of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other nonoriginal finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice the above grade square footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 29 incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. MET MET MET Review Criteria for 234 West Francis The applicant is requesting for Conceptual Major Development review approval, setback variations and a 500 sf floor area bonus. Summary of Review Criteria for Floor Area Bonus Request 26.415.110.F - Floor Area Bonus. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is determined by net lot area such that a 3,000-5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a two hundred fifty (250) square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a three hundred seventy five (375) square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. 39 Page 2 of 3 On any lot where a historic property is permitted a duplex density while a non-historic property is not, the increased allowable floor area that results from the density will be deducted from the maximum bonus that the property may receive. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following criteria: a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significance of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other nonoriginal finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice the above grade square footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 29 incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. 3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. 4. Floor area bonuses are only available for single-family, duplex or 100% affordable housing development. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet total. The award of a bonus is project specific. At such time that more than 40% of an addition to a historic resource that was constructed as part of a project which previously received a floor area bonus is demolished, the bonus may be retained only if the proposed redevelopment is found to meet the requirements of this Section. 5. Separate from the floor area bonus described above, on a lot that contains a historic resource, HPC may exempt wall exposed by a light well that is larger than the minimum required for egress from the calculation of subgrade floor area only if the light well is internalized such that it is entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building façade(s) closest to any street(s), the light well is screened from view from the street by building walls or fences, and any addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction of the light well is entirely one story. 40 Page 3 of 3 Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to restore areas that have been altered over the years and preserve historically significant features by utilizing historic documents and photographs. The historic miner’s cabin must remain free standing and the proposed design is limited in height and above grade square footage; however, staff finds that the addition does not fully maintain the visual integrity of the historic resource as viewed from both streets. Staff does not support the granting of a 500 sf bonus with the proposed addition. Staff finds that all of the criteria for a floor area bonus are not met, and recommends restudy of the new addition before awarding any amount of a floor area. 41 EXHIBIT B - REFERRAL COMMENTS42 234 Page: 88 Checkmark: Unchecked Author: jimp File Name: 234WFrancis_Application_zoning comments.pdf Fireplace encroaching on neighbors property 234WFrancis_Application_zoning comments.pdf (2) Page: 107 Checkmark: Unchecked Author: jimp File Name: 234WFrancis_Application_zoning comments.pdf Fireplace encroaching on neighbors property 4 3 2 Not sure if these heights are going to work. It does not appear that they are measuring height from the most restrictive grade.26'-9 1/4"Not sure if these heights are going to work. It does not appear that they are measuring height from the most restrictive grade. 43 From:David Radeck To:Sarah Yoon Subject:RE: HPC Referral Project: 234 W. Francis Street Date:Wednesday, October 30, 2019 1:25:06 PM Attachments:image001.png image009.png image010.png image011.png image012.png Hi Sarah, Parks Comments: 1.Air spading required at dripline of Spruce where new foundation will be on the north side of proposed basement. 2.Bio retention pond piping to stay against foundation of house to minimize impacts to the Spruce tree on the north side of proposed basement Thanks! Dave. David Radeck Project Technician Parks Department 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970.429.2025 c: 970.274.2175 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 44 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM August 20, 2019 Updated October 18, 2019 Sarah Yoon Historic Preservation Commission c/o Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 234 West Francis Street Conceptual HPC Review Dear Sarah and HPC, Please accept this application for Conceptual Major Development Review and an FAR Bonus for the property located at 234 West Francis Street. In addition, the City has decided that updated variations for the existing location of the garage are necessary. The property is 9,000 square feet (sf) in size, and is both a designated historic local landmark (Ordinance 7-1982) and a designated property on the National Register of Historic Places. There are two contributing structures on the property – the main two-story landmark constructed in 1888 and a one-story carriage house circa 1880s. The carriage house is currently a voluntary ADU. The voluntary deed restriction is approved to be removed with conditions, as noted in Exhibit K. The large two-story landmark is indicative of Aspen’s Queen Anne vernacular architecture typically found in the West End neighborhood and along Main Street. The simple one-story carriage house, which was originally on its own lot, creates a sense of place and historic context for the primary two-story building. Background This property is referred to as the Judge Davis Waite House. David Hanson Waite was a local lawyer, publisher of the Aspen Times and was the Populist Party governor of Colorado from 1893- 1895. Waite lived at 234 West Francis before and after his term as governor until his death in 1900. Other notable residents include Herbert and Joella Bayer (1948 to 1953) and Robert O. Figure 1: Two story landmark (left) and historic carriage house (right). Page 1 of 88 45 Anderson, chairman of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (1953 - late 1980s). A Herbert Bayer designed fence and several mature cottonwood trees border Francis and Second Streets. Figure 2: 234 West Francis Street, 1910. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society (AHS). Figure 3: 1889 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Arrows indicate areas that have been removed/heavily altered. Figure 4: 1896 Willits Map Page 2 of 88 46 A remodel in the 1990s resulted in major alterations to the property and replacement of original materials such as siding, porch posts and window trim. The 1990s remodel resulted in fines and enforcement by the City of Aspen for the loss of historic material outside the scope of the approved remodel project. A Certificate of Occupancy was granted on September 20, 1999 for the project after remediation conditions were satisfied. Proposal An addition to the main two story historic home and a larger basement are proposed. The property is to be a single family home. Non-historic additions that do not meet the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are proposed to be removed. The carriage house is proposed to be returned to the pre-1990s remodel appearance and a rear dormer is proposed to be restored to the main two story historic home. Large lightwells located on the east elevation of the main two story historic home are proposed to be reduced in size and pulled back from the street facing façade. A non-conforming lightwell located in front of the carriage house facing the street is proposed to be removed. Significant trees along the street facades and the alley, and the Herbert Bayer fence are protected and preserved in the proposal. The application proposes to reduce the existing legal non-conformity by demolishing the second floor of the garage. The 500 sf FAR bonus is respectfully requested as part of this application – as demonstrated in Exhibits A and B, significant restoration, preservation and removal of non-historic and non-compliant additions are proposed. Figure 5: 234 West Francis pre-remodel in 1974, note the changes to the carriage house. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society. Page 3 of 88 47 Variations No new variations are requested; however, the City has indicated that the existing garage condition needs to be memorialized by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) as a variation. The existing two-story garage with second floor living space received a variance from HPC in 1998. Existing variances granted for the garage and for the small rear addition to the carriage house are maintained in the proposal as described below. In 1998, HPC approved Resolution 17-1998 for the garage and breezeway including the following variations: rear yard setback is 2’ granting an 8’ variation; and the sideyard facing Second Street is 0’ granting a 12’4” variation. The location of the garage is not changed in this application – the second floor of the garage is removed and there is no excavation beneath the garage to avoid requesting a variation. The 1998 variation is maintained in this application. The carriage house received a sideyard setback variation of 8’ for the bathroom at the rear of the building in 1993.1 The small rear addition is unchanged in this application and the variation is maintained. Thank you for reviewing this application. A physical model will be presented to the HPC during the public hearing for this project. Please reach out if you need additional information to complete your review. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP Exhibits A – HP Conceptual Review and Variation Criteria B – FAR Bonus request C – Pre application summary D – Agreement to Pay E – Land Use application F – HOA form G – Authorization to represent H – Proof of ownership I – Vicinity Map J – Mailing List K – Notice of Approval to remove ADU L – Previous approvals M – Streetscape context images N – Drainage report O - Drawing set including stamped survey, renderings *a physical model will be presented to HPC 1 The variance is referenced in the HPC minutes on May 12, 1993 and May 25, 1993. HPC did not typically adopt resolutions in 1993. Page 4 of 88 48 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 Exhibit A –Conceptual HP Review 26.415.060.A Approvals Required. Any development involving properties designated on the aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual property or located within the boundaries of a Historic District, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. HPC shall provide referral comments for major projects to rights of way located within the boundaries of a Historic District. 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 victorian and carriage house are located in their original locations. The existing garage location is unchanged in this application. Useful open space is preserved around both historic landmarks. New construction is significantly setback from historic street facing facades and from the 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. •Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a case by case basis. Response – The character defining cottonwoods that border 234 West Francis are protected and preserved. 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. Page 5 of 88 49 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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 – The driveway is located off the alley. 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 – A simple walkway into the main entry is proposed from the sidewalk to the front porch. The walkway leading to the non-historic entrance to the Carriage House is removed. The entry, front porch and walkway to the Carriage House were added previously when the building was converted to a rental unit. 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 is proposed. Paving materials will be presented at Final Design Review. 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. Response – Open space on the site is shown below. There is significant green space around both landmarks. Page 6 of 88 50 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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 – A conceptual drainage plan is being developed that directs drainage away from the landmarks. Two drywells are proposed onsite in the conceptual drainage plan. The drywells will be covered and with a sod lid and completely hidden in the lawn. There will not be any dip in the grade near the lid – the drywell does not have an open grate which allows surrounding grade to remain unchanged. 1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. Response – n/a. Figure 1: Preliminary landscape plan. Page 7 of 88 51 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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 – A conceptual landscape plan is proposed for preliminary review. Built in furnishings are located behind the landmarks and are fully screened from the street. 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. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. Response – Mature cottonwood trees that border the streets are protected and preserved. Large spruce trees along the alley are protected and existing lilacs along the interior lot line are also protected. Tree removals have been discussed and preliminarily approved by the Parks Department. 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 over textured 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. Page 8 of 88 52 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 • 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 – A simple landscape with traditional plantings is proposed. 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 – No new planting material is proposed that will damage the historic structures. A detailed landscape plan will be provided at Final Design Review. 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 as this time. Page 9 of 88 53 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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 – The Herbert Bayer fence is proposed to remain and be repaired where necessary. 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 – n/a. 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. Figure 2: Herbert Bayer fence, unpainted. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society. Page 10 of 88 54 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 • 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. 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 historic buildings are proposed to maintain grade similar to existing conditions. 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 – The character defining cottonwoods are preserved and protected. The existing lilacs bushes along the east (interior) lot line are preserved where possible. Page 11 of 88 55 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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. • 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 – The simple historic design of the landscape is maintained in the proposal. Setbacks are unchanged and significant trees are protected. 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 – All parking is located off the alley in the existing two-car garage. 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 – Large lilacs are proposed to be located away from the historic façade to preserve both the historic material and the lilacs. 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. Page 12 of 88 56 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 • 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. 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 – The Carriage House is proposed to be fully restored using historic photographs (reference Exhibit B for full description). Any replacement materials on the Carriage House will match the original as described in Guideline 2.3. Original material with integrity will be restored or repaired. Original building materials will not be covered. Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Page 13 of 88 57 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 • 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. • 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. Page 14 of 88 58 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 • 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. Response – All historic windows will be preserved, and operational components will be repaired as needed. Three windows in the main historic home on the west and east elevations are currently covered and are proposed to be restored. Window locations are restored in the Carriage House as shown in the drawing set and below. Figure 3: Carriage House, August 1974. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society. Figure 4: Current photograph of Carriage House. Figure 5: Proposed demolition (red hatch) to restore Carriage House. Page 15 of 88 59 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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. • 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. Page 16 of 88 60 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 • 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 and historic hardware will be preserved. The original side entry to the Carriage House will be restored and the non-historic front entry will be removed. 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. • 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. Page 17 of 88 61 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 Response – The historic front porch on the main two story historic landmark is not proposed to change. Unoriginal side entry porches on the historic home (east and west elevation) and unoriginal front and side porches on the Carriage House are removed. 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. • 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 as needed. Historic photographs will be used to accurately restore the Carriage House. Page 18 of 88 62 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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. • 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. Page 19 of 88 63 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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. • The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building. Response – The rear historic dormer, shown below, is proposed to be restored. A historic chimney is proposed to be reconstructed per historic photographs and used for venting. Wood shingles are proposed for the historic resources and the new addition. Gutters and downspouts are proposed to remain as shown in the drawings. Figure 6: Aerial photograph from Denver Public Library Western Heritage Collection. Page 20 of 88 64 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 Carriage House 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 carriage house is preserved. 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. Response – The carriage house is detached. A simple metal pergola is proposed between the structures, but not attached to either historic resource. Figure 7: Rendering showing the pergola with plantings between the two landmarks. Figure 8: Pergola design intent. Page 21 of 88 65 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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. Response –Non-historic gingerbread details are proposed to be removed from the carriage house. 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. Response – The carriage house has two non-historic rear additions added in the 1990s. The closet addition is proposed to be removed and the small bathroom is proposed to remain. No new additions are proposed to the carriage house. 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. Response – Original building materials are not proposed to be removed. Any patches will match existing material. 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. Response – Original door and window openings are restored using historic photographs. 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. Response – n/a. 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. Response – The carriage house is incorporated into the overall use of the property as a single family home. Page 22 of 88 66 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 New Addition 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. Response – n/a. 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 1990s rear addition, street facing lightwell, and non-historic porches are proposed to be removed as shown in the roof plan below. 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. Figure 9: Carriage house roof plan. Red hatching shows area for demolition. Figure 10: 1889 Sanborn Map Page 23 of 88 67 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. • Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. Response – The new rear addition is primarily one story with a small two-story bedroom located central to the lot. 234 is a corner lot – one story modules are located on along Second Street to clearly differentiate the historic landmark from new construction and to highlight the historic resource. Figure 11: West elevation showing proposed demolition in red hatch. Figure 12: West elevation with proposed one story module along Second Street. The proposed two story module is significantly setback. Page 24 of 88 68 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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. Response – The ~500 sf carriage house is not proposed to have a new addition – a non-historic addition is proposed for removal and an existing small rear addition (bathroom) is proposed to remain. The two story main historic home is proposed to have a primarily one story addition with a small two story module central to the site. The gross historic square footage of the main historic is 1,680.2 sf (861.6 + 818.6) and the proposed new square footage for the addition is (1172.75 first floor + 179.3 garage + 471.7 second floor bedroom) = 1,823.75 sf. There is a slight difference of ~143.55 sf between historic square footage and the new addition. Six of the criteria to grant an exception are met. Page 25 of 88 69 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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 new addition is mostly one story in height and the shape and size of the footprint relate to the two historic landmarks on the site. o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource. Non-historic additions and lightwells are proposed to be removed. The existing additions to both historic resources blend new and old construction and confuse the historic interpretation of the site. Figure 13: Footprint comparison diagram. Page 26 of 88 70 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically. The interior of the two-story landmark is fully utilized. o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street The property is 9,000 sf in size. The addition is setback from the street and centrally located on the lot. o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed. There are no new setback variances requested in this application; however setback variations for the existing garage in its current location are included in the application to further clarify the variances granted by HPC in 1998. o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. Significant trees and associated driplines along the alley push new construction to the center of the lot and prohibit a full basement excavation within the building envelope. 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 street facing 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. The landmark is two stories. The one story carriage house is not proposed to have an addition. Page 27 of 88 71 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 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 new addition is primarily a sloped roof with a flat roof one story connection between the two story landmark and the garage. The façade material is 3” wide horizontal cedar boards. Form and materials relate strongly to the landmark. The new openings on the west elevation facing Second Street are vertically oriented and proportional to the historic double hung windows in the landmark. The windows in the addition facing Francis Street have a more modern shape and style to differentiate new from historic architecture. The new addition is setback more than 42 feet from the front (south façade) of the two story landmark. 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 addition is mostly one story and is lower than the height of the primary building. The location of the second floor is significantly setback and central to the lot in order to preserve the one story simple form of the carriage house. 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. Page 28 of 88 72 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 • 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 – n/a. The addition is not taller than the historic building. A connecting element is proposed between the two story landmark and the garage. 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 addition is located to the rear of the primary building and is significantly setback from the front façade a distance of 42’2”. The proposed addition highlights the original footprint of the landmark and replaces non-historic additions. A full basement exists and is proposed to be enlarged within the building envelope. 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 simple sloped roof, similar to typical lean-to additions throughout historic Aspen, is the primary form proposed. A flat roof connecting element is proposed as secondary roof form to link the garage and the main landmark. Page 29 of 88 73 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 Figure 14: Historic Photograph circa 1910 showing shed roof form similar to proposed additions. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society. 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 – n/a. The addition does not obscure historically important features, but rather highlights and restores character defining features. 10.13 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of the historic building. Response – n/a. 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. Page 30 of 88 74 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 Variations for existing conditions 26.415.110. Benefits. The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and maintaining their property. Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both economically vital and cherished by many. Only designated properties may be eligible for the following benefits. C. Variations. 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. Response: No new variations are requested; however, the City has indicated that the existing garage condition needs to be memorialized by the HPC as a variation. The existing two-story garage with second floor living space received a variance from HPC in 1998. Meeting minutes and the adopted resolution are Page 31 of 88 75 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review Updated 10.18.19 included in Exhibit L. Existing variances granted for the garage and for the small rear addition to the carriage house are unchanged in the proposal. HPC approved Resolution 17-1998 for the garage and breezeway including the following variations: rear yard setback is 2’ granting an 8’ variation; and the sideyard facing Second Street is 0’ granting a 12’4” variation. The location of the garage is not changed in this application – the second floor of the garage is removed to reduce the visual impact on the landmark, and there is no excavation beneath the garage to avoid requesting a new setback variation. The 1998 variation is maintained in this application without change; however the change in roof form from gable to shed, and removal of 40% of exterior surfaces, all of which is non-historic, triggers the need to update the rear and side variations granted in 1998. The location of the existing garage is similar to the pattern of alley outbuildings in Aspen during the period of significance. The 1904 Sanborn Map shows numerous outbuildings located on property lines within the block. Lowering the height of the existing garage, which triggers this variation, mitigates the visual impacts of the existing two story form that competes with the two story landmark on this prominent corner lot. Figure 15: 1904 Sanborn Map, note all of the alley outbuildings along the property line including the outbuilding indicated with arrow at the N. First Street property line and alley in a similar configuration to the existing condition at 234. Page 32 of 88 76 Exhibit B FAR Bonus Exhibit B – FAR Bonus 26.415.110 Benefits F. Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is determined by net lot area such that a 3,000 – 5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of two hundred fifty square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a three hundred and seventy five square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount allowed for the lot. If a property is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on the original lot size, though the bonus may be allocated amongst the newly created parcels to the extent permitted. On any lot where a historic property is permitted a duplex density while a non-historic property is not, the increased allowable floor area that results from the density will be deducted from the maximum bonus that the property may receive. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following criteria: a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and The landmark is the primary entrance into the property. The addition is mostly one story in height, and highlights the proportions, architectural details and form of the landmark. b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significant of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re- installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other non-original finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and Character defining site features such as the Bayer fence and mature cottonwood trees are preserved. Restoration is proposed including removing non-historic additions that appear to be historic, reopening a historic second floor window, restoring the rear dormer, removing non- conforming lightwells and a full restoration of the carriage house. The carriage house will be returned to its pre-1990s remodel appearance using historic photographs and the sanborn maps. c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and The historic carriage house is preserved as a free standing structure above grade. Page 33 of 88 77 Exhibit B FAR Bonus d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structure on the site, limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice that above grade square footage of the historic resource, limited the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. Preservation is the top priority for this project. The square footage added to the landmark is less than twice the square footage of the resource. The height of the addition is mostly one story with a small two story module that is lower than the height of the landmark. The carriage house is fully restored – windows, primary side entrance, and siding will be restored and repaired. A non- historic rear addition is removed from the carriage house as well. A significantly incompatible non-historic addition to the main landmark is removed and replaced with an addition that meets the guidelines. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission’s assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. 3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. 4. Floor area bonuses are only available for single family, duplex, or 100% affordable housing development. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet in total. The award of a bonus is project specific. At such a time that more than 40% of an addition to a historic resource that was constructed as part of a project which previously received a floor area bonus is demolished, the bonus may be retained only if the property redevelopment is found to meet the requirements of this Section. A 500sf FAR bonus is respectfully requested. 5. Separate from the floor area bonus described above, on a lot that contains a historic resource, HPC may exempt wall exposed by a light well that is larger than the minimum required for egress from the calculation of subgrade floor area only if the light well is internalized such that it is entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facades closest to any street, the lightwell is screened from view from the street by building walls or fences, and any addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction of the light well is entirely one story. n/a. Page 34 of 88 78 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. ϯ0, SerieƐ of 2017, 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 addit ional 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. $____1950________ deposit for____6_________ 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: ________________________________ Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵre͗ ______________________________________ͺͺͺ City Use: Fees Due: $_______Received $_______ ĂƐĞη___________________________ WůĞĂƐĞƚLJƉĞŽƌƉƌŝŶƚŝŶĂůůĐĂƉƐ ĚĚreƐƐ oĨ WroƉerƚLJ͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺWroƉerƚLJ KǁŶer NĂme͗ ͺͺ ZeƉreƐeŶƚĂƚŝve NĂme ;ŝĨ ĚŝĨĨereŶƚ Ĩrom WroƉerƚLJ KǁŶerͿͺ BendonAdamsͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ŝůůŝŶŐ NĂme ĂŶĚ ĚĚreƐƐ Ͳ ^eŶĚ ŝůůƐ ƚo͗ ͺͺ Steve Ells 40 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10011ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ oŶƚĂĐƚ ŝŶĨo Ĩor bŝůůŝŶŐ͗ eͲmĂŝů͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WŚoŶe͗ ͺ ͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WZ/Nd Name: Title: 234 :est )rancis 6treet 234 :est )rancis //C sara@selldorf.com 212-219-9571 exhibit D Page 35 of 88 79 November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name and Address:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) _____________________________ APPLICANT: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: ___________________________ email: __________________________________ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________ Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: HPC - conceptual Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage _________ Lodge Pillows______ Free Market dwelling units ______ Affordable Housing dwelling units_____ Essential Public Facility square footage ________ n/a 1,975 xxxx exhibit E Major Development- Conceptual HP Review, partial demolition, FAR Bonus The 9,000 sf property contains 2 designated historic landmarks. The primary two story landmark has non-historic additions at the rear that sit within setbacks. The one story carriage house landmark has numerous exterior alterations, sits within setbacks, and is designated as a voluntary deed restricted ADU. Both buildings have full basements. Remove non-historic addition and replace with a new addition that meets the HP design guidelines. The garage will remain in its current location and will be reduced to one story in height. Alterations will be removed from the exterior of the carriage house. The ADU is approved to be removed as noted in exhibit K. Page 36 of 88 80 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:________ 234 WEST FRANCIS ST. LOTS K, L, M, BLOCK 48 9000 SF 3594.5 SF 3660 SF / 4160 SF W/ BONUS 4159.6 SF 2 10'-0" / 15'-0" 20'-11" / 28'-11" 20'-11" / 28'-11" 23'-3"17'-6" 30'-0"30'-0"57'-8" E W 20'-0" 5'-0" Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: __ _ __________________________________________________________________________Existing garage encroaches on side yard and rear yard setbacks; Historic structures encroach on both side yard setbacks_______________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _ 2 29% 2 1 41.2% 25'-0"26'-6" 24'-10" 26'-6" 26'-6"25'-0" 28'-9" / 1'-9" GARAGE 40% MAX 35% 2 10'-0" / 5'-0" GARAGE 10'-4" / 1'-9" GARAGE 234 WEST FRANCIS LLC, represented by BendonAdams and Selldorf Architects 8'-2" 49'-6"5'-0" 10'-0" 31'-3'25'-0"49'-9" EXCLUDING GARAGE / HISTORIC ENCROACHMENTS 10'-0" R-6 9,000 SF n/a maintain existing variances granted for garage in 1998 including 0' on west setback and 2' on the north (rear) setback. n/a approximately Page 37 of 88 81 234 West Francis LLC sara@selldorf.com 234 West Francis Street, Aspen CO 81611 exhibit F Page 38 of 88 82 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM June 21, 2019 Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 234 West Francis Street, Aspen, CO. Ms. Garrow: Please accept this letter authorizing BendonAdams LLC to represent our ownership interests in 234 West Francis Street and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to contact me. Property – 234 West Francis Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description – Block 48, Lots K, L, M, city and townsite of Aspen, Colorado Parcel ID – 2735-124-17-003 Owner – 234 West Francis LLC Kind Regards, 234 West Francis LLC Steve Ells 40 5th Avenue New York, NY 10174 exhibit G Page 39 of 88 83 Stewart Title Company 620 E Hopkins Ave Aspen, CO 81611 Date: June 20, 2019 File Number: 461120 Property Address:234 W Francis Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Buyer/Borrower:To Be Determined Please direct all Title inquiries to: Kurt Beereboom Phone: (970) 925-3577 Fax: (866) 277-9353 Email Address: Kurt.Beereboom@stewart.com Please direct all Closing inquiries to: Julie Morrah Phone: (970) 925-3577 Fax: (866) 277-9353 Email Address: julie.morrah@stewart.com To Be Determined Delivery Method: Emailed 234 West Francis LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Delivery Method: Emailed Attn:Chris Souki Phone:(970) 925-7000 Fax: Coldwell Banker Mason Morse Real Estate 514 E Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 E-Mail:c.souki@gmail.com Delivery Method: Emailed Attn:Allison Goldberg Phone: Fax: Coldwell Banker Mason Morse Real Estate 514 E Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 E-Mail:agoldberg@masonmorse.com Delivery Method: Emailed WIRED FUNDS ARE REQUIRED ON ALL CASH PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE ESCROW OFFICE AS NOTED ABOVE. We Appreciate Your Business and Look Forward to Serving You in the Future. exhibit H Page 40 of 88 84 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.: 461120 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16 Page 1 of 3 ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY NOTICE IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I - Requirements have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. Stewart Title Company 620 E Hopkins Ave Aspen, CO 81611 For purposes of this form the “Stewart Title” logo featured above is the represented logo for the underwriter, Stewart Title Guaranty Company. Page 41 of 88 85 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.: 461120 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16 Page 2 of 3 COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a) “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records. (b) “Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy. (c) “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law. (d) “Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (e) “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (f) “Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (g) “Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (h) “Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A. 2.If all of the Schedule B, Part I - Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. 3.The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: (a) the Notice; (b) the Commitment to Issue Policy; (c)the Commitment Conditions; (d) Schedule A; (e)Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; (f)Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and (g) a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY (a)The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to: (i) comply with the Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; (ii) eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; or (iii) acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. (b)The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing. (c) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. Page 42 of 88 86 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.: 461120 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16 Page 3 of 3 (d) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount. (e) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any. (f) In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I - Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (g) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy. 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT (a)Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment. (b) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. (c) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment. (d) The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II - Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (e) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company. (f) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy. 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services. 8. PRO-FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. 9. ARBITRATION The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at <http://www.alta.org/arbitration>. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252-2029. Page 43 of 88 87 ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.: 461120 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16 (4-2-18) Page 1 of 6 Transaction Identification Data for reference only: Issuing Agent:Stewart Title Company Issuing Office:620 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO 81611 Issuing Office’s ALTA® Registry ID: Loan ID Number: Commitment Number:461120 Issuing Office File Number:461120 Property Address:234 W Francis Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Revision Number: 1. Commitment Date: June 7, 2019 at 8:00AM 2. Policy to be issued:Proposed Policy Amount (a) ALTA Owner’s Standard Proposed Insured: To Be Determined (b) ALTA Loan Standard Proposed Insured: 3. The estate or interest in the Land described or referred to in this Commitment is: FEE SIMPLE 4. The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in: 234 West Francis LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 5. The Land is described as follows: See Exhibit “A” Attached Hereto Page 44 of 88 88 ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.: 461120 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16 (4-2-18) Page 2 of 6 File No.: 461120 Lots K, L and M, Block 48, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Page 45 of 88 89 ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART I ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.: 461120 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16 (4-2-18) Page 3 of 6 File No.: 461120 Requirements All of the following Requirements must be met: 1. The Proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. 2. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. 3. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. 4.Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. 5. Payment to or for the account of the grantor(s) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 6. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. 7. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company of payment of all outstanding taxes and assessments as certified by the County Treasurer. 8. Execution of Affidavit as to Debts and Liens and its return to Stewart Title Guaranty Company. NOTE: If work has been performed on, or in connection with, the subject property (architectural drawings, soils testing, foundation work, installation of materials), please notify the Company's escrow officer within 10 days of receipt of this title commitment. 9. Payment of any and all Homeowners assessments and expenses which may be assessed to the property. 10. Execution of an acceptable survey affidavit certifying that there have been no new improvements constructed or major structural changes made on the subject property. NOTE: If improvements have been made on, or in connection with, the subject property, please notify the Company's escrow officer within 10 days of receipt of this title commitment. 11. Relating to 234 West Francis LLC, The Company requires for its review the following: a) Copy of the "Articles of Organization," the Operating Agreement and the regulations of the limited liability company and any amendments thereof b) A certificate of good standing, evidencing that the company is in good standing in the state of its formation c) Execution and recordation of Statement of Authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 38-30- Page 46 of 88 90 ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART I ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.: 461120 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16 (4-2-18) Page 4 of 6 172 C.R.S. Note: At the time the Company is furnished these items, the Company may make additional requirements or exceptions. 12. Deed from vested owner(s) vesting fee simple title in the purchaser(s). NOTE: Notation of the legal address of the grantee must appear on the deed as per 1976 amendment to statute on recording of deeds CRS 38-35-109 (2). 13. NOTE: The vesting deed is shown as follows: Warranty Deed recorded May 22, 2019, as Reception No. 656074. NOTE: This product is for informational purposes only. It is not a title insurance product and does not provide any form of coverage. This product is not a guarantee or assurance and does not warrant, or otherwise insure any condition, fact or circumstance. This product does not obligate this Company to issue any policies of title insurance for any subsequent transaction based on the information provided or involving the property described herein. This Company's sole liability for any error(s) relating to this product is limited to the amount that was paid for this product. Page 47 of 88 91 ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART II ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.: 461120 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16 (4-2-18) Page 5 of 6 Exceptions File No.: 461120 THIS COMMITMENT DOES NOT REPUBLISH ANY COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION CONTAINED IN ANY DOCUMENT REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SPECIFIC COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION VIOLATES STATE OR FEDERAL LAW BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. The Policy will not insure against loss or damage resulting from the terms and provisions of any lease or easement identified in Schedule A, and will include the following Exceptions unless cleared to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter that appears for the first time in the Public Records or is created, attaches, or is disclosed between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Schedule B, Part I - Requirements are met. 2. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 3. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the public records. 5. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Minerals of whatsoever kind, subsurface and surface substances, in, on, under and that may be produced from the Land, together with all rights, privileges, and immunities relating thereto, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the Public Records or listed in Schedule B. 7. Water rights, claims or title to water. 8. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. 9. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area 10. Reservations and Exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded November 10, 1887 in Book 59 at Page 85 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver , cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws. Page 48 of 88 92 ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART II ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.: 461120 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16 (4-2-18) Page 6 of 6 11. Reservations and Exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded December 5, 1887 in Book 59 at Page 122 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver , cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws. 12. Accessory Dwelling Unit Deed Restriction recorded July 7, 1993 in Book 717 at Page 197 as Reception No. 358580 and re-recorded October 20, 1993 in Book 727 at Page 572 as Reception No. 362262. 13. Curb and Gutter Improvement Agreement recorded May 12, 1994 in Book 750 at Page 360 as Reception No. 369976 and recorded September 13, 1999 as Reception No. 435425. 14. Resolution No. 27, Series of 1999 recorded June 21, 1999 as Reception No. 432431. 15. Any rights, easements, interests or claims that may exist by reason of or reflected by the following facts shown on the survey dated 4/9/2019 by Tuttle Surveying Services, Job No. 19056: Portion of Brick Walks, Concrete Pad and Chimney located outside of property boundary. Encroachment of fences along the Western and Northern boundary into right of way for N 2nd Street and Alley and encroachment of Fence into adjacent Lot along Eastern boundary 16. Lease-back Lease between 234 West Francis LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as Lessor and Francis and Second Street LLC, as Lessee. NOTE: Exceptions 2 and 5 may be deleted from the policies, provided the seller and buyer execute the Company's affidavits, as required herein, and the Company approves such deletions. If work has been performed on, or in connection with, the subject property (architectural drawings, soils testing, foundation work, installation of materials), and the Company has not reviewed and approved lien waivers and indemnitor financials, Standard Exception 5 (mechanic lien exception) will not be deleted and no mechanic lien coverage will be furnished. Exceptions 3 and 4 may be deleted from the policies, provided the Company receives and approves the survey or survey affidavit if required herein. Exception 1 will not appear on the policies, provided the Company, or its authorized agent, conducts the closing of the proposed transaction and is responsible for the recordation of the documents. Page 49 of 88 93 ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.: 461120 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16 File No.: 461120 STATEMENT OF CHARGES These charges are due and payable before a policy can be issued: TBD Rate 2006 Owner's Policy: $0.00 Owner's Extended Coverage: $65.00 Tax Certificate:$25.00 Page 50 of 88 94 DISCLOSURES File No.: 461120 Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: A.THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY MAY BE LOCATED IN A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT; B.A CERTIFICATE OF TAXES DUE LISTING EACH TAXING JURISDICTION SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY TREASURER OR THE COUNTY TREASURER’S AUTHORIZED AGENT; C.INFORMATION REGARDING SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH DISTRICTS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, OR THE COUNTY ASSESSOR Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2, Section 5, Paragraph G requires that “Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed.” Provided that Stewart Title Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 1 will not appear on the Owner’s Title Policy and the Lender’s Title Pol icy when issue d. Note: Affirmative Mechanic’s Lien Protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner’s Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A.The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single-family residence, which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B.No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C.The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled Mechanic’s and Materialmen’s Liens. D.The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E.If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased, within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and/or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity agreements satisfactory to the company; and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. To comply with the provisions of C.R.S. 10-11-123, the Company makes the following disclosure: a.That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and b.That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner’s permission. NOTE: THIS DISCLOSURE APPLIES ONLY IF SCHEDULE B, SECTION 2 OF THE TITLE COMMITMENT HEREIN INCLUDES AN EXCEPTION FOR SEVERED MINERALS. Notice of Availability of a Closing Protection Letter: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-3, Section 5, Paragraph C (11)(f), a closing protection letter is available to the consumer. NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN, UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY SATISFIED. Page 51 of 88 95 File No.: 461120 Revised 11-19-2013 Stewart Title Guaranty Company Privacy Notice Stewart Title Companies WHAT DO THE STEWART TITLE COMPANIES DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION? Federal and applicable state law and regulations give consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal and applicable state law regulations also require us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to understand how we use your personal information. This privacy notice is distributed on behalf of the Stewart Title Guaranty Company and its title affiliates (the Stewart Title Companies), pursuant to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service that you have sought through us. This information can include social security numbers and driver's license number. All financial companies, such as the Stewart Title Companies, need to share customers' personal information to run their everyday business—to process transactions and maintain customer accounts. In the section below, we list the reasons that we can share customers' personal information; the reasons that we choose to share; and whether you can limit this sharing. Reasons we can share your personal information.Do we share Can you limit this sharing? For our everyday business purposes— to process your transactions and maintain your account. This may include running the business and managing customer accounts, such as processing transactions, mailing, and auditing services, and responding to court orders and legal investigations. Yes No For our marketing purposes— to offer our products and services to you. Yes No For joint marketing with other financial companies No We don't share For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your transactions and experiences. Affiliates are companies related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and non-financial companies. Our affiliates may include companies with a Stewart name; financial companies, such as Stewart Title Company Yes No For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your creditworthiness.No We don't share For our affiliates to market to you — For your convenience, Stewart has developed a means for you to opt out from its affiliates marketing even though such mechanism is not legally required. Yes Yes, send your first and last name, the email address used in your transaction, your Stewart file number and the Stewart office location that is handling your transaction by email to optout@stewart.com or fax to 1-800-335-9591. For non-affiliates to market to you. Non-affiliates are companies not related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and non-financial companies. No We don't share We may disclose your personal information to our affiliates or to non-affiliates as permitted by law. If you request a transaction with a non-affiliate, such as a third party insurance company, we will disclose your personal information to that non-affiliate. [We do not control their subsequent use of information, and suggest you refer to their privacy notices.] SHARING PRACTICES How often do the Stewart Title Companies notify me about their practices? We must notify you about our sharing practices when you request a transaction. How do the Stewart Title Companies protect my personal information? To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security measures that comply with federal law. These measures include computer, file, and building safeguards. How do the Stewart Title Companies collect my personal information? We collect your personal information, for example, when you ·request insurance-related services ·provide such information to us We also collect your personal information from others, such as the real estate agent or lender involved in your transaction, credit reporting agencies, affiliates or other companies. What sharing can I limit?Although federal and state law give you the right to limit sharing (e.g., opt out) in certain instances, we do not share your personal information in those instances. Contact us: If you have any questions about this privacy notice, please contact us at: Stewart Title Guaranty Company, 1360 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 100, Privacy Officer, Houston, Texas 77056 Page 52 of 88 96 314 302 320 304 300 234 201 224 220 200 235 215 202 210 212 232234 215 225 229 426 303 307 306 310 323 420 423 426 315 234 W Francis St - vicinity map Historic Sites Parcel Boundary 8/6/2019, 12:52:42 PM 0 0.01 0.020.01 mi 0 0.02 0.040.01 km 1:1,128 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 W Franc i s S t r e e tN Second Streetexhibit I Page 53 of 88 97 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: 273512417003 on 08/06/2019 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com exhibit J Page 54 of 88 98 SEWELL CARL & PEGGY DALLAS, TX 75220 3860 W NORTHWEST HWY #102 SIERRA ADVISORS LP HOUSTON, TX 77024 333 LITTLE JOHN LN CMML PROPERTIES LLC NEW YORK, NY 10022 120 E 56TH ST #320 229 WEST SMUGGLER LLC DALLAS, TX 75205 3509 CRESCENT AVE 234 W HALLAM/302 N 2ND ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 234 W HALLAM AVE BARNHART PAUL F JR HOUSTON, TX 77056 2121 SAGE RD #333 SCHERMER GREGORY P & GRANT E ASPEN, CO 81611-1347 210 LAKE AVE ARGON LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL WEST SMUGGLER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 322 W SMUGGLER FULLERTON JESSICA RES TRST ASPEN, CO 81611 306 W FRANCIS ST DILLON DEE E MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 5910 OAKWOOD RD ALLEN ASPEN RES TRUST HOUSTON, TX 77027 4545 POST OAK PL #101 SHADOW PROPERTY LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 302 N 2ND ST MCMANUS JAMES R REV TRUST BRIDGEPORT, CT 06606 43 NORTH AVE 210 WEST FRANCIS LLC NAPLES, FL 34102 255 13TH AVE S #202 426 NORTH SECOND LLC DALLAS, TX 75205 3509 CRESCENT AVE SECOND AND SMUGGLER CONDO ASSOC ASEPN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 426 N SECOND ST 212 WEST FRANCIS LLC NAPLES, FL 34102 255 13TH AVE SOUTH #202 ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS LLC GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 PO BOX 7138 PEARLSTONE ESTHER S ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8750 WINTON CHARLES & BARBARA REV TRUST BERKELEY, CA 94705 2949 AVALON AVE 326 WEST SMUGGLER LLC CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 500 E MOORHEAD ST #200 LEWIS JONATHAN D TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 414 N FIRST ST SCHERMER LLOYD G & BETTY A ASPEN, CO 81611-1347 210 LAKE AVE MELVIN JAMES R JR & ISABEL ASPEN, CO 81611 304 W HALLAM AVE BERMAN RONALD REV TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60606 27 N WACKER DR #518 ASPEN DRAGONFLY PARTNERS LLC NEW YORK, NY 10019 250 W 55TH ST 37TH FL HANSON LUCY C PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 1775 FIR ST FULLERTON TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 306 W FRANCIS ST BEASPEN LLC SAN PEDRO GARZA GARCIA NL 66260 MEXICO, AVE LAZARO CARDENAS 2400 A43 Page 55 of 88 99 WEST HALLAM LLC FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 333232861 1401 NW 136TH AVE #400 LAKE 206 LLC BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 PO BOX 3337 PHILLIPPE THOMAS E JR & SUSAN MARIE ASPEN, CO 81611-1356 225 W SMUGGLER ST VICENZI GEORGE A TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2238 VIBA LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX I-3 MOORE DIANE ASPEN, CO 81611 303 W FRANCIS FABRY FAMILY TRUST ALBUQUERQUE , NM 87114 7910 RANCHO ROBERTO RD NW CONNER MELINDA M TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD #1700 322 SMUGGLER LLC TULSA, OK 74136 6120 S YALE AVE #813 SAX JOEL ASPEN, CO 81611 303 W FRANCIS ST FULLERTON JOHN RES TRST ASPEN, CO 81611 306 W FRANCIS ST KINNEY FAMILY LP ASPEN, CO 81611 307 W FRANCIS ST CONOVER CATHRINE M WASHINGTON, DC 20007 1010 WISCONSIN AVE NW #550 ASPEN VALENTINE LLC NEW YORK, NY 10022 600 MADISON AVE SUITE #1601 GOTHAM AJAX LLC NEW YORK, NY 10104 1290 AVE OF THE AMERICAS 34TH FL BRUNDIGE CHELSEA C SNOWMASS, CO 81654 1755 SNOWMASS CREEK RD CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST HALLAM PINES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 220-224 W HALLAM ST 201 WEST SMUGGLER LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 715 W MAIN ST #201 Page 56 of 88 100 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 RECEPTION#: 657651, R: $23.00, D: $0.00 DOC CODE: APPROVAL Pg 1 of 3, 08/02/2019 at 09:44:54 AM Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO NOTICE OF APPROVAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, ALLOWING FOR THE REMOVAL OF SAID ADU AND THE VACATION OF THE ASSOCIATED DEED RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BLOCK 48, LOTS K, L, AND M, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel ID No. 2735-124-17-003 APPLICANT: 234 West Francis, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams, LLC SUBJECT & SITE OF AMENDMENT: Removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and vacation of a deed restriction from a property located at 234 W. Francis St. pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.520.090[C], Removing an ADU/Caniage House. The subject property is legally described as Block 48, Lots K, L, M, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. SUMMARY: 234 W. Frartcis is a designated historic local landmark and a designated property on the National Register of Historic Places. This accessory dwelling unit was approved via Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 22, Series of 1993. The ADU was located in an existing caniage house, creating a third unit in relationship to the main structure that was operating as a duplex at the time (today, it is operating as a single-family residence). The ADU was established as a "voluntary" unit -meaning that it was not required as a means of providing affordable housing mitigation. As such, there is no requirement for affordable housing mitigation associated with the removal of the ADU The structural changes necessary to remove the ADU, so that it no longer functions as a separate dwelling (unit), must be issued a building pennit and pass a final inspection by the Chief Building Official. STAFF EVALUATION: Staff finds that the request meets the requirements of an Amendment of an ADU or Caniage House Development Order; allowing for the removal of an ADU/Caniage House. Two points of additional discussion are necessary however. First, when the ADU was approved in 1993, a floor area bonus was granted to accommodate the carriage house as an ADU. In other circumstances where an ADU approval granted an addition of floor area to the property -and the ADU was removed per the process described in the land use code, the existing floor area, if it exhibit K Page 57 of 88 101 exceeds the allowable floor area for the property -would create a situation of a legally established non-conformity. In this case the total existing floor area on the prope1ty including the can'iage house, remains below the allowable floor area in the R-6 Zone District. While the applicant is in no way proposing maintenance of the floor area bonus granted for the addition of the ADU in 1993, it must be stated that the removal of the ADU also voids any right to the floor area bonus granted by the 1993 approval. This fact has been added as a condition of approval. Secondly, the required physical changes to the can'iage house to remove features that allow it to function as a dwelling (specifically the kitchen) are likely to only involve interior modifications. It should be noted however that any changes to the exterior of the building associated with the project would be subject to Historic Preservation review requirements. DECISION: The Community Development Director finds the Amendment of an Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Order to remove an ADU and vacate a deed restriction as discussed above meets the requirements as described in the Land Use Code, and APPROVES the request to vacate the ADU subject to the following conditions: 1) The floor area bonus of 347 square feet granted to the property by Resolution 22, Series of 1993 is no longer available to the property with the removal of the deed restriction for the ADU. The property in total shall be sqbject to the allowable floor area granted in the R-6 Zone District or by any subsequent approval. 2) The application for a building permit and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Letter of Completion by the Chief Building Official approving the physical changes made to the ADU to include, but not limited to, the removal of necessary kitchen facilities. Any exterior alterations made as a result of these changes are subject to Historic Preservation review requirements. 3)Once Condition 2 is met, a release of deed restriction, approved by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority and acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be completed and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. APPROVED BY: Interim Community Development Director CONSENTED TO: 8)1/?AJ)°J Date 1 Authorized Representative for 234 West Francis, LLC Page 58 of 88 102 Attachments: Exhibit A-Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993 Granting Approval of the ADU (not recorded) Exhibit B -Original ADU Deed Restriction (Reception# 358580) (not recorded) Exhibit C -Floor Plan of approved ADU (not recorded) Exhibit D -Application (not recorded) Page 59 of 88 103 Waite!Mullins House 234 West Francis St. Site survey of historic materials,1/29/1999 West Side •All historic window trim and sills have been replaced with new,new details added,no original materials exist. •Three ‘.ent penetrations were made through the historic walls. Historic porch materials,posts and roof structure,have been removed.Posts are in storage, otherwise materials have been destroyed.West historic door is in storage. •New copper guides in historic double hung windows. •Large pane of historic glass was broken,at large double hung. •MI historic siding,corner boards and fascia trim on the one story section have been destroyed. •Areas of historic siding,on the main house,were relocated to this area from original locations,corner hoards have been replaced. •Pre existing porch “floor’materials were demolished,materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. North Side •MI historic siding and corner boards have been removed. •MI new window trim,new details added.none oi the historic materials exist. •New copper guides in historic double hung windows. East Side •MI historic siding has been removed and replaced with new siding and corner boards. •All new window trim,nw details added.no original materials remain. •An existing historic window,just north ot he doorway,has been replaced with a new ones the historic window still exists and is in storage. •Two vent penetrations have been made through the historic wall,with large trim details. •New copper guides in historic double hung windows. South Side •Historic siding has been r!ocated from other areas to this Iaçade.Siding n the area above the entry rool has been removed.New window trim in this area. •Alt new window sills and trim,with addiucnal details,have been installed,none of the historic materials exist. •Entry porch Iascia,soffit,and expressed structure have alt been reconstructed,new materials do not match the historic materials in size or profile.New materials continue along one story element at entry.One piece of historic crown molding still exists,in storage. Historic roof framing is apparently intact below the new constniction. •Entry columns have been altered at the base and at the top with materials which do not replicate the original posts.While porticns of the posts remain,the historic integrity has been destroyed. New boards behind the pilasters”adjacent to the door are new.Scroll work írom entry still exists and is in storage. •New door trim,with more elaborate detail,has been added,historic trim materials were destroyed.Historic door and transom are in storage. Ml historic siding in the area above the entry porch roof has been removed and partially replaced with new. •Pre existing porch MiloorM materials were demolished,materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. •Areas of corner boards are new. EXHIBIT exhibit L Page 60 of 88 104 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT RELATING TO A GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. l ~, SERIES OF 1998 WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Gwen Mullins, represented by Studio B Architects, have requested significant development approval to demolish and reconstruct an existing garage, to add a breezeway, and receive variances for the property located at 234 W. Francis Street. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volttme, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in ~"H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic L~ndmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Julie Ann Woods, in her staff reports dated May 13, May 25, and June 10, 1998, recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings of May 13, May 25, and June 10, 1998, the Historic Preservation Commission considered and approved the application by a vote of 5-2 with conditions.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Page 61 of 88 105 That significant development approval to demolish and reconstruct an'existing garage, to add a breezeway, and receive variances for the property located at 234 W. Francis Street as represented to the HPC on May 13, May 25, and June 10, 1998, be approved with the following conditions: 1. The garage will be constructed with the materials indicated and location set forth on the drawings submitted, dated Received, May 29, 1998 in the Community Deve!opment Department. 2. The proposed garage shall be granted the following variances: The rear yard setback shall be established at 2', thereby granting an 8' variance; the sideyard setback along 2nd Ave. shall be 0', thereby granting a 12' 4" variance. 3. Ail conditions of the Oct. 8, 1997, December 10, 1997, and January 28, 1998 approvals must be met. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions o approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so.5. All elements removed shall be restored and replaced from the same area from which they were moved.APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the /~ day o~,~, 1998.HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Chairm~ ~ J ATTEST:i~hiefDeputy~ Page 62 of 88 106 Page 63 of 88 107 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1998 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council. Susan second. All in favor, motion carried. 114 NEALE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - WITHDRAWN BY STAFF MOTION: Mary moved to withdraw 114 Neale Avenue Conceptual as recommended by Staff; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried.234 W. FRANCIS - CONCEPTUAL & FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING The affidavit of notice was entered into the records but the mailing list was not included and that will be a condition of approval.Julie Ann Woods, planner stated that the applicant already has approval for the renovation of the structure, changes to the carriage house, new kitchen addition and a new basement. They came back after that to discuss a connecting element and a garage and the HPC recommended that the application is significant and asked that they return with the entire package.They are proposing to remove the non-historic garage and construct a new garage in the same location but being setback onto the property. Right now it is in the alley right-of-way. Variances are being requested. A letter is attached from Ramona Markalunas regarding her concerns for the demolition of the garage, in which she feels the garage is historic. The 1904 Sanborn map does not indicate a garage. Carl Zessler, neighbor had no concerns with the project. Joel Sacks neighbor is in support of the variances. Staff recommends approval with conditions.Sworn in were Arthur Yuenger, Marty Pickett, attorney for the Mullins,Johnathan Lewis, Philip Hodgson and Gary Wheeler.8 Page 64 of 88 108 Page 65 of 88 109 Page 66 of 88 110 Page 67 of 88 111 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1998 520 E. DURANT - M/NORDEVELOPMENT ..........533 E. HYMAN - PITKIN COUNTY BANK -. ........................................................................................ 2 MINOR DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................... 2 123 W. FRANCIS, LOT B - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL ............................................................. 2 FOOD & WINE MAGAZINE ~ BANNERS ON MAIN ST ...................................................................... 2 114 NEALE AVENUE - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT ............................................................ 3 114 NEALE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - WITHDRAWN BY STAFF ............................................... 8 234 W. FRANCIS - CONCEPTUAL & FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING ................................................. 8 101 & 105 E. HALLAM - PARTIAL DEMOLITION ............................................................................. 11 16 Page 68 of 88 112 Page 69 of 88 113 Page 70 of 88 114 Page 71 of 88 115 Page 72 of 88 116 Page 73 of 88 117 Page 74 of 88 118 Page 75 of 88 119 Page 76 of 88 120 Page 77 of 88 121 Page 78 of 88 122 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT RELATING TO A GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. l ~, SERIES OF 1998 WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Gwen Mullins, represented by Studio B Architects, have requested significant development approval to demolish and reconstruct an existing garage, to add a breezeway, and receive variances for the property located at 234 W. Francis Street. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volttme, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in ~"H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic L~ndmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Julie Ann Woods, in her staff reports dated May 13, May 25, and June 10, 1998, recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings of May 13, May 25, and June 10, 1998, the Historic Preservation Commission considered and approved the application by a vote of 5-2 with conditions.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Page 79 of 88 123 That significant development approval to demolish and reconstruct an'existing garage, to add a breezeway, and receive variances for the property located at 234 W. Francis Street as represented to the HPC on May 13, May 25, and June 10, 1998, be approved with the following conditions: 1. The garage will be constructed with the materials indicated and location set forth on the drawings submitted, dated Received, May 29, 1998 in the Community Deve!opment Department. 2. The proposed garage shall be granted the following variances: The rear yard setback shall be established at 2', thereby granting an 8' variance; the sideyard setback along 2nd Ave. shall be 0', thereby granting a 12' 4" variance. 3. Ail conditions of the Oct. 8, 1997, December 10, 1997, and January 28, 1998 approvals must be met. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions o approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so.5. All elements removed shall be restored and replaced from the same area from which they were moved.APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the /~ day o~,~, 1998.HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Chairm~ ~ J ATTEST:i~hiefDeputy~ Page 80 of 88 124 234 West Francis Street - context • Gable roofs • Tall two story residences • Prominent front yards • Mature street trees • Direct walkways into front entry • Large street facing windows 234 West Francis Street - subject property exhibit M Page 81 of 88 125 Page | 1 An Employee-Owned Company Civil Engineering Report To: Aspen HPC From: Roger Neal, PE Date: October 22, 2019 Project: 234 W. Francis Parcel No.: 273718232006 Subject: Proposed Drainage Plan HCE Project: 2191017.00 I. Purpose The purpose of this report is to address the access, water supply, wastewater disposal, other utilities, storm water drainage, and public services, for 234 W. Francis Street. The applicant, 234 W. Francis LLC, intends to construct a single-family residence on the lot while maintaining the Historic house and historic portion of the new residence. II. Location The property is located in the City and Townsite of Aspen Block 48: Lots K, L and M. See survey of property attached separately. The Location is shown below. Civil engineering Land surveying 234 W. Francis Page 82 of 88 exhibit N 126 Page | 2 III. Access Vehicular access to the site is currently provided via the alley access to a garage from N. 2nd Street. There is also parking along N. 2nd Street and along W. Francis St., adjacent to the lot. Per City of Aspen mapping this location is required to have curb and gutter per the map below. W. Francis Street does not have a formal curb and will likely require a formal curb to meet with Engineering department requirements. Curb and Gutter Required and Deferred Zones The following map indicates the locations that require or do not require sidewalks. This location does not require sidewalks. Sidewalk Required and Sidewalk Deferred Zones Page 83 of 88 127 Page | 3 IV. Water Supply This residence is served by City of Aspen Water. A curb box will be located and service size will be replaced, if necessary. The service will likely be replaced with the construction. This service goes to the mainline either in N. 2nd Street or W. Francis Street. The existing service will be abandoned if applicable per water department standards. V. Wastewater Disposal The existing residence is served by Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and the service line is located within the alley. This service may be replaced if the service age dictates need for replacement. Evaluation and the design will be coordinated with the district requirements. VI. Other Utilities The lot at 234 w. Francis Street is currently served by other utilities including: telephone gas and electricity. The existing buried electric service line crosses into the property from the alley to the north. This electric line is owned, operated and maintained by City of Aspen Electric. The applicant has no plans to alter this public service unless service upgrade is necessary. Phone likely runs with the electric service. A gas line also currently serves the property and will continue to serve the proposed residence. VII. Storm Water Drainage The applicant intends to construct storm water improvements in conjunction with the proposed buildings. Anticipated storm drainage improvements include storm drainage swales, ditches, piping inlets, drywells and a bio-retention pond. According to the Soil Survey of Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado published by the U.S. Department. Of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, the surface soil type within 234 W. Francis is Uracca, moist Mergel Complex, and is identified as being within hydrologic soil groups A and B. Soil Survey Map Page 84 of 88 128 Page | 4 These soil conditions generally represent very good infiltration and are very favorable for the use of drywells and bio-retention ponds. Overflow paths are expected to mostly be towards W. Francis due to the the location of the exisitng facilities. It is anticipated that a tie –in the the existing 15” HDPE will be made for overflow from the proposed drywells. The bio- retention pond will overflow to the alley and flow down N. 2nd following the historic path. See existing drainage facilities below. Existing Drainage Facilities Map Page 85 of 88 129 Page | 5 We have reviewed the FEMA mapping for the site and determined the site is not within the 100 year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River as shown above on the attached firmette. The increase in storm water runoff is to be mitigated via a proposed bio-retention pond located in the northwest corner of the property that would overflow to the alley if inundated through a weir. Otherwise the pond will percolate after being treated by the pond into the type A or B soils below. Runoff from the proposed single family residence will be directed to the bio-pond to limit the runoff rates to the pre-developed condition of the site. FEMA Map 234 W. Francis Street VIII. Conclusion It is our professional opinion that the proposed property can be adequately designed from the aspects of access, water supply, wastewater disposal, utilities, storm drainage and public services and maintain the historic character of the residences. Please let me know if you have questions. Page 86 of 88 130 Page | 6 IX. References: Survey Tuttle Surveying,dated 4-26-19 Soil Survey of Aspen-Gypsum Area, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1992 Precipitation - Frequency Atlas Western United States, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin, 1973 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, TR 55, Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1986 City of Aspen, Colorado: Design and Construction Standards, June 2005. City of Aspen, Colorado: Urban Runoff Management Plan. April 2010, Sept 2014 Update. WRC Engineering, Inc. “Storm Drainage Master Plan for the City of Aspen, Colorado”. November 2001. UDFCD. www.udfcd.org. Sincerely, Roger Neal, P.E. High Country Engineering, Inc. Page 87 of 88 131 Page 88 of 88132 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_T-000_TITLE.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART , WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSDWG. LIST, GEN. NOTESABBREVS. & SYMBOLS1912FRCC-T-0001 of 25ASPEN, CO 81611234 W. FRANCIS STREET10.22.2019HPC CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION2 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS133 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_G-001_GENERAL_NOTES.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSDWG. LIST, GEN. NOTESABBREVS. & SYMBOLS1912FRCC-G-0012 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS134 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-050_SITE_PLAN_EXISTING.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSEXISTING SITE PLAN1912CC1/8"=1'-0"DM-0503 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS135 181 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-051_AREADIAGRAM_EXISTING.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART , WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSEXISTINGAREA CALCULATIONS1912CC1/8"=1'-0"DM-0514 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS136 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-100_PLAN_00.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855DEMOLITION SCOPEEX'G BASEMENT PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-1005 of 251 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJS2 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS137 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-101_PLAN_01.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855DEMOLITION SCOPEEX'G FIRST FLOOR PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-1016 of 251 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJS2 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS138 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-102_PLAN_02.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855EXISTINGEX'G SECOND FLOOR PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-1027 of 251 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJS2 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS139 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-103_PLAN_03.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855EXISTINGEX'G ROOF PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-1038 of 25 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJS12 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS140 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-200_ELEV_S_N.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSDEMOLITION SCOPEEX'G SOUTH/NORTH ELEV.1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-2009 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS141 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-201_ELEV_W.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSDEMOLITION SCOPEEX'G WEST ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-20110 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS142 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-202_ELEV_E.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSDEMOLITION SCOPEEX'G EAST ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-20311 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS143 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-040_SITEDIAGRAM.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855SITE DIAGRAM1912CC1/8"=1'-0"A-04012 of 251 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS144 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-050_SITE_PLAN.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSSITE PLAN1912CC1/8"=1'-0"A-05013 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS145 21222324181910 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-051_AREADIAGRAM.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSPROPOSEDAREA CALCULATIONS1912CC1/8"=1'-0"A-05114 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS146 CLMASSAGE RM8'-6" X 12'-4"BEDROOM19'-8" X 13'-4"SPA8'-8" X 7'-1"MECHANICAL241 SFWINECELLAR7'-0" X13'-9"BATH5'-10" X9'-6"BEDROOM15'-1" X15'-10"BATH5'-5" X9'-2"SHOWER9'-4" X 6'-2"LAUNDRY19'-11" X 12'-6"16 RISERS@ 7.5"15 TREADS@ 10"SAUNA/STEAM9'-0" X 10'-5"THEATER23'-4" X 17'-1"BEDROOM23'-4" X 17'-4"MECHANICAL7'-1" X 8'-7"GYM27'-8" X 14'-9"W/DW/DSTORAGE4'-7" X5'-0"PWDR RM8'-8" X 3-0"BEDROOM8-8" X 9'-11"#DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-100_PLAN_00.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSBASEMENT PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-10015 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS147 KITCHEN14'-0" X 16'-9"GARAGE21'-2" X 24'-6"LIVING ROOM37'-2" X 17'-7"BEDROOM15'-3" X 11'-10"BATH8'-2" X9'-1"MUD ROOM15'-8" X 20'-10"HOTTUBDINING14'-0" X 10'-0"FOYER6'-7" X 6'-9"STUDY10'-1" X 14'-9"PWDR RM4'-6" X 5'-3"DWDWREFUTILITIES/MECH.16 RISERS- 7.5"15 TREADS- 10"#DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-101_PLAN_01.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSFIRST FLOOR PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-10116 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS148 TERRACE16 RISERS- 7.5"15 TREADS- 10"22 RISERS - 6 1/2"21 TREADS - 11"BEDROOM22'-1" X 13'-7"BATH7'-1" X 9-11"BEDROOM13-9" X 9'-7"OFFICE/DRESSING20'-3" X 17'-8"BATH8'-11" X 10'-2"#DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-102_PLAN_02.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, D ISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSSECOND FLOOR PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-10217 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS149 TERRACE#DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-103_PLAN_03.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSROOF PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-10318 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS150 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-200_ELEV_S.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSSOUTH ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-20019 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS151 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-201_ELEV_W.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSPROPOSEDWEST ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-20120 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS152 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-202_ELEV_N.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSNORTH ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-20221 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS153 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-203_ELEV_E.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSEAST ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-20322 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS154 # DATEDESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-700_MATERIALS.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSMATERIALS1912CC-A-70023 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS155 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-900_MODEL.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART , WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSMASSING MODEL1912CC-A-90024 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS156 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-901_3D_01.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART , WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSSTREET PERSPECTIVES1912CC-A-90125 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS157 158 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 788 5 78 8 6 7886 788578867886 7886 78867885 7886788778 8 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TREE REMOVAL SUMMARY EX. CONIFER TO BE REMOVED SYMBOL TYPE SIZE QTY. EX. DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED 4"-18" CAL. 6"-12" CAL. TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: NOTES: 1. TREES REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENCE AND/OR IN RESPONSE TO POOR HEALTH. 2. FOR PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, REFER TO PLANTING PLAN (LA 200). 3. REFER TO PLANTING PLAN (LA200) FOR MITIGATION. 4. EXISTING TREE(S) TYPE, LOCATION, SIZE AND CALIPER BY OTHERS; REFER TO SURVEY. 5. ALL EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED ARE REPRESENTED HERE, INCLUDING THOSE NOT MEETING THE 4"/6" CALIPER STANDARD (I.E. NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION). TREE MITIGATION SUMMARY TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE OF PROPOSED NATIVE TREES (REFER TO PLANTING PLAN): TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: 4 4 LEGEND TOTAL REMAINING: EX. DECIDUOUS TO REMAIN EX. CONIFER TO REMAIN VARIOUS VARIOUS 12 3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 4 8 scale north L100 tree mitigation plan 08/18/2019 hpc submission 10/17/2019 hpc submissionbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com234 w francis l aspen, colorado234 w francisdate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen PROPERTY LINE ALLEY 2ND STREETW FRANCIS STREET 5' SETBACK 10' SETBACK 10' SETBACK 15' SETBACK10' SETBACKTREE #SPECIES DIAMETER (IN.) 1 2 ASPEN 10 TREE TABLE MAXIMUM MITIGATION VALUE $0.00 3 4 ASPEN ASPEN 10 10 $0.00 $0.00 5 6 ASPEN SPRUCE 8 10 $0.00 $0.00 SPRUCE 11 $0.00 1 L100 TREE PROTECTION FENCE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NOTE: 1. ADDITIONAL PROTECTION OUTSIDE AT TREE DRIP LINE MAY BE REQUIRED (EX. 12 IN. OF MULCH). 2. FENCE MAY BE CONTINUOUS TO PROTECT MULTIPLE TREES 3. MAINTAIN FENCE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. 4. REFER TO LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONS AND GOVERNING BODIES/AGENCIES FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. EXISTING TREE(S) TO REMAIN STURDY PROTECTION FENCING TO BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED AT TREE DRIP LINE EXISTING GRADE TO REMAIN NO DISTURBANCE WITHIN TREE DRIPLINE TREE DRIP LINETREE DRIP LINE7 SPRUCE 5 $0.00 8 SPRUCE 6 $0.00 159 precedent imagery 234 W Francis aspen | colorado bluegreen 17 october 2019 www.bluegreenaspen.com 300 south spring street l suite 202 | aspen, colorado 81611 | t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499 © copyright bluegreen 2015160 BIO RETENTION POND (5' X 7')FOR SMALL REAR AREA WQCVSTRIP DRAIN AT PROPERTYLINE TO SMALLBIO-RETENTION PONDROOF DRAINS FROM GABLEROOF WILL DRAIN TOBURIED PIPING TO DRYWELLSWALE TO AREA DRAINS ANDPIPE TO DRYWELL OVERFLOW TOCITY STORM SEWER IN WESTFRANCIS STREET OR ALLEY.FRONT AREA TO DRAIN TO ROW. ALLROOF DRAINS PICKED UP INTERNALLYPATH TO BE BASALT PAVERS.PATH TO BE REMOVEDOVERFLOW TO CITY STORM SEWER4'Ø (WQCV=108CF) DRYWELLWITH CONCEALED ACCESS LID.LOCATION OF ACCESS LID TO BEMARKED ON FINISHED GRADEAREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFDOWNSPOUTS ARE REMOVEDPROPOSED CURB & GUTTERAREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFGUTTERS ARE NOT USEDAREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFDOWNSPOUT ARE NOT USEDACCESS PATH TO BEPERMEABLE PAVERS4'Ø (WQCV=108CF) DRYWELL WITH SOD TRAYACCESS LID. MAY REQUIRE DETENTION. LINERTO BE INSTALLED ON WEST AND SOUTH SIDESWITHIN 10' BUILDING SETBACK.FLAT ROOF AREAS TO PIPE TOSOUTH DRYWELL4",6",8" STORM DRAINS TO DRYWELL ANDOVERFLOW TO CITY STORM SEWERCONNECT TO ROOF DRAINUNDERDRAINS ALONGCOURTYARD PERMIETERTO CONNECT TO DRYWELLCOGEORFREVIEWBYNO.DATEPROJECT NO.REVISIONHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. PHONE (970) 945-8676 - FAX (970) 945-2555 www.hceng.com drawn by: checked by: date: file: 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, STE 101, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 COLORADO 811CALL BEFOREYOU DIGUtility NotificationCenter of Colorado2191025.00GR-01C.1.002234 WEST FRANCIS LLC CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO 234 W. FRANCIS STREET HPC SUBMITTAL -GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN MGG RDN 10-22-19 GR-01.dwg 161 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS E E UT UT UT UT UT UTUT UT UT UT UT UTE G 7 8 8 5 78 8 5 7 8 8 6 78877886 788578867886 7886 7886 7885 78867887 7 8 8 5 DW E GV WVIVB IVB IVB IVB WSOIVB DSDSDSDS DSDSMH MH FFE ENTRY 7885.72 FFE ENTRY 7886.86 FFE 2ND FLOOR7896.70 SLOT TRENCH WINDOW WELL ELV: 7885.37 WINDOW WELL, BRICK ELV: 7886.44 FFE 7886.51 STONE PAVER (TYP.) PLANTER LINE (TYP.) CURB & GUTTER PAVED WALK (TYP.) A B COA GPS-8 COA GPS-6 FOUND No.5 REBAR w/1.25in. ORANGE PLASTIC CAP LS 33638 FOUND NAIL w/1in. CAP ILLEGIBLE FOUND No.4 REBAR w/1in. RED PLASTIC CAP LS 24303 FOUND No.4 REBAR w/1in. RED PLASTIC CAP LS 24303 5'10'10'10' 10' FRONT & SIDE SETBACK PRINCIPAL BUILDING (ASPEN LAND USE, ZONE R-6)15'15' FRONT SETBACK ACCESSORY BUILDING 5' REAR SETBACK FOR PORTION OF PRINCIPAL BUILDING USED AS GARAGE & FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING 10' SIDE SETBACK ACCESSORY BUILDING 7.4' 20.5' 0.5' ENCROACHMENT OVERHANG 0.4' ENCROACHMENT BUILDING10'10 REAR SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDING IF NOT USED AS GARAGE COVERED PORCH (TYP.) DRYWELL LID:7884.84 4" PVC VERT TOP:4879.52 2" PVC INV:7872.49 4" ADS INV:7863.87 GRAVEL:7852.87 SS MANHOLE LID:7886.02 CENTER FL:7879.32 29.1' 29.0' 1.8' 1.1' GATE GATE GATE WINDOW WELL, BRICK ELV: 7886.43WV STONE WALL WINDOW WELL, BRICK ELV: 7886.41(N 14°50'49" E 100.00')(S 75° 0 9 ' 1 1 " E 9 0 . 0 0 ' )(S 14°50'49" W 100.00')(N 75 ° 0 9 ' 1 1 " W )N 15°30'33" E 100.05'S 74° 3 5 ' 5 5 " E 9 0 . 1 8 'S 15°42'37" W 100.32'N 74° 2 5 ' 2 4 " W (90.0 0 ' ) 89.83 ' 2.2 25.32.0 3.5 7.03.9 3.97.5 6.96.9 16 7 . 0 7.72.315 0.7 25.80.95.122 19 7.010.6 3.6 21 6.6 10.414.26.90.77.914.90.6 2.515.418.3 0.8 0.60.618.0 0.7 3.0 0.62.9 2.70.60.7 0.7 0.6 13.3 0.73.0 13.3 5.61.75.414.86.810.9 4.19.5 5.28.8 1.72.60.6 7.20.7234 W. Francis St. 9,017 Sq.Ft. ± 0.207 Acre ± Parcel No. 2735-124-17-003 2-Story Frame House 1,363 Sq.Ft. 1-Story Frame Cabin 615 Sq.Ft.Lot N Lot O Lot K Lot M Lot A Lot B Lot C Lot D Lot E 212 W. Francis St. Parcel No. 2735-124-17-004 426 N. 2nd St. Parcel No. 2735-124-17-800 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 N 70° 1 3 ' 4 3 " W 5 8 0 . 1 4 'N 09°09'58" W 1372.68' West F r a n c i s S t . 74.72 ' R - O - WNorth 2nd St.75.62' R-O-WAlley - - B L O C K 4 8 [BASIS OF BEARINGS]20' R- O - W 1-Story Frame Garage 598 Sq.Ft. Lot L GARAGE 7885.94 1 inch = ft. (IN U.S. SURVEY FEET) GRAPHIC SCALE 0010 5 10 20 40 10 BYNO.DATEBYPROJECT NO.OR 534 - 06700 IN METRO DENVERUNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIESEXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OFBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, ORCALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE1-800-922-1987CENTER OF COLORADOCALL UTILITY NOTIFICATIONREVISIONHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.PHONE (970) 945-8676 - FAX (970) 945-2555www.hceng.comdrawn by:checked by:date:file:1517 BLAKE AVENUE, STE 101, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601SHEET NUMBER 2191661 1 of 1John SpencerAspen, COImprovement Survey Plat234 W. Francis St.Pitkin CountyGEBBWAB09.03.20191 9.10.19fixed tree diameters and drip radiigeb210.03.19tree chart nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 13geb3 10.09.19 garage elev., note 10gebUTIVB E WSO DW GV G DS WV E 234 W. Francis St. MH NO. SPECIES SIZE (IN.) DRIP RADIUS (FT.) 1 ASPEN 11 17 2 ASPEN 10 13 3 ASPEN 10 13 4 ASPEN 10 10 5 ASPEN 10 10 6 ASPEN 10 8 7 SPRUCE 11 10 8 ASPEN 8 10 9 SPRUCE 10 10 10 SPRUCE 14 14 11 SPRUCE 12 10 12 ASPEN 12 10 13 SPRUCE 10 8 14 ASPEN 12 13 15 ASPEN 8 16 16 ASPEN 12 15 17 ASPEN 11 18 18 COTTONWOOD 45 25 19 COTTONWOOD 38 30 20 COTTONWOOD 35 26 21 COTTONWOOD 34 23 22 COTTONWOOD 36 29 23 COTTONWOOD 33 25 24 ASPEN 13 12 25 COTTONWOOD 30 43 26 COTTONWOOD 32 30 27 SPRUCE 5 4 28 SPRUCE 6 4 VICINITY MAP STREET SIGN BUILDING SETBACK LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE ADJOINER LINE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN CITY AND TOWNSHIP OF ASPEN, LOTS K, L & M, BLOCK 48 SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO LAND SURVEY PLAT DEPOSIT CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE DRY WELL MANHOLE GAS VALVE GAS METER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL WATER VALVE WATER SHUTOFF IRRIGATION VALVE BOX ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER UTILITY POLE/POWER POLE CUT OFF LIGHT POLE ELECTRICAL METER ELECTRICAL OUTLET FOUND PROPERTY CORNER - AS DESCRIBED BENCHMARK / CONTROL POINT LEGEND MAIL BOX WOOD FENCE LINE THIS LAND SURVEY PLAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FOR DEPOSIT IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO THIS ____ DAY OF __________, 2019, PLAT BOOK _____, PAGE ______, AS RECEPTION NO.________________. TITLE 38, ARTICLE 50, §101 C.R.S. (5)(a) PLATS SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF RECORDING INFORMATION ON SURVEYING MONUMENTATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SURVEY DATA FOR SUBSEQUENT LAND SURVEYS AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT, IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, THE DESCRIPTION OF A SUBDIVISION, LINE, OR CORNER CONTAINED IN THE OFFICIAL PLATS AND FIELD NOTES FILED AND OF RECORD OR TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY. (b) NO PLAT DEPOSITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION SHALL CONSTITUTE NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 38-35-109 CRS. IN THE EVENT THIS SURVEY CANNOT BE DEPOSITED, THIS IS YOUR NOTICE THAT THIS IS NOT A RECORDABLE DOCUMENT. ______________________________________ CLERK AND RECORDER BY:____________________________________ DEPUTY ASPHALT BUILDING LINE HATCH CONCRETE PAVED WALK WOOD PORCH CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE BUILDING OVERHANG LINE FLOW LINE MAJOR CONTOUR LINE MINOR CONTOUR LINE 7885 DOWNSPOUT NOTES 1. DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: AUGUST 8, 20 & 21; OCTOBER 3, 2019, AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY IT WAS CLEAR. 2. THE ASSUMED BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF N15°30'33"E ALONG THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN "A" THE SOUTHWEST CORNER A FOUND REBAR AND RED PLASTIC CAP LS 24303 AND "B" THE NORTHWEST CORNER A FOUND REBAR AND ORANGE PLASTIC CAP LS 33638 AS SHOWN HEREON. 3. ALL DISTANCES ARE GROUND DISTANCES BASED ON A COMBINED SCALE FACTOR. 4. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON TO DETERMINE: A) OWNERSHIP OF THE TRACT OF LAND B) COMPATIBILITY OF THIS DESCRIPTION WITH THOSE OF ADJOINERS C) RIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD AFFECTING THIS PARCEL. 5. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENT, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. RELIED UPON TITLE COMMITMENT No. 461120 ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE COMPANY, EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 7, 2019 AT 8:00AM. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. 6. THE CLIENT DID NOT REQUEST THAT ANY ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS BE RESEARCHED OR SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 7. ALL DIMENSIONS AND COURSES ARE AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD UNLESS DENOTED IN PARENTHESES, WHICH DENOTE THE BOUNDARIES OF RECORD ON THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF OFFICIAL MAP, CITY OF ASPEN IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. 8. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88) REFERENCED FROM NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) BENCHMARK STATION S 159 HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 7720.88. 9. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT. 10. BUILDING MEASUREMENTS ARE AT LOWEST PRACTICABLE POINT ON VENEER. 11. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY REMOVES, ALTERS OR DEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MONUMENT OR LAND BOUNDARY MONUMENT OR ACCESSORY COMMITS A CLASS TWO (2) MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-4-508 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES. 12. NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED ON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY ACTION BASED ON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. 13. NOTICE: THIS PLAT AND THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL OR EXTENDED PURPOSE BEYOND THAT FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED AND MAY NOT BE USED BY ANY PARTIES OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHICH IT IS CERTIFIED. THIS DOCUMENT AND THE WORK IT REPRESENTS IS THE PROPERTY OF HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE STORED, REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED OR USED TO PREPARE DERIVATIVE PRODUCTS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION. AN ORIGINAL SEAL AND ORIGINAL SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED TO VALIDATE THIS DOCUMENT AND IS EXCLUSIVE TO HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. AND THE OWNER(S) OF RECORD AS OF THIS DATE, OF THE PROPERTY DELINEATED HEREON AND THE SUBJECT OF THE SURVEY. THIS PLAT IS RESTRICTED TO THE INTENT OF TITLE 38, ARTICLE 50, §101, 5 (a) AND (b) C.R.S. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION I, BILL W.A. BAKER, A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO (#23875) DO BY THESE PRESENTS CERTIFY THAT THE DRAWING SHOWN HEREON, WITH NOTES ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, REPRESENTS A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF SAID SURVEY IS RENDERED BY THIS PLAT. THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE, IS NOT A GUARANTY OR WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. THIS SURVEY PLAT COMPLIES WITH TITLE 38-51-102, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES. BILL W.A. BAKER, COLORADO PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR #23875 CERTIFIED FEDERAL SURVEYOR #1699 7887 TREE CHART 162