Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.HPC.202001081 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 8, 2020 4:30 PM, I.SITE VISIT I.A.None. II.ROLL CALL 4:30 III.MINUTES IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VII.PROJECT MONITORING VII.A.Project Monitoring list PROJECT MONITORING.doc VIII.STAFF COMMENTS IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED X.CALL UP REPORTS XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XII.OLD BUSINESS 4:40 XII.A.201 E Main Street, Minor Development Review and GMQS (Public Hearing continued from 9-11-19) Memo_201 E Main Street_1-8-20.pdf Resolution_201 E Main Street_1-8-20.pdf 1 2 Exhibit A_DesignGuidelinesStaffResponse.pdf Exhibit B_Revised application.pdf XIII.NEW BUSINESS 5:40 XIII.A.333 W. Bleeker Street - Final Major Development and Setback Variations, PUBLIC HEARING 333WBleeker_Final_Memo_01.08.20.pdf 333WBleeker_Resolution_01.08.20.pdf ExhibitA.1_HPGuidelinesCriteria.pdf ExhibitA.2_SetbackVariationCriteria.pdf ExhibitB_HPCResolution&MeetingMinutes_04.24.2019.pdf ExhibitC_Application.pdf XIV.DISCUSSION ITEM 6:40 XIV.A.Election of Chair and Vice-Chair XV.ADJOURN 6:50 XVI.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER 1-2020 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. 2 3 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met. Revised April 2, 2014 3 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@64043196\@BCL@64043196.doc 1/2/2020 HPC PROJECT MONITORS-projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 1102 Waters 602 E. Hyman 210 S. First 333 W. Bleeker Bob Blaich 209 E. Bleeker 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace Gretchen Greenwood 124 W. Hallam 411 E. Hyman 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace 101 W. Main, Molly Gibson Lodge 201 E. Main 834 W. Hallam 420 E. Hyman 517 E. Hopkins 529-535 E. Cooper Avenue Jeff Halferty 232 E. Main 541 Race Alley 208 E. Main 517 E. Hopkins 533 W. Hallam 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen 105 E. Hallam Roger Moyer 223 E. Hallam 300 W. Main 105 E. Hallam Richard Lai 211 W. Main 414-422 E. Cooper Scott Kendrick 517 E. Hopkins 419 E. Hyman 302 E. Hopkins 304 E. Hopkins 210 W. Main 301 Lake Sheri Sanzone 549 Race Alley 110 W. Main Kara Thompson 981 Gibson Need to assign: 422/434 E. Cooper 305/307 S. Mill 534 E. Cooper 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner MEETING DATE: January 8th, 2020 RE: 201 E. Main Street, Minor Development Review, Commercial Design, GMQS, and Relocation - Public Hearing continued from September 11th, 2019 APPLICANT/OWNER: 201 East Main Street, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams LLC LOCATION: 201 E. Main Street (Former Main Street Bakery location) Lots A-C Block 74 City and Townsite of Aspen PID#: 273718216005 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district and the Main Street Historic District. The property is developed with two historically designated masonry structures built in 1889 and a non-historic addition connecting the two structures. Former use of the property included, most recently, a bakery and restaurant. The building is currently vacant and under construction with a valid building permit that has focused on stabilization of the structure and preparation for an HPC approved demolition and replacement of the non-historic addition. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant requests Minor Development Review, combined Commercial Design Review, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Review, and Relocation of Designated Historic Properties. The scope of work includes excavation of a subgrade basement below a historic structure for future commercial use and construction of a detached structure that includes additional commercial net leasable space. *Note: this application was submitted prior to the adoption of the recent Historic Preservation Commission Land Use Code changes. LAST HPC MEETING: The request was continued from the September 11th, 2019 meeting to allow the Applicant to respond to HPC comments and direction provided at the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a continuance of the request to allow the Applicant to restudy and address Staff concerns related to design elements of the proposed new structure. Figure 1. 201 E. Main Street, looking west. 1965 Aspen Historical Society photo. 5 Page 2 of 4 LAST HPC MEETING AND APPLICANT RESPONSE: The HPC heard this request at the September 11th, 2019 meeting and provided specific direction to the Applicant on the proposal. This direction included: • Restudy the north elevation of the proposed detached accessory structure to achieve a compatible scale and proportion with the historic resource through material application and fenestration. • Remove the proposed water feature; • Restudy the placement and/or footprint of the detached accessory structure to maintain the rear yard setback of 5’ and the minimum distance of 10’ between the new structure and the historic landmark. In response, the Applicant has reconfigured the project from both a site planning and design perspective. The initial request proposed an accessory structure sited towards the rear (south) of the property which did not include a basement. The new proposal shows a larger structure of approximately 1,840 sq. ft. (858 sq. ft above grade and 982 sq. ft below grade) that is sited near the front of the Lot (north), compliant with all yard and building setback requirements. No variations are requested with the new submittal. The new structure shows subgrade commercial net leasable space beneath the footprint of the building and includes a subgrade connecting element that provides access to the historic resource’s subgrade basement. Given the new dimensions for the structure, previous Growth Management Quota Systems (GMQS) calculations will change. The rear of the property continues to show the trash a recycling area adjacent to the alley and onsite parking compliant with Land Use Code requirements. The trash area is now proposed to be screened with a fence and not enclosed. The area south of the new structure shows landscaping and open areas which avoid an important drip line and disturbance to an existing spruce tree root system. While certain plans in the new submittal continue to show seating that appears to be for a future restaurant use, the Applicant has not specifically committed to a restaurant and compliance with Mixed Use (MU) zone district use requirements will dictate future uses for the property. Lastly, the existing historic resource and previously proposed alterations remain unchanged from the initial submittal with the exception of a basement floor plan reconfiguration that includes mechanical room and crawl spaces changes. It should be noted that a significant change from the previous plan includes the placement of the new structure in closer proximity to Main Street. For the purposes of HPC design review, this new structure results new analysis. Staff discussion on the applicable design criteria for new structure are outlined below. STAFF COMMENTS ON NEW SUBMITTAL: With the removal of any building or yard setback variation requests, the Applicant has shown compliance with the applicable Land Use Code standards for the subject property. As a result, a number of Land Use Code review criteria are eliminated from HPC consideration. Given that the new structure is larger than the initial submittal, changes will be made to GMQS and subsequent employee mitigation requirements. Staff has updated these calculations in the attached draft HPC Resolution. Below is discussion regarding the design review elements of the new structure: Minor Development (Section 26.415.070.C): The Minor Development criteria focus on impacts to the historic resource and the cumulative impacts to a landmarked property. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines focus on maintaining the historic integrity of the resource and its immediate surroundings, while supporting compatible change. Staff has reviewed the proposed application and find that there are design elements that need further study. The proposed design includes a one-story detached structure with a strong visual presence on Main Street. The new building is completely detached from the historic resource above grade but connected at the subgrade level to provide access to a shared mechanical room. The new proposal now maintains a 10’ distance between the historic resource and the new building and no setback variations are required for this 6 Page 3 of 4 structure. The proposed design has a relatable form and material selection to historic residential development found in the district with a minimal above grade floor area of 858 sf, but staff has concerns with the uninterrupted front façade of the new structure that spans a length of approximately 44’ along Main Street. The length of this façade does not adhere to proportions typically found on historic residential resources and the lack of articulation on this façade exacerbates this condition. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines call for new buildings on a landmarked property to have a clearly defined primary entry by using a front porch and keeping the appearance of a front elevation that is similar to other historic buildings. The proposed horizontal steel and wood trellis demarcates the entry area but does not provide the architectural characteristics or functionality of a traditional porch. Staff recommends the Applicant restudy the proposed entry feature to comply with these guidelines to achieve an appropriate sense of scale and historic character. See Exhibit A for staff findings. Figure 1: Proposed North Elevation of New Structure (facing Main Street) Staff finds the revised site plan, which concentrates the open space behind the new building, appropriately utilizes the space and takes the existing site conditions into account. The overall layout of the site plan complements the historic landmark by having a small and simple footprint and being one-story. All required parking is to be provided on-site and accessed off the alley promoting minimal visual impact. Staff supports the Applicant’s proposal for a new 3’ tall wooden fence proposed along Main Street. Combined Commercial Design Review (Section 26.412.060): The Commercial Design Guidelines focuses on maintaining character defined areas and promoting pedestrian-scaled design. The following sections are applicable to this property: General, Pedestrian Amenities, and Main Street Historic District. Pedestrian amenity requirements call for a portion of the site to be open to the sky and to provide a meaningful street level experience. Staff finds the proposed open space complements the historic resource by ensuring the area is meaningful in size for various uses while allowing unobstructed views of the historic resource. This area also serves as part of the stormwater mitigation plan and preserves a large tree. Utility connections and trash are proposed outside of the space designated for pedestrian activity, and the applicant has been working with relevant City Departments related to the appropriate locations for these features. Staff recommends continued conversations with relevant City Departments for any future changes with staff and monitor review and approval prior to building permit submission. The proposed new construction is adjacent to the historic resource with a front façade that is not proud of the resource. Wood siding is indicated, and this is a material that is commonly used on historic residential construction. The shingle shaped metal roof is a simple, yet durable building material related to what is found in the district. 7 Page 4 of 4 The Commercial Design Guidelines for the Main Street Historic District specifically addresses the importance of a clearly defined primary entrance. Staff finds that the proposed entry does not meet these guidelines because the unarticulated front façade reads as a continuous flat surface. Staff recommends restudy of the north elevation to comply with the guidelines regarding an articulated entry to ensure a compatible scale and design that reflects the historic district. See Exhibit A for detailed staff findings. It should be noted that Staff has communicated these findings to the Applicant, and it is anticipated that changes to the structure will be made prior to the hearing. Staff will be prepared for additional discussion on these potential changes should the need arise. RECOMMENDATION: A draft resolution of approval is provided; however, Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue this application for further restudy of the new structure: 1.) Restudy the north elevation of the proposed new structure to achieve a compatible scale and proportion with regard to other historic resources in the area. Specifically, the Applicant should restudy the porch element and overhang and create a more pronounced presence of this building element. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit D: Applicant new submission 8 HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019 Page 1 of 5 RESOLUTION #_____ , SERIES OF 2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 E MAIN STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS A, B, AND C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 273707328001 WHEREAS, the Applicant, 201 East Main Street LLC, Mar k Hunt Manager, represented by BendonAdams, LLC, has requested HPC approval for the following development activities: • Excavation of a subgrade basement beneath an existing historic resource totaling approximately 1,179 square feet of commercial net leasable space, • Construction of a new 1,907 square foot commercial net leasable (858 square feet above grade and 1,049 square feet below grade) detached structure. • Construction of onsite parking spaces and a trash area on the alley side of the property; WHEREAS, the subject application was received and deemed complete by the Community Development Department on June 10th, 2019. WHEREAS, in 2017, HPC granted Minor Development approval for reconstruction of the non- historic addition that connects the north and south historic buildings pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 13-2017 (Reception No. 640806). Approval of the connecting element included provisions for setback variations on the north and west yards and approval of a service yard entrance along the rear yard (alley). In 2018, Growth Management exemption approval was administratively granted for minor increases in commercial net leasable space and floor area pursuant to the Notice of Approval recorded at Reception No. 640376. This approval is currently vested; 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 the additional scope of work that has been proposed for the site, 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 and Commercial Design Guidelines per Section 26.412 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 Minor Development, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.070.C; and, WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and 9 HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, for GMQS for Enlargement of an Historic Landmark, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.470.100.A; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project at a continued public hearing on September 11th, 2019 and January 8th, 2020. 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 Minor Development, Commercial Design, Relocation, and GMQS for 201 E. Main Street as follows: Section 1: Minor Development Review HPC hereby approves the Minor Development Review as outlined in Exhibit A (Site Plan) and Exhibit B (elevations). The HPC acknowledges that insubstantial changes to the project may occur prior to building permit submittal and during the course of building permit review that may alter and amend the approved site plan and building elevations. Through the HPC Monitoring process, insubstantial changes may be approved administratively. All amendment requests will be reviewed pursuant to the applicable Land Use Code requirements and standards. The project shall comply with the following conditions: 1.) Restudy the north elevation of the proposed new structure to achieve a compatible scale and proportion with regard to other historic resources in the area. Specifically, the Applicant should restudy the porch element and overhang and create a more pronounced presence of this building element. 2.) Provide final lighting plan, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor prior to building permit submission. 3.) Provide foundation detail for historic resource, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor prior to building permit submission. 4.) Provide final plans for utilities and mechanical equipment, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor prior to building permit submission. 10 HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019 Page 3 of 5 Section 2: GMQS Employee Generation: New Net Leasable area MU Zoning FTE’s generated Basement expansion in historic structure 1,179 square feet 3.6 FTE’s / 1,000 square feet (25% reduction for subgrade commercial net leasable area) 3.18 New structure 1,914 (858 sq. ft. above grade & 1,056 sq. ft. below grade) 3.6 FTE’s / 1,000 square feet (25% reduction for subgrade commercial net leasable area) 3.09 + 2.85 = 5.94 Total 3,093 square feet 9.12 + 0.2 = 9.14 (Applicant has identified a 0.2 FTE discrepancy from the previous 2017 HPC approval) Employee Mitigation: Land Use Code Mitigation Rates Mitigation Requirement First 4 FTE’s = 0 Next 4 employees @ 30% = 1.2 FTE’s Next 1.13 employees @ 65% 0.74 Total 1.94 FTEs required All calculations used to determine the required mitigation will be confirmed during the building permit review process. The Applicant shall mitigate via Affordable Housing Credits, which must be at a Category 4 level, provided prior to issuance of the permit. Section 3: Parking A total of 5,434 square feet of commercial net leasable space is proposed on the subject property. 5,434 square feet commercial net leasable / 1 unit per 1,000 sq. ft. = 5.43 parking units In the Mixed-Use zone district, 60% of the parking requirement shall be met onsite. Three (3) parking spaces are proposed onsite which include one (1) accessible parking space. The remaining 0.26 parking space requirement will be mitigated through cash in lieu. The TIA requirement is satisfied by providing an onsite bike repair station adjacent to the parking area and providing cash for the future Main and Garmish bus stop. The remaining portion of the parking requirement totals 2.17 parking spaces and shall be mitigated through cash in lieu. The 11 HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019 Page 4 of 5 current cash in lieu rate is $38,000/parking unit totaling $82,460 in mitigation (2.17 parking units * $38,000 = $82,460). Transportation Impact Assessment and mitigation for new trips generated by the development will be finalized through Engineering during building permit review. Section 4: Referral Departments: The Applicant shall comply with all rules and requirements of the City Parks, Engineering, and Zoning Departments. Section 5: Vesting The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 201 E Main Street Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 6: 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. 12 HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019 Page 5 of 5 Section 7: 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 8: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the ____ day of ____________, 2019. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _____________________________ ________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk 13 Page 1 of 19 Exhibit A Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Commercial Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings NOTE: Staff responses begin on pages 8 & 18 following the list of applicable guidelines. 26.415.070.C Minor 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. The procedures for the review of minor development projects are as follows: a) The Community Development Director will review the application materials and if they are determined to be complete, schedule a public hearing before the HPC. The subject property shall be posted pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.b. b) 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 approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. c) The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. d) The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. 14 Page 2 of 19 Chapter 1: Site Planning & Landscape Design MET NOT MET 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. Chapter 3: Rehabilitation - Windows MET NOT MET 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. 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. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. MET MET MET MET MET CONDITION MET MET MET MET Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review Criteria for 201 E. Main Street The applicant is requesting a Minor Development reivew for site plan and the construction of a new detached accessory structure. As a historically designated landmark, the proposed design must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET 15 Page 3 of 19 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. 1.2 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. 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. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties MET NOT MET 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch.NOT MET 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel.NOT MET 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.NOT MET 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. Chapter 12: Accessibility, Lighting, Mech. Equipment, Services Areas & Signs MET NOT MET 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. MET MET MET MET MET MET 16 Page 4 of 19 • 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. 1.13 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. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. 17 Page 5 of 19 • 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. 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. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. • A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature. • For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket. • For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 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. 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. 18 Page 6 of 19 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. 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. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 19 Page 7 of 19 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project 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. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. • All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. 20 Page 8 of 19 • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. Staff Finding: The applicable sections of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning, relocation, building materials, windows, new construction, and service areas. Staff finds Design Guideline 11.2 regarding a defined entry porch for new construction has not been provided. In the Mixed-Use zone district, there is a combination of commercial and residential buildings and the proposed design for the new structure tries to relate to residential form and scale. When the design is derived from the surrounding residential context, this guideline requires the design to include a clearly defined primary entrance in the form of a front porch. The proposed design utilizes a horizontal trellis that does not reflect historic porch proportions or architectural features. It lacks any functionality and deviates from the surrounding context. Staff recommends restudy. Design Guideline 11.3 regarding the mass and scale of new construction is not met. The proposed detached structure is in a highly visible location on Main Street where the compatibility of scale in context to its surroundings is extremely important. The north elevation shows a cross- gable roof form with the front door facing Main Street. The street-facing north elevation extends roughly 44’ across the property with little to no articulation of building mass. This length does not reflect the historic scale of residential construction along Main Street, and this façade does not have a traditional entry feature, such as a porch, which could potential help create more 21 Page 9 of 19 appropriate proportions. Staff recommends the proportions of the east elevation be restudied to better reflect the historic context. Design Guideline 11.4 calls for the front elevation of a new building to be similar in scale to the historic building. Although the detached one-story building is not perceived to be taller than the historic resource, the elongated east elevation does not match the traditional scale of historic structures found on Main Street. The adjacent historic property is an example of a historic miner’s cabin that has been severely altered over the years. The current length of the adjacent cabin is the result of an addition that was added onto the historic resource and not traditional in scale. Staff finds that the appearance scale may be achieved through articulation and recommends restudy. 22 Page 10 of 19 26.412.060 Commercial Design Review. Except as outlined below, this Section applies to all commercial, lodging and mixed-used development within the City requiring a building permit. All development shall be reviewed pursuant to the Character Area in which it is located. The Community Development Director shall assign an appropriate Character Area to properties subject to Commercial Design Review that are not located within a defined Character Area. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. Guidelines and Standards 1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines include design review criteria that are to be used to determine whether the application is appropriate. 2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a Variation pursuant to Section 26.412.040.D, Variations. 3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must: a) determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately met in order to approve a project proposal; b) weigh the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure. 23 Page 11 of 19 Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines: General - Site Planning and Streetscape MET NOT MET 1.1 All projects shall provide a context study. 1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid. 1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building. 1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space, to semi-public space to private space. 1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the property line. Review the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include: • A fence which is low in height and mostly transparent so as to maintain openness along the street. • Landscaping, though it may not block views of the architecture or a Pedestrian Amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited. • Benches or other street furniture. Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines: General - Alleyways MET NOT MET 1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. 1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots with midblock access from the street (See Pedestrian Amenity Section PA4). Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines: General - Parking MET NOT MET 1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines: General - Building Mass, Height, and Scale MET NOT MET 1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block.NOT MET 1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent buildings is required. 1.12 On lots larger than 6,000 square feet, break up building mass into smaller modules. 1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic resource. Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines: General - Roofscape MET NOT MET 1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the building. 1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade. Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines: General - Materials and Details MET NOT MET 1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required. 1.23 Building materials shall have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen historically in the Character Area. • Convey pedestrian scale. • Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension. • Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material. • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate. • A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for secondary materials. MET Review Criteria for 201 E. Main Street The applicant is requesting a Minor Develoment reivew for a site plan and the construction of a new detached accessory structure. Since it is located in the Main Street Historic District, the design must meet applicable design standards and guidelines. MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET 24 Page 12 of 19 1.24 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the existing streetscape may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are met: • Innovative building design. • Creative material application that positively contributes to the streetscape. • Environmentally sustainable building practice. • Proven durability. Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines: General - Lighting, Serice and Mechancial Areas MET NOT MET 1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style of the building. 1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located along an alleyway where one exists, and screened from view with a fence of door. 1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys. 1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists. 1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/ or co-located on the roof. 1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes.CONDITION 1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and codes.CONDITION Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines: Pedestrian Amenities MET NOT MET PA 1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject property. PA 1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total Pedestrian Amenity requirement. PA 1.4 Street level Pedestrian Amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space. PA 1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky. PA 1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. PA 1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street. MET PA 1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line. Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include: • Overhangs: A cantilevered roof or retractable awning that stretches to the property line. • Fences: A low fence, mostly transparent, that allows views into the Pedestrian Amenity space. • Landscape: Low planter boxes. If including trees, the mature tree canopy size should not prohibit views into the amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited. • Street Furniture: Permanent, fixed benches or other pedestrian-related elements may be considered to establish property lines. • Surface Material: A change in hardscape material to differientiate between Pedestrian Amenity and right-of- way. PA 1.11 Within the Main Street Historic District, required building setbacks may be used toward a Pedestrian Amenity requirement. Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines: Main Street Historic District - Building Placement MET NOT MET 3.1 Orient a new building or addition to the street. 3.2 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET CONDITION MET MET CONDITION MET MET 25 Page 13 of 19 Relevant Commercial Design Guidelines: 1.1 All projects shall provide a context study. • The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc. 1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid. • A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area. Refer to specific chapters for more information. • Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets. 1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building. • This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right-of-way. • High quality and durable materials should be used. • Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an integral part of the landscape design process. 1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space, to semi-public space to private space. • This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element, covered walkway, or landscape. 1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the property line. Review the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include: • A fence which is low in height and mostly transparent so as to maintain openness along the street. • Landscaping, though it may not block views of the architecture or a Pedestrian Amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited. • Benches or other street furniture. 1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale. 3.3 The imitation of older historic styles blurs the distinction between old and new buildings and is discouraged. 3.4 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings in the district.NOT MET 3.5 Roof forms should be in character with surrounding historic buildings.MET 3.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to historic buildings in the district.NOT MET 3.7 Clearly define the primary entrance to a new building with a front porch or similar feature.NOT MET Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines: Main Street Historic District - Details & Materials MET NOT MET 3.10 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian-era residences seen traditionally on Main Street.NOT MET 3.13 Secondary materials should relate to the historic context.MET 3.14 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically.MET MET 26 Page 14 of 19 1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots with midblock access from the street (See Pedestrian Amenity Section PA4). • Maximize visibility and access to alley commercial spaces with large windows and setbacks. • Minimize adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas through materials, setbacks, and/or landscaping. 1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. • All on-site parking shall be accessed off an alley where one is available. • Break up the massing of the alley facade, especially when garage doors are present. • Consider the potential for future retail use accessed from alleys and the desire to create a safe and attractive environment for cars and people. • If no alley access exists, access should be from the shortest block length. • Screen surface parking and avoid locating it at the front of a building. Landscaping and fences are recommended. • Consider a paving material change to define surface parking areas and to create visual interest. • Design any street-facing entry to underground parking to reduce visibility. Use high quality materials for doors and ramps and integrate the parking area into the architecture. 1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block. 1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent buildings is required. • The height difference shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. • The height difference should reflect the range and variation in building height in the block. • This may be achieved through the use of a cornice, parapet or other architectural articulation. 1.12 On lots larger than 6,000 square feet, break up building mass into smaller modules. • A street level front setback to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity in accordance with the Pedestrian Amenity Guidelines may be an appropriate method to break up building mass. • Building setbacks, height variation, changes of material, and architectural details may be appropriate techniques to vertically divide a building into modules. 1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic resource. • A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark. • A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping down in scale toward a smaller landmark. • Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials and fenestration. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site, and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of pedestrian scale. • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size, shape, and proportion to those of the historic resource. 1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the building. 27 Page 15 of 19 • Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen from view. • Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley access. • Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add visual interest. 1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade. • Minimize the visual impact of elevator shafts and stairway corridors through material selection and placement of elements. • Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and location on the proposed building as part of the application. • Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior to installation may be required. 1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required. • Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and location non the proposed building as part of the application. • Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior to installation may be required. 1.23 Building materials shall have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen historically in the Character Area. • Convey pedestrian scale. • Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension. • Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material. • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate. • A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for secondary materials. 1.24 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the existing streetscape may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are met: • Innovative building design. • Creative material application that positively contributes to the streetscape. • Environmentally sustainable building practice. • Proven durability. 1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style of the building. 1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located along an alleyway where one exists, and screened from view with a fence or door. • Screening fences shall be 6 feet high from grade (unless prohibited by the Land Use Code), shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than 90% opaque, unless otherwise varied based on a recommendation from the Environmental Health Department. 1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys. 28 Page 16 of 19 1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists. • Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or co-located on the roof. • Screen rooftop mechanical equipment and venting with a low fence or recess behind a parapet wall to minimize visual impacts. 1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. • Group and discreetly locate these features. • Use screening and materials that compliment the architecture. 1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and codes. • Place a transformer on an alley where possible. • Provide screening for any non-alley location. PA1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject property. • At grade Pedestrian Amenity on the north side of the street is discouraged, except when providing a front yard along Main Street. PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total Pedestrian Amenity requirement. • For example, a requirement of 300 square feet of Pedestrian Amenity can be comprised of three 100 square feet spaces; but cannot be comprised of one 275 square feet space and one 25 square feet space. PA1.4 Street level Pedestrian Amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space. PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky. • Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required. • A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open. PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. • Small unusable spaces are inappropriate. • Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating opportunities when designing the space. • Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is recommended. • Do not duplicate existing nearby open space. • Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within Pedestrian Amenity space. 29 Page 17 of 19 PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street. • On corner lots, Pedestrian Amenity space may be considered on side streets or adjacent to the alley rather than facing primary streets. PA1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line. Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include: • Overhangs: A cantilevered roof or retractable awning that stretches to the property line. • Fences: A low fence, mostly transparent, that allows views into the Pedestrian Amenity space. • Landscape: Low planter boxes. If including trees, the mature tree canopy size should not prohibit views into the amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited. • Street Furniture: Permanent, fixed benches or other pedestrian-related elements may be considered to establish property lines. • Surface Material: A change in hardscape material to differentiate between Pedestrian Amenity and right-of-way. PA1.11 Within the Main Street Historic District, required building setbacks may be used toward a Pedestrian Amenity requirement. 3.1 Orient a new building or addition to the street. • All buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • Generally, do not set a structure forward of any historic resources within the block. Alignment of front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot. 3.2 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project should relate strongly to the historic district in at least two of these elements. Departing from one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. o When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic district. o When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically in the district and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. o When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those in the historic district. 3.3 The imitation of older historic styles blurs the distinction between old and new buildings and is discouraged. • Overall, details should be modest in character. 3.4 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings in the district. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller modules that are similar in size to the historic buildings in the historic district. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic district. 30 Page 18 of 19 • Use secondary structures to break up mass of buildings. These are most appropriately located along alleyways. 3.5 Roof forms should be in character with surrounding historic buildings. • Roof forms should be simple. • If applicable, gable ends should be oriented toward the street. • Carefully consider roof eaves, orientation of ridgelines, roof pitch, dormers, and other features as a way to either create compatibility or differentiate a new building or addition. 3.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to historic buildings in the district. • The primary plane of the front elevation should not appear taller than historic structures. 3.7 Clearly define the primary entrance to a new building with a front porch or similar feature. • The front porch should be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 3.10 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian-era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. • These include windows, doors, and porches. • Overall, details should be modest in character. 3.13 Secondary materials should relate to the historic context. • More variety is acceptable for secondary materials if a relationship to the historic palette can be demonstrated. • Stone should be limited to the foundation. 3.14 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. Staff Finding: The applicable sections of the commercial design guidelines are as follows: General (site planning and streetscape, alleyways, parking, building mass, height, scale, roofscape, materials and details, lighting, service and mechanical areas), Pedestrian Amenities, and Main Street Historic District (building placement, details and materials). Staff finds Design Guideline 1.10 regarding building mass and scale is not met. The scale and proportions of the proposed detached structure, as seen from Main Street, is not in character with traditional historic residential structures in the district. Staff recommends restudy. Design Guideline 3.4 speaks to the appearance of a new building having similar scale and proportions related to the inventory of historic buildings in the district. The breaking up of mass and scale is important to preserving the historic character of Main Street. The proposed detached building shows little articulation on the street-facing façade. Staff recommends additional design changes to break up the appearance of a continuous massing seen from the front of the property. Design Guideline 3.6 states the front elevation of buildings in the district need to be similar in scale to other historic buildings in the district. Staff finds that the proposed front elevation does 31 Page 19 of 19 not reflect the traditional building scale of historic residential buildings in the district, and recommends restudy. Design Guideline 3.7 requires a clearly defined primary entrance for new buildings in the historic district. The referenced traditional entry feature is a front porch or similar feature that defines the front door. Traditional size, scale and functionality is required for the entry porch. Staff finds this feature to be crucial for the proposed design since the front façade, as designed, does not demonstrate historic proportions or scale. Staff recommends the entrance be restudied with a front porch feature. Design Guideline 3.10 provides references to common building components and details traditionally found on Main Street, which includes porches. A porch is a very traditional and distinct feature that relates strongly to Victorian-era residential buildings traditionally seen on Main Street. Staff recommends the use of a traditional entry to help relate to the proposed detached structure to the historic district. In summary staff recommends restudy of the detached structure by adding a porch feature to the front façade in order to achieve the appearance of traditional scale and proportions and better relate to the historic character of the district. 32 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM December 2, 2019 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission c/o Amy Simon 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Minor HPC and GMQS Application for 210 East Main Street Dear Historic Preservation Commission and Ms. Simon: 201 East Main Street, aka the Main Street Bakery, is a designated landmark and is located within the Main Street Historic District. Zoning for the property is City of Aspen Mixed-Use (MU). The intended use is a restaurant with an outdoor dining/seating area; however that is subject to change. Background 201 East Main Street was built in 1889. Both buildings shown below were originally brick and were stuccoed over prior to 1975. The building openings have been altered over time, however the form and mass remain evident. In 2017, HPC granted approval to replace the existing non-historic wood addition between the two landmarks with a new addition and a trash enclosure along the alley (Resolution 13-2017). A window on the east elevation is proposed to be restored. Figure 1: 201 East Main Street circa 1890. Exhibit B 33 2 Setback variations were granted via HPC Resolution 13-2017 to recognize the existing historic conditions along the front and west side yards, and for a service area along the rear yard. Subsequently, a growth management exemption for the increase of commercial net leaseable space (231 sf) and floor area (249 sf) was administratively approved by the Community Development Department for 0.83 FTEs. The property is currently boarded up and stabilized as part of an active repair permit for a full shoring and stabilization plan. A full basement has been already been excavated beneath the landmarks, pursuant to the repair permit. A condition of the repair permit is to receive growth management approval for the new net leasable space created on the basement level. Proposal 201 East Main Street is under new ownership; however the 2017 HPC approval for the new connecting element remains unchanged in this application. HPC considered the application in September and requested a complete restudy and no variations for an enclosed trash area. After careful consideration of the site, multiple visits with the Parks Department, and root trenching, a new small building is proposed along Main Street to complete the streetscape. As shown in Figure 1, a building with side gable was historically located adjacent to 201. The buildings are connected underground to avoid an above grade connection to the landmark. There are no setback variations requested for the new building or for the trash area, and the new building location complies with the parameters set forth by the Parks Department to protect the spruce tree and the cottonwood street trees. Relocation review is required due to the shoring that previously occurred under a repair permit. A detailed landscape plan illustrating possible outdoor dining and gathering areas is proposed to congribute to the streetscene. Growth Management for new net leasable space in the basement of the landmark and the new building along the alley is requested. There is a possibility that the basements will be filled in and will not count as net leasable. We respectfully request the ability to receive approval for the the basement net leasable with the ability to administratively remove the basement from the plans. The only change to the historic resource is to remove a non-historic door and replace it with a double hung wood window to match the original configuration as shown below and in the drawing set. Figure 2: Existing condition. Figure 3: Proposed restoration. 34 3 We look forward to working with you on this minor development project. Please contact me for additional information that will aid your review. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams LLC sara@bendonadams.com 970.925.2855 Exhibits: A – Review Criteria – updated 12/2/19 1. Design Reviews 2. Exemption for water feature no longer requested 3. Setback variations no longer requested B – Growth Management - updated 12/2/19 C – Transportation + Parking Management – updated 12/2/19 D - Relocation E – Land Use Application + Dimensional Form – updated 12/2/19 F – Pre- application summary G – Agreement to Pay H – Authorization to Represent I – Proof of Ownership J – HOA form K – Vicinity Map L – Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) – updated 12/2/19 M – HPC Resolution 13 – 2017 N - Notice of approval for GMQS exemption O - Mailing list P - Survey Q – Conceptual drainage and grading R – Drawings, materials, renderings S – Responses to Development Review Committee comments T - HPC Meeting minutes, 9.11.2019 U - Updated drawings, drainage, materials, renderings – 12/2/19 Figure 4: Historic photograph of original condition. 35 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street Exhibit A A.1 Design Reviews 26.415.060.B.2 The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, as amended, which are on file with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates of no negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any proposed work: Please find an analysis of the Commercial Core Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. Commercial Design Standard Review uses the same design guidelines for the Commercial Core Historic District and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As described below, the project conforms with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines/ Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. 26.412.040. Commercial Design Procedures for Review. E. Consolidation of applications and combining of reviews. If a development project includes additional City land use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B of this title. If a proposed development, upon determination of the Community Development Director in consultation with the applicant, is of limited scope, the Director may authorize the application to be subject to a one-step process that combines both conceptual and final design reviews… Response - This application proposes a new small building facing Main Street. 26.412.060 Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. Guidelines and Standards 1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines include design review criteria that are to be used to determine whether the application is appropriate. 2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a variation pursuant to Section 26.412.040.D. 3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must: a. determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately met in order to approve a project proposal. b. weight the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure. 36 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines – General Chapter 1.1 All projects shall provide a context study. • The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc. 1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid. • A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area. Refer to specific chapters for more information. • Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets. 1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building. • This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right of way. • High quality and durable materials should be used. • Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an integral part of the landscape design process. 1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space to semi-public space to private space. • This may be achieve through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element, covered walkway, or landscape. 1.5 – 1.6 n/a. Response – The property has complex grading along Main Street and numerous street trees that are accommodated within the proposed open space and landscape elements. These areas enhance the streetscene and reinforce the traditional street grid that historically had a building in the proposed location. Landscape and direct walkways maintain the traditional transition from public to private space. A simple fence that mimics the existing fence is proposed to define the property line and to bridge the gap between residential and commercial uses found throughout the Main Street Historic District. 1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. • Use varied building setback and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale. 1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots with midblock access from the street. • Maximize visibility and access to alley commercial spaces with large windows and setbacks. • Minimize adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas through materials, setbacks, and or landscaping. 1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. 1.10 – 1.21 n/a – refer to HP specific design guidelines below. Response – On grade parking is proposed along the alley with a brick wall proposed to shield vehicles from the outdoor spaces. A wood fence, with electric top, is proposed around the trash area to conceal the bins. 1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required. • Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and location on the proposed building as part of the application. 37 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street • Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior to installation may be required. 1.23 Building materials shall have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen historically in the Character Area. • Convey pedestrian scale. • Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension. • Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material. • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate. • A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for secondary materials. 1.24 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the existing streetscape may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are met: • Innovative building design. • Creative material application that positively contributes to the streetscape. • Environmentally sustainable building practice. • Proven durability. Response – Simple traditional wood siding, a metal shingle roof, and steel windows are proposed for the new one story building. The wood siding is proposed to have a dark stain rather than paint. 1.25 Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not permitted. Response – n/a. 1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale and style of the building. Response – A simple light fixture is proposed adjacent to the front entry 1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located along an alleyway where one exists, and screened form view with a fence or door. 1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys. 1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists. 1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or co-located on the roof. 1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. 1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and codes. Response – Trash and recycle areas are located along the alley with accessible routes on property from both buildings. The trash area was not granted a setback variation in September; therefore, we propose a six feet tall wood fence around the trash area with electric fence along 38 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street the top to deter wildlife. Delivery is proposed along the alley and mechanical equipment is consolidated on the roof of the non-historic addition as previously approved in 2017. 1.33 – 1.35 n/a. 1.36 Incorporate elements that define the property line in accordance with Guideline 1.6. Response – see above. 1.37 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA compliance into the architecture are encouraged. • Minimize the appearance of ramps by exploring other on-site options such as altering interior floor levels or exterior grade. Response – Accessibility is incorporated into the outdoor areas. Due to the location of the historic building on the property line, ADA access cannot be accommodated through the street facing Main Street entrance of the landmark. The new proposed building is entirely accessible. Main Street Historic District Design Guidelines 3.1 Orient a new building or addition to the street. • All buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • Generally, do not set a structure forward of any historic resources within the block. Alignment of front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot. Response – The new building is parallel to the lot lines and is setback 10 feet from the front façade of the landmark. The proposed 10 feet setback is similar to the adjacent Explore Bookseller’s front setback and is the minimum requirement for buildings within the Main Street Historic District. The large spruce tree in the center of the property has a significant dripline that pushes the building toward Main Street and the 10 feet setback. Figures 1- 3: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1886, 1890, 1898 39 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street 3.2 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building: form, materials, and fenestration. A project should relate strongly to the historic district in at least two of these elements. Departing from one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. o When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic district. o When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically in the district and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. o When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those in the historic district. Response – A simple cross gable roof form with wood siding is proposed to relate to the typical vernacular building form found within the Main Street Historic District and within the block. Materials are wood siding with a dark stain to relate strongly to Aspen’s typical Miner’s Cottage. Fenestration is contemporary but references historic double hung proportions. 3.3 The imitation of older historic styles blurs the distinction between old and new buildings and is discouraged. • Overall, details should be model in character. Response – Proposed materials and forms are simple and reference surrounding Victorian era buildings within the block. The fenestration and simplified architectural details are contemporary and clearly distinguish the building as a product of its own time. 3.4 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings in the district. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller modules that are similar in size to the historic buildings in the historic district. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic district. • Use secondary structures to break up mass of buildings. These are most appropriately located along alleyways. Response – A one story secondary structure is proposed to not distract from the historic landmarks on the site. The buildings are connected with a hallway underground to consolidate mechanical and operations functions. 3.5 Roof forms should be in character with surrounding historic buildings. • Roof forms should be simple. • If applicable, gable ends should be oriented toward the street. • Carefully consider roof eaves, orientation of ridgelines, roof pitch, formers, and other features as a way to either create compatibility or differentiate a new building or addition. Response – A cross gable roof form is proposed with a gable end facing the street. The eave is shallow, and there is minimal fenestration facing the street to differentiate the building as a product of its own time. 40 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street 3.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to historic buildings in the district. • The primary plane of the front elevation should not appear taller than historic structures. Response - The front elevation is simple and is not taller than the historic structure as measured from grade. The scale of the front elevation relates to the adjacent Explore Bookseller’s building by mimicking the cross gable form and the pitch of the roof. By relating the typical Aspen vernacular Miner’s Cabin, the Terrace Style architecture of the former Main Street Bakery is highlighted and the context of the block is enhanced. 3.7 Clearly define the primary entrance to a new building with a front porch or similar feature. • The front porch should be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. Response – A front porch is not proposed as it would infringe in the front yard setback, requiring a variation. An 18” flat roof trellis is proposed above the entrance as allowed by zoning. 3.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower, or similar in height to the existing building, is preferred. Response – The building is only connected below grade and is intended to stand alone as a separate building that relates to the entire context of the Historic District. 3.9 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 should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. • Detach building mass along alleyways, similar ot the pattern of traditional shed development. Response – n/a. 3.10 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian- era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. • These include windows, doors and porches. • Overall, details should be modest in character. Response – Details are simple and modest in character. The windows and doors are similar in size, location and shape to traditional residences on Main Street. The primary windows are contemporary and similar in proportion. 3.11 Architectural details should reinforce the historic context of the block. • Consider how detailing can be used to create relationships between new and old buildings while still allowing for current architectural expression. 41 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street • Consider scale, location, and purpose of historic detailing to inform new designs. • It is inappropriate to imitate historic details. Response – Proposed architectural detailing is simple and understated. 3.12 Primary materials should be wood or brick. • Alternate primary materials may be considered on a case by case basis depending on the historic context of the block. Response – Primary material is wood. 3.13 Secondary materials should relate to the historic context. • More variety is acceptable for secondary materials if a relationship to the historic palette can be demonstrated. • Stone should be limited to the foundation. Response – n/a. 3.14 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. Response – Metal shingle roof is proposed. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 1: Site planning and landscape design 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. Response – Building placement along the alley is similar to historic development patterns in the Main Street Historic District as shown on the Sanborn Maps in figures 1 -3 above. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys and ditches. Response – The character of the historic district and the pattern of small one story vernacular buildings are enhanced with the proposed new building. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. Response – A direct walkway from sidewalk to the front entrance of the landmark is retained. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. Response – Open space is provided in the front and side yards. This is consistent with the historic development pattern in the District. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. 42 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street Response – Preliminary grading and drainage is included in the application and has been discussed with the Engineering Department. 1.10 Built in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, frills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. Response – A fire pit is proposed behind the proposed new building. The design of the fire pit is being developed and is respectfully requested to be decided by Staff and monitor. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Response – The lilac bushes on the east property line are proposed to be transplanted to the best of our abilities. The significant tree in the center of the lot is protected and incorporated into the landscape design and outdoor dining areas, and street trees are protected. 1.12 Provide appropriate context for historic structures. Response – The proposed building and landscape creates an appropriate context for the landmarks at 201 and Explore, since there was historically a building in the proposed location. 1.13 Additions of plant materials to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. Response – Planting around the landmark is very limited. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. Response – Landscape lighting is limited to areas where safety is a concern. 1.15 Preserve original fences. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. Response – A simple fence and gate that matches existing are proposed. An original fence does not exist. 1.18- 1.22 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. Figure 4: Photograph showing no fence and the landmarks at 201 as separate buildings. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society. 43 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street Response – The site has complicated grading that slopes up toward Explore Bookseller’s. Regrading is limited as shown on the landscape plan. Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. Response – The proposed building is parallel to the lot lines and is 10 feet setback from the front façade of the landmark at 201. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. Response – A simple trellis feature is proposed above the entrance. A front porch cannot be accommodated without a setback variation because the dripline of the large spruce prevents the building from shifting south to make room for a porch element outside the setback. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. Response – see responses above – guidelines 3.1 – 3.9 11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new structure(s). 44 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street • This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot split. Response – n/a. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project 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. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. Response - See responses in chapter 3 above, guidelines 3.2 and 3.11. Pedestrian Amenity 26.412.070. Pedestrian Amenity B. Provision of Pedestrian Amenity. Unless specified, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission shall determine the appropriate method or combination of methods for providing this required amenity. One (1) or more of the following methods may be used to meet the requirement. 1. On-site pedestrian amenity. On-site pedestrian amenity options are provided within the Commercial, Lodge and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. Response – Pedestrian Amenity is proposed onsite in the side yard facing Main Street. The space is proposed as function outdoor lounge/dining space, but this use may change in the future as it is related to the future tenant. Pedestrian Amenity Guidelines and Standards are addressed below: PA1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject property. • At grade Pedestrian Amenity on the north side of the street is discouraged, except when providing a front yard along Main Street. 45 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street Response – Pedestrian Amenity is located in the front yard and between buildings to maximize solar access on the south side of Main Street. PA1.2 Consider all four corners of an intersection when designing street level amenity space on a corner lot. • If one or more lots on the intersection already includes a large corner Pedestrian Amenity, a new corner amenity space may not be appropriate. Response – The historic building holds the corner of the intersection and the amenity space is provided interior to the block. PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total Pedestrian Amenity requirement. Response – The proposed street level space provides the full 25% requirement. PA1.4 Street level Pedestrian Amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space. Response – The amenity space is within 18 inches above the sidewalk that abuts the space. PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky. • Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required. • A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open. Response – All areas are open to the sky; however umbrellas may be installed as needed by the tenant. PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. • Small unusable spaces are inappropriate. • Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating opportunities when designing the space. • Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is recommended. • Do no duplicate existing nearby open space. • Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within Pedestrian Amenity space. Response – Proposed amenity space provides opportunities for restaurant seating and lounging and is versatile depending on tenant needs. PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street. • On corner lots, Pedestrian Amenity space may be considered on side streets or adjacent to the alley rather than facing primary streets. Response – Proposed amenity space faces the street and enhances the open yard pattern found within the Main Street Historic District. 46 Exhibit A –Design Reviews (updated 12/2/19) 201 E. Main Street PA1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line. Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Response – Plantings, a fence and pavement selection reinforce the property line similar to the existing condition. PA1.9 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may be appropriate on a case by case basis within the Commercial Core Historic District. Response – n/a. PA1.10 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may include providing public access to the mountain or river in the Mountain Base and River Approach Character Areas through a trail easement, subject to Parks and Engineering approval. Response – n/a. PA1.11 Within the Main Street Historic District, required building setbacks may be used toward a Pedestrian Amenity requirement. Response – The subject property is located within the Main Street Historic District. The front yard setback is used toward the requirement. Second Tier Commercial A. Applicability. 1. Development or redevelopment. This section applies to all new development and redevelopment in the MU…districts. Proposals that are 100% lodge projects shall be exempted from this requirement. Remodel and renovation activities that do not trigger demolition, and which maintain 100% of the existing second tier space present on the site are exempt from this Section. Changes to second tier space as a result of required accessibility or building code compliance are exempt from compliance with the section if demolition is not triggered. Response – The proposed project is exempt from this section because demolition is not triggered and 100% of the existing second tier space, of which there is none, is maintained. 47 Exhibit B – GMQS (updated 12/2/19) 201 East Main Street Exhibit B Growth Management 26.470.100.A. Enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed use development. The enlargement of an historic landmark building for commercial, lodge or mixed use development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: 1) Up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development shall not require the provision of affordable housing. Thirty percent (30%) of the employee generation above four (4) and up to eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing, affordable housing credits, or cash in lieu thereof. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the employee generation above eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing, affordable housing credits, or cash in lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.080.D, Affordable Housing Mitigation. Response – The proposal with basement generates 8.92 FTEs and a 2017 GMQS exemption generated 0.02 FTEs, for a cumulative total of 8.94 FTEs. The mitigation rate is as follows: First 4 employees = 0 FTEs Next 4 employees @ 30% = 1.2 FTEs Next 0.94 employees @ 65% = 0.61 FTEs 1.81 FTEs Affordable housing credits at Category 4, as required by Code, are proposed for mitigation. Alternate option without basement: The proposal without the basement generates 3.09 FTEs with the 555 sf expansion of net leasable area. Including the already approved GMQS exemption of 2,511 sf or 0.83 FTEs, a total of 3.92 FTEs is generated by the whole project. Mitigation is 0 FTEs if the basement is not pursued. 26.470.080 General Review Standards. All Planning and Zoning Commission and city Council applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. A. Sufficient Allotments. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040.B. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.A shall be required to meet this standard for the growth management years form which the allotments are requested. 48 Exhibit B – GMQS (updated 12/2/19) 201 East Main Street Response – Sufficient allotments exist for an increase of 2,849 sf nla. 2,511 sf of commercial nla was approved in the 2017 GMQS exemption. The total commercial nla resulting from the proposed project is 5,360 sf. An increase of 2,849 sf commercial nla is proposed between the 2017 exemption and the total nla proposed (5,360 sf proposed – 2,511 sf approved). B. Development Conformance. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone district for site specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. Response – The minor remodel project conforms to the requirements of the Land Use Code and to the Mixed Use zone district. Commercial Design and Minor Development Review for a property located within a Historic District are consolidated with the GMQS application. C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be a the sole costs of the developer. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Response – The proposed minor remodel occurs on an already developed lot. The property is currently served by utilities and infrastructure. D. Affordable Housing Mitigation. 1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26. 470.050.B, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Response – Mixed use has a generation rate of 3.6 FTEs per 1,000 square feet of net leasable commercial space (2.7 FTEs per 1,000 square feet of net leasable commercial space for upper and lower floors). Table 1. Existing and approved commercial net leasable Net leasable area FTEs Basement n/a 0 Main floor - existing 2,280 8.21 Main floor – existing but missed in 2017 initial calculation 6 0.02 49 Exhibit B – GMQS (updated 12/2/19) 201 East Main Street Main floor – approved addition 231 0.83 Total (existing and approved) 2,511 sf approved (*but should be 2,517 sf based on miss calculation of 6 sf in existing building) 9.06 Table 2. Proposed project Net leasable area FTEs Basement 1,179 (historic) + 982 (new) = 2,161 5.83 Main floor – new building only 858 3.09 Total 3,019 8.92 In 2017, the historic building with connector was approved for a 231 sf net leasable commercial area (nla) increase for a total of 2,511sf of nla. This did not include the basement. There was a miscalculation of 6 sf in the 2017 application – the actual existing sf of the building was 2,286 sf of nla and not 2,280 sf as shown in 2017. This means that the 2017 approval should be for 2,517 sf not 2,511sf of nla. The addition of stairs and elevator access to the basement level mean that the historic building is now 2,341 sf of nla and not 2,517 sf of nla as approved in 2017. The difference for the historic building between existing (2,286 sf) and proposed (2,341 sf) is 55 sf nla. The employee generation for 55 sf at ground level is 0.02 FTEs. The new proposal generates 8.92 FTEs. For the purposes of the cumulative growth management exemption calculation, the total FTEs is 8.92 FTEs + 0.02 FTEs from previously approved 2017 GMQS exemption for a total of 8.94. Alternate option – if the basement is eliminated, then the proposal generates 3.09 FTEs for the new building and the 2017 exemption for 2,511 sf of nla and 0.83 FTEs stands because the stairs and elevator will be removed from the ground floor. 2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Response – n/a. 3) For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not previously mitigate (see Section 26. 470.070.F), the mitigation requirements for affordable housing shall be phased at 15% beginning in 201, and by 3% each year thereafter until 65% is reached. 50 Exhibit B – GMQS (updated 12/2/19) 201 East Main Street Response – n/a. Demolition is not triggered. 4) Unless otherwise exempted in this chapter, when a change in use between development categories is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is being converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for lodge space, outlined in subsection 2, above. Conversely, if lodge units are being converted to commercial space, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for commercial space, outlined in subsections 1 and 3. Response –n/a. 5) For free market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free market residential net livable area. Response – n/a. 6) For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined base don Section 26.470.110.D. Response – n/a. 7) For all affordable housing provided as mitigation pursuant to this chapter or for the creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26. 540, or for any other reason: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the APCHA, as amended. A recommendation from APCHA shall be required for this standard. b. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of methods outlined in this chapter, including newly built units, buy-down units, certificates of affordable housing credit, or cash in lieu. A recommendation from APCHA shall be required for this standard, and the approved forms of mitigation methods shall be based on this recommendation. c. Affordable housing that is in the form of newly built units or buy-down units shall be located on the same parcel as the proposed development or located offsite within the city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council. When offsite units within the city limits are proposed, as requisite approvals shall be obtained prior to approval of the growth management application. d. Affordable housing mitigation in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, shall be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.540.120, utilizing the calculations in Section 26,470.050.F, Employee/Square Footage Conversion. e. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is less than .25 FTEs, a cash in lieu payment may be made by right. If the total mitigation requirement for 51 Exhibit B – GMQS (updated 12/2/19) 201 East Main Street a project is .25 or more FTEs, a cash in lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Section 26. 470.110.C. f. Affordable housing units shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100.D, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the APCHA Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. g. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of 50% or more of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review. Response – Affordable Housing Credit Certificates, at Category 4, are proposed as mitigation. 8) Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement (“voluntary units”) may be deed restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied (RO). Response – n/a. 52 Exhibit C – Parking/Transportation (updated 12/2/19) 201 East Main Street Exhibit C Transportation and Parking Management 26.515.060.C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards: 1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines. Response – A completed TIA is attached. As noted, cash in lieu is proposed to mitigate for the trips not accounted for onsite. The applicant team has met with Engineering about the property and received support for cash in lieu to go toward improvements at the Main and Garmish bus stop. 2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050. Response – The parking requirement for a total of 5,360 sf of net leasable is 5.36 spaces. In the Mixed Use Zone District 60% of the parking requirement, or 3.22 space, must be met onsite. The remainder may be through up to 1 TIA measure or cash in lieu. The project is able to provide 3 parking spaces, including 1 van accessible space, along the alleyway. The application proposes cash in lieu for the remaining 2.36 spaces. Cash in lieu is allowed for a fraction of a space according to Section 26.515.040.D Parking Requirement when Fractional Requirement Computed. 3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that increment of the expansion. Response – n/a. 4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking. Response – n/a. 53 City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Proposed % of demolition: __________ DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ east west exhibit E 54 = input= calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Minor Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)3019.0 sf 4.73 2.12 6.85 5.00 7.50 12.50 Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.73 2.12 6.85 5.00 7.50 12.50 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. Sara Adams BendonAdams 300 S. Spring Street, 202, Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-2855 x2 sara@bendonadams.com Trip Generation 12/2/2019 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 201 East Main Street 201 East Main Street Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be reduced put a negative number of units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense for Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout Major Development -Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions 55 DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 12.5 10 0.58 10.58 1.92 The net trips to be mitigated is greater than 0. The project shall propose additional mitigation measures. A bike rack for public use, ADA van accessible parking space along the alley, and numerous ramps on property to make the site accessible are proposed. Benches are proposed in front of the property and the haphazard area along the Main Street ROW directly in front of the landmark is proposed to be replaced with more appropriate paving, benches and a bike rack. Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. We explored grading the alleyway, but it is not feasible at this time. We also looked at the ADA ramps at the Main and Aspen intersection, but we cannot increase the width due to the existing CDOT infrastructure already in place for the traffic light. TDM Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. 201 East Main Street is a historic property located within the Main Street Historic District. A small one story building is proposed along Main Street. The project includes new net leasable area in a basement space beneath the historic landmark buildings that connects to the basement of the new building. MMLOS Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improve pedestrian access to the site from the ROW. It includes adding additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing a street, improvements to the project's ADA ramps in the ROW, and improvements to existing access points. Sara Adams BendonAdams 300 S. Spring Street, 202, Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-2855 x2 sara@bendonadams.com Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 12/2/2019 201 East Main Street 201 East Main Street Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. 56 Monitoring and Reporting Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. A tenant has not been selected for this space yet - the ownership will do their best to communicate these commitments to the tenant. Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. A tenant has not been selected for this space yet - the ownership will do their best to communicate these commitments to the tenant. 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Bicycle Parking Enforcement and Financing Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. A tenant has not been selected for this space yet - the ownership will do their best to communicate these commitments to the tenant. MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk Designated bike racks for employees and a permanent bike repair station are proposed along the alley Explain below how the project plans to participate in the Transportation Options Program (TOP). The successful project will work with City of Aspen staff to determine whether TOP membership is appropriate and, if so, to join the program. Notes: This program is not typically appropriate for employers of less than 20 employees. Grant funding from the TOP program may not be used to offset mitigation measures until the reporting period has been successfully completed The project will participate in the TOP through information provided in the employee breakroom. Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting. Employee break rooms will include maps, bus information, etc. and employee orientation will review these options. The project proposes onsite amenities. Describe the combination of amenities below. Providing a combination of creative onsite amenities reduces the need for SOV trips throughout the day. Services within the development that will reduce the need for auto trips include grocery, restaurant, recreation rental, dry cleaning, child care, bicycle repair stations, etc. A combination of amenities is required. 57 Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. A tenant has not been selected for this space yet - the ownership will do their best to communicate these commitments to the tenant. 58 = input = calculation 10 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. No 0 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. No 0 0 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. Yes 5 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?NA 0 5 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0 MMLOS Input Page Subtotal SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal PedestriansTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access Considerations59 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?No 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?No 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 0 Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5 5 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?No 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0 0 0 Pedestrian Total* Bicycles Total* Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Subtotal Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal SubtotalAdditional Proposed Improvements60 Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?Yes Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?Retail Servicing Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented? What is the degree of implementation? What is the company size? What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?0.00% 3.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented? What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented? What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented? What is the extent of access improvements? 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?Yes What percentage of employees are eligible?100% Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented? What percentage of employees are eligible? What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented? What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented? What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented? What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented? What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented? How many employee memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees are eligble? Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?No How many memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented? What is the degree of implementation? What is the employer size? Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented? What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented? What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100% 1.71% 3.00% 4.66% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% TDM Input Page 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies3.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions 11 12 13 14 15 21 16 17 18 19 20 Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. 61 + 7900.20+ 7901.107900.90++ 7900.107902.70++ 7901.30+ 7901.30790479037902 1.0% 3.7%79 0 0 1.5%+7901.40+7901.405%+ 7900.401.5%+ 7902.257902.20 ++ 7902.251.5%+ 7902.258.3% RAMP+7901.827902.25 +7902.11+5%7903.28 +5%5% 2.2%DI 7902.07DI 7902.132.0%+ 7902.25SLOT DRAIN 7901.19 + 7902.25 + 7901.72 + 7901.19 + 7902.251.5%7900.75 + 7900.75 +7900.52+7900.75+7900.65+2.3%SLOT DRAIN: 7900.522.0% SLOT DRAIN 7901.19 4.7%7901 79022.0%2.0%1.4%1.4%(TWO STEPS, 6" RISERS, 18" TREADS)(THREE STEPS, 6" RISERS, 12" TREADS)(TWO STEPS, 6"RISERS, 18" TREADS)2.0%2.0%1.3%1.3%7901.24 +7901.30 ++ 7901.30 4.4%2.0%7902.01 ++ 7902.01+ 7900.75 + 7902.25 + 7901.75 7901.98 +7901.92 +1%+ 7900.46+ 7902.25DI7901.10DI 7901.507902.70+7902.25 +7902.20 ++ 7902.25 + 7901.72 + 7901.19 7903 7902.67+ +7901.84 +7902.75 7902.77+ +7902.77 +7902.87 +7902.177903DI7901.78+7901.825%TRENCH DRAIN1%+7901.342%2%+7901.265%7901.14++7901.54+7901.461%DI7901.50WOOD PRIVACY FENCE6' MAX HT.TOP +7.75, BOTTOM VARIESBRICK WALLBW 7901.50 TW 7907.50TW 7907.50DI 7901.80DI 7902.30TRASH ENCLOSURE6' MAX HT. WOOD PRIVACY FENCETOP +7909.25, BOTTOM VARIESDI7901.50DI7901.50NORTH0ORIGINAL SCALE:BICYCLE PARKINGEMPLOYEE BICYCLE PARKINGBICYCLE REPAIR STATION6" CURB9" CURB ATSTORMWATER INLET6" CURB< 6" CURB1"=20'-00"4020101212To Building 1:BUILDING 1BUILDING 2Directness Factor = 1.22Walking Distance = 25'-5"Crow Flies Distance = 20'-8 1/2"To Building 2:Directness Factor = 1.08Walking Distance = 87'-1"Crow Flies Distance = 74'-8"To Building 1:Directness Factor =1.38Walking Distance = 102'-10"Crow Flies Distance = 74'-4"To Building 2:Directness Factor = 1.38Walking Distance = 31'-2"Crow Flies Distance = 22'-7"62 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Scott Kendrick, Nora Berke, Gretchen Greenwood. Absent were Sheri Sanzone, Jeffrey Halferty, Bob Blaich and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner MINUTES: Ms. Berke moved to approve the minutes of August 28 t h, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berke apologized; she did not realize there was a site visit today. She also asked about the reflective glass going away on the little Victorian. Ms. Simon said they have done enforcement on that and it is supposed to be removed. DISCLOSURES: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has one to follow up on with Ms. Greenwood regarding 420 E Hyman where Zocalito used to be. They want to demo and replace, and Mr. Pember was the project monitor previously. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said to plan on a November 20 t h meeting instead of November 27 th and we will have a quorum so please put it on your calendar. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: Ms. Simon said on Monday night, they went to council for the Red Onion Jas Aspen project and council upheld the decision. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she is currently reviewing them. OLD BUSINESS: 201 E. Main Mike Kraemer Mr. Kraemer said this is a continuance from August 14 t h. This is a historic landmark property and former Main Street Bakery. There was a 2017 HPC approval for a connecting element between the two historic structures. He showed a picture from 1965 with the historic structures. In 2018, there was an additional minor expansion of commercial net leasable space and was granted an exemption. Tonight, the applicant is requesting approval to construct the connecting element, a previous excavation of basement and foundation stabilization. A permit was submitted and during the course of the permit and the work that was happening, there was some minor demolition happening along with foundation stabilization and underpinning. The existing basement was also excavated during this time. They are asking for an after the fact approval from HPC for this excavation. In the packet, there is a 920 square 1 exhibit T 63 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 foot accessory structure, a trash enclosure and restroom. There are setback variations for yard and building setbacks. There is a request for development of a fire place and water feature in the front yard. The application was submitted prior to the most recent code amendment changes. He explained details on the setback variations. The proposed water feature would be on the north fac;:ade of the accessory structure. The fire place would be a gas appliance. He showed the floor plan and talked through the trash enclosure, bathroom, etc. Sarah Yoon is going to speak to the design elements. A consideration here for staff review is growth management, which generates 8.59 full time equivalent employees. This is whittled down to a mitigation requirement of 1.58. Parking is in the rear and is part of the property. Given the development, there is a 5.33 parking space requirement by code. Three spaces are in back and one of those is ADA accessible. The remaining spaces are going to be mitigated through cash in lieu. The applicant has shown satisfactory compliance with TIA by providing an onsite bike repair station and a bike rack on the southeast corner of the property. The applicant is also satisfying the TIA requirement by providing cash for the new bus station going in the future. The project has many high points, but there are some concerns in the staff memo. They are concerned about the setback variations, but not with the basement setback requests and we don't have an issue for the front or side yard variations. The accessory structure, we do have issue with. There is a five-foot requirement with zero being proposed. Staff has concerns about the construction, going into the alley and building maintenance. The applicant will have to go into the alley to do this maintenance. There is garbage placement concerns and a concern about distance from adjacent properties to the south. There is a five-foot setback requirement and the request moves that building closer to the neighboring property. Staff is recommending code compliance at five feet. Ten feet is required for the building setback requirement from the accessory structure to the historic resource, so staff has concerns about compromising the historic resource due to proximity since they are proposing only five feet. There are a couple of design characteristics regarding the mass on the north fac;:ade and we suggest they rethink and restudy what the north fac;:ade looks like and break it up more. Second, there is no fenestration on the north fac;:ade, which we would like to be restudied. Ms. Greenwood asked what is being planned and what assurances they can give regarding zoning on this property. Mr. Kraemer said it is in the mixed-use zone district. Today, we are seeing from the applicant that it will be a future restaurant. There are finishes that show booths and tables to hold a dining experience. The applicant can provide more detail on the future use of the property. Ms. Simon said that even if the applicant opened a restaurant the next day, they could always change their mind and do something different. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams of Bendon Adams, Mark Hunt, ownership, Dave Rybak of Rybak Architecture & Development. Mike Alpert and Ashley Allis of Design Workshop. Ms. Adams said they are proposing a commercial use and they are unsure if it will be a restaurant or not. She said the plans are for illustrative purposes only. This property is on the corner of Main and Aspen streets. The project scope includes window restoration, basement space, a small back of house building, enclosed bear resistant trash, outdoor dining area, onsite parking and growth management, per the book. The restoration is pretty clear. We will be taking out the existing door and putting in a window. This is a great piece of preservation to provide to the community. They are supposed to request relocation approval because the space beneath the landmark was excavated and staff seems to be on board with this, which is just a formality. There is no basement under the addition being proposed. Ms. Adams walked through some design considerations regarding the small alley building. We have a 2 64 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 humungous spruce tree with a big drip line and is a site constraint. We have required onsite parking including three spaces and one ADA space. There are significant grade changes along the alley and please notice how steep it is, which also adds another challenge to the property. We wanted to enclose the trash area and bear proof it and is smaller than what is required, but environmental health has accepted it anyway. One of the most important things to HPC is the reveal of the historic corner. They also have an issue with the drip line and tree roots, so they are unable to build a basement. They also didn't think that two stories were appropriate, so they want a "background" building. If they don't get a rear variance, they will take the roof off of the trash enclosure, in which case they would do an electric fence but that is not good for the neighbors or wildlife. She showed an aerial view. Comparing this property to the commercial core, there are no setback requirements of this kind, so we feel this fits into the historic precedence. She showed the Sandborn map with buildings much closer together. It's important to point out the utilitarian simple form because we don't want to compete with the resource. She showed the landscape plan and are proposing a lot of open space. The building blocks the view of the parking from Main street, which we think is important. We are saving the historic lilacs and large spruce, rebuilding the fence and restoring the window. The water feature and fireplace are not in the setback and provides vitality and is still considered in the front yard. We are needing an exception for these. We have permeable pavers and samples here for reinvigorating the space and seeing the landmark. Ms. Adams passed around samples of materials on the building. The community benefits will be the commercial use, using less than half allowable floor area, detached new construction, maintain open space at Main street, the outdoor area adds vitality, it is fully accessible, we will preserve and protect the spruce tree, lilacs, fence, upgrade all sidewalks and bike racks, enclosed trash area and onsite parking. We are requesting a five-foot variation for the trash area, a five-foot variation between buildings, basement level, 920 square foot accessory building and the outdoor space, water feature and fireplace. Mr. Moyer asked if someone wants a restaurant there and they remove the door on the east side, how would the traffic flow and Ms. Adams said access would be through the connecting element. Mr. Moyer asked what the status of the basement is at the moment and Mr. Rybak said the foundation has gone down to a basement depth but no floor and currently an open shell. Mr. Moyer asked about the historic brick and Mr. Rybak said they dry packed the brick wall between the foundation and the structure above, so a majority is stable. Ms. Berka asked if the water feature uses recycled water and Mr. Hunt said yes. Ms. Berka asked why the trash has to be so big and Ms. Adams said this is the size environmental health is comfortable with. Ms. Berka said she would like to count on coffee in this location and Ms. Adams said unfortunately not, they can't commit to that in this hearing. Ms. Berka asked where the city is on the fireplace and Mr. Kraemer said he can't speak to this since it's on private property. Given the engagement of the outdoor area, staff got comfortable with the look and feel of this being a part of a restaurant landscape. Ms. Greenwood said we can't regulate tables and chairs, so we need to consider this space without these things. Mr. Lai asked about the wood picket fence on Main street and if it's waist level and Ms. Adams said yes. Mr. Lai asked what criteria they are looking at for the restudy of the fac;:ade and Ms. Yoon said they are 3 65 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 looking at chapter 11. This chapter addresses new construction and it doesn't cover all, but some of those guidelines apply for reviewing the design criteria for this. Ms. Greenwood asked if they have a picture of the fireplace and the water feature. Mr. Alpert said the fountain will be at ground level with irises growing up in it. Mr. Kendrick asked how high it is and Mr. Alpert said the spigots are 30 inches high and the wall is 9 feet tall. Mr. Rybak said the material is siding. The trough is flush with the ground with the water sitting six inches below that. The pipes would carry the water down creating white noise to buffer the traffic on Main street. It would have a splash zone of about 30 inches, and he is unsure of the velocity of the water, which determines the splash. Mr. Lai asked why they chose siding instead of masonry because it seems a little strange to him. It reminds him of Tivoli, and he imagines water coming out of stone instead of siding, which he equates to wood. Mr. Rybak said they are trying to keep a uniform material and want to keep everything simple and not too interesting. We want to keep the historic resource as the focus. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bob Langley Mr. Langley said he worked with Leslie Rudd, David Roth and Dave Rybak before Mr. Rudd passed away. The biggest issue for him, is the basement. The basement was presumed to get excavated the way it is with approval after the fact. Given the situation that was inherited, it merits granting the basement. It can be a significant asset and it's already there. What are you gonna do? Fill it back up? He thinks preserving the tree is a great idea. They've done a good job on managing the property and the basement should be recognized. Mr. Kraemer read a letter from Ruth Carver, the neighbor to the south. Public comment closed. Ms. Greenwood summarized what the board needs to discuss. Ms. Greenwood said from a standpoint of setbacks and site design, she isn't in favor of the O setback. There is enough room on the property to have the 5 feet. She thinks the 5 feet in between building is a mistake. She's seen what happens and it gets loaded up with junk. We need to think about maintaining the integrity of the historic building and respect the history. Regarding the building design, she's trying to visualize the building, and to her, it looks like it belongs in Glenwood or Grand Junction. It's a confusing visual experience to her. She doesn't feel like the architecture will live there for a long time. She feels the water feature is in the wrong place and is very modern. She's not opposed to it, but it should be in a better location. It's visually odd. She doesn't agree that the accessory building is an alley structure, as those are normally petite and small. This is not charming. The colors and materials seem out of scale. Everything staff issued in the memo, she agrees with. The fireplace is kitschy with an Aztec design. There doesn't seem to be a unified thought on designing this space. We don't know what this will become, so how can you say it won't work with a basement? She wants to remind HPC to ignore the activities going on outside, that's not something we vote on. For her, it falls short. She is in favor of going back to the drawing board and starting over. It looks better now with a vacant space instead of with a bunch of parts and pieces that don't belong. Mr. Moyer said that regarding the existing historic structure and basement, he is good with those. He concurs with staff and chapter 11 on the auxiliary building. He understands the concept, but this is a 4 66 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 pretty important part of Aspen, so he concurs that you should go back to the drawing board. There should be a 10-foot space and that is terribly important. The alley is huge. It might be advantageous for all of us to go and look at the alley. He likes the concept of the water feature and the fireplace. It's important to have some messy vitality in the alleys, so you should have some fenestration or door or some activity, so that it lends to the community. Mr. Kendrick said he is in favor of the basement and said it's important. He said it helps to offset some of what can't be done on the site. He really thinks they need to adhere to 10-foot setback and doesn't think O setback is appropriate. Regarding the water feature and the fire place, if it there to drown out street noise, he doesn't think it will be effective that far back. He also thinks they should break up the fac;:ade of that building. As it stands, it doesn't work. Understands the city's desire not to have the fireplace, but he thinks it's nice and adds some vitality, so he doesn't have a problem with that. Ms. Greenwood said this project doesn't fit with Aspen. For her, the design is all wrong and it belongs on a golf course. Visually it doesn't fit on Main street for her. Ms. Berko is eager to see this project happen. The basement should be legal. She doesn't feel like the addition highlight the resource. She thinks it sort of crushes it, so she feels that chapter 11 is correct and to her, it's monolithic and wall like. She supports staff's recommendation on the 10-foot setback. The setbacks are there for a reason and they need to be there. The water feature would be be great somewhere else and she can't support an outdoor fireplace. Mr. Lai said he likes the idea of the outdoor garden and restaurant. When he first came to Aspen, there used to be a restaurant called the Epicure caddy corner from the Jerome and it was his favorite place to be. They had an outdoor garden and the waitresses were all cute. It was wonderful in the summertime. He used to have a French professor who insisted on a night lighting diagram. He said they should consider light in the garden and be used when illumination isn't possible. He questions again the water feature. He likes the idea like of Tivoli gardens, but it should have a concrete masonry. You could replicate this from the original building. It's better to be on the street side instead of opposite wall. He's concerned with the use and said we can't control that, but he wants that it to stay a restaurant. He thinks the east fac;:ade needs restudy. To him, the fac;:ade and connector, seem industrial and it doesn't quite fit. This could be more elegant. Mostly, he agrees with staff's comments. Gretchen said as a board, they are in favor of keeping the basement in use. MOTION: Mr. Lai moved to continue to November 20 th, Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Simon said there is bad news regarding the second item. They failed to post the public notice, so they sent the applicant home and continued to October 9th. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor at 6:07 p.m. Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 5 67 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 6 68 DN UP 1,179 982 2,341 + 858 5,360 NET LEASABLE AREA PROPOSED AREA SUMMARY: BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA -HISTORIC BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA -NEW BUILDING LEVEL ONE FLOOR AREA -HISTORIC LEVEL ONE FLOOR AREA -NEW BUILDING GROSS FLOOR AREA GROSS FLOOR AREA: SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF 1,295 1,117 2,520 + 919 5,851 BASEMENT LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA -HISTORIC BASEMENT LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA -NEW BUILDING LEVEL ONE NET LEASABLE AREA -HISTORIC LEVEL ONE NET LEASABLE AREA -NEW BUILDING NET LEASABLE AREA FLOOR AREA FLOOR AREA 919 SF FLOOR AREA 2520 SF ELEVSTAIRS STAIRSSTAIRSELEV CRAWL SPACE FLOOR AREA MECHANICAL CRAWL SPACE 792 SF FLOOR AREA 1117 SF MECHANICAL 664 SF FLOOR AREA 1295 SF ELEVSTAIRS STAIRSSTAIRSELEV CRAWL SPACE 695 SF NET LEASABLE 1179 SF NET LEASABLE 982 SF MECHANICAL 601 SF CRAWL SPACE MECHANICAL NET LEASABLE ELEVSTAIRS STAIRSSTAIRSELEV RM ELEV NET LEASABLE NET LEASABLE 2341 SF NET LEASABLE 858 SF ELEVSTAIRS STAIRSSTAIRSELEV rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2019 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN C:\Users\sharris\Documents\Revit Local\21932_MSB_CENTRAL_sharris.rvt12/2/2019 3:40:30 PMAs indicated LU0.6 21932 MAIN STREET BAKERY 201 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 AREA CALCULATIONS SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU0.6 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 LEVEL ONE FLOOR AREA PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU0.6 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU0.6 1/16" = 1'-0" 3 BASEMENT LEVEL NET LEASABLE FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU0.6 1/16" = 1'-0" 4 LEVEL 01 NET LEASABLE FLOOR PLAN 12.02.2019 MLU APPLICATION 69 DN DN DN UP UP UP LU4.3 1 LU4.1 1 LU4.3 2 LU4.2 2 LU4.2 1 LU4.1 2 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK5' - 0"SETBACK LINE SETBACK 5' - 0"SETBACK LINESETBACK10' - 0"SETBACK LINE BLDG SEPARATION 10' - 1 7/8" SETBACK 5' - 0"SETBACK LINEELEV TRASH ENCLOSURE OUTDOOR PATIO (REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS) ELEV TRELLIS ABOVE 18" TRELLIS ABOVE 18"EXISTING TREE FIRE CONNECTION STANDPIPE ROOF ABOVE STEEL AND GLASS STACKING OPERABLE WALL STEEL AND GLASS FIXED WINDOW STEEL AND GLASS FIXED WINDOWS STEEL AND GLASS FIXED WINDOWS NORTH HISTORIC BUILDING34' - 1"25' - 7 3/8"SOUTH HISTORIC BUILDING30' - 0 3/4"7' - 7"STEEL AND GLASS TILT UP DOOR STEEL DOOR STEEL DOOR ELEVATORROOMSTEEL AND GLASS WINDOWS DN DN DN ENTRY PORCH (E) DOUBLE WYTHE BRICK WALL, TYP HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN, TYP. WOOD FENCE WOOD WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING WOOD WINDOW MAIN LEVEL OF BUILDING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER HPC RESOLUTION 13-2017 FINISHED FLOOR 100' - 0" (7902.25) BRICK WALL LANDSCAPELANDSCAPELANDSCAPELANDSCAPELANDSCAPE LANDSCAPELANDSCAPELANDSCAPE STEEL DOOR EXIT DISCHARGEBUILDING INFILL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER HPC RESOLUTION 13-2017BUILDING INFILL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER HPC RESOLUTION 13-201730' - 0 1/2" 44' - 8"24' - 11"BUILDING OUTLINE EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS 17' - 0 1/8"13' - 4 1/8"7' - 0 3/8" WOOD PRIVACY FENCE RE: LANDSCAPE WOOD PRIVACY FENCE WITH GATE AROUND TRASH ENCLOSURE WITH ELECTRIFIED WIRE AT TOP EDGE TO DETER WILDLIFE AIR CURTAIN 64' - 9 1/2"GATE 11' - 0"8' - 6"8' - 6"18' - 0"23' - 0"10' - 0 3/4" LU4.3 2 CRAWL SPACE MECHANICAL BACK OF HOUSE W/C ELEV TOILET ROOMS MECHANICAL CONNECTOR ELEV REQUIREMENTS TO BE DETERMINED BY FINAL OCCUPANCY PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE BASEMENT SHOWN AS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED T.O. SLAB 90' - 0" OUTLINE OF ADDITION ABOVE WHICH WAS APPROVED UNDER HPC RESOLUTION 13-2017 ELEVATOR ROOM LU4.3 1 LU4.3 2 6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0" WOOD AND STEEL TRELLIS WOOD AND STEEL TRELLIS SETBACK LINE METAL SHINGLE 19' - 7 1/8"14' - 5 7/8"1' - 6" 13' - 2 1/2"1' - 6"18' - 1 1/8" PEDESTRIAN AMENITY = 2,484 SF PROVIDED REQUIREMENT (25% OF LOT AREA) = 2,238 SF REQUIRED TOTAL LOT AREA = 8,952 SF rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2019 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN C:\Users\sharris\Documents\Revit Local\21932_MSB_CENTRAL_sharris.rvt12/2/2019 3:40:30 PMAs indicated LU2.1 21932 MAIN STREET BAKERY 201 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 FLOOR PLANS SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU2.1 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU2.1 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 12.02.2019 MLU APPLICATION SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU2.1 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 ROOF LEVEL PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU2.1 1" = 30'-0" 3 PEDESTRIAN AMENITY CALCULATION PLAN 70 BASEMENT LEVEL 90' -0" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 01 100' -0" FINISHED FLOOR ROOF EAVE 108' -0"SETBACK LINEH-LEVEL 01 99' -0 19/32" HISTORIC PROPOSED CHANGES NORTH HISTORIC BUILDING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER HPC RESOLUTION 13-2017 SIDEWALK AND SOUTH ASPEN STREET WOOD SHINGLE ROOF GOOSENECK LIGHT, TYP. BRICK WALL WITH STUCCO FIRE ALARM AND STROBE LIGHT FIRE CONNECTION STAND PIPE (E) HISTORIC WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW TO REMAIN U.N.O. (E) WOOD & GLASS DOORS TO REMAIN, U.N.O. NORTH HIST. BLDG. PARAPET 113' - 9 5/8" OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BASEMENT STEEL AND WOOD ENTRY TRELLIS METAL SHINGLE ROOF WOOD SIDING PAINTED WOOD FENCE STEEL WINDOW LIGHT SCONCE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING EXPLORE BOOKSTORE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY 3' - 0"10' - 9"3' - 0"12' - 1" 3' - 0"7' - 0"26' - 7 7/8"18' - 1 1/8" STEEL AND GLASS WINDOWS SOLID WOOD DOOR WITH SIDING TO MATCH BUILDING STEEL AND GLASS WINDOWS NEW RIDGE 115' - 9 1/16" NEW RIDGE 114' - 5 3/4" 10" 1'-0" 10" 1'-0"7' - 9 1/16"BUILDING HEIGHT 10/12 PITCHEAVE, T YP. 0 ' - 2 "6' - 5 3/4"BUILDING HEIGHT 6/12 PITCH 10' - 8 3/4"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINE18"11' - 8 3/4"11' - 4 1/2"BASEMENT LEVEL 90' -0" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 01 100' -0" FINISHED FLOOR ROOF EAVE 108' -0" H-LEVEL 01 99' -0 19/32" HISTORIC SIDEWALK AND SOUTH ASPEN STREET ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER HPC RESOLUTION 13-2017 SOUTH HISTORIC BUILDING SIDEWALK / PATIO PROPOSED CHANGES OUTLINE OF BASEMENT STEEL DOOR, TYP. GOOSENECK LIGHT FIXTURE ABOVE DOOR, TYP. PAINTED SHIP LAP WOOD SIDING, TYP. MECH. EQUIPMENT FOR PREP KITCHEN (E) CHIMNEY NEW RIDGE 114' - 5 3/4" NEW RIDGE 115' - 9 1/16" MECHANICAL SCREEN OUTLINE OF BASEMENT WOOD SIDING METAL SHINGLE ROOF SOLID WOOD DOOR WITH SIDING TO MATCH BUILDING STEEL SLIDING DOOR LIGHT SCONCE STEEL AND WOOD TRELLIS PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE7' - 0"8' - 9 9/16"8' - 9 9/16"EAVE, T YP. 0 ' - 2 " BUILDING HEIGHT 10/12 PITCH BUILDING HEIGHT 6/12 PITCH 10" 1'-0" 10" 1'-0" 18"PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE11' - 8 3/4"11' - 4 1/2"rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2019 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN C:\Users\sharris\Documents\Revit Local\21932_MSB_CENTRAL_sharris.rvt12/2/2019 3:40:35 PM3/16" = 1'-0" LU4.1 21932 MAIN STREET BAKERY 201 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:LU4.1 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:LU4.1 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 12.02.2019 MLU APPLICATION 71 BASEMENT LEVEL 90' -0" T.O. SLAB H-LEVEL 01 99' -0 19/32" HISTORIC MECHANICAL SCREEN PAINTED SHIP LAP WOOD SIDING, TYP. MECH. EQUIPMENT FOR PREP KITCHEN STEEL TILT UP DOOR (N) WOOD WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS (E) HIST. WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW TO REMAIN, U.N.O. STEEL DOOR, TYP. LINE OF BASEMENT (N) BASEMENT CONNECTION TO ADJACENT BUILDING PORCH RESTORATION TO MATCH EXISTING FIRE ALARM AND STROBE LIGHT FIRE CONNECTION STAND PIPE NORTH HIST. BLDG. PARAPET 113' - 9 5/8" (N) GOOSENECK LIGHT FIXTURE ABOVE DOOR, TYP. STEEL DOOR, TYP. BRICK WALL WITH STUCCO OUTLINE OF BASEMENT MECH. SCREEN 115' - 6" NEW PARAPET 110' - 0 5/8" RESOLUTION 13-2017 ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER HPC SOUTH HISTORIC BUILDING BUILDING INFILL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER HPC RESOLUTION 13-2017 NORTH HISTORIC BUILDING FRONT COVERED PORCH SIDEWALK WITH LANDSCAPING PLANTERPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEBASEMENT LEVEL 90' -0" T.O. SLAB H-LEVEL 01 99' -0 19/32" HISTORIC MECHANICAL SCREEN PAINTED SHIP LAP WOOD SIDING, TYP. MECH. EQUIPMENT FOR PREP KITCHEN STEEL WINDOW (E) BRICK CHIMNEY HIST. DOOR & TRANSOM ABOVE TO REMAIN (E) CAFE SIGNAGE TO REMAIN WOOD SHINGLE ROOF PORCH RESTORATION TO MATCH EXISTING HIST. WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW TO REMAIN, U.N.O. GOOSENECK LIGHT, TYP. BRICK WALL WITH STUCCO SOUTH HIST. BLDG. PARAPET 112' - 9 5/8" MECH. SCREEN 115' - 6" NEW PARAPET 110' - 0 5/8" SIDEWALK WITH LANDSCAPING PLANTER FRONT COVERED PORCH NORTH HISTORIC BUILDING BUILDING INFILL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER HPC RESOLUTION 13-2017 SOUTH HISTORIC BUILDING RESOLUTION 13-2017 ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER HPC EXISTING GRADEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINErowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2019 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN C:\Users\sharris\Documents\Revit Local\21932_MSB_CENTRAL_sharris.rvt12/2/2019 3:40:40 PM3/16" = 1'-0" LU4.2 21932 MAIN STREET BAKERY 201 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:LU4.2 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION - HISTORIC BUILDING SCALE:LU4.2 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION - HISTORIC BUILDING 12.02.2019 MLU APPLICATION 72 BASEMENT LEVEL 90' -0" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 01 100' -0" FINISHED FLOOR ROOF EAVE 108' -0" NEW RIDGE 114' - 5 3/4" NEW RIDGE 115' - 9 1/16" OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BASEMENT METAL SHINGLE ROOF ENTRY TRELLIS WOOD SIDING STEEL WINDOWSEAVE, TYP.0' - 2"3' - 0"6' - 0" BUILDING HEIGHT 6/12 PITCH 6" 1'-0" 6" 1'-0" 25' - 2"7' - 0"7' - 0"PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE18"11' - 4 1/2"BASEMENT LEVEL 90' -0" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 01 100' -0" FINISHED FLOOR ROOF EAVE 108' -0"SETBACK LINENEW RIDGE 115' - 9 1/16" (N) BASEMENT CONNECTION TO ADJACENT BUILDING OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BASEMENT STEEL AND WOOD TRELLIS METAL SHINGLE ROOF METAL SHINGLE SIDING TO MATCH ROOF STEEL WINDOW7' - 0"8' - 9 9/16" BUILDING HEIGHT 10/12 PITCH 25' - 2"PROPERTY LINE18"11' - 8 3/4"WOOD SIDING STEEL AND WOOD TRELLIS METAL SHINGLE ROOFING MATERIAL PALETTE LIGHT FIXTURE -WALL SCONCE rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2019 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN C:\Users\sharris\Documents\Revit Local\21932_MSB_CENTRAL_sharris.rvt12/2/2019 3:40:42 PMAs indicated LU4.3 21932 MAIN STREET BAKERY 201 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS SCALE:LU4.3 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION SCALE:LU4.3 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION 12.02.2019 MLU APPLICATION 73 74 75 Newspapers Hardscape/ Sidewalk >8’-0” 6’-0”+ New Floating Sidewalk 4’0” 8’0” clear accessible Entry Stoop Existing Trees Existing Trees SOUTH ASPEN STREET MAIN STREETSidewalk is 6’-0” Fireplace Existing Vegetation Existing Lilac’s to be transplanted to the best of our ability Existing Spruce Tree Drip Line Outdoor Seating Fence and Gate Permeable Pavers Landscape Light (Typical of 18) Lawn or Pea Gravel Porous Pavement for On-Site Parking Creeping Vines Brick Retaining Wall 5’-0” Side Yard Setback 5’-0” Side Yard Setback 5’-0” Side Yard SetbackMa x i m u m d e p t h o f d i s t u r b a n c e : 1 0 ” No disturbance 10’-0” Front Yard SetbackFire Feature Proposed Aspen Grove Employee Bicycle Parking and Bicycle Repair Station Existing Aspen Trees Wood Privacy Fence Proposed Cottonwood Tree to Replace Removed Tree #3 Outdoor Seating *Outdoor furniture shown is illustrative only and may be moved or adjusted as needed by the tenant or owner without approval by HPC or the City of Aspen. Existing Traffic Light Manhole Sidewalk and Public Amenity Space (Bench and Bicycle Racks) 0 3 6 12 C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5816 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E Minor Land Use SubmittalASPEN, CO 81611C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Dec 02, 2019 - 3:18pmF:\PROJECTS_M-P\5816-201 E. Main\D-CAD\02. Sheets\dw-5816-ILLUSTRATIVE.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 201 E MAIN ST.ASN: 2737 073 28 001COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,08/16/191 MLU APPL. REV 1 12/02/192 MLU APPL. REV 2 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN LMLU 1.0 76 C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5816 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E Minor Land Use SubmittalASPEN, CO 81611C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Dec 02, 2019 - 3:18pmF:\PROJECTS_M-P\5816-201 E. Main\D-CAD\02. Sheets\dw-5816-ILLUSTRATIVE.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 201 E MAIN ST.ASN: 2737 073 28 001COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,08/16/191 MLU APPL. REV 1 12/02/192 MLU APPL. REV 2 Permeable Pavers - Patio MATERIALS Colored Concrete Standard ConcretePea Gravel Permeable Pavers - Parking Brick Wall Floating Sidewalk Detail - Aspen Street Landscape Path Light Step Light MATERIALS LMLU 3.1 SIDEWALK PLAN VIEW NTS SIDEWALK CROSS SECTION NTS NOTES: 1.ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE SMOOTH DOWEL BARS NEED TO BE GREASED. GREASE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE SAME SIDE OF ALL BARS. 2.CONCRETE MUST CONFORM TO CDOT CLASS "D" (MINIMUM 28-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 4500 PSI). 80% OF THIS STRENGTH MUST BE GAINED IN THE FIRST 7 DAYS. 3.DOWELS MUST BE PLACED AT ALL JOINTS INCLUDING BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED SIDEWALK. **WIDTH OF SIDEWALK DEPENDANT UPON LOCATION. #4 EPOXY COATED GREASED Smooth DOWELS 12" ON CENTER. 2' MIN. LENGTH CENTERED ON JOINT DEEPROOT UB18-2 6"CONC SIDEWALK #4 EPOXY COATED GREASED SMOOTH DOWELS. CENTERED IN SIDEWALK. 4" COMPACTED GRANULAR MATERIAL. ADJUST THICKNESS AS REQUIRED TO MISS ROOTS. EXISTING SOIL. HAND OR AIR SPADE EXCAVATION 130 S GALENA ST PHONE: (970) 920-5080 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT #:ENG - 303A STANDARD DETAILS FLOATING SIDEWALK DESIGN WWW.ASPENPITKIN.COM/DEPARTMENTS/ENGINEERING/DESIGN-CONSTRUCTION/ DATE COMMENTS REVISIONS CREATION DATE: 02/22/18 INITIALS: JAD LAST MODIFICATION DATE: INITIALS: ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN xx/xx/xx (FOR DEVELOPMENT NEAR TREES) 77 C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5816 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E Minor Land Use SubmittalASPEN, CO 81611C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Dec 02, 2019 - 3:18pmF:\PROJECTS_M-P\5816-201 E. Main\D-CAD\02. Sheets\dw-5816-ILLUSTRATIVE.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 201 E MAIN ST.ASN: 2737 073 28 001COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,08/16/191 MLU APPL. REV 1 12/02/192 MLU APPL. REV 2 6’-0” O.C. TYP.ENTRY GATE - 6’-0”3’ HEIGHTMATERIALS PLANTING Ornamental Grass and Perennial Foundation Planting Fence & Gate Perennials Aspen TreeVirginia Creeper Cottonwood Tree Gro-Low Fragrant Sumac Lilac Shrub MATERIALS LMLU 3.2 78 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM December 20, 2019 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission c/o Amy Simon 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Minor HPC and GMQS Application for 210 East Main Street Dear Historic Preservation Commission, Ms. Yoon, and Ms. Simon: Please accept this addendum to the Dec. 2, 2019 application revision. Over the past few weeks we have worked with Parks, Engineering, Building and Environmental Health to revise the site plan to meet their requirements. The site has a significant slope and prominent trees which have created challenges to the site plan. The updated site plan includes the following: • Onsite transformer with required clearances. • Relocated telephone pedestal along alley. • 3 required parking spaces including 1 ADA space. • Trash area of 273 sf in size, with fence and electric wire along top as per Environmental Health’s specifications. We look forward to working with you on this minor development project. Please contact me for additional information that will aid your review. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams LLC sara@bendonadams.com 970.925.2855 79 Newspapers Hardscape/ Sidewalk >8’-0” 6’-0”+ New Floating Sidewalk 4’0” 8’0”clear accessible Entry Stoop Historic building stairs to remain. No handrails are proposed Existing Trees Existing Trees SOUTH ASPEN STREET MAIN STREETSidewalk is 6’-0” Fireplace Existing Vegetation Existing Lilac’s to be transplanted to the best of our ability Existing Spruce Tree Drip Line Outdoor Seating Fence and Gate Permeable Pavers Landscape Light (Typical of 18) Lawn or Pea Gravel Porous Pavement for On-Site Parking Creeping Vines Brick Retaining Wall 5’-0” Side Yard Setback 5’-0” Side Yard Setback 5’-0” Side Yard SetbackMa x i m u m d e p t h o f d i s t u r b a n c e : 1 0 ” No disturbance 10’-0” Front Yard SetbackFire Feature Proposed Transformer Location Proposed Transformer Easement Proposed Aspen Grove Employee Bicycle Parking and Bicycle Repair Station Relocated Telephone Existing Aspen Trees Wood Privacy Fence Proposed Cottonwood Tree to Replace Removed Tree #3 Outdoor Seating *Outdoor furniture shown is illustrative only and may be moved or adjusted as needed by the tenant or owner without approval by HPC or the City of Aspen. Existing Traffic Light Manhole Sidewalk and Public Amenity Space (Bench and Bicycle Racks) 0 3 6 12 C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5816 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E Minor Land Use SubmittalASPEN, CO 81611C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Dec 20, 2019 - 2:40pmF:\PROJECTS_M-P\5816-201 E. Main\D-CAD\02. Sheets\dw-5816-ILLUSTRATIVE.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 201 E MAIN ST.ASN: 2737 073 28 001COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,08/16/191 MLU APPL. REV 1 12/02/192 MLU APPL. REV 2 12/20/193 MLU APPL. REV 3 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN LMLU 1.0 80 C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5816 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E Minor Land Use SubmittalASPEN, CO 81611C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Dec 20, 2019 - 2:40pmF:\PROJECTS_M-P\5816-201 E. Main\D-CAD\02. Sheets\dw-5816-ILLUSTRATIVE.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 201 E MAIN ST.ASN: 2737 073 28 001COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,08/16/191 MLU APPL. REV 1 12/02/192 MLU APPL. REV 2 12/20/193 MLU APPL. REV 3 Permeable Pavers - Patio MATERIALS Colored Concrete Standard ConcretePea Gravel Permeable Pavers - Parking Brick Wall Floating Sidewalk Detail - Aspen Street Landscape Path Light Step Light MATERIALS LMLU 3.1 SIDEWALK PLAN VIEW NTS SIDEWALK CROSS SECTION NTS NOTES: 1.ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE SMOOTH DOWEL BARS NEED TO BE GREASED. GREASE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE SAME SIDE OF ALL BARS. 2.CONCRETE MUST CONFORM TO CDOT CLASS "D" (MINIMUM 28-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 4500 PSI). 80% OF THIS STRENGTH MUST BE GAINED IN THE FIRST 7 DAYS. 3.DOWELS MUST BE PLACED AT ALL JOINTS INCLUDING BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED SIDEWALK. **WIDTH OF SIDEWALK DEPENDANT UPON LOCATION. #4 EPOXY COATED GREASED Smooth DOWELS 12" ON CENTER. 2' MIN. LENGTH CENTERED ON JOINT DEEPROOT UB18-2 6"CONC SIDEWALK #4 EPOXY COATED GREASED SMOOTH DOWELS. CENTERED IN SIDEWALK. 4" COMPACTED GRANULAR MATERIAL. ADJUST THICKNESS AS REQUIRED TO MISS ROOTS. EXISTING SOIL. HAND OR AIR SPADE EXCAVATION 130 S GALENA ST PHONE: (970) 920-5080 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT #:ENG - 303A STANDARD DETAILS FLOATING SIDEWALK DESIGN WWW.ASPENPITKIN.COM/DEPARTMENTS/ENGINEERING/DESIGN-CONSTRUCTION/ DATE COMMENTS REVISIONS CREATION DATE: 02/22/18 INITIALS: JAD LAST MODIFICATION DATE: INITIALS: ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN xx/xx/xx (FOR DEVELOPMENT NEAR TREES) 81 C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5816 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E Minor Land Use SubmittalASPEN, CO 81611C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Dec 20, 2019 - 2:40pmF:\PROJECTS_M-P\5816-201 E. Main\D-CAD\02. Sheets\dw-5816-ILLUSTRATIVE.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 201 E MAIN ST.ASN: 2737 073 28 001COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOLOTS A, B & C, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,08/16/191 MLU APPL. REV 1 12/02/192 MLU APPL. REV 2 12/20/193 MLU APPL. REV 3 6’-0” O.C. TYP.ENTRY GATE - 6’-0”3’ HEIGHTMATERIALS PLANTING Ornamental Grass and Perennial Foundation Planting Fence & Gate Perennials Aspen TreeVirginia Creeper Cottonwood Tree Gro-Low Fragrant Sumac Lilac Shrub MATERIALS LMLU 3.2 82 Page 1 of 7 130 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: January 8, 2020 RE: 333 West Bleeker Street – Final Major Development Review and Setback Variations, PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT /OWNER: Bleeker & 3rd LLC, Mark S. Moussa, Manager REPRESENTATIVE: Haas Land Planning, LLC LOCATION: Street Address: 333 W. Bleeker Street Legal Description: Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-124-01-401 CURRENT ZONING & USE Single-family home, R-6 – Medium-Density Residential PROPOSED USE: No change SUMMARY: On April 24, 2019, the applicant received Conceptual approval to underpin the historic home and excavate a new basement, construct a one-story above grade addition, and relocate the historic outbuilding. Setback variations were granted. At this time, Final Major Development review and an additional setback variation for a revised subgrade addition are requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions identified on pages 6 and 7 of this memo. Site Locator Map – 333 West Bleeker Street 333 83 Page 2 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: 333 West Bleeker Street is a locally designated landmark listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is on a 6,000 square foot corner lot in the R-6 zone district. This property contains a two- story Victorian era residence with elaborate architectural detailing on the front façade. The house appears to be in its original location according to the historic Sanborn maps. There is a relocated historic outbuilding along the alley, and a number of large trees on and around this property. In 2002, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved a historic lot split that resulted in the Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split that allocated 2,280 square feet of floor area to Lot 1, containing the historic resource, and 1,800 square feet of floor area to Lot 2, to the east, containing a new house. Current floor area calculations indicate that Lot 1 has an existing floor area of 2,435 square feet which is over the allotted floor area. This appears to be due to a miscalculation of the garage floor area that was not recognized during the lot split. With this application, the applicant is required to bring the floor area into compliance with the Lot Split approval. REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • Final Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for a new addition towards the rear of the historic residence, specifically focusing on landscape, lighting, and materials. • Setback Variations (Section 26.415.110.C) for the revised subgrade addition. This project was not called up by City Council during the Notice of Call-up on November 26, 2019. HPC is the final review authority. PROJECT SUMMARY: 333 West Bleeker is a two-story single-family residence on the corner of Bleeker Street and Third Street. The applicant received Conceptual approval to rotate the existing historic outbuilding and construct a new one-story above grade addition behind the historic home with an 8’ long connecting element. The applicant will restore the historic footprint of the historic house based on the 1893 Sanborn map by removing a heavily altered rear porch feature at the rear of the historic landmark due to conflicting historic documentation regarding the feature. Setback variations were granted for the new addition and the rotated historic outbuilding. The applicant has submitted minor revisions for the Final review approval with an additional request for setback variations that require review. Due to structural and site drainage concerns, the applicant proposes to extend the subgrade foundation to line up with the above grade historic outbuilding. This change also pushes the historic outbuilding eastward which reduced the size of the new addition in order to maintain the 7’ separation between the new addition and the historic outbuilding. The applicant requests revisions to the setback variations received during Conceptual review and additional setback variations for the extended subgrade design. The applicant also made modifications to the material palette on the new addition and proposes to restore the cedar shake shingle roof on both historic 84 Page 3 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com resources. Staff recommends HPC further discuss the material changes proposed on the new addition to ensure design compatibility is met. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff finds that the revised final proposal slightly reduces the scale but maintains the form of the approved new addition. Since the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are particularly stringent on forms of a new addition on corner lots, the use of a 12:12 roof pitch is an important visual feature to maintain. The previous design called for horizontal wood siding and an asphalt shingle roof to match the existing two historic resources on-site. The submitted proposal plans to remove the existing asphalt shingles on the two historic resources and replace them with cedar shingles, and the exterior materials on the new addition have changed to a vertical application of wood siding and a metal panel roof. An alternative roofing option using cedar wood is also included. According to Design Guideline 10.6, design compatibility is established through form, materials, and fenestration. During the Conceptual review process, restudy was recommended to achieve the appropriate balance, and form and materials became the topic for discussion. For the new addition staff supports the alternative cedar wood roofing option over the metal roof option with some flexibility regarding application methods, but staff recommends the topic of material compatibility be further discussed with HPC. Staff supports the revised design for the above-grade addition, the subgrade configuration, and the revised request for setback variations. Staff recommends the applicant continue discussions regarding any restoration efforts with staff and monitor for approval. Staff recommends HPC discuss the following sections in more detail: 1. Site Planning & Landscape Plan: As approved during Conceptual Review, the applicant will underpin the historic home in order to excavate the subgrade addition. The applicant must comply with Design Guideline 9.1 by providing structural assessment and financial assurances. Due to the large trees surrounding the property, it was determined that the most appropriate location for the drywell was at the front of the property with a sod covered lid. The proposed landscape plan includes a gravel edge around the historic home, grey basalt stone pavers to the primary and secondary entrance, and a metal privacy fence. Staff finds the proposed planting schedule and the location of the fence do not obscure views of the historic resources but recommends the restudy of the walkways. According to Design Guideline 1.6, a simple walkway using materials such as light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are most appropriate for Victorian landmarks. The secondary walkway is portrayed with the same scale as the primary walkway when the guidelines call for the primary walkway leading up to the historic entrance be the focus. Staff recommends additional restudy of the secondary pathway as it relates to the restoration of the existing ditch. The applicant will need to communicate with all relevant City Departments regarding this matter. 85 Page 4 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Figure 1 – Proposed Landscape Plan In the Conceptual approval, a lightwell was proposed along the west elevation of the historic home facing 3rd Street. The revised design removes this lightwell and slightly minimizes the dimension of the lightwell on the east elevation. The two lightwells proposed to the south of the new addition has been consolidated into a single lightwell. Staff finds these changes are supported by Design Guideline 9.6. A minimal curb height of no more than 6” for the proposed lightwells and similar features around the historic house is recommended. Staff finds the revised site configuration and changes to the lightwell meet the relevant Design Guidelines. Staff recommends additional restudy of the proposed walkway material for the primary entry and the design of the secondary walkway with the existing ditch, for staff and monitor review and approval. 2. New Addition – Form/Materials/Fenestration: The proposed new addition is minimal in square footage, one-story in height, and has a 8’ long connecting element. 86 Page 5 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Form & Fenestration: The revised design for the new addition reduces the overall size and height of the addition but maintains the pitched roof, therefore, strongly relates to the historic Victorian in form. The design purposefully deviates from historic fenestration proportions and locates openings towards the corners of the building. Materials: The final proposal makes noticeable changes to exterior material selection for the new addition when comparing it to what was approved during the Conceptual review. In order to strongly relate to the materials found on the historic resource, horizontal wood siding and asphalt shingles were previously proposed and approved for the new above grade addition. The revised design uses a vertical application of wood siding, internal gutter systems that visually simplify the roof edge, and a metal roof with a matte finish to match the new siding. One change to keep in mind is the decision to restore the existing asphalt roofing material on the historic structures to cedar shingles. Staff finds the vertical application of the wood siding to be appropriate if the reveal between boards are similar to that of traditional lap siding; however, staff recommends the applicant explore roofing options that use wood rather than metal panels to maintain a strong material connection between the historic resources and the new addition. Figure 2 – Approved West Elevation Figure 3 – Revised West Elevation As a corner lot, visual compatibility between the new addition and the historic landmark is critical. Staff finds the new above-grade addition has a connection to the historic resources through form, and supports the vertical application of wood siding, but recommends the applicant restudy the metal roofing material in favor of the alternate option that uses cedar wood, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 3. Setback Variations: The historic house will remain 20’ setback front the front property line where underlying zoning only requires a 10’ setback. The revised design no longer requires a rear yard setback for the new above grade addition and updates are needed for the location of the historic outbuilding. The detached historic outbuilding currently sits on the rear lot line with 87 Page 6 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com a portion of the roof overhang encroaching into the alley. The proposal still calls for the historic outbuilding to be rotated and moved forward on the lot but will also move slightly eastward to match the extended foundation below. The setback variation required for the revised location is a 2’-2” reduction of the west yard setback where a 5’ setback is required. The rear yard setback variation will continue to need a 1’-7” reduction. The newly proposed basement level directly underneath the historic outbuilding will need the same west yard and rear yard setback reductions as the historic outbuilding. HPC may grant a setback variation if one of the two criteria is met (Section 26.415.110.C): 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 request for updated setback variations helps maintain the historic location of the historic house, which is important to the historic significance of the property, and the extended subgrade changes do not create any visual impact. Both requests meet the criteria for granting setback variations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application with the following conditions: 1.) Restudy the roofing material for the new addition, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 2.) Restudy the materials for the primary walkway to comply with relevant Design Guidelines, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 3.) Continue to work closely with all relevant City Departments on the design of a minimal secondary walkway from Third Street, and the restoration of the historic ditch for compliance once the existing driveway is removed. Final design to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 4.) Any changes to the stormwater mitigation system are to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor before building permit. 5.) Investigate the historic framing on the west and south elevations for any evidence of historic material and openings. Any fenestration changes will be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor before proceeding. 6.) Provide financial assurances of $30,000 for the historic house and $15,000 for the historic outbuilding until they are set onto the new foundation. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application. 88 Page 7 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com 7.) The following variations are granted: • A 1’-7” reduction of the rear yard setback for the historic outbuilding, above and below grade. • A 2’-2” reduction of the west yard setback for the historic outbuilding, above and below grade. The combined side yard setbacks for this structure are approved as represented in the drawings. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #____, Series of 2020 Exhibit A.1 – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit A.2 – Setback Variation Review Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit B – HPC Resolution#10, Series of 2019 and Meeting Minutes, April 24, 2019 Exhibit C – Application 89 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND SETBACK VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 WEST BLEEKER STREET, LOT 1, BLEEKER STREET PARTNERS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-01-401 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bleeker & 3rd LLC, Mark S. Moussa, manager, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, has requested HPC approval for Major Development and Setback Variation for the property located at 333 West Bleeker Street, Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat, 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 Final 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, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of Final Major Development and Setback Variations with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on January 8, 2020. 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 Final Major Development and Setback Variations for 333 West Bleeker Street, Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows: 90 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 2 of 4 Section 1: Final Major Development Review and Setback Variations HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variations as proposed with the with the following conditions: 1.) Restudy the roofing material for the new addition, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 2.) Restudy the materials for the primary walkway to comply with relevant Design Guidelines, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 3.) Continue to work closely with all relevant City Departments on the design of a minimal secondary walkway from Third Street, and the restoration of the historic ditch for compliance once the existing driveway is removed. Final design to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 4.) Any changes to the stormwater mitigation system are to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor before building permit. 5.) Investigate the historic framing on the west and south elevations for any evidence of historic material and openings. Any fenestration changes will be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor before proceeding. 6.) Provide financial assurances of $30,000 for the historic house and $15,000 for the historic outbuilding until they are set onto the new foundation. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application. 7.) The following variations are granted: • A 1’-7” reduction of the rear yard setback for the historic outbuilding, above and below grade. • A 2’-2” reduction of the west yard setback for the historic outbuilding, above and below grade. The combined side yard setbacks for this structure are approved as represented in the drawings. 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 91 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 3 of 4 be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 333 West Bleeker Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of January, 2020. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair 92 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 4 of 4 ATTEST: _________________________________________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 93 Page 1 of 11 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings NOTE: Staff responses begin on page 10 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. 4. Final Development Plan Review: b) The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development projects are as follows: 1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for 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 Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.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. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. 4) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. 94 Page 2 of 11 Chapter 1: Site Planning & Landscape Design MET NOT MET 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. 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. Chapter 2: Rehabilitation - Building Materials MET NOT MET 2.1 Preserve original building materials. 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. Chapter 3: Rehabilitation - Windows MET NOT MET 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. 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. 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. 8.8 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary structure to a functional use is encouraged. MET MET MET MET CONDITION MET MET Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review Criteria for 333 West Bleeker Street The applicant is requesting a Major Development reivew for historic resources and the construction of a new one-story above grade addition. As a historically designated landmark, the proposed design must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. CONDITION MET MET MET MET MET MET CONDITION CONDITION MET MET MET MET 95 Page 3 of 11 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. 1.2 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. 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. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. Chapter 10: New Construction - Building Additions MET NOT MET 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. 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. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main 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. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. Chapter 12: Accessibility, Lighting, Mech. Equipment, Services Areas & Signs MET NOT MET 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. MET MET MET MET MET MET CONDITION CONDITION MET MET MET MET MET MET 96 Page 4 of 11 • 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. 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. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. • If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. • Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. 97 Page 5 of 11 • 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. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. • In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. 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. 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. 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. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. 98 Page 6 of 11 • 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. 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. 3.5 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. 3.7 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. 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. 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. 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. 99 Page 7 of 11 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. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. • Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. • Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. • The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. • During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. 100 Page 8 of 11 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. 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 101 Page 9 of 11 • 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. 10.10 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. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. 102 Page 10 of 11 • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. Staff Finding: The applicable sections of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning, relocation, building materials, windows, doors, roofs, building additions, accessory buildings. Design Guideline 1.6 calls for the use of a simple entry pathway and the use of the following materials: light grey concrete, brick, or red sandstone. The proposed pathway is simple but staff recommends the use of a material that were more commonly used for Victorian structures. Staff finds Design Guideline 1.8 regarding stormwater mitigation is met but any changes to the final plan must to reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. The proposed location for the drywell is in the foreground of the historic building, but the applicant proposes to bury the drywell cover with sod. This guideline requires the design of the stormwater mitigation system to provide positive drainage away from the historic buildings and minimize the visual impact of any associated features, such as drywells. As a condition for approval, staff recommends continued discussion with all relevant City Departments and any changes to the final design is to be reviewed by staff and monitor for compliance with this Design Guideline. Design Guideline 3.5 concerns the preservation of historic window openings and proportions. The applicant proposes to replace existing windows on the west elevation of the historic house under the assumption that they are not historic. Although the existing configuration and types of windows are unique to this one area of the house and may be an alteration, additional evidence is needed. As a condition for approval, staff recommends further exploratory study of the framing to determine the historical significance of these windows before proceeding with the proposed changes in fenestration. Design Guideline 3.7 addresses the addition of new windows to a historic building. There are existing French doors on the second level of the historic house on the south elevation that are non-historic. The applicant proposes to remove these doors and replace them with a square window. Staff recommends exploratory study of the framing to see if any historic openings exist for reopening before proceeding with the proposed changes to fenestration. 103 Page 11 of 11 Design Guideline 10.4 calls for the historic resource to be the focus and main entry for the property. The main historic entrance for this property is on Bleeker Street, but there is a secondary entrance proposed from Third Street. This proposed entrance is over a historic ditch that needs to be preserved by meeting the requirements from Engineering and Parks Departments. The secondary entry does not appear subordinate to the primary entry on the site plan. As a condition for approval, staff recommends the applicant work closely with all relevant City Departments to meet all requirements and have the final design reviewed and approved by staff and monitor for design compliance. Design Guideline 10.6 relates to visual compatibility of the new addition when compared with the historic resource. Staff finds the change in application of the wood siding is appropriate if the reveals between the boards are similar to the historic clap board siding but favors the option for wood roofing material over metal. Staff recommends additional study regarding the roofing material, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. In summary, staff recommends approval with conditions as outlined in the draft resolution. 104 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A.2 Setback Variation Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.110.C: Variances: Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: The final proposal maintains the historic location of the house, and with the size reduction of the new addition no rear yard variation is required. The historic outbuilding currently sits on the rear lot line with a portion of the roof overhang encroaching into the alley. The proposed location in the final proposal for the historic outbuilding differs from the Conceptual approval in that it will be pushed more eastward so it can line up with the basement foundation. The setback variation required for the revised location is a 2’-2” reduction of the west yard setback where a 5’ setback is required. The rear yard setback variation will continue to need a 1’-7” reduction. The newly proposed basement level directly underneath the historic outbuilding will need the same west yard and rear yard setback reductions as 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:MET NOT MET 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. YES Review Criteria for 333 West Bleeker 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 relocating the historic outbuilding and the below-grade addition. YES 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. 105 Page 2 of 2 the historic outbuilding. The revised above grade proposal reduces the needed setback and the setback variations needed for the subgrade level does not create any visual impact. Staff finds that the setback variations will help mitigate adverse impacts to the historic resource by helping maintain the historic location of the historic house and promote the adaptive reuse of the outbuilding using the pattern in the district by locating the parking access to the alley. In addition, staff supports the setback variations requested for the subgrade level because it does not create any above grade impacts and the foundation changes are needed for proper structural stability of the historic outbuilding. 106 RESOLUTION #10, SERIES OF 2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION AND SETBACK VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 WEST BLEEKER STREET, LOT 1, BLEEKER STREET PARTNERS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-01-401 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bleeker & 3"' LLC, Mark S. Moussa, manager, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, has requested HPC approval for Major Development and Setback Variation for the property located at 333 West Bleeker Street, Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variations with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on February 13, 2019, March 13, 2019, and April 24, 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 of7to0. 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 HPC Resolution #,0, Series of 2019 RECEPTION#: 656769, R: $23.00, D: $0.00 Page 1 of 3DOCCODE: RESOLUTION Pg 1 of 3, 06/19/2019 at 03:51:04 PM Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO 107 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations for 333 West Bleeker Street, Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows: Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation and Setback Variations HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variations as proposed with the with the following conditions: 1.) For Final review, design the curb height of the skylights and lightwells around the historic house to the minimal requirement. 2.) Further discuss the design of the storm water mitigation system with all relevant City Departments for compliance. Final design to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor before building permit. 3.) For Final, work closely with all relevant City Departments on the design of a minimal secondary walkway from Third Street, and the restoration of the historic ditch for compliance once the existing driveways are removed. 4.) For Final review or during construction, investigate the historic framing on the west and south elevations for any evidence of historic material and openings. Any fenestration changes will be reviewed by HPC or approved by staff and monitor before proceeding. 5.) The historic structures will remain on site during basement construction. If any changes are necessary, details may be addressed for Final review. 6.) Removal of the five spruce trees in the public right of way must be completed by the applicant. A tree removal permit will be required to assure proper technique, but no mitigation fee will be charged. The applicant may request the Parks Department allow credit for the costs of this work toward on-site tree mitigation. 7.) For Final review the applicant will be required to provide a financial security of 30,000 for the historic house and $ 5,000 for the historic outbuilding until they are set onto the new foundation. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application. 8.) The following variations are accepted: A 7" (seven inch) reduction of the rear yard setback for the new addition. A l'-7" reduction of the rear yard setback for the historic outbuilding. A 4' reduction of the west yard setback for the historic outbuilding. The combined side yard setbacks for this structure are approved as represented in the drawings. 9.) A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one 1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration HPC Resolution #io, Series of 2019 Page 2 of 3 108 date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (b) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 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 24th day of April, 2019. Approved as to Fprm: Approved as to Content: i i A rea r>4n, ssI's tant City Attorney Gretc Greenwood, Chair Z va, Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk HPC Resolution #io, Series of 2019 Page 3 of 3 109 restudy the design of the proposed addition and the location of the historic out building. This structure is located on the corner of 3rd and Bleeker. This is very visible and is in the R6 zone on a 6000 sq. ft lot. Following HPC’s advice, the location is rotated and now there is a space of 3 ft 5 inches from the rear property line. With the permission of Parks, the 3 alley trees will be removed. The new addition is located directly behind the historic landmark with an 8-foot connector and a full basement is also proposed. With the recent proposal, the drywall location is identified between two large spruce trees. Staff would like to clarify, they originally misunderstood where the historic house was to be stored and it will be on-site instead of off-site. This has been clarified and put into the conditions. Ms. Yoon presented the 1893 Sandborn map on screen. There have been constant alterations to the rear of the building and the existing out building is not an original feature. Staff is in support of the removal of the rear addition and relocation of the historic out building. The fenestration changes haven’t changed since last time. Staff focused on guidelines 10.6 and 10.11 last time regarding the relationship between materials and fenestration and the need for the new addition to strongly relate to two of these. The applicant has restudied the roof form by relating the pitch with the historic out building. They will be moving the chimney feature to the east elevation, which has the least visible impact. They have also changed the roofing material to asphalt shingles to match what is existing on the current site. This is all in support of strengthening the relationship between the historic resource and the new addition. Staff recommends continued work with staff and monitor on a secondary entrance. Staff recommends continued work with various city departments and staff and monitor on the proposed secondary entrance. Staff supports the setback variations with the 7-inch variation related to the historic resource not moving and is recommending approval. The conditions are as follows: 1. Curb heights for the skylights and lightwells be brought to the minimum requirement and would like to see the dimensions 2. Further discussion of storm water mitigation and for staff and monitor to be involved in final approval 3. Work with staff and monitor and city departments on the secondary walkway and restoration of the ditch 4. Investigation for historic framing before the fenestration changes happen REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24, 2019 MOTION: ROGER moved to approve, Mr. Blaich seconded. Voice vote: 6 in favor, 1 opposed. Motion carried. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said has the notices. CALL UPS: None. OLD BUSINESS: 333 W Bleeker Sarah Yoon Ms. Yoon said this is a conceptual hearing and continuation. HPC gave the applicant instruction to 5. Agreement with temporary storing of the historic resource to be on site 6. Removal of 5 spruce trees in the right of way 7. Financial securities are required 8. Details of setback variations requested for the out building and new addition 9. Submit for final development within one year of obtaining conceptual approval 3 110 garage structure. The material went from standing seam metal and has been switched to the asphalt shingles which is the same material found on both historic structures on the property. The setback of the garage entrance was about 1 foot before and is now about 3 ½ feet. He thinks they have storm water figured out with Josh Rice, so hopefully it won’t have to go to staff and monitor. We have the horizontal siding on the garage, the historic house and now you’ll see a good deal more on the addition. We made a conscious decision to maintain a departur e in fenestration to keep it a product of its own time. We’re feeling good about it and we are good with guideline 10.6. Hopefully everyone feels the same way too. Ms. Sanzone thanked the applicant for engaging Josh Rice at this conceptual level. She asked where other utilities and utility pedestals might land and hopefully they will be on the alley side. Mr. Dupps said they haven’t thought about that yet. We will start fresh and will submit a landscape plan later on. Ms. Greenwood asked if they have a sketch up looking east and then asked what condition the windows are in on the historic resource. Mr. Dupps said they’ve all been replaced including the feature window. There are new windows in the original openings. Ms. Greenwood asked about the windows in the gable and Mr. Dupps said he thinks the whole back is new construction. At that time, they added the French doors and extended the Dutch gable. He thinks the historic framing is much removed. Ms. Greenwood has one issue and doesn’t think the proportion of the windows is in line with the other double hung windows. She is curious about the drywell and what is going to it. Mr. Haas said he understand its sheet flow across the site and a good amount of green flow and no down spouts. Mr. Rice didn’t suggest any routing. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Kendrick said he acknowledges the hard work on the changes that have been made and said it’s come a long way and is ready to approve at this point per staff’s comments. Mr. Blaich said that everything has been covered and he is comfortable with the project. Mr. Moyer said the applicant’s have done a good job, but there are a few concerns. Oftentimes at the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24, 2019 Ms. Greenwood asked what the new measurement would be if the variation is granted. Mr. Haas said 9 feet 5 inches. Ms. Greenwood also asked why the parks department is taking down spruce trees in the right of way. Ms. Simon said the owner planted them and they’ve been maturing without approval. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning LLC & Rally Dupps of Rally Dupps Architect and Interiors Mr. Haas said Ms. Yoon did a good job of presenting most of the project. He said the roof form on the addition started with a modern rake roof and now it’s been changed to a 12-12 pitch to match the end, there are a lot of pipes sticking out of the roof, and the siding as well. If they are thought about now, we don’t have to worry about it later. The utilities should be discreetly placed in the alley. The shape of the windows on the south peak is very disconcerting because their proportion doesn’t fit with the others. Mr. Halferty said he agrees that it’s come a long way and the setbacks he has requested are appropriate. The treatment to the historic resource has been well done and the addition is in line with the guidelines. 4 111 to be restudied. She also recommended restudy of the flat roof underneath the facia on the new addition becaus e the building, in detail, should correspond to the historic resource. We’re all in agreement with staff’s comments. Ms. Sanzone said she agrees with Mr. Moyer’s comments and that they probably seem like details, but they are really important details. She said where the fence is shown, it would intrude on where you would want to put the utilities, ideally. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve resolution #10, Mr. Kendrick seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes. 7-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 312 W Hyman Sarah Yoon Ms. Yoon said this is a conceptual design review and was also part of the site visit today. This is in the R6 zone district on a 6000 square foot lot. The applicant is requesting major development and setback variations. This is a city owned property and was designated in 2006 as an Aspen Modern landmark. At the time, there was a threat for demolition. This has been listed for sale and the applicant is currently under contract. This landmark is an excellent example of the chalet style architecture. Some of the characteristics include the large singular roof forms, shallow pitched roof, deep overhangs, very simple footprints and a continuous balcony. Some of the more noticeable details are in the decorative geometric motifs. There was very little development surrounding the property when it was built. There are a lot of large trees on the site and they now have neighbors on either side. The applicant has been in communication with the parks department regarding removing two trees on the alley. The driveway access off of Hyman and the two garage doors are considered significant features. Engineering has allowed for another driveway from the alley. Because of the constraints, it’s important that the applicant work with staff and relevant departm ents to develop the site. The current proposal does meet the minimum 5-foot setbacks, but not the 15-foot combined. The applicant is requesting a setback variation and HPC does grant these if they meet listed criteria, which are listed on screen. The resource REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24, 2019 He said he hopes they can adhere to Mr. Moyer’s comments about fenestration and venting. The proposed resolution from staff is something he can adhere to. Ms. Greenwood pointed out that the board is being a little redundant, but we do make a good impact on the comm unity when we analyze these thoroughly and give the applicant’s professional recommendations. She does think the project is in a good place, but she wants to comment about the pipes. The building department does require us to label every single pipe, so she suggested the applicant do that before they come back for final with the board. Throughout the process, please keep Ms. Simon informed on what you are finding. Other than that, she feels the windows on the rear need cannot be relocated or moved due to existing encroachments. Staff would support a setback variation in accordance with design. Going into the design proposal for the addition, staff focused the memo on guidelines 10.6 and 10.12. There must be design compatibility and the design must not destroy or obscure historic features or materials. The proposed addition has two levels and a flat roof. There is no connecting element that we typically see on other projects. The location of the addition to the rear of the property is very appropriate to the site. Staff does want to see a sensitive transition between the old and the new. A two-story transition might meet the guidelines in this case. The material choices for the addition, don’t meet with the historic landmark, so staff is recommending further study of the 5 112 December 10, 2019 Ms. Sarah Yoon City of Aspen Historic Preservation Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: HPC Final Application for 333 West Bleeker Street, Lots A and B, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen (a/k/a, the D.E. Frantz House; Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption; Parcel ID # 2735-124-01-401) Dear Sarah: Please consider this letter and the accompanying plans set to constitute a formal request for Final Approval of a Major Development to allow for a remodel and addition to the historic Victorian home at 333 W. Bleeker Street, Aspen. The HPC approved the Conceptual Major Development application for this property on April 24, 2019 pursuant to Resolution #10, Series of 2019 (Reception No. 656769). As approved under Resolution #10, the applicant will relocate the historic residence onto a new basement and foundation, add a one-story addition with a connecting link, and rotate the existing detached garage 90-degrees so that it will have access from the alley. The inappropriately scaled and poorly constructed rear/south porch appendage (added after the 1893 Sanborn Map) will be removed. The applicant requested, and was approved for setback variations as follows: a 7-inch reduction of the rear yard setback for the new addition; a 1-foot, 7-inch reduction of the rear yard setback for the historic outbuilding (garage); a 4-foot reduction of the westerly side yard setback for the historic outbuilding (garage); and the combined side yard setbacks were approved accordingly/as represented in the drawings. This application is submitted by Bleeker & 3rd, LLC (the “applicant”), owner and end-user of the subject property, pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code (hereinafter the Code): 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures; 26.415.070.D, Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development; 26.415.090, Relocation of Designated Historic Properties; 26.415.110, Historic Preservation – Benefits; 26.575.020, Calculations and Measurements, and 26.710.040, Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Zone District. For the reviewer’s convenience all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project are provided in the various exhibits to the application, as follows: HH AA AA SS LL AA NN DD PP LL AA NN NN II NN GG ,, LL LL CC • 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 220 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 • • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • MITCH@HLPASPEN.COM • 113 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 2 • Exhibit 1: Copy of HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2019 • Exhibit 2: Proof of the Applicant’s Ownership; • Exhibit 3: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Sara Yoon; • Exhibit 4: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) and 1 Friday Design (1FD) to represent the applicant; • Exhibit 5: Land Use Application and HOA Compliance Policy forms; • Exhibit 6: An executed application fee agreement; • Exhibit 7: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property; and • Exhibit 8: Vicinity Map at 8.5” x 11”. In addition, a full and detailed set of architectural plans prepared by 1 Friday Design accompanies this application. Included with the architectural plans set are an existing conditions improvement and topographic survey with trees, representations of proposed exterior materials, exterior lighting plans, comparative diagrams showing the conceptually approved site plan and the proposed final site plan, landscape plans and a fencing detail prepared by BlueGreen, and grading, drainage and drywell detail plans prepared by Josh Rice, P.E., of Woody Creek Engineering. While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, Haas Land Planning, LLC will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. Existing Conditions The property is located on the southeast corner of North Third (3rd) Street and West Bleeker Street, in Aspen’s West End neighborhood. Its Parcel Identification Number is 2735-124-01-401 and the property is legally described as Lot 1, according to the Plat of the Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption as recorded in Book 64 at Page 7 of the Pitkin County records. It is a 6,000 square foot, corner lot in the R-6 zone district. Its location relative to the surrounding area is depicted on the vicinity map attached as Exhibit 8. The Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Plat created the 6,000 square foot Lot 1 and established its allowable floor area, per Plat Note 4, at 2,280 square feet. Nevertheless, current floor area calculations demonstrate an existing floor area of 2,435 square feet, which exceeds the limit set on the Lot Split Plat by 155 square feet. All existing floor area was legally established and the overage results from changes in the codified requirements for calculating floor area and/or possible errors made by both the then property owner/applicant at the time of the lot split application and the City’s review of information provided by said applicant/owner. More importantly, the proposed plans would lower the 114 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 3 floor area to the 2,280 square foot limit, effectively eliminating the nonconformity. No Floor Area bonuses are requested. HPC Conceptual Approval Pursuant to Resolution No. 10, Series of 2019, the HPC granted approvals for HPC Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 333 West Bleeker Street with the following conditions: 1. For Final review, design the curb height of the skylights and lightwells around the historic house to the minimal requirement. 2. Further discuss the design of the storm water mitigation system with all relevant City Departments for compliance. Final design to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor before building permit. 3. For Final, work closely with all relevant City Departments on the design of a minimal secondary walkway from Third Street, and the restoration of the historic ditch for compliance once the existing driveways are removed. 4. For Final Review, or during construction, investigate the historic framing on the west and south elevations for any evidence of historic material and openings. Any fenestration changes will be reviewed by HPC or approved by staff and monitor before proceeding. 5. The historic structures will remain on site during basement construction. If any changes are necessary, details may be addressed for Final Review. 6. Removal of the five spruce trees in the public right of way must be completed by the applicant. A tree removal permit will be required to assure proper technique, but no mitigation fee will be charged. The applicant may request the Parks Department allow credit for the costs of this work toward on-site tree mitigation. 7. For Final Review, the applicant will be required to provide a financial security of $30,000 for the historic house and $15,000 for the historic outbuilding until they are set onto the new foundation. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application. 8. The following variations are accepted: • A 7” (seven inch) reduction of the rear yard setback for the new addition. • A 1’ 7” (one foot and seven inch) reduction of the rear yard setback for the historic outbuilding. • A 4’ east reduction of the west side yard setback for the historic outbuilding. The combined side yard setbacks for this structure are approved as represented in the drawings. 9. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six 115 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 4 (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. These conditions of Conceptual approval are further addressed below. Project Description Including Changes from the Conceptual HPC Design Please review the attached plans set while reading this project description to see accurate visual representations of the proposed design and the proposed changes explained herein. As mentioned above, the garage (historic outbuilding) was granted variations, including a reduction in the rear yard setback and the west side yard setback. Additionally, as part of the Conceptual approval, the applicant received approval for a basement to be constructed under the home, the new addition, a portion of the westerly side yard, and a portion of the garage. In the Conceptual approval, the applicant was required to remove the evergreen trees that were in the public right-of-way (this has since been done). Since the Conceptual approval, and after some exploration by the applicant’s team, it has become apparent for structural, drainage-related and construction practicality reasons that the basement needs to be extended so that it is beneath the entirety of the garage. The structural engineers discovered that foundations walls are needed under the entire garage in order to stabilize the historic resource. If the basement is not fully beneath the garage there will be different settlements of the home and garage, creating a hazard to the property and these historic assets. There will be no additional visual disturbance from above as a result of the proposed extension of the basement. This subgrade extension necessitates a request for an additional setback variation. Although the applicant is now requesting an additional variation for the subgrade area below the garage, the previously approved rear yard setback is no longer needed, and the approved side yard setback variation will be reduced (i.e., the side yard setback is being enlarged). That is, with regard to the side yard setback, as conceptually approved, the garage was to have an approximately 1’- 1” west side yard setback, but the proposed Final plans shift the garage to the east to sit atop of the foundation walls, resulting in a west side yard setback that is increased to slightly more than 2’-11”. With this shift inward on the property, the addition’s living room massing was reduced to maintain the 7’ conceptual approval separation between the walls of the garage structure and the walls of the addition. With regard to the rear yard setback, the refined Final design eliminates the double lightwells at the rear (there will now be one instead of two), provides a more successful alignment of the historic and new structures, and eliminates the west-side lightwell altogether. These changes result in an increase in the separation distance between the old and new and a reduction of the overall height and massing of the addition. Rare as this is, the proposed Final design 116 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 5 presents a smaller structure than was approved at Conceptual. All of these positive changes deserve consideration when deciding upon the request to increase the subgrade space that will have no visual impacts from above. More specifically, as Plan Sheets A-ALT-1, -2, and -3 demonstrate, the garage has been “shifted” 1’-1” to the east to increase the distance from the west side yard (Third Street). The foundation area below the garage will be utilized to create a better access channel for laundry and mechanical services. The overall dimensions of the proposed living area mass have been reduced in length, width and height from what was approved by HPC at Conceptual. The east façade of the new living area is proposed to be reduced by 1’-9¾“ so that it aligns with the rear of the existing home. The south façade is proposed to be reduced by 9 inches, and the ridge height has been reduced by 1’. The proposed chimney mass and height adjoined to the new proposed construction has also been reduced by 2’-3 7/8”. The proposed reduction of the living room mass and site alignments combine to create a greater separation between the physical massing of the garage and the proposed living room. This increased distanced more closely resembles the distance of the connection between the old and new massing of the main home. The distance of the connecting element from the historic portion to the new addition has been maintained. However, the reduction of the proposed overhang creates a perceived visual separation of an additional six inches. The east-west width of the connector has also been reduced by 10 inches, which allows it to be further set back on its Third Street-facing side. The roof design of the proposed addition is somewhat different than what was presented at Conceptual approval. This modest revision was in response to comments and concerns from the HPC during conceptual. The current proposal is to utilize an internal roof drain system along with a detailing of the roof so as to better differentiate it from the historic resource as a representation of the architecture of its time. This helps to create a clearer articulation between the old and the new and eliminates the need for roof gutters on these visible sides. The reduction of the overhang on the new construction further reduces its overall visual mass. Additionally, the ground-level skylight that was approved along the Third Street-facing side of the historic home has been removed. Finally, the applicant is proposing to reduce the amount of snow cleats and vertical snow breaks that were approved at Conceptual. This will help to visually “quiet” the proposed roof form and massing. If approved by the HPC, the applicant would like to exclude all snow cleats and vertical snow bar breaks along the Third Street façade of the historic garage. This will help to reduce the visual impact of non-historic elements on the garage roof. Cedar shingle roofing is proposed to replace the existing asphalt roofing. 117 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 6 HPC Final Design Standards Many of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (the HP Guidelines) were addressed at the time of Conceptual Approval, and the proposed Final designs are almost entirely identical to those granted Conceptual approval. As such, consistency with most of the HPC Guidelines has already been established and has not changed. Thus, at the applicant’s request, City staff provided a list of the Historic Preservation Guidelines that are relevant for this Final Review. The HP Guidelines state that “not every guideline will apply to each project” and that “some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The HPC will determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve a project proposal.” These statements imply that determinations must be made as to which guidelines are most relevant and most important in balancing between potentially conflicting concerns, especially in cases like the current application, where not only is existing floor area being reduced, but no floor area bonuses are requested. The relevant/applicable guidelines from Chapters 1 through 10, as well as those from Chapter 12, are outlined below in italicized text and each is followed by a response demonstrating compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. These guidelines were addressed during the Conceptual approval, which approval establishes the allowed site plan, massing, scale and proportions of the development. The proposed Final plans are fully consistent with the site plan, height, massing, scale and proportions of the Conceptually approved plan, except that errors in the existing conditions plans previously provided by other architects have resulted in the proposed new development shrinking in proportion to the assets and an increase in the openness of the site plan as viewed from the Third Street side (see Plan Sheets A-ALT-1 through A-ALT-4 for a clear depiction of these positive changes). As discussed at the time of Conceptual review and approval, both existing gravel driveways off 3rd Street will be completely removed, and the affected areas will be appropriately restored. Also, the one-car garage structure will be rotated 90-degrees so that vehicular access is moved from the street side to the alley side and all “driveways” can be eliminated completely. These changes, coupled with the City’s desired removal of the evergreens that have been planted in the 3rd Street right-of-way and along the ditch (already accomplished), will restore the streetscape to a more befitting historic character. 118 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 7 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. 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. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. Compliance with the above standards was also addressed during Conceptual approval. The Final plans are consistent with the Conceptually approved plans except that the historic hierarchy of spaces is now better maintained by virtue of a slightly increased setback from Third Street at the garage, and the entire addition having been reduced in size and shifted an additional 2’-3¾” to the east, away from Third Street. The reduced size of the addition also allows the Third Street facing wall of the addition to align with that of the historic residence, and the addition’s setback from the alley has increased by 1’-3”. Meanwhile the height of the addition has been reduced by 1’. In effect, the public and semi-public realms of the property are now larger and better accentuated, providing additional positive open space within the site. (See Plan Sheets A-ALT-1 through A-ALT-4 for a clear depiction of these positive changes.) The proposed walkways run perpendicular from the streets to the front and side entries of the project. The side entry is downplayed as a secondary access while the historic front porch will remain the primary access and focus of the property. (See Plan Sheets A-0-PR, and L300.) There are no proposed built-in furnishings, much less any that could interfere with or block views of the historic structures. The two large and historically significant spruce trees in the front yard of the property are being maintained/preserved, as are the cottonwood street trees in the Third Street right-of-way. Stormwater quality needs have been considered and are addressed as shown on Plan Sheets C200 and C300. Roof gutters are limited to non-street-facing sides and all stormwater is being routed to a buried drywell at the front, low side of the property. The drywell is to be buried and set 4” below grade such that the lid will be covered with sod. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. See Plan Sheet L300 for the proposed landscape plan. None of the proposed landscaping will interfere with or block views of the historic structure. All of the proposed trees and shrubs are to be located along the easterly property line and around the proposed new addition. Views of the historic assets from the surrounding streets will not be at all compromised; in fact, these views have 119 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 8 already been greatly improved with the applicant’s removal of the evergreen trees from the Third Street right-of-way. A proposed exterior lighting plan is provided at Sheet A-10-PR. Only minimal exterior lighting is proposed, as required at entries. There is no landscape lighting included with the proposed plans. 1.15 Preserve original fences. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. See Plan Sheets L300 and L400. There are no original fences associated with the property. The new fence proposed on the landscape plan uses appropriate materials, allows for views into the yard from the street, and does not block public views of the historic resource. The proposed fence is limited to the interior, east side or the property and the rear yard area; views of historic assets will not be affected by the proposed fencing. The proposed fencing material is 2” x 2” square steel tubes with 2” openings between each tube. Where the fencing is proposed at a height of 72”, it will not at all block public views of the historic structures. Where the proposed fencing extends eastward from the historic house, its height is only 42”. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. There are no original retaining walls, and no new retaining walls are proposed. 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. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. The applicant is not proposing to regrade the site in a manner that changes historic grades. Historically significant landscape features are being preserved. 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. The proposed development respects the historic design and the landscape and its built features. The new development is set behind the historic structures in a manner that leaves the resources prominent and the unobstructed focus of the 120 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 9 property. All proposed landscaping is to be located at the rear and interior side yard of the property such that views of the resources are unaffected from Third and Bleeker Streets. Historic circulation systems and patterns are unaffected. Chapter 2 addresses Building Materials, which is a topic for consideration during the Final HPC application and review process, as Conceptual Review focuses on only mass, scale, height, setbacks and site plan. 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. Original building materials are being preserved to the extent practicable. No original building materials will be covered up with new materials. Any repairs to or reworking of the existing masonry brick will match existing conditions. This is also true for the existing stained wood fascia and overhang soffit. All proposed exterior building materials are depicted on Plan Sheet A-9-PR, and their placements within the project are addressed on the “Materials List” column of the elevation drawings (Plan Sheets A-5-PR, A-6-PR, A-7-PR, and A- 8-PR). Although preliminarily addressed during Conceptual Review, the guidelines from Chapter 3 are also addressed at this time. 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 replacement window to the original in its design. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window. All functional and decorative features of historic windows are being preserved. Additionally, the position, number and arrangement of windows are being maintained. Any replacement windows will match the original in design and will use similar materials, as noted on the plan sheets. The size and proportion of the window openings will be preserved. The applicant will be removing non-historic sliding doors from the east elevation, removing non-historic triple-ganged windows on the west elevation, 121 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 10 and replacing grossly inappropriate and dangerous French doors on the second level with new windows that match those found historically on the Victorian. On the west elevation, two new double-hung windows are proposed for discussion with the HPC per the Conceptual approval; window dimensional sizing and detailing are to be comparable to existing lower level historic conditions. Phoenix Restoration or Aspen Preservation Company are proposed for use in fabricating historically accurate window conditions. Chapter 4 concerns doors and was addressed during conceptual approval. In compliance with the standards, the historically significant front door to the residence is being maintained in its historic location and at its original size. As mentioned above, inappropriately added doors will be removed such as the sliding doors on the east side, and the dangerous French doors on the second floor of the south side, which do not at all comply with life safety requirements of the adopted building codes. No new doors are proposed for adding to the historic building; rather, all new entry doors will be on the proposed addition rather than as an alteration of the historic resource. Likewise, Chapter 5, Porches, was discussed with during conceptual. As mentioned then, the original front entry porch is being preserved without alteration and without covering or removing historic materials or details. The porch will not be enclosed but the unoriginal, enclosed rear porch will be removed entirely. The rear of the original resource will be restored to accommodate a more appropriately sized and scaled linking element to an addition. 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. It is the applicant’s intention to preserve all significant architectural features and the subject property has more architectural detailing than found on most historic Victorians in Aspen. Although the accessory building is being moved, the applicant will use care to make sure that original materials will not be damaged; disassembly will not be required. As enumerated in the Conceptual approval, the historic framing on the west and south elevations will be investigated for evidence of historic materials and openings. Any fenestration changes will be reviewed by HPC or approved by staff and monitor before proceeding. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully placed and painted a dark color. 122 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 11 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. The original/existing roof form and eave depths on the main house will be unaltered. The existing chimney will also remain and be preserved. No new dormers are proposed and those already existing will be maintained without change. The appendage at the rear of the house and its out-of-character roof form and gutters will be eliminated, and the two existing skylights on the garage structure will be removed. Where the skylights are removed, the replacement roofing will convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. Any and all new vents are minimized in number and visibility, as depicted on the plans. The addition has been designed with an internal gutter system, minimizing their appearance and potential for increasing perceived massing. Gutters on the two historic structures have been minimized to only that needed to address the City’s stormwater management requirements: these are located on the two sides of the garage/outbuilding and on just two small sections of the roof on the east-facing, interior side of the historic residence (see Plan Sheet C200). 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. 8.4 When adding on to a secondary structure, distinguish the addition as new construction and minimize removal of historic fabric. 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. 8.6 Preserve original door and window openings and minimize new openings. 8.7 If a new garage door is added, it must be compatible with the character of the historic structure. 8.8 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary structure to a functional use is encouraged. The Chapter 8 guidelines that refer to secondary structures were also discussed and considered during the conceptual review and approval process. As noted at that time, the original outbuilding is being preserved and rotated ninety degrees to allow for appropriate alley access while removing its vehicular entrance from the streetscape. As viewed from above grade, the garage will remain a completely detached, independent building (although it will sit atop the basement of the residence) and rotating it not only enables alley access, but it also positions the structure favorably to obscure views of the new construction. 123 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 12 The storage and trash enclosure structures that have been appended to the outbuilding will also be removed as part of this structure’s restoration. The structure will remain simple with no added features or detailing, and the non- original skylights will be removed. With removal of the skylights, it is proposed that the current asphalt shingling be replaced with naturally finished cedar wood shingles; this is also proposed for the main residence. No new wall openings are proposed but those in existence, including the windows, door and garage door will be maintained. Chapter 9, which deals with excavation, building relocation and foundations, was discussed during Conceptual Review. As mentioned in the approval, both historic structures will be retained on-site during construction. The main residence is not being moved other than to dig a new basement/foundation beneath it, and the garage is being rotated ninety degrees so as to enable vehicular access from the alley and an improved, more appropriate streetscape. No lightwells are proposed in a location that would be particularly visible from the surrounding public ways. The lightwell at the northeast corner of the historic house has been reduced in size from that approved during the Conceptual review. As the proposed site plan indicates, the approved lightwell/skylight along the east side of the Victorian will be screened by the existing trees and a proposed fence so as to effectively minimize its potential visual impact. The conceptually approved pair of lightwells at the rear of the property, on the addition, have now been minimized and combined into a single lightwell; an aluminum grating with access hatch is proposed in order to better “mask” the feature and allow for additional landscape/planting to screen it. The flat grate is being used, rather than a railing, to better ensure a lack of visibility from the alley. All proposed lightwells have been located such that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. All lightwells adjoin the building foundation. The previously approved ground-level skylight along the west, Third Street-facing façade of the Victorian has been eliminated. Chapter 10, Building Additions, was also addressed during Conceptual approval. The unoriginal back porch will be removed, and the rear of the original resource will be restored to accommodate a more appropriately sized and scaled linking element to an addition. The approved one-story addition is compatible with, yet distinct from, the historic character of the primary building. The addition is one story in height and is stepped back on all side from the historic resource. The new addition will thus be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. The proposal does not involve any other new additions to the historic portions of the buildings on the lot. The addition remains compatible with the resources in terms of form and materials, which is especially important on this corner lot location. Its proposed 1x4 cedar ship-lapped siding with shadow reveals matches that of the historic 124 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 13 structures but will run vertically on the new construction so as to better differentiate from the resources. The stone foundation and chimney will match the stone foundation of the historic house. The simple rectangular form and 12:12 roof pitch of the addition matches that of the historic outbuilding. Finally, the addition’s intentionally modern fenestration is hidden from public view by the historic outbuilding and the proposed landscaping. While it is proposed that the two historic structures receive new cedar shingle roofing to replace the existing asphalt shingles, the addition would receive a low-profile, paint-locked seamless paneled metal roofing with matte finish to match its vertical wood cedar finish; this lower-profile roofing on the addition will aid in minimizing its height and massing behind the historic garage structure. Indeed, the overall/ridge height of the addition has been reduced by 1’-0” from that approved during Conceptual review. Additionally, the proposed chimney mass and height has also been reduced by 2’-3 7/8”. Chapter 11 of the HP Guidelines addresses new buildings on landmarked properties and, therefore, does not apply to the current proposal. While an addition is proposed, no new, stand-alone structures are contemplated. The guidelines of Chapter 12 focus on Accessibility, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Area, and Signage. These guidelines are discussed below. 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. As an independent, single-family residence, accessibility requirements are not applicable in any manner that would affect character defining features of the historic buildings. With regard to exterior lighting, please see Plan Sheet A-10-PR, which demonstrates that exterior lighting is being kept to about the minimum necessary for building code compliance with fixtures being placed so as to truly minimize their visibility. A pair of small, hidden soffit downlights will be added at the front entry as well as the secondary accesses in the connecting link. At the doorway and garage door of the outbuilding, small down-directional puck lights will be installed in the door casing/header. Finally, on the addition, a pair of recessed outdoor sconce lighting installations, one on the rear and one on the west side, will be hidden by framing. Any visual impacts of service areas have been minimized. Trash storage will be accommodated indoors. Mechanical equipment will not be seen from the public ways and will not create a negative visual impact. No service equipment will be located on the front façade and none will damage any historic façade materials. 125 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 14 As appropriate, service areas, mechanical equipment and the like are located at the rear and the interior, east side of the property. Two alternative locations are shown on the plans for the electric and gas meters: at the rear of the addition, above the grated lightwell, and on the east side of the addition, affixed to the chimney box. Both locations are adequately screened from view by the proposed landscaping and fencing, yet remain accessible to meter readers. Similarly, the location of the condensing units has been selected along the interior, easterly side of the property where they will be detached from the historic residence and screened from view by landscaping and fencing. Units of sufficiently minimized height will be selected so as to avoid inconsistency with setback requirements. Guidelines 12.5 through 12.9 relate to awnings, signs, and sign lighting, and are inapplicable to this application as no such features are proposed. Dimensional Variation Pursuant to Section 26.415.110.C of the Code, 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. During Conceptual Review, the following variations were approved pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 10, Series of 2019: • A 7” (seven inch) reduction of the rear yard setback for the new addition; • A 1’ 7” (one foot and seven inch) reduction of the rear yard setback for the historic outbuilding; and • A 4’ east reduction of the west side yard setback for the historic outbuilding. The combined side yard setbacks for this structure are approved as represented in the drawings. No variations from the east side yard setback, front yard setback, minimum distance between buildings, site coverage, or public amenity requirements were or are needed or requested. However, with further study and refinement of the conceptually approved plans, it has become apparent that a substantial element of the approved design would prove structurally problematic and highly impractical to construct. As such, the proposed Final development plans require the additional west side yard setback variation: 126 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 15 • A 2’-2” west side yard setback variation is requested to allow the subgrade level a 2’-10” setback where 5-feet would otherwise be required. Pursuant to Code Section 26.415.110(C)(2), 2. In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation: 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. These two criteria are provided as an “and/or” meaning an applicant is welcome to comply with both but only one of the two must be satisfied for the variation to be approved. While the above grade, visible mass of the relocated historic outbuilding has already been approved for a 1-foot side yard setback, the current proposal actually increases the outbuilding’s west side yard setback to more than 2’-10”, which equates to more than a 283% increase in the approved setback. However, in the plans of the conceptually approved project, the subgrade area improperly failed to align with the westerly footprint and foundation walls of the outbuilding. While the proposed west side yard setback is increasing above grade, the applicant is left to request a new variation for the subgrade area beneath the outbuilding for the reasons described below. Since Conceptual approval, and after some further exploration and study by the applicant’s team, it has become apparent for structural, drainage-related and construction practicality reasons that the basement needs to be extended so that it is beneath the entirety of the garage. The structural engineers feel that foundations walls are needed under the entire garage to properly and permanently stabilize the historic resource. If the basement is not fully beneath the garage there will be different settlements of the home and garage, creating a hazard to the property and the integrity of these historic assets. There will be no additional visual disturbance from above as a result of the proposed extension of the basement, as there are no lightwells proposed for the affected area. Thus, as the review standard calls for, this subgrade variation will very much enhance or mitigate an adverse impact to the historic integrity of the resources. Although the applicant is now requesting an additional variation for the subgrade area below the garage, the previously approved rear yard setback is no longer needed, and the approved side yard setback variation will be reduced (i.e., the side yard setback is being enlarged). The garage was to have an approximately 1’ west side yard setback, but the proposed Final plans shift the garage to the east to sit atop of the foundation walls. With this shift inward on the property, the addition’s living room massing was reduced to maintain the 7’ conceptual approval separation between the walls of the garage structure and the walls of the addition. 127 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 16 With regard to the rear yard setback, the refined Final design eliminates the double lightwells at the rear (there will now be one instead of two), provides a more successful alignment of the historic and new structures, and eliminates the west-side lightwell altogether. These changes result in an increase in the separation distance between the old and new and a reduction of the overall height and massing of the addition. Rare as this is, the proposed Final design presents a smaller structure than was approved at Conceptual. All of these positive changes deserve consideration when deciding upon the request to increase the subgrade space that will have no visual impacts from above. The end result of these changes and the requested subgrade setback variation is an overall project that better adheres to and accentuates the patterns, features, and character of the historic property. Dimensional Requirements of the R-6 Zone The existing and proposed conditions and dimensional requirements of/for the subject property, as compared with the R-6 Zone District requirements are as follows: • Minimum Lot Size: - R-6 Zoning: 6,000 square feet; 3,000 square feet for lots created by Historic Landmark Lot Split. - Existing Condition: 6,000 square feet. - Proposed: No change. • Minimum Net Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: - R-6 Zoning: For detached residential dwellings or duplexes: 4,500 square feet, but 3,000 square feet for Historic Landmarked Properties. - Existing Condition: Single-family home on 6,000 square feet of net lot area. - Proposed: No change. • Minimum Lot Width: - R-6 Zoning: 60 feet or 30 feet for Historic Landmark Properties. - Existing Condition: 60 feet. - Proposed: No change. • Minimum Front Yard: - R-6 Zoning: 10 feet for principal buildings, and 15 feet for accessory buildings. - Existing Condition: 20.5 feet. - Proposed: 20’-7”. • Minimum Rear Yard: - R-6 Zoning: 10 feet for principal buildings, but only 5 feet for that portion of a principal building used solely as a garage (if applicable), and 5 feet for accessory buildings. - Existing Condition: >10 feet for the primary structure, but 0 feet for the accessory structure. - Proposed: 10’-2” for the primary structure (approximately 6’ to the lightwell) and 3’-6” foot for the accessory/garage building. 128 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 17 • Minimum Side Yard: - R-6 Zoning: 5 feet. - Existing Condition: 0’ on the west side for the garage and 13’-8” on the east side for the house. - Proposed: 2’-10” on the west side for the garage and 8’-6” feet on the east side for the basement skylight and the chimney box. • Combined Side Yard: - R-6 Zoning: 5 feet, but the minimum combined side yard setbacks for this property are 15 feet. - Existing Condition: 0’ on the west side for the garage and 13’-8” on the east side. Total = 13’-8” (< 15’). - Proposed: 2’-10” on the west side for the garage and 8’-6” on the east side. Total = 11’-4” (< 15’ but substantially greater than was approved under HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2019). • Maximum Height: - R-6 Zoning: 25 feet. - Existing Condition: approximately 27’ to the midpoint of the 12:16 roof and approximately 14’-0” for the midpoint of the accessory structure roof. - Proposed: No change to the home or the accessory structure. • Minimum Distance between Detached Buildings on the Lot: - R-6 Zoning: 5 feet. - Existing Condition: 16’-6”. - Proposed: 7’ (wall-to-wall). • Floor Area Ratio (FAR): - R-6 Zoning: For one single-family dwelling = 3,240 square feet (but this amount has been reduced to 2,280 in association with the previously approved lot split). - Existing Condition: 2,435 square feet. - Proposed: 2,280 square feet. All requested setback variations are described in detail above. It is hoped that the information provided herein and in the accompanying plan sets proves helpful in the review and approval of this exceptional project and exemplary preservation effort. We look forward to a cooperative and collaborative approval process. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch Haas Owner/Manager 129 130 333 West Bleeker (PID# 2735-124-01-401) Page 18 Exhibits • Exhibit 1: Copy of HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2019 • Exhibit 2: Proof of the Applicant’s Ownership • Exhibit 3: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Sara Yoon • Exhibit 4: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) and 1 Friday Design (1FD) to represent the applicant • Exhibit 5: Land Use Application and HOA Compliance Policy forms • Exhibit 6: An executed application fee agreement • Exhibit 7: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property • Exhibit 8: Vicinity Map at 8.5” x 11” Plan Sets from 1 Friday Design, including plans from Blugreen Landscape Architects and Woody Creek Engineering, are provided herewith, under separate cover. 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 333 West Bleeker Residence HPC Final Submission 333 West Bleeker, Aspen, CO 81611 PARCEL ID #: 2735-124-01-401 HPC Final Submission SHEET INDEX HPC - CVR COVER & SHEET INDEX HPC - A-1-EX EXISTING LOWER + MAIN FLOOR PLANS :: 3/16" SCALE HPC - C200 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN :: 1/4" SCALE NEWREVISED HPC - A-2-EX EXISTING UPPER + ROOF FLOOR PLANS :: 3/16" SCALE HPC - A-3-EX EXISTING ELEVATIONS : VICTORIAN / GARAGE :: 3/16" SCALE HPC - A-1-PR HPC - A-2-PR HPC - A-3-PR HPC - A-4-PR PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN :: 1/4" SCALE PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN :: 1/4" SCALE PROPOSED ROOF FLOOR PLAN :: 1/4" SCALE ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS :: 1 FRIDAY DESIGN - HPC FINAL HPC - A-6-PR PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONS / MATERIALS :: 1/4" SCALE HPC - A-5-PR PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATIONS / MATERIALS :: 1/4" SCALE HPC - A-7-PR PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATIONS/ MATERIALS :: 1/4" SCALE HPC - A-8-PR PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONS / MATERIALS :: 1/4" SCALE HPC - A-ALT-1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN COMPARISON :: 1/4" SCALE EXISTING / PROPOSED SITE PLAN COMPARISON :: 1/8" SCALEHPC - A-0-PR HPC - A-ALT-2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN COMPARISON :: 1/4" SCALE HPC - A-ALT-3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN COMPARISON :: 1/4" SCALE HPC - A-ALT-4 MASSING + ELEVATION COMPARISON :: 1/4" SCALE HPC - A-9-PR PROPOSED MATERIALS / GRAPHIC EXAMPLES :: NO SCALE HPC - A-10-PR PROPOSED SOFFIT LIGHTING :: CUT SHEET EXAMPLES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS :: BLUEGREEN - HPC FINAL HPC - L-300 BG - PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN + PLANTING DETAILS HPC - L-800 BG - PROPOSED FENCE DETAILS CIVIL ENGINEERING SHEETS :: WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING - HPC FINAL WCE - GRADING + DRAINAGE PLAN :: 1:10 SCALE HPC - C300 WCE - DRYWELL DETAIL :: 1:1 SCALE A-CVR 333 BLEEKER COVER SHEET HPC FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 156 PROPERTY LINE 10' MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' REAR YARD HABITABLE SETBACK 5' REAR YARD GARAGE SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE15.9 o Skylight Skylight 12 12 12 12 Asphalt Shingle Roofing Asphalt Shingle Roofing A.0 EX-M C.0 D.0 E.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 B.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M 2.0 EX-M 1.0 EX-M 4.0 EX-M 5.0 EX-M 6.0 EX-M 1.0 EX-G 2.0 EX-G 1.0 EX-G 2.0 EX-G A.0 EX-G B.0 EX-G A.0 EX-M C.0 D.0 E.0B.0 EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M A.0 EX-G B.0 EX-G 12 3 Asphalt Shingle Roofing 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 14 12 14 12 16 12 16 12 3 12 3 Asphalt Shingle Roofing Asphalt Shingle Roofing Asphalt Shingle Roofing Asphalt Shingle Roofing Asphalt Shingle Roofing FLAT ROOF AREARIDGEVALLEY RIDGERIDGERIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGEVALLEY VALLEYVA L L E Y VALLEYV A L L E Y V A L L E YVALLEYVALLEY RIDGE PROPERTY LINE (N) 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK5' SIDE YARDSETBACKPROPERTYLINE (E)15.9o10' SIDE YARDSETBACK(COMBINED)PROPERTYLINE (W)5' SIDE YARDSETBACK10' HABITABLE REAR YARD SETBACK 5' GARAGE REAR YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE (S) BLEEKER ST.THIRD ST.ALLEY GEFC/ C-1 FC/ C-2LWPROPERTY LINE (N) 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK5' SIDE YARDSETBACKPROPERTYLINE (E)15.9o10' SIDE YARDSETBACK(COMBINED)PROPERTYLINE (W)5' SIDE YARDSETBACK10' HABITABLE REAR YARD SETBACK 5' GARAGE REAR YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE (S) FLAT ROOF HYDROTECH EXTENSIVE GREEN ROOF CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM PROPOSED 12121212CEDAR SHINGLEROOFING PROPOSEDCEDAR SHINGLEROOFING PROPOSED12121212NON REFLECTIVEMATTE / PAINT LOCKEDMETAL ROOFINGPROPOSEDNON REFLECTIVEMATTE / PAINT LOCKEDMETAL ROOFINGPROPOSEDOVERHANG OVERHANG ALTERNATE LOCATE(SECONDARY) FORELECTRIC / GASCONDENSINGUNITS PROPOSEDLOCATIONCONDENSINGUNITS PROPOSEDLOCATIONLWALUMINUM GRATEOVER EGRESS WELLHATCH PER IRCG E PRIMARY LOCATE(PREFERRED) FORELECTRIC / GASA.0PRB.0PRC.0EX1.0EX/PRA.0PR2.0PR3.0EX/PR4.0EX/PR5.0EX/PR6.0EX/PR7.0PR8.0EX/PRD.0EXE.0PRG.0EXH.0EX/PRI.0EXK.0PRL.0EX/PR1.0EX/PRF.0PRJ.0EX/PRB.0PRC.0EXD.0EXE.0PRG.0EXH.0EX/PRI.0EXK.0PRL.0EX/PRF.0PRJ.0EX/PR2.0PR3.0EX/PR4.0EX/PR5.0EX/PR6.0EX/PR7.0PR8.0EX/PRDRAIN-PR:2.2 DRAIN-PR:2.1 OVERHANGOVERHANG 12161216121612161214121412161216FLATROOFAREARIDGERIDGERIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGEVALLEY VALLEYVA L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E Y VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYCEDAR SHINGLEROOFING PROPOSEDFLASH & WATERPROOFAS NECESSARYFLAT ROOF WITHNEW RUBBER DRAINAGE MATT &WATERPROOFING AS NECESSARY. FLASH &WATERPROOF ROOFING CONDITIONS ASREQUIRED.12161216RIDGECEDAR SHINGLEROOFING PROPOSEDFLASH & WATERPROOFAS NECESSARYCEDAR SHINGLEROOFING PROPOSEDFLASH & WATERPROOFAS NECESSARYCEDAR SHINGLEROOFING PROPOSEDFLASH & WATERPROOFAS NECESSARYOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANG OVERHANGOVERHANG OVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANG BLEEKER ST.THIRD ST.ALLEY A-0-PR 333-SITE PLANS EXIST / PROPOSED1 A-0-EX EXISTING OVERALL SITE PLAN :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0" HPC-FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o SITE PLAN COMPARISON FOR ARCHITECTURAL REFERENCE: FINAL SITE PLAN MATERIALS AND TREE SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED BY BLUEGREEN LANSCAPE ARCHITECTS - REFER TO SHEET: L-300 2 A-0-PR PROPOSED OVERALL SITE PLAN :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0" GARAGE 157 PROPERTY LINE 10' MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' REAR YARD HABITABLE SETBACK 5' REAR YARD GARAGE SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE15.9 o Mechanical Room 001 Basement Stair/ Mechanical Access 106 Garage Slab On Grade Condition Above Up Stair Above Stair Above Stair AboveFoundation Vent/ Well A.0 EX-M C.0 D.0 E.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 B.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M 2.0 EX-M 1.0 EX-M 4.0 EX-M 5.0 EX-M 6.0 EX-M 1.0 EX-G 2.0 EX-G 1.0 EX-G 2.0 EX-G A.0 EX-G B.0 EX-G A.0 EX-M C.0 D.0 E.0B.0 EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M A.0 EX-G B.0 EX-G Garage 112 T.O. F.F. Existing Garage ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) FFE: 7906.9 T.O. F.F. Conc. Existing Mechanical ELEV - 92'-9" (V.I.F.) PROPERTY LINE 10' MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' REAR YARD HABITABLE SETBACK 5' REAR YARD GARAGE SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINECovered Entry Porch 100 Entry Area 101 Family Room 102 Living Room 104 Dining Room 103 Basement Stair/ Mechanical Access 106 Upper Stair 105 Bedroom 1 110 Kitchen 108 Bar Area 107 Mudroom 109 Laundry/ Bath 111 W D Storage 113 Trash 114 Garage 112 T.O. F.F. Existing Garage ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) FFE: 7906.9 15.9 o Stair Stair Stair Up Up Up Up Dn Skylight Above Skylight Above Foundation Vent/ Well A.0 EX-M C.0 D.0 E.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 B.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M 2.0 EX-M 1.0 EX-M 4.0 EX-M 5.0 EX-M 6.0 EX-M 1.0 EX-G 2.0 EX-G 1.0 EX-G 2.0 EX-G A.0 EX-G B.0 EX-G A.0 EX-M C.0 D.0 E.0B.0 EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M A.0 EX-G B.0 EX-G UP Loft /StorageAbove6"4" 6.5 7.5 7.5 2.5 6.5 5.75 4.5 Up T.O. F.F. Existing Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)FFE: 7907.6 777 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 7 A-1-EX 333 BLEEKER EXISTING PLANS 1 A-1-EX EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0" HPC FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 2 A-1-EX EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0" 158 PROPERTY LINE 10' MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' REAR YARD HABITABLE SETBACK 5' REAR YARD GARAGE SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE15.9 o Skylight Skylight 12 12 12 12 Asphalt Shingle Roofing Asphalt Shingle Roofing T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) 12 2.5 Asphalt Shingle Roofing Dn Upper Stair 105/200 Hallway 201 Bedroom 3 205 Bedroom 2/ Office 204 Closet 206 Linen / Storage 202 Linen Storage Linen Bathroom 203 Master Bedroom 207 Master Closet 210 Master Vanity 208 Master Bath 209 A.0 EX-M C.0 D.0 E.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 B.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M 2.0 EX-M 1.0 EX-M 4.0 EX-M 5.0 EX-M 6.0 EX-M 1.0 EX-G 2.0 EX-G 1.0 EX-G 2.0 EX-G A.0 EX-G B.0 EX-G A.0 EX-M C.0 D.0 E.0B.0 EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M A.0 EX-G B.0 EX-G Stair 8 7 77777777777 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 PROPERTY LINE 10' MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' REAR YARD HABITABLE SETBACK 5' REAR YARD GARAGE SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE15.9 o Skylight Skylight 12 12 12 12 Asphalt Shingle Roofing Asphalt Shingle Roofing A.0 EX-M C.0 D.0 E.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 B.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M 2.0 EX-M 1.0 EX-M 4.0 EX-M 5.0 EX-M 6.0 EX-M 1.0 EX-G 2.0 EX-G 1.0 EX-G 2.0 EX-G A.0 EX-G B.0 EX-G A.0 EX-M C.0 D.0 E.0B.0 EX-M EX-M EX-M EX-M A.0 EX-G B.0 EX-G 12 3 Asphalt Shingle Roofing 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 14 12 14 12 16 12 16 12 3 12 3 Asphalt Shingle Roofing Asphalt Shingle Roofing Asphalt Shingle Roofing Asphalt Shingle Roofing Asphalt Shingle Roofing FLAT ROOF AREARIDGEVALLEY RIDGERIDGERIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGEVALLEY VALLEYVA L L E Y VALLEYV A L L E Y V A L L E YVALLEYVALLEY RIDGE A-2-EX 333 BLEEKER EXISTING PLANS 1 A-2-EX EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0" HPC FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 2 A-2-EX EXISTING ROOF PLAN :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0" 159 16 12 16 12 14 12 14 12 E.0 EX-M D.0 EX-M C.0 EX-M B.0 EX-M A.0 EX-M T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)7'-3"T.O. Plate Main Level Living/ Dining ELEV - 109'-4" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) 25' R-6 Height Limit T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Mechanical Subgrade ELEV - 92'-9" (V.I.F.)2'9'-11"14'-1112"26'-1012"7"4'-612"(ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Mechanical Subgrade ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Main Level Living/ Dining ELEV - 109'-4" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 107'-7" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 108'-8" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Main Level Kitchen T.O. Plate Main Level 3/12 Mudroom (Low) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 16/12 Upper Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) / Side Dormer Gables (E-W) ELEV - 116'-2" (V.I.F.)9'-11"19'-6"31'-5"25' R-6 Height Limit4'-612"T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Mechanical Subgrade ELEV - 92'-9" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Main Level Living/ Dining ELEV - 109'-4" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 107'-7" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 108'-8" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Main Level Kitchen T.O. Plate Main Level 3/12 Mudroom (Low) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 16/12 Upper Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) / Side Dormer Gables (E-W) ELEV - 116'-2" (V.I.F.)9'-11"1'-434"19'-6"30'-934"25' R-6 Height Limit T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S)4'-612"3 12 16 12 16 12 1.0 EX-M 2.0 EX-M 3.0 EX-M 4.0 EX-M 5.0 EX-M 6.0 EX-M (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)7'-3"T.O. Plate Main Level Living/ Dining ELEV - 109'-4" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) 25' R-6 Height Limit T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Mechanical Subgrade ELEV - 92'-9" (V.I.F.)2'9'-11"14'-1112"26'-1012"T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S)7"4'-612"16 12 7906 T.O. Plwd. Garage Floor ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Floor Interior Garage Loft Area ELEV - 109'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Garage 12/12 Gable ELEV - 116'-7" (V.I.F.) Site Elev. F.F.E. - Garage Arch 100'-0" = 7906.91 T.O. Spring Pt. Garage 12/12 Gable T.O. Interior Packed Out Wall ELEV - 108'-2 1/2" (V.I.F.) B.0 EX-G A.0 EX-G 7906 Exterior Shed / Storage (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Mechanical Subgrade ELEV - 92'-9" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Main Level Living/ Dining ELEV - 109'-4" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 107'-7" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 108'-8" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Main Level Kitchen T.O. Plate Main Level 3/12 Mudroom (Low) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 16/12 Upper Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) / Side Dormer Gables (E-W) ELEV - 116'-2" (V.I.F.)9'-11"1'-434"19'-6"30'-934"25' R-6 Height Limit T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S)4'-612"3 12 16 12 16 12 1.0 EX-M 2.0 EX-M 3.0 EX-M 4.0 EX-M 5.0 EX-M 6.0 EX-M (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)7'-3"T.O. Plate Main Level Living/ Dining ELEV - 109'-4" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) 25' R-6 Height Limit T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Mechanical Subgrade ELEV - 92'-9" (V.I.F.)2'9'-11"14'-1112"26'-1012"T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S)7"4'-612"16 12 7906 16 12 16 12 14 12 14 12 E.0 EX-M D.0 EX-M C.0 EX-M B.0 EX-M A.0 EX-M T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)7'-3"T.O. Plate Main Level Living/ Dining ELEV - 109'-4" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) 25' R-6 Height Limit T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Mechanical Subgrade ELEV - 92'-9" (V.I.F.)2'9'-11"14'-1112"26'-1012"7"4'-612"(ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Mechanical Subgrade ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Main Level Living/ Dining ELEV - 109'-4" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 107'-7" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 108'-8" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Main Level Kitchen T.O. Plate Main Level 3/12 Mudroom (Low) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 16/12 Upper Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) / Side Dormer Gables (E-W) ELEV - 116'-2" (V.I.F.)9'-11"19'-6"31'-5"25' R-6 Height Limit4'-612"T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) T.O. Plwd. Garage Floor ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Floor Interior Garage Loft Area ELEV - 109'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Garage 12/12 Gable ELEV - 116'-7" (V.I.F.) Site Elev. F.F.E. - Garage Arch 100'-0" = 7906.91 T.O. Spring Pt. Garage 12/12 Gable T.O. Interior Packed Out Wall ELEV - 108'-2 1/2" (V.I.F.) 1.0 EX-G 2.0 EX-G 7906 T.O. Plwd. Garage Floor ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Floor Interior Garage Loft Area ELEV - 109'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Garage 12/12 Gable ELEV - 116'-7" (V.I.F.) Site Elev. F.F.E. - Garage Arch 100'-0" = 7906.91 T.O. Spring Pt. Garage 12/12 Gable T.O. Interior Packed Out Wall ELEV - 108'-2 1/2" (V.I.F.) 2.0 EX-G 1.0 EX-G 7906 Exterior Garbage / Storage A.0 EX-G B.0 EX-G T.O. Plwd. Garage Floor ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Floor Interior Garage Loft Area ELEV - 109'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Garage 12/12 Gable ELEV - 116'-7" (V.I.F.) Site Elev. F.F.E. - Garage Arch 100'-0" = 7906.91 T.O. Spring Pt. Garage 12/12 Gable T.O. Interior Packed Out Wall ELEV - 108'-2 1/2" (V.I.F.) 7906 A-3-EX 333-ELEVATIONS (EXISTING)1A-3-EXEXISTING NORTH (BLEEKER ST.) ELEVATION :: MAIN VICTORIANSCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"HPC-FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 2A-3-EXEXISTING WEST (THIRD ST.) ELEVATION :: MAIN VICTORIANSCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"3A-3-EXEXISTING SOUTH (ALLEY) ELEVATION :: MAIN VICTORIANSCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"4A-3-EXEXISTING EAST ELEVATION :: MAIN VICTORIANSCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"5A-3-EXEXISTING SOUTH (BLEEKER ST.) ELEVATIONSCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"GARAGE 6A-3-EXEXISTING WEST (THIRD ST.) ELEVATIONSCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"GARAGE 7A-3-EXEXISTING SOUTH (ALLEY) ELEVATIONSCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"GARAGE 8A-3-EXEXISTING EAST ELEVATIONSCALE : 3/16" = 1'-0"GARAGE 160 LW LW UP SSP 36 x 60 W/D (stacked) W/D (stacked) BLANCO SINK UNDERMOUNT 32" X 19" WHIRLPOOL WASHERS 27" X 31 1/2" WHIRLPOOL DRYERS 27" X 31 3/4" SLOPE 2 MIN SLOPE 2 MIN SLOPE2 MINSLOPE2 MIN0 0 00SLOPE 2 MIN SLOPE 2 MIN SLOPE2 MINSLOPE2 MIN0 0 00Egress IRCEgress IRC RECREATION / MEDIA AREA L-003 STAIRWAY / CIRCULATION HALL L-001 ELEVATOR L-002 BAR AREA L-004 AV / ELECTRICAL L-009 STORAGE L-010 LOWER HALL L-005 FITNESS AREA L-007 WATER CLOSET L-008 POWDER L-006 BEDROOM SUITE 1 L-013 S1-CLOSET L-014 S1-BATH L-015 S1-TOILET L-016 LAUNDRY L-011 MECHANICAL L-012 BEDROOM SUITE 2 L-017 S2-CLOSET L-018 S2-BATH L-019 BEDROOM SUITE 3 L-020 S3-CLOSET L-021 S3-BATH L-022 S2-TOILET L-023 INTEGRATED MEDIA / MILLWORK WALL (LARGE TV - 100") FEASIBILITY SKYLIGHT ABOVE BUILT IN FULL SIZEDMURPHY BED W/ STORAGEBUILT INSTORAGE 8'BAR ISLAND AREA/ BEVERAGE L-004B STORAGE STORAGE WINE WALL DESK / BUILT IN DESK / BUILT IN 74'-11 2"20'-7"5'-611 16" 12'-51 2"30'-9"26'-3"4'-8" 4'-6"4'-7"3'-41 2"13'8'5'-3"48'-4516"2'-7 3/4"10'-10"8'-10"13'-7"12'-512"41'8'-71116"7'-4516"3'-0116"2'-1078"8'-658"PROPERTYLINE (N)10' FRONTYARDSETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE (E) 15.9 o 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK (COMBINED) PROPERTY LINE (W) 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK 10'HABITABLEREAR YARDSETBACK5' GARAGEREAR YARDSETBACKPROPERTYLINE (S)4'-2"7'-1"11'-3"29'-9"76'-21 2"3'-63 4"20'-63 4"33'-3"8"7'-6"8"8"3'8" 51'-21 2"25' 10"10"10"10"10"10"10" 10"10"10"10"10"10"12'-0" x 13'-0" BED 6'-5" x 5'-8" ENRTY 5'-0" x 5'-2" 11'-8" x 8'-2" TOTAL 8'-4" x 4'-0" 8'-4" x 4'-0" 3'-6" x 8'-2" 16'-3" x 16'-3" 33'-0" x 21'-7" TOTAL 18'-0" x 18'-0" 12'-4" x 11'-8"15'-0" x 21'-7" 3'-0" x 7'-0" 8'-0" x 9'-0" 11'-4" x 11'-0" 10'-7" x 10'-7" TOTAL 4'-0" x 8'-9" 12'-0" x 12'-0" BED 12'-3" x 4'-3" ENTRY / DESK 12'-8" x 14'-0" 4'-6" x 4'-3" 8'-8" x 9'-2" 3'-10" x 10'-0" R.O. V.I.F. 1'-31 2" 28'-2"1'-31 2" V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F. V.I.F.V.I.F. R.O.R.O.112"3'-134"512"3'-134"712"R.O.11 2"11 2"V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.A.0 PR B.0 PR C.0 EX 1.0 EX/PR A.0 PR 2.0 PR 3.0 EX/PR 4.0 EX/PR 5.0 EX/PR 6.0 EX/PR 7.0 PR 8.0 EX/PR D.0 EX E.0 PR G.0 EX H.0 EX/PR I.0 EX K.0 PR L.0 EX/PR 1.0 EX/PR F.0 PR J.0 EX/PR B.0 PR C.0 EX D.0 EX E.0 PR G.0 EX H.0 EX/PR I.0 EX K.0 PR L.0 EX/PR F.0 PR J.0 EX/PR 2.0 PR 3.0 EX/PR 4.0 EX/PR 5.0 EX/PR 6.0 EX/PR 7.0 PR 8.0 EX/PR PLAN NOTES DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SCOPE ENTAILS THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND PRESERVATION OF AN EXISTING HISTORIC HOUSE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BASEMENT AND ADDITION LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHALKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTENT LOCATION: ELEVATIONS: SHEET A-30.01 BUILDING SECTION: SHEET A-31.01 PARTITIONS: SHEET A-80.01 PARTITIONS: SEE SHEET A-80.01 -ALL NEW PARTITIONS SHALL BE TYPE A41 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. -ALL FURRING SHALL BE MIN. 312" + FINISH UNLESS OTHERWISE DIMENSIONED. PARTITION TYPES SAFETY GLAZING ALL GLASS SHALL BE TEMPERED/SAFETY GLASS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EMERGENCY ESCAPE ALL EMERGENCY ESCAPE EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE SILLS 40" A.F.F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (SEE ELEVATION AND SECTION DWGS). SYMBOLS LEGEND * SEE G-002.00 FOR ADDITIONAL SYMBOLS A PARTITIONS & WALLS:CEILING OBJECTS:LEGEND:NTRUE NORTH 15.9 o A-1-PR 333-PLANS LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED 1 A-1-PR PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" HPC - FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 161 G E FC/ C-1 FC/ C-2 LW LW LINE OF HABITABLE BELOW : TOPSOIL CONDITION 18" LINE OF PATIO +6" ABOVE GRADE LINE OF SCULPTURE GARDEN +6" ABOVE GRADE DW DW FRREF 24" (2) OVENS STACKED MICRO/ COFFEE TR UP SSP 36 x 60 DN ALUMINUM GRATE OVER EGRESS WELL HATCH PER IRC ALUMINUM GRATE OVER EGRESS WELL HATCH PER IRC ENTRY PORCH (PRIMARY) M-100 ENTRY M-101 SALON M-102 STAIRWAY / CIRCULATION HALL M-103 DINING ROOM M-109 KITCHEN M-106 KITCHEN ISLAND M-107 POWDER M-105 PANTRY M-108 BREEZEWAY M-110 LIVING AREA M-111 READING / SITTING M-112 SCULPTURE GARDEN M-115 SECONDARY PORCH M-114 PATIO / WALK M-116 GARAGE M-113 ELEVATOR M-104 YARD SEATING AREA M-117 UP UP UP 12'-8" x 13'-4" 8'-5" x 12'-9" 5'-0" x 5'-6" 4'-9" x 5'-6" 10'-6" x 3'-6" 19'-2" x 11'-9" 16'-2" x 9'-0" 9'-0" x 9'-0" 17'-0" x 25'-0" (TOTAL) 17'-0" x 16'-0" 17'-0" x 9'-0" 8'-0" x 10'-6" 18'-4" x 7'-9" 24'-0" x 12'-4" 6'-7" x 6'-0" 6'-0" x 6'-0"PROPERTYLINE (N)10' FRONTYARDSETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE (E) 15.9 o 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK (COMBINED) PROPERTY LINE (W) 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK 10'HABITABLEREAR YARDSETBACK5' GARAGEREAR YARDSETBACKPROPERTYLINE (S)12'-5" x 11'-0" 76'-21 2" 12'-51 2"30'-9"8'18'-3"6'-9" 5'5'5'-01 4"2'-5"5'-01 4"5'-9"2'-5"17'-5"1'-9"3'-5"2'-9"2'-6"2'-9"48'-4516"8'-658"3'-511 16"20'-7 3 16" 8'-3"25'-6"7'13'-212"2'-101316"76'-21 2" 6'-1"20'-31 2"16'-10"8'25' 20'-63 4" 1'-101 8" 6'-10"2'-5"6'-10"2'-5"6'-6"2'-5"2'4'-111 2"2'-5"3'-1"2'-5"3'2'-9"2'-5"6'-6"2'-5"2'-9"3'-412"5'10'10'-6"3'-0116"12'-512"4'-412"5'-111316"14'-312"6'-014"5'-234"1'-958"2'-5"1'-958"4'-1034"4'-6"4'-1034"1'-6516"3'1'-512"9'-012"2'-2"1'-3"5'1'-2"3'-10"2'-214"8'-10"2'-214"V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F. V.I.F. V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.48'-4516"8'-71116"V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.3'-63 4" R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O. R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O. R.O. R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O.2'-7 3/4"R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O.18'-3" 5'8'-3"5' 25' 6'-10"2'7'-8"2'6'-6" R.O.R.O. R.O.R.O. 6 6 6 6 3 T @ 12" (PORCH V.I.F.) 4 R @ 6" MAX. = 2'-0" (V.I.F.)7'-11"2'-11"5'R.O.5'R.O.10'-6"R.O.T.O. F.F. Existing Main Level ELEV - 100'-0"FFE: 7907.6 GEPRIMARY LOCATE (PREFERRED) FOR ELECTRIC / GAS ALTERNATE LOCATE (SECONDARY) FOR ELECTRIC / GAS CONDENSING UNITS PROPOSED LOCATION CONDENSING UNITS PROPOSED LOCATION A.0 PR B.0 PR C.0 EX 1.0 EX/PR A.0 PR 2.0 PR 3.0 EX/PR 4.0 EX/PR 5.0 EX/PR 6.0 EX/PR 7.0 PR 8.0 EX/PR D.0 EX E.0 PR G.0 EX H.0 EX/PR I.0 EX K.0 PR L.0 EX/PR 1.0 EX/PR F.0 PR J.0 EX/PR B.0 PR C.0 EX D.0 EX E.0 PR G.0 EX H.0 EX/PR I.0 EX K.0 PR L.0 EX/PR F.0 PR J.0 EX/PR 2.0 PR 3.0 EX/PR 4.0 EX/PR 5.0 EX/PR 6.0 EX/PR 7.0 PR 8.0 EX/PR LINE OF PATIO +6" ABOVE GRADE +30 +30 UP 7 PLAN NOTES DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SCOPE ENTAILS THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND PRESERVATION OF AN EXISTING HISTORIC HOUSE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BASEMENT AND ADDITION LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHALKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTENT LOCATION: ELEVATIONS: SHEET A-30.01 BUILDING SECTION: SHEET A-31.01 PARTITIONS: SHEET A-80.01 PARTITIONS: SEE SHEET A-80.01 -ALL NEW PARTITIONS SHALL BE TYPE A41 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. -ALL FURRING SHALL BE MIN. 312" + FINISH UNLESS OTHERWISE DIMENSIONED. PARTITION TYPES SAFETY GLAZING ALL GLASS SHALL BE TEMPERED/SAFETY GLASS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EMERGENCY ESCAPE ALL EMERGENCY ESCAPE EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE SILLS 40" A.F.F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (SEE ELEVATION AND SECTION DWGS). SYMBOLS LEGEND * SEE G-002.00 FOR ADDITIONAL SYMBOLS A PARTITIONS & WALLS:CEILING OBJECTS:LEGEND:NTRUE NORTH 15.9 o A-2-PR 333-PLANS MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED 1 A-2-PR PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" HPC - FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 162 G E FC/ C-1 FC/ C-2 LW SSP 36 x 60 DN ELEVATOR U-200PROPERTYLINE (N)10' FRONTYARDSETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE (E) 15.9 o 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK (COMBINED) PROPERTY LINE (W) 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK 10'HABITABLEREAR YARDSETBACK5' GARAGEREAR YARDSETBACKPROPERTYLINE (S)OPEN TO BELOW STAIRCASE OPEN TO BELOW FLAT ROOFHYDROTECH EXTENSIVEGREEN ROOFCONSTRUCTIONSYSTEM PROPOSED12 12 12 12 CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING PROPOSED 12 12 12 12 NON REFLECTIVE MATTE / PAINT LOCKED METAL ROOFING PROPOSED NON REFLECTIVE MATTE / PAINT LOCKED METAL ROOFING PROPOSED W/D(stacked)30" BUILT IN VANITY / SHELVING & MEDIA ABOVE BUILT-IN CLOSET STAIRCASE U-201 MASTER HALLWAY / CLOSET U-202 MASTER BEDROOM U-203 MASTER BATH U-204 MST. SHOWER U-205 MST. TOILET U-206 76'-21 2"48'-4516"8'-658"3'-511 16"20'-7 3 16"2'-101316"76'-21 2"20'-63 4"19'-1018"V.I.F.V.I.F. V.I.F. V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.26'-312"13'-10716"V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.3'-63 4" 1'-31 2"12'-51 2"30'-9"8'18'-3"10'-27 8" 7'-31 2"3'-8"7'-31 2"2'-3"2'-4"4'-9"2'-4"13'-7"2'-4"3'-2"5'-111316"3'-1034"6'-6"3'-1034"6'-014"812"2'-4"5"2'-4"812"12'-5" x 11'-0" 13'-0" x 8'-6" 11'-6" x 13'-4" TOTAL 16'-0" x 16'-0" 1'-31 2" 12'-51 2"13'-11"16'-10"8'18'-3" 4'-41 2"2'-4" 6" 2'-4"4'-41 2"7'-3"2'-4"7'-3"22'-11"8'-1012"2'-512"3"2'-512"8'-1012"2'-7 34"25'-6"2'-2"4"V.I.F. V.I.F. R.O.R.O.R.O. R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O.R.O.2'18'5'-6"3'5'OVERHANGOVERHANGALTERNATE LOCATE (SECONDARY) FOR ELECTRIC / GAS CONDENSING UNITS PROPOSED LOCATION CONDENSING UNITS PROPOSED LOCATION LW ALUMINUM GRATE OVER EGRESS WELL HATCH PER IRC GEPRIMARY LOCATE (PREFERRED) FOR ELECTRIC / GAS A.0 PR B.0 PR C.0 EX 1.0 EX/PR A.0 PR 2.0 PR 3.0 EX/PR 4.0 EX/PR 5.0 EX/PR 6.0 EX/PR 7.0 PR 8.0 EX/PR D.0 EX E.0 PR G.0 EX H.0 EX/PR I.0 EX K.0 PR L.0 EX/PR 1.0 EX/PR F.0 PR J.0 EX/PR B.0 PR C.0 EX D.0 EX E.0 PR G.0 EX H.0 EX/PR I.0 EX K.0 PR L.0 EX/PR F.0 PR J.0 EX/PR 2.0 PR 3.0 EX/PR 4.0 EX/PR 5.0 EX/PR 6.0 EX/PR 7.0 PR 8.0 EX/PRDRAIN-PR:2.2DRAIN-PR:2.1PLAN NOTES DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SCOPE ENTAILS THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND PRESERVATION OF AN EXISTING HISTORIC HOUSE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BASEMENT AND ADDITION LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHALKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTENT LOCATION: ELEVATIONS: SHEET A-30.01 BUILDING SECTION: SHEET A-31.01 PARTITIONS: SHEET A-80.01 PARTITIONS: SEE SHEET A-80.01 -ALL NEW PARTITIONS SHALL BE TYPE A41 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. -ALL FURRING SHALL BE MIN. 312" + FINISH UNLESS OTHERWISE DIMENSIONED. PARTITION TYPES SAFETY GLAZING ALL GLASS SHALL BE TEMPERED/SAFETY GLASS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EMERGENCY ESCAPE ALL EMERGENCY ESCAPE EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE SILLS 40" A.F.F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (SEE ELEVATION AND SECTION DWGS). SYMBOLS LEGEND * SEE G-002.00 FOR ADDITIONAL SYMBOLS A PARTITIONS & WALLS:CEILING OBJECTS:LEGEND:NTRUE NORTH 15.9 o A-3-PR 333-PLANS UPPER LEVEL PROPOSED 1 A-3-PR PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLAN :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" HPC - FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 163 G E FC/ C-1 FC/ C-2 LWPROPERTYLINE (N)10' FRONTYARDSETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE (E) 15.9 o 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK (COMBINED) PROPERTY LINE (W) 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK 10'HABITABLEREAR YARDSETBACK5' GARAGEREAR YARDSETBACKPROPERTYLINE (S)FLAT ROOFHYDROTECH EXTENSIVEGREEN ROOFCONSTRUCTIONSYSTEM PROPOSED12 12 12 12 CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING PROPOSED 12 12 12 12 NON REFLECTIVE MATTE / PAINT LOCKED METAL ROOFING PROPOSED NON REFLECTIVE MATTE / PAINT LOCKED METAL ROOFING PROPOSED 76'-21 2"48'-4516"8'-658"3'-511 16"20'-7 3 16"2'-101316"76'-21 2"20'-63 4"18'-818"V.I.F.V.I.F. V.I.F. V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.28'-712"12'-8716"V.I.F.V.I.F.V.I.F.3'-63 4" 1'-2" 12'-51 2"33'-11"6'18'-3"10'-27 8" 7'-31 2"3'-8"7'-31 2" 28'-81 2" 18'-3"2'-7 34"25'-6"V.I.F. V.I.F.2'18'5'-6"3'5'OVERHANGOVERHANGALTERNATE LOCATE (SECONDARY) FOR ELECTRIC / GAS CONDENSING UNITS PROPOSED LOCATION CONDENSING UNITS PROPOSED LOCATION LW ALUMINUM GRATE OVER EGRESS WELL HATCH PER IRC GEPRIMARY LOCATE (PREFERRED) FOR ELECTRIC / GAS A.0 PR B.0 PR C.0 EX 1.0 EX/PR A.0 PR 2.0 PR 3.0 EX/PR 4.0 EX/PR 5.0 EX/PR 6.0 EX/PR 7.0 PR 8.0 EX/PR D.0 EX E.0 PR G.0 EX H.0 EX/PR I.0 EX K.0 PR L.0 EX/PR 1.0 EX/PR F.0 PR J.0 EX/PR B.0 PR C.0 EX D.0 EX E.0 PR G.0 EX H.0 EX/PR I.0 EX K.0 PR L.0 EX/PR F.0 PR J.0 EX/PR 2.0 PR 3.0 EX/PR 4.0 EX/PR 5.0 EX/PR 6.0 EX/PR 7.0 PR 8.0 EX/PRDRAIN-PR:2.2DRAIN-PR:2.16'15'-212"1'1'OVERHANGOVERHANG12 16 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 14 12 14 12 16 12 16 FLAT ROOF AREA RIDGE RIDGE RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGEVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYCEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING PROPOSED FLASH & WATERPROOF AS NECESSARY FLAT ROOF WITH NEW RUBBER DRAINAGE MATT & WATERPROOFING AS NECESSARY. FLASH & WATERPROOF ROOFING CONDITIONS AS REQUIRED. 12 16 12 16 RIDGE CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING PROPOSED FLASH & WATERPROOF AS NECESSARY CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING PROPOSED FLASH & WATERPROOF AS NECESSARY CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING PROPOSED FLASH & WATERPROOF AS NECESSARY 1'1' OVERHANG27' 2' OVERHANGOVERHANG 17'-8" 1'-2" OVERHANG OVERHANG 2' OVERHANG 25'-3"1'-2"1'-2"OVERHANGOVERHANG1'-2" OVERHANG 1'-2" OVERHANG 28'-712"6'-014"22'-714"4'-214"8'-3"10'-2"1'-2"OVERHANG1'-2"OVERHANG1012"OVERHANG1012"OVERHANG1'-2"OVERHANGROOF PLAN NOTES LEGEND: ROOFING SLOPES: 1. FOR ROOFING MATERIALS AND NOTES SEE 'MATERIAL NOTES ON A-30 SERIES ELEVATION SHEETS. 2. ROOF SLOPES ARE SHOWN DIRECTLY ON ROOF PLAN. 3. ALL FLAT ROOFS AND BALCONIES SHALL SLOPE A MINIMUM OF 2% TOWARD DRAINS. 4. PROVIDE 3/4” PLYWOOD SHEATHING OVER 2x STRIPPING A 16” O.C. TO PROVIDE SLOPE TO DRAINS AT FLAT ROOF CONDITIONS. 5. WATER SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO PUDDLE OR POOL ON ANY PART OF THE ROOF. NO OBSTACLE SHALL IMPEDE THE FLOW OF WATER TO DESIGNATED DRAIN. 6. CRICKETS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH 3/4” CDX PLYWOOD AND SHALL BE PROTECTED AND FLASHED WITH METAL CRICKET SADDLES WITH LOCKED AND SOLDERED JOINTS. GUTTERS, DOWNSPOUTS AND ROOF DRAINS: 7. GUTTERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED 24 GA PAINTED STEEL WIT 5/8” EXPANSION JOINTS EVERY 30 FT (MAX) 8. GUTTERS SHALL SLOPE A MIN OF 1/8” TOWARD DOWNSPOUTS. 9. SEE ROOF PLAN AND ELEVATIONS FOR DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS. 10. PROVIDE DOME WIRE BASKET AT EACH DOWNSPOUT/DRAIN LOCATION. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST ALL CONCEALED DOWNSPOUTS FOR LEAKAGE PRIOR TO CLOSE IN. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A 10 YEAR WARRANTY AGAINST LEAKAGE. 12. ROOF DRAINAGE TO BE CONNECTED TO AN APPROVED CITY DRAINAGE DEVICE. ALL RAINWATER TO BE DIRECTED TO STREET OR APPROVED OUTLET. ATTIC VENTILATION AND ROOF VENTS: 13. VENTS AT FLAT ROOFS AND ROOF STACKS SHALL PROJECT ABOVE THE ROOF THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRED BY THE CODE AND SHALL BE LOCATED IN AREAS NOT VISIBLE FOR THE STREET. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE COORDINATED WITH THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 14. ALL VENT AND ROOF STACKS TO HAVE RAIN PROTECTION CAPS. 15. PROVIDE WATERPROOFING, FLASHING AND COUNTER FLASHING AT ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS. ALL SEAMS AND JOINTS SHALL BE CAULKED AND SEALED. 16. COLOR OF EXPOSED ROOF VENTS AND STACKS SHALL MATCH THE COLOR OF THE ROOF TILES OR FINISHED ROOF MATERIAL. 17. ATTIC VENTILATION SHALL BE A MI. OF 1 /150 OF THE AREA TO BE VENTILATED AND SHALL HAVE A VAPOR RETARDER HAVING A TRANSMISSION RATE NOT EXCEEDING 1 PERM INSTALLED ON THE WARM SIDE OF THE INSULATION. 18. VENTILATION IS NOT REQUIRED IN AREAS WHERE ROOF INSULATION IS INSTALLED BETWEEN RAFTERS WITH NO AIR SPACE BETWEEN INSULATION AND ROOF SHEATHING. 19. VENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH 24 GA PAINTED METAL. LOUVERS AND 1/4x1/4x WIRE CLOTH SHALL CONFORM TO SMACNA GUIDE LINES. LOUVERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO DEFLECT DRIVEN RAIN. ROOF DRAINAGE (FLAT ROOF CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE): ALL ROOFS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ROOF DRAINS AND OVERFLOW DRAINS. DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO 4” LEADERS (GALVANIZED STEEL). SECONDARY OVERFLOW PIPING SHALL BE INDEPENDENT OF PRIMARY PIPING AND SHALL DISCHARGE IN A VISIBLE, CONSPICUOUS LOCATION, ABOVE GRADE. OVERFLOW DRAIN SHALL EXTEND 2” ABOVE THE ROOF. 4” SIZING OF PIPES (AT A 1/8”/FT ROOF SLOPE) WILL PROVIDE DRAINAGE FOR 2,900 SF OF ROOF AREA. STRAINERS SHALL BE PROVIDED. STRAINERS SHALL NOT EXTEND LESS THAN 4” ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE ROOF IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE DRAIN.NTRUE NORTH 15.9 o A-4-PR 333-PLANS ROOF PLAN PROPOSED 1 A-4-PR PROPOSED ROOF PLAN :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" HPC - FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 164 16 12 16 12 14 12 14 12 T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) 25' R-6 Height Limit T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.)9'-11"14'-1112"26'-1012"4'-612"L.0 EX-PR J.0 EX-PR 25' R-6 Height Limit 712"(ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Proposed Main Lvl. Living ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.)30'-934"3'-7"T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Mechanical ELEV - 96'-9" (T.B.D.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.)16'-7"T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6"13'-714"13'-2"T.O. F.F. Proposed Garage ELEV - 99'-2 3/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate / Spring Point 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 1/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 3/8" (V.I.F.) K.0 PR 15' R-6 Subgrade Habitable Limit FC/ C-1 ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable I.0 EX H.0 EX-PR G.0 EX F.0 PR E.0 PR D.0 EX C.0 EX B.0 PR A.0 PR 12 12 79063 4 6 10 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 1313 13 13 13 14 15 16 16 N o r t h :: A PR:3.4 ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Proposed Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) 25' R-6 Height Limit T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.)9'10'-8"19'-8"9'-9"L.0 EX-PR J.0 EX-PR 25' R-6 Height Limit 712"(ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Proposed Main Lvl. Living ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.)30'-934"3'-7"T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Mechanical ELEV - 96'-9" (T.B.D.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.)16'-7"T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 119'-8" T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6"3'-1014"13'-2"T.O. F.F. Proposed Garage ELEV - 99'-2 3/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate / Spring Point 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 1/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 3/8" (V.I.F.) K.0 PR 15' R-6 Subgrade Habitable Limit ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable I.0 EX H.0 EX-PR G.0 EX F.0 PR E.0 PR D.0 EX C.0 EX B.0 PR A.0 PR 12 12 6"T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6" ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Plate Proposed Breezway / Spring Point 12/12 Living Area Exteror Chimney Cap (Lower)6'-2"1'-434"Shaded Area represents Historic Victorian Mass situated in front of proposed new construction as viewed from Bleeker Street (Front) Elevation 7906 1 2 3 5 5 SNOW BAR / BREAK 7 9 99 10 13 15 16 17 8No r t h :: B LEGEND: WINDOW TAG 1 A A WINDOW TAG MATERIAL LIST: MATERIALS ELEVATION TAG: LEGEND NTRUE NORTH 15.9 o SAFETY GLAZING ALL GLASS SHALL BE TEMPERED/SAFETY GLASS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EMERGENCY ESCAPE ALL EMERGENCY ESCAPE EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE SILLS 40" A.F.F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (SEE ELEVATION AND SECTION DWGS). 1. 1 x 4 VERTICALLY APPLIED CEDAR SHIP-LAPPED SIDING. PREMIUM SELECT CLEAR GRADE 1 x 4 x12 SHIPLAP WITH 1/8" SHADOW REVEAL DETAIL. NAKAMOTO FORESTRY "SHOU SUGI BAN" SUYAKI OR GENDAI FINISH. ALTERNATE: STAINED CLEAR GRADE NUMBER 2 CEDAR SIDING VERTICAL 1 X 4 SHIPLAP APPLICATION. 2. PAINT LOCKED SEAMLESS PANELED METAL ROOFING WITH MATTE FINISH TO MATCH VERTICAL WOOD CEDAR FINISH (1). ROOF PANEL PRESSED TO MATCH 1 X 4 CEDAR SHIPLAP CONDITIONS. ALTERNATE: 1 X 4 VERTICALLY APPLIED (SHORT/ PITCHED AXIS) CEDAR SHIP LAPPED SIDING WITH BATTEN OVER ALL JOINERY. NAKOMOTO FORESTRY "SHOU SIGU BAN" SUYAKI FINISH. SELECT CLEAR GRADE 1 X 4 X 12 MATERIAL. METAL 1.5" FLASH CAP UTILIZED WHEREVER NEEDED. 3. COLORADO BUFF SPLITFACE DRYSTACK STONE APPLICATION. MOCKUP OF STONE TO BE APPROVED BY DESIGNER AND OWNER PROR TO FULL COMMENCEMENT. 4. TEMPERED GLASS SKYLIGHT CONDITIONS WITH STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION. DESIGN BASIS FOR ALL SKYLIGHTS TO BE THE JOCKIMO ANTI-SLIP CLASSIC GLASS GRIT WALKABLE SKYLIGHT. OPAQUE FINISH. AIA INDUSTRIES - DENVER. 5. PROPOSED GLAZING & DOOR SYSTEMS. BASIS OF DESIGN : HOPE'S THERMAL EVOLUTION SERIES STEEL AND GLASS DOORS. GLAZING BASIS OF DESIGN VIRICON INSULATED GLASS GLAZING. ALTERNATE : PANORAMAH AH!60 PERFORMANCE SERIES. HIGH ALTITUDE GLAZING SYSTEM WITH ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAME FINISH. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND SKYLIGHTS WILL HAVE A FACTORY APPLIED NFRC STICKERED LABEL LISTING THE U-FACTOR OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY. ALL GLAZING SHALL BE TEMPERED SAFETY GLAZING U.O.N. DOOR FOR BREEZEWAY AREA TO BE PIVOT DOOR CONSTRUCTION - NFRC STICKERED LABEL LISTING THE U-FACTOR OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY. 6. CEDAR WOOD SHINGLE ROOF APPLICATION. NATURAL FINISH WITH TRADITIONAL INSTALLATION PER ASPEN HPC REQUIREMENTS. 7. HYDROTECH EXTENSIVE GREEN ROOF SYSTEM OR EQUIVALENT. 9" MAX. ASSEMBLY DEPTH 8. 15 GAUGE HOT ROLLED STEEL PANEL PLANTER WITH BLUE STEEL FINISH. 9. POURED CONCRETE STAIR AND PATIO AREAS WITH CHAMFERED EDGE AND ACID ETCH FINISH. COLOUR T.B.D. ALTERNATE: BASALT GRANITE CUT STONE SLABS - FLAMED FINISH- 2-1/4 " THICK MINIMUM. 10. 5" HORIZONTALLY APPLIED PAINTED WOOD DUTCH LAP SIDING W/ A 1-1/2" SHADOW-LINE REVEAL. 5" VERTICAL CORNER BOARD TERMINATIONS. ALL REPAIR / REPLACEMENT AS APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HPC TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. 11. 4" HORIZONTALLY APPLIED PAINTED WOOD TRADITIONAL / CLAPBOARD LAP SIDING W/ 8" INSET PATTERN SET BOARDS AS EXISTING. 5" VERTICAL CORNER BOARD TERMINATIONS. ALL REPAIR / REPLACEMENT AS APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HPC TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. RESTORATION OF WEST AND SOUTH FACADE WALL AREAS AS REQUIRED TO RESTORE INTENDED PATTERN OF EXISTING CONDITIONS TO THE WEST AND EAST FACADES ALONG CORNERS ESTABLISHED BY GRID-LINE 5.0 / EX-PR. 12. GENERAL NOTE: ALL HISTORICAL WINDOWS TO BE RESTORED / REPAIRED AS NECESSARY BY AN HPC APPROVED SUBCONTRACT ENTITY. ASPEN RESTORATION COMPANY AND/ OR PHOENIX RESTORATION RECOMMENDED FOR ALL HISTORICAL WINDOW AND DOOR CONSIDERATIONS. 13. GENERAL NOTE: ALL ORNATE DETAILING SPECIFIC TO EXISTING HISTORICAL VICTORIAN & GARAGE TO BE MAINTAINED. REPAIR AND REPLACE ELEMENTS AS DETERMINED NECESSARY PER ALL ASPEN HPC APPROVALS. MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS WHEREVER POSSIBLE. 14. HORIZONTALLY APPLIED TRADITIONAL OCTAGONAL SCALLOP PAINTED WOOD SHINGLE. AS NECESSARY REPAIR AND/ OR REPLACE PER HPC APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS. 15. POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE FOUNDATION. INDUSTRY STANDARD CONCRETE AGGREGATE MIX AND FORM FINISH. 16. GENERAL NOTE: PAINTED WOOD FASCIA AND SOFFIT CONDITIONS. MATCH EXISTING HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION AS NECESSARY SHOULD REPAIR / REPLACEMENT BE NECESSARY. 17. FIREPLACE FLUE / VENT SHROUD - METAL FRAME AUTOMOTIVE PAINT LOCK FINISH (BLACK) WITH MCNICHOLS DESIGNER PERFORATED ALUMINUM METAL SCREEN PANELS - DIAMOND PATTERN / GRECIAN ALLOY TYPE 3003-H14 - MILL FINISH. KEY PLAN NOTES: 1. FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULES SEE A-80.00 SERIES 1. TAG BELOW RESPECTIVE ELEVATION HPC PROVISIONS: LIGHTING / FIXTURE LOCATE E l e v :: A A-5-PR 333-ELEVATIONS PROPOSED 1 A-5-PR PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION "A" - BLEEKER ST. VIEW :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE :3/16" = 1'-0" HPC - FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 2 A-5-PR PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION/ SECTION "B" - INTERIOR :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE :3/16" = 1'-0"165 16 12 16 12 1.0 EX-PR 16 12 2.0 PR 15' R-6 Subgrade Habitable Limit 3.0 EX-PR 6.0 EX-PR 8.0 EX-PR 7.0 PR 4.0 EX-PR 5.0 EX-PR T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level/ Reconstructed Entry Porch Stair ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)12'-634"T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.)2'9'-11"14'-1112"26'-1012"4'-612"T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) 25' R-6 Height Limit 25' R-6 Height Limit 712"(ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Proposed Main Lvl. Living ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.)30'-934"3'-7"T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Mechanical ELEV - 96'-9" (T.B.D.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.)16'-7"T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6"13'-714"13'-2"T.O. F.F. Proposed Garage ELEV - 99'-2 3/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate / Spring Point 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 1/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 3/8" (V.I.F.) 79063 6 6 6 9 PROPOSED NEW WINDOWS FOR DISCUSSION WITH HPC PER CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. WINDOW DIMENSIONAL SIZING & DETAILING TO BE COMPARABLE TO EXISTING LOWER LEVEL HISTORIC CONDITIONS. PHOENIX RESTORATION OR ASPEN PRESERVATION COMPANY PROPOSED FOR FABRICATION OF HISTORICALLY ACCURATE WINDOW CONDITIONS AS REQUESTED 10 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 16 16 17 W e s t :: A 16 12 16 12 1.0 EX-PR 16 12 2.0 PR 15' R-6 Subgrade Habitable Limit 3.0 EX-PR 6.0 EX-PR 8.0 EX-PR 7.0 PR 4.0 EX-PR 5.0 EX-PR HC ELECTRIC12 12 T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level/ Reconstructed Entry Porch Stair ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)12'-634"T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.)2'9'-11"14'-1112"26'-1012"4'-612"1'-434"(ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Proposed Main Lvl. Living ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Proposed Breezway / Spring Point 12/12 Living Area ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.)9'30'-934"3'-7"T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.)19'-8"6"T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6"25' R-6 Height Limit 25' R-6 Height Limit 9'-9"13'-2"T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) Shaded Area represents Historic Garage Mass situated in front of proposed new construction as viewed from Third Street Elevation 7906 1 1 3 3 55 3 6 6 7 PROPOSED NEW WINDOWS FOR DISCUSSION WITH HPC PER CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. WINDOW DIMENSIONAL SIZING & DETAILING TO BE COMPARABLE TO EXISTING LOWER LEVEL HISTORIC CONDITIONS. PHOENIX RESTORATION OR ASPEN PRESERVATION COMPANY PROPOSED FOR FABRICATION OF HISTORICALLY ACCURATE WINDOW CONDITIONS AS REQUESTED 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 16 16 17 W e s t :: B 5 9 LEGEND: WINDOW TAG 1 A A WINDOW TAG MATERIAL LIST: MATERIALS ELEVATION TAG: LEGEND NTRUE NORTH 15.9 o SAFETY GLAZING ALL GLASS SHALL BE TEMPERED/SAFETY GLASS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EMERGENCY ESCAPE ALL EMERGENCY ESCAPE EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE SILLS 40" A.F.F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (SEE ELEVATION AND SECTION DWGS). 1. 1 x 4 VERTICALLY APPLIED CEDAR SHIP-LAPPED SIDING. PREMIUM SELECT CLEAR GRADE 1 x 4 x12 SHIPLAP WITH 1/8" SHADOW REVEAL DETAIL. NAKAMOTO FORESTRY "SHOU SUGI BAN" SUYAKI OR GENDAI FINISH. ALTERNATE: STAINED CLEAR GRADE NUMBER 2 CEDAR SIDING VERTICAL 1 X 4 SHIPLAP APPLICATION. 2. PAINT LOCKED SEAMLESS PANELED METAL ROOFING WITH MATTE FINISH TO MATCH VERTICAL WOOD CEDAR FINISH (1). ROOF PANEL PRESSED TO MATCH 1 X 4 CEDAR SHIPLAP CONDITIONS. ALTERNATE: 1 X 4 VERTICALLY APPLIED (SHORT/ PITCHED AXIS) CEDAR SHIP LAPPED SIDING WITH BATTEN OVER ALL JOINERY. NAKOMOTO FORESTRY "SHOU SIGU BAN" SUYAKI FINISH. SELECT CLEAR GRADE 1 X 4 X 12 MATERIAL. METAL 1.5" FLASH CAP UTILIZED WHEREVER NEEDED. 3. COLORADO BUFF SPLITFACE DRYSTACK STONE APPLICATION. MOCKUP OF STONE TO BE APPROVED BY DESIGNER AND OWNER PROR TO FULL COMMENCEMENT. 4. TEMPERED GLASS SKYLIGHT CONDITIONS WITH STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION. DESIGN BASIS FOR ALL SKYLIGHTS TO BE THE JOCKIMO ANTI-SLIP CLASSIC GLASS GRIT WALKABLE SKYLIGHT. OPAQUE FINISH. AIA INDUSTRIES - DENVER. 5. PROPOSED GLAZING & DOOR SYSTEMS. BASIS OF DESIGN : HOPE'S THERMAL EVOLUTION SERIES STEEL AND GLASS DOORS. GLAZING BASIS OF DESIGN VIRICON INSULATED GLASS GLAZING. ALTERNATE : PANORAMAH AH!60 PERFORMANCE SERIES. HIGH ALTITUDE GLAZING SYSTEM WITH ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAME FINISH. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND SKYLIGHTS WILL HAVE A FACTORY APPLIED NFRC STICKERED LABEL LISTING THE U-FACTOR OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY. ALL GLAZING SHALL BE TEMPERED SAFETY GLAZING U.O.N. DOOR FOR BREEZEWAY AREA TO BE PIVOT DOOR CONSTRUCTION - NFRC STICKERED LABEL LISTING THE U-FACTOR OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY. 6. CEDAR WOOD SHINGLE ROOF APPLICATION. NATURAL FINISH WITH TRADITIONAL INSTALLATION PER ASPEN HPC REQUIREMENTS. 7. HYDROTECH EXTENSIVE GREEN ROOF SYSTEM OR EQUIVALENT. 9" MAX. ASSEMBLY DEPTH 8. 15 GAUGE HOT ROLLED STEEL PANEL PLANTER WITH BLUE STEEL FINISH. 9. POURED CONCRETE STAIR AND PATIO AREAS WITH CHAMFERED EDGE AND ACID ETCH FINISH. COLOUR T.B.D. ALTERNATE: BASALT GRANITE CUT STONE SLABS - FLAMED FINISH- 2-1/4 " THICK MINIMUM. 10. 5" HORIZONTALLY APPLIED PAINTED WOOD DUTCH LAP SIDING W/ A 1-1/2" SHADOW-LINE REVEAL. 5" VERTICAL CORNER BOARD TERMINATIONS. ALL REPAIR / REPLACEMENT AS APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HPC TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. 11. 4" HORIZONTALLY APPLIED PAINTED WOOD TRADITIONAL / CLAPBOARD LAP SIDING W/ 8" INSET PATTERN SET BOARDS AS EXISTING. 5" VERTICAL CORNER BOARD TERMINATIONS. ALL REPAIR / REPLACEMENT AS APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HPC TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. RESTORATION OF WEST AND SOUTH FACADE WALL AREAS AS REQUIRED TO RESTORE INTENDED PATTERN OF EXISTING CONDITIONS TO THE WEST AND EAST FACADES ALONG CORNERS ESTABLISHED BY GRID-LINE 5.0 / EX-PR. 12. GENERAL NOTE: ALL HISTORICAL WINDOWS TO BE RESTORED / REPAIRED AS NECESSARY BY AN HPC APPROVED SUBCONTRACT ENTITY. ASPEN RESTORATION COMPANY AND/ OR PHOENIX RESTORATION RECOMMENDED FOR ALL HISTORICAL WINDOW AND DOOR CONSIDERATIONS. 13. GENERAL NOTE: ALL ORNATE DETAILING SPECIFIC TO EXISTING HISTORICAL VICTORIAN & GARAGE TO BE MAINTAINED. REPAIR AND REPLACE ELEMENTS AS DETERMINED NECESSARY PER ALL ASPEN HPC APPROVALS. MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS WHEREVER POSSIBLE. 14. HORIZONTALLY APPLIED TRADITIONAL OCTAGONAL SCALLOP PAINTED WOOD SHINGLE. AS NECESSARY REPAIR AND/ OR REPLACE PER HPC APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS. 15. POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE FOUNDATION. INDUSTRY STANDARD CONCRETE AGGREGATE MIX AND FORM FINISH. 16. GENERAL NOTE: PAINTED WOOD FASCIA AND SOFFIT CONDITIONS. MATCH EXISTING HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION AS NECESSARY SHOULD REPAIR / REPLACEMENT BE NECESSARY. 17. FIREPLACE FLUE / VENT SHROUD - METAL FRAME AUTOMOTIVE PAINT LOCK FINISH (BLACK) WITH MCNICHOLS DESIGNER PERFORATED ALUMINUM METAL SCREEN PANELS - DIAMOND PATTERN / GRECIAN ALLOY TYPE 3003-H14 - MILL FINISH. KEY PLAN NOTES: 1. FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULES SEE A-80.00 SERIES 1. TAG BELOW RESPECTIVE ELEVATION HPC PROVISIONS: LIGHTING / FIXTURE LOCATE E l e v :: A A-6-PR 333-ELEVATIONS PROPOSED 1 A-6-PR PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION "A" - THIRD ST. VIEW :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE :3/16" = 1'-0" HPC - FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 2 A-6-PR PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION/ SECTION "B" - INTERIOR :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE :3/16" = 1'-0"166 16 12 16 12 9'10'-8"19'-8"9'-9"712"30'-934"3'-7"16'-7"3'-1014"13'-2"6'-2"1'-434"(ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Proposed Main Lvl. Living ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 96'-9" (T.B.D.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 119'-8" T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6" T.O. F.F. Proposed Garage ELEV - 99'-2 3/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate / Spring Point 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 1/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 3/8" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Proposed Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6" ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Plate Proposed Breezway / Spring Point 12/12 Living Area Exteror Chimney Cap (Lower) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Mech 15' R-6 Subgrade Habitable Limit A.0 PR B.0 PR C.0 EX D.0 EX E.0 PR F.0 PR G.0 EX H.0 EX-PR I.0 EX J.0 EX-PR K.0 PR L.0 EX-PR FC/ C-1+ C-2 7906 6"7905.65 25' R-6 Height Limit 25' R-6 Height Limit HC ELECTRICHC ELECTRICHC ELECTRICGASProposed Utilities Locate (Primary) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Lightwell Conc. Slab ELEV - 88'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) 12 12 12 12 1 2 3 355 5 SNOW BAR / BREAK 6 6 10 12 12 13 14 16 17 S o u t h :: A 16 12 16 12 9'10'-8"19'-8"9'-9"712"30'-934"3'-7"16'-7"3'-1014"13'-2"6'-2"1'-434"(ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Proposed Main Lvl. Living ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 96'-9" (T.B.D.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 119'-8" T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6" T.O. F.F. Proposed Garage ELEV - 99'-2 3/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate / Spring Point 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 1/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 3/8" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Proposed Main Level ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6" ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Plate Proposed Breezway / Spring Point 12/12 Living Area Exteror Chimney Cap (Lower) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Mech 15' R-6 Subgrade Habitable Limit A.0 PR B.0 PR C.0 EX D.0 EX E.0 PR F.0 PR G.0 EX H.0 EX-PR I.0 EX J.0 EX-PR K.0 PR L.0 EX-PR FC/ C-1+ C-2 Shaded Area represents Proposed Living Area Mass situated in front of proposed Breezeway Connection & Historic Victorian as seen from Alley 7906 25' R-6 Height Limit 25' R-6 Height Limit 5 6 6 7 9 9 PROPOSED REMOVAL / REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING DOOR CONDITION WITH NEW WINDOW FOR DISCUSSION WITH HPC PER CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. WINDOW DIMENSIONAL SIZING & DETAILING TO BE COMPARABLE TO EXISTING UPPER LEVEL HISTORIC CONDITIONS AND ROUGH OPENING CREATED PER PROPOSED DOOR REMOVAL. PHOENIX RESTORATION OR ASPEN PRESERVATION COMPANY PROPOSED FOR FABRICATION OF HISTORICALLY ACCURATE WINDOW CONDITIONS AS REQUESTED 11 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 Shaded Area represents Historic Garage Mass situated in front of proposed Breezeway Connection & Historic Victorian as seen from Alley S o u t h :: B LEGEND: WINDOW TAG 1 A A WINDOW TAG MATERIAL LIST: MATERIALS ELEVATION TAG: LEGEND NTRUE NORTH 15.9 o SAFETY GLAZING ALL GLASS SHALL BE TEMPERED/SAFETY GLASS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EMERGENCY ESCAPE ALL EMERGENCY ESCAPE EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE SILLS 40" A.F.F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (SEE ELEVATION AND SECTION DWGS). 1. 1 x 4 VERTICALLY APPLIED CEDAR SHIP-LAPPED SIDING. PREMIUM SELECT CLEAR GRADE 1 x 4 x12 SHIPLAP WITH 1/8" SHADOW REVEAL DETAIL. NAKAMOTO FORESTRY "SHOU SUGI BAN" SUYAKI OR GENDAI FINISH. ALTERNATE: STAINED CLEAR GRADE NUMBER 2 CEDAR SIDING VERTICAL 1 X 4 SHIPLAP APPLICATION. 2. PAINT LOCKED SEAMLESS PANELED METAL ROOFING WITH MATTE FINISH TO MATCH VERTICAL WOOD CEDAR FINISH (1). ROOF PANEL PRESSED TO MATCH 1 X 4 CEDAR SHIPLAP CONDITIONS. ALTERNATE: 1 X 4 VERTICALLY APPLIED (SHORT/ PITCHED AXIS) CEDAR SHIP LAPPED SIDING WITH BATTEN OVER ALL JOINERY. NAKOMOTO FORESTRY "SHOU SIGU BAN" SUYAKI FINISH. SELECT CLEAR GRADE 1 X 4 X 12 MATERIAL. METAL 1.5" FLASH CAP UTILIZED WHEREVER NEEDED. 3. COLORADO BUFF SPLITFACE DRYSTACK STONE APPLICATION. MOCKUP OF STONE TO BE APPROVED BY DESIGNER AND OWNER PROR TO FULL COMMENCEMENT. 4. TEMPERED GLASS SKYLIGHT CONDITIONS WITH STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION. DESIGN BASIS FOR ALL SKYLIGHTS TO BE THE JOCKIMO ANTI-SLIP CLASSIC GLASS GRIT WALKABLE SKYLIGHT. OPAQUE FINISH. AIA INDUSTRIES - DENVER. 5. PROPOSED GLAZING & DOOR SYSTEMS. BASIS OF DESIGN : HOPE'S THERMAL EVOLUTION SERIES STEEL AND GLASS DOORS. GLAZING BASIS OF DESIGN VIRICON INSULATED GLASS GLAZING. ALTERNATE : PANORAMAH AH!60 PERFORMANCE SERIES. HIGH ALTITUDE GLAZING SYSTEM WITH ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAME FINISH. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND SKYLIGHTS WILL HAVE A FACTORY APPLIED NFRC STICKERED LABEL LISTING THE U-FACTOR OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY. ALL GLAZING SHALL BE TEMPERED SAFETY GLAZING U.O.N. DOOR FOR BREEZEWAY AREA TO BE PIVOT DOOR CONSTRUCTION - NFRC STICKERED LABEL LISTING THE U-FACTOR OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY. 6. CEDAR WOOD SHINGLE ROOF APPLICATION. NATURAL FINISH WITH TRADITIONAL INSTALLATION PER ASPEN HPC REQUIREMENTS. 7. HYDROTECH EXTENSIVE GREEN ROOF SYSTEM OR EQUIVALENT. 9" MAX. ASSEMBLY DEPTH 8. 15 GAUGE HOT ROLLED STEEL PANEL PLANTER WITH BLUE STEEL FINISH. 9. POURED CONCRETE STAIR AND PATIO AREAS WITH CHAMFERED EDGE AND ACID ETCH FINISH. COLOUR T.B.D. ALTERNATE: BASALT GRANITE CUT STONE SLABS - FLAMED FINISH- 2-1/4 " THICK MINIMUM. 10. 5" HORIZONTALLY APPLIED PAINTED WOOD DUTCH LAP SIDING W/ A 1-1/2" SHADOW-LINE REVEAL. 5" VERTICAL CORNER BOARD TERMINATIONS. ALL REPAIR / REPLACEMENT AS APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HPC TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. 11. 4" HORIZONTALLY APPLIED PAINTED WOOD TRADITIONAL / CLAPBOARD LAP SIDING W/ 8" INSET PATTERN SET BOARDS AS EXISTING. 5" VERTICAL CORNER BOARD TERMINATIONS. ALL REPAIR / REPLACEMENT AS APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HPC TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. RESTORATION OF WEST AND SOUTH FACADE WALL AREAS AS REQUIRED TO RESTORE INTENDED PATTERN OF EXISTING CONDITIONS TO THE WEST AND EAST FACADES ALONG CORNERS ESTABLISHED BY GRID-LINE 5.0 / EX-PR. 12. GENERAL NOTE: ALL HISTORICAL WINDOWS TO BE RESTORED / REPAIRED AS NECESSARY BY AN HPC APPROVED SUBCONTRACT ENTITY. ASPEN RESTORATION COMPANY AND/ OR PHOENIX RESTORATION RECOMMENDED FOR ALL HISTORICAL WINDOW AND DOOR CONSIDERATIONS. 13. GENERAL NOTE: ALL ORNATE DETAILING SPECIFIC TO EXISTING HISTORICAL VICTORIAN & GARAGE TO BE MAINTAINED. REPAIR AND REPLACE ELEMENTS AS DETERMINED NECESSARY PER ALL ASPEN HPC APPROVALS. MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS WHEREVER POSSIBLE. 14. HORIZONTALLY APPLIED TRADITIONAL OCTAGONAL SCALLOP PAINTED WOOD SHINGLE. AS NECESSARY REPAIR AND/ OR REPLACE PER HPC APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS. 15. POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE FOUNDATION. INDUSTRY STANDARD CONCRETE AGGREGATE MIX AND FORM FINISH. 16. GENERAL NOTE: PAINTED WOOD FASCIA AND SOFFIT CONDITIONS. MATCH EXISTING HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION AS NECESSARY SHOULD REPAIR / REPLACEMENT BE NECESSARY. 17. FIREPLACE FLUE / VENT SHROUD - METAL FRAME AUTOMOTIVE PAINT LOCK FINISH (BLACK) WITH MCNICHOLS DESIGNER PERFORATED ALUMINUM METAL SCREEN PANELS - DIAMOND PATTERN / GRECIAN ALLOY TYPE 3003-H14 - MILL FINISH. KEY PLAN NOTES: 1. FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULES SEE A-80.00 SERIES 1. TAG BELOW RESPECTIVE ELEVATION HPC PROVISIONS: LIGHTING / FIXTURE LOCATE E l e v :: A A-7-PR 333-ELEVATIONS PROPOSED 1 A-7-PR PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION "A" - ALLEY VIEW :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE :3/16" = 1'-0" HPC - FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 2 A-7-PR PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION/ SECTION "B" - INTERIOR :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE :3/16" = 1'-0"167 8.0 EX-PR 7.0 PR 6.0 EX-PR 5.0 EX-PR 4.0 EX-PR 3.0 EX-PR 2.0 PR 1.0 EX-PR 12'-634"2'9'-11"14'-1112"26'-1012"4'-612"T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level/ Reconstructed Entry Porch Stair ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) 25' R-6 Height Limit 7906 T.O. Ridge 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 3/8" (V.I.F.) 25' R-6 Height Limit 16 12 16 12 16 12 1'-434"9'30'-934"3'-7"19'-8"9'-9"13'-2"12 12 (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Proposed Main Lvl. Living ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Proposed Breezway / Spring Point 12/12 Living Area ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6" T.O. Lightwell Conc. Slab ELEV - 88'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.)HC ELECTRICGASProposed Utilities Locate (Secondary) 12 12 T.O. Lightwell Conc. Slab ELEV - 88'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) 15' R-6 Subgrade Habitable Limit FC/ C-1+ C-2 FC/ C-1+ C-2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 SNOW BAR / BREAK SNOW BAR / BREAK 6 6 7 9 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 E a s t :: A PR:3.3 PR:3.4 8.0 EX-PR 7.0 PR 6.0 EX-PR 5.0 EX-PR 4.0 EX-PR 3.0 EX-PR 2.0 PR 1.0 EX-PR 12'-634"2'9'-11"14'-1112"26'-1012"4'-612"T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level/ Reconstructed Entry Porch Stair ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) 25' R-6 Height Limit 7906 712"30'-934"16'-7"3'-1014"13'-2"6'-2"(ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Proposed Main Lvl. Living ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 96'-9" (T.B.D.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 119'-8" T.O. F.F. Proposed Garage ELEV - 99'-2 3/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate / Spring Point 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 1/4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 12/12 Gable - Historic Garage ELEV - 108'-1 3/8" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Mech 15' R-6 Subgrade Habitable Limit 25' R-6 Height Limit3'-7"T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6" Shaded Area represents Historic Victorian & New Living Area Mass situated behind the Interior Historic Garage Elevation SNOW BAR / BREAK 6 9 10 12 13 15 16 E a s t :: B LEGEND: WINDOW TAG 1 A A WINDOW TAG MATERIAL LIST: MATERIALS ELEVATION TAG: LEGEND NTRUE NORTH 15.9 o SAFETY GLAZING ALL GLASS SHALL BE TEMPERED/SAFETY GLASS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EMERGENCY ESCAPE ALL EMERGENCY ESCAPE EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE SILLS 40" A.F.F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (SEE ELEVATION AND SECTION DWGS). 1. 1 x 4 VERTICALLY APPLIED CEDAR SHIP-LAPPED SIDING. PREMIUM SELECT CLEAR GRADE 1 x 4 x12 SHIPLAP WITH 1/8" SHADOW REVEAL DETAIL. NAKAMOTO FORESTRY "SHOU SUGI BAN" SUYAKI OR GENDAI FINISH. ALTERNATE: STAINED CLEAR GRADE NUMBER 2 CEDAR SIDING VERTICAL 1 X 4 SHIPLAP APPLICATION. 2. PAINT LOCKED SEAMLESS PANELED METAL ROOFING WITH MATTE FINISH TO MATCH VERTICAL WOOD CEDAR FINISH (1). ROOF PANEL PRESSED TO MATCH 1 X 4 CEDAR SHIPLAP CONDITIONS. ALTERNATE: 1 X 4 VERTICALLY APPLIED (SHORT/ PITCHED AXIS) CEDAR SHIP LAPPED SIDING WITH BATTEN OVER ALL JOINERY. NAKOMOTO FORESTRY "SHOU SIGU BAN" SUYAKI FINISH. SELECT CLEAR GRADE 1 X 4 X 12 MATERIAL. METAL 1.5" FLASH CAP UTILIZED WHEREVER NEEDED. 3. COLORADO BUFF SPLITFACE DRYSTACK STONE APPLICATION. MOCKUP OF STONE TO BE APPROVED BY DESIGNER AND OWNER PROR TO FULL COMMENCEMENT. 4. TEMPERED GLASS SKYLIGHT CONDITIONS WITH STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION. DESIGN BASIS FOR ALL SKYLIGHTS TO BE THE JOCKIMO ANTI-SLIP CLASSIC GLASS GRIT WALKABLE SKYLIGHT. OPAQUE FINISH. AIA INDUSTRIES - DENVER. 5. PROPOSED GLAZING & DOOR SYSTEMS. BASIS OF DESIGN : HOPE'S THERMAL EVOLUTION SERIES STEEL AND GLASS DOORS. GLAZING BASIS OF DESIGN VIRICON INSULATED GLASS GLAZING. ALTERNATE : PANORAMAH AH!60 PERFORMANCE SERIES. HIGH ALTITUDE GLAZING SYSTEM WITH ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAME FINISH. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND SKYLIGHTS WILL HAVE A FACTORY APPLIED NFRC STICKERED LABEL LISTING THE U-FACTOR OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY. ALL GLAZING SHALL BE TEMPERED SAFETY GLAZING U.O.N. DOOR FOR BREEZEWAY AREA TO BE PIVOT DOOR CONSTRUCTION - NFRC STICKERED LABEL LISTING THE U-FACTOR OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY. 6. CEDAR WOOD SHINGLE ROOF APPLICATION. NATURAL FINISH WITH TRADITIONAL INSTALLATION PER ASPEN HPC REQUIREMENTS. 7. HYDROTECH EXTENSIVE GREEN ROOF SYSTEM OR EQUIVALENT. 9" MAX. ASSEMBLY DEPTH 8. 15 GAUGE HOT ROLLED STEEL PANEL PLANTER WITH BLUE STEEL FINISH. 9. POURED CONCRETE STAIR AND PATIO AREAS WITH CHAMFERED EDGE AND ACID ETCH FINISH. COLOUR T.B.D. ALTERNATE: BASALT GRANITE CUT STONE SLABS - FLAMED FINISH- 2-1/4 " THICK MINIMUM. 10. 5" HORIZONTALLY APPLIED PAINTED WOOD DUTCH LAP SIDING W/ A 1-1/2" SHADOW-LINE REVEAL. 5" VERTICAL CORNER BOARD TERMINATIONS. ALL REPAIR / REPLACEMENT AS APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HPC TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. 11. 4" HORIZONTALLY APPLIED PAINTED WOOD TRADITIONAL / CLAPBOARD LAP SIDING W/ 8" INSET PATTERN SET BOARDS AS EXISTING. 5" VERTICAL CORNER BOARD TERMINATIONS. ALL REPAIR / REPLACEMENT AS APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HPC TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. RESTORATION OF WEST AND SOUTH FACADE WALL AREAS AS REQUIRED TO RESTORE INTENDED PATTERN OF EXISTING CONDITIONS TO THE WEST AND EAST FACADES ALONG CORNERS ESTABLISHED BY GRID-LINE 5.0 / EX-PR. 12. GENERAL NOTE: ALL HISTORICAL WINDOWS TO BE RESTORED / REPAIRED AS NECESSARY BY AN HPC APPROVED SUBCONTRACT ENTITY. ASPEN RESTORATION COMPANY AND/ OR PHOENIX RESTORATION RECOMMENDED FOR ALL HISTORICAL WINDOW AND DOOR CONSIDERATIONS. 13. GENERAL NOTE: ALL ORNATE DETAILING SPECIFIC TO EXISTING HISTORICAL VICTORIAN & GARAGE TO BE MAINTAINED. REPAIR AND REPLACE ELEMENTS AS DETERMINED NECESSARY PER ALL ASPEN HPC APPROVALS. MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS WHEREVER POSSIBLE. 14. HORIZONTALLY APPLIED TRADITIONAL OCTAGONAL SCALLOP PAINTED WOOD SHINGLE. AS NECESSARY REPAIR AND/ OR REPLACE PER HPC APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS. 15. POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE FOUNDATION. INDUSTRY STANDARD CONCRETE AGGREGATE MIX AND FORM FINISH. 16. GENERAL NOTE: PAINTED WOOD FASCIA AND SOFFIT CONDITIONS. MATCH EXISTING HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION AS NECESSARY SHOULD REPAIR / REPLACEMENT BE NECESSARY. 17. FIREPLACE FLUE / VENT SHROUD - METAL FRAME AUTOMOTIVE PAINT LOCK FINISH (BLACK) WITH MCNICHOLS DESIGNER PERFORATED ALUMINUM METAL SCREEN PANELS - DIAMOND PATTERN / GRECIAN ALLOY TYPE 3003-H14 - MILL FINISH. KEY PLAN NOTES: 1. FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULES SEE A-80.00 SERIES 1. TAG BELOW RESPECTIVE ELEVATION HPC PROVISIONS: LIGHTING / FIXTURE LOCATE E l e v :: A A-8-PR 333-ELEVATIONS PROPOSED 1 A-8-PR PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION "A" - INTERIOR LOT LINE VIEW :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE :3/16" = 1'-0" HPC - FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 2 A-8-PR PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION/ SECTION "B" - INTERIOR :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE :3/16" = 1'-0"168 A-9-PR 333-MATERIALS CALLOUTS 1 A-9-PR PROPOSED MATERIAL CALLOUTS :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : NOT APPLICABLE HPC - FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 169 A-10-PR 333-EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN 1 A-10-PR PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING DIAGRAM - LOCATES + CUT SHEET CALLOUTS :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0" HPC - FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 170 5' REAR YARD SETBACKLIGHTWELLLIGHTWELLLIGHTWELL9" 10'-3" 9'-6" 5'-71 8" 5'-03 8"2'-1118"1'-114"434"15'-334"15'-812"2'-734"8'-7"11'-234"EXTERIOR ELEMENTS HABITABLE AREA / MASS (REVISED) SHADED FOOTPRINTS REPRESENT PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL (PLANS) GARAGE IS "SHIFTED" EAST ON THE PROPERTY TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE FROM WEST SIDE YARD (THIRD ST.) AN ADDITIONAL 1'-1" ABOVE GRADE. THIS TAKES THE SUBGRADE PROPOSED DISTANCE OF 1'-1 1/4" TO APPROX. 2'-11 1/8" FROM THE EAST SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE. WE ARE REQUESTING TO UTILIZE THE FOUNDATION AREA BELOW THE GARAGE LOCATION TO CREATE A BETTER ACCESS CHANNEL FOR LAUNDRY AND MECHANICAL SERVICES TO BE DIRECTED TO THE EAST (HIDDEN) & REAR ALLEY SIDES OF THE PROPERTY SKYLIGHT PROPOSED ALONG EAST FACADE OF HISTORIC HOME PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED WEST SIDE YARD LIGHTWELL REDUCTION OF 4-3/4" FROM HPC CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL THE SUBGRADE LINE OF THE REAR EAST SIDE BASEMENT WALL HAS REDUCED / SHIFTED INTO THE PROPERTY BY 2'-7 3/4" TO RESPOND TO THE MASSING REDUCTION / SHIFTING OF THE THE LIVING AREA ABOVE. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR GREATER PLANTING AREA / AMENITY IN ADDITION TO ACCOMMODATION AREA FOR MECHANICAL LOCATES AS DEEMED NECESSARY ORIGINALLY 9', THE DISTANCE TO THE REAR YARD PROPERTY LINE (DESCRIBING VERTICAL MASS) IS NOW APPROX. 10'-3". WE HAVE SHIFTED THE LOWER FOUNDATION WALL 9" IN TO ADDRESS THE REDUCED LIVING ROOM MASSING ABOVE. BETWEEN THE REDUCTION OF THE LIVING ROOM MASSING AND SITE ALIGNMENTS, A PHYSICAL INCREASE OF SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL MASSING OF THE GARAGE AND THE PROPOSED LIVING ROOM, THE VERTICAL SEPARATION HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AT 7'-0" TO ENSURE THE SAME MINIMUM DISTANCE OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL IS UPHELD WE ARE PROPOSING TO COMBINE THE LIGHTWELLS AS APPROVED FROM TWO TO ONE ALONG THE REAR / ALLEY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AN ALUMINUM GRATING WITH ACCESS HATCH IS PROPOSED. THIS WILL ALLOW US TO BETTER "MASK" THE NEW MASSING WITH ADDITIONAL AREA FOR LANDSCAPE / PLANTING AMENITY. A-ALT-1 333-PLANS LOWER LEVEL CONCEPT APPR1 A-ALT-1 CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED LOWER LEVEL PLAN (W/ PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OVERLAY) :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" HPC FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 171 DASHED LINE OFBASEMENT BELOW934"1'-934"2'-1118"1'-118"9" 10'-3" 9'-6" 5'-71 8" 5'-03 8"8'-812"2'-614"11'-234"18'-3"7'7'18'-11"9"25'-6"27'-1"434"EXTERIOR ELEMENTS HABITABLE AREA / MASS (REVISED) SHADED FOOTPRINTS REPRESENT PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL (PLANS) SKYLIGHT PROPOSED ALONG EAST FACADE OF HISTORIC HOME PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED OVERALL DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPOSED LIVING AREA MASS REDUCED FROM HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. EAST FACADE OF NEW LIVING AREA MASS PROPOSED TO BE REDUCED BY 1'-9 3/4" IN ORDER TO "ALIGN" WITH THE REAR HISTORICAL MASS OF THE EXISTING HOME. THE SOUTH FACADE OF THE LIVING AREA MASS IS PROPOSED TO BE REDUCED BY 9", THUS, ADDITIONALLY REDUCING THE HEIGHT OF THE RIDGE BY 9" DUE TO THE 12 / 12 SLOPE. TO FURTHER REDUCE THE VISUAL MASS & CREATE A CLEARER ARTICULATION BETWEEN OLD AND NEW, WE ARE PROPOSING TO UTILIZE AN INTERNAL ROOF DRAIN SYSTEM ALONG WITH A DETAILING OF THE ROOF TO REPRESENT ITSELF MORE CLEARLY AS AN ARCHITECTURE OF ITS RESPECTIVE PERIOD. THIS FURTHER REDUCES THE MASS BY REDUCTION OF THE OVERHANG ON THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL FURTHER ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SNOW CLEATS AND VERTICAL SNOW BREAKS PROPOSED FROM THE HPC CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED DRAWINGS TO FURTHER VISUALLY "QUIET" THE NEW PROPOSED ROOF FORM AND MASSING THE CONNECTION ELEMENT DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PRIMARY HISTORIC AND NEW PROPOSED MASSING HAS BEEN MAINTAINED, BUT BY REDUCTION OF THE PROPOSED OVERHANG, A VISUAL INCREASE OF 6" OF ADDITIONAL SEPARATION IS ACHIEVED. THE CONNECTOR HAS ALSO BEEN REDUCED BY 10" FURTHER SETTING THE ELEMENT BACK. WEST SIDE YARD LIGHTWELL REDUCTION OF 4-3/4" FROM HPC CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL GARAGE IS "SHIFTED" EAST ON THE PROPERTY TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE FROM WEST SIDE YARD (THIRD ST.) AN ADDITIONAL 1'-1" ABOVE GRADE. THIS TAKES THE SUBGRADE PROPOSED DISTANCE OF 1'-1 1/8" TO APPROX. 2'-11 1/8" FROM THE EAST SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE. WE ARE REQUESTING TO UTILIZE THE FOUNDATION AREA BELOW THE GARAGE LOCATION TO CREATE A BETTER ACCESS CHANNEL FOR LAUNDRY AND MECHANICAL SERVICES TO BE DIRECTED TO THE EAST (HIDDEN) & REAR ALLEY SIDES OF THE PROPERTY WE ARE PROPOSING TO COMBINE THE LIGHTWELLS AS APPROVED FROM TWO TO ONE ALONG THE REAR / ALLEY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AN ALUMINUM GRATING WITH ACCESS HATCH IS PROPOSED. THIS WILL ALLOW US TO BETTER "MASK" THE NEW MASSING WITH ADDITIONAL AREA FOR LANDSCAPE / PLANTING AMENITY. THE SUBGRADE LINE OF THE REAR EAST SIDE BASEMENT WALL HAS REDUCED / SHIFTED INTO THE PROPERTY BY 2'-7 3/4" TO RESPOND TO THE MASSING REDUCTION / SHIFTING OF THE THE LIVING AREA ABOVE. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR GREATER PLANTING AREA / AMENITY IN ADDITION TO ACCOMMODATION AREA FOR MECHANICAL LOCATES AS DEEMED NECESSARY BETWEEN THE REDUCTION OF THE LIVING ROOM MASSING AND SITE ALIGNMENTS, A PHYSICAL INCREASE OF SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL MASSING OF THE GARAGE AND THE PROPOSED LIVING ROOM, THE VERTICAL SEPARATION HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AT 7'-0" TO ENSURE THE SAME MINIMUM DISTANCE OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL IS UPHELD A-ALT-2 333-PLANS MAIN LEVEL CONCEPT APPR1 A-ALT-2 CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED MAIN LEVEL PLAN (W/ PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OVERLAY) :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" HPC FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 172 10"2'2'-334"1'-3" 10'-3"2'-418"614"314"5"10'-1112"9'5'-11"6'-5"11'-278"18'-3" 19'-11"28'-1"25'-6"GARAGE IS "SHIFTED" EAST ON THE PROPERTY TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE FROM WEST SIDE YARD (THIRD ST.) AN ADDITIONAL 1'-10" ABOVE GRADE. GARAGE EXISTING 12" OVERHANG TAKEN IN FROM PROPERTY 1'-1", INCREASING THE TOTAL PROPOSED DISTANCE FROM WEST SIDE YARD PROPERTY BY APPROX. 1-10"1'-10"IF DEEMED ALLOWABLE VIA CITY OF ASPEN & HPC, WE PROPOSE TO EXCLUDE ANY SNOW CLEATS AND VERTICAL SNOW BAR BRAKES ALONG THE THIRD STREET FACADE OF THE HISTORIC GARAGE MASS TO REDUCE THE VISUAL NATURE OF ANY NON HISTORIC ELEMENTS TO THE GARAGE ROOF. / CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF PROPOSED TO REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT ROOFING OVERALL DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPOSED LIVING AREA MASS REDUCED FROM HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. EAST FACADE OF NEW LIVING AREA MASS PROPOSED TO BE REDUCED BY 1'-9 3/4" IN ORDER TO "ALIGN" WITH THE REAR HISTORICAL MASS OF THE EXISTING HOME. THE SOUTH FACADE OF THE LIVING AREA MASS IS PROPOSED TO BE REDUCED BY 9", THUS, ADDITIONALLY REDUCING THE HEIGHT OF THE RIDGE BY 9" DUE TO THE 12 / 12 SLOPE. TO FURTHER REDUCE THE VISUAL MASS & CREATE A CLEARER ARTICULATION BETWEEN OLD AND NEW, WE ARE PROPOSING TO UTILIZE AN INTERNAL ROOF DRAIN SYSTEM ALONG WITH A DETAILING OF THE ROOF TO REPRESENT ITSELF MORE CLEARLY AS AN ARCHITECTURE OF ITS RESPECTIVE PERIOD. THIS FURTHER REDUCES THE MASS BY REDUCTION OF THE OVERHANG ON THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL FURTHER ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SNOW CLEATS AND VERTICAL SNOW BREAKS PROPOSED FROM THE HPC CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED DRAWINGS TO FURTHER VISUALLY "QUIET" THE NEW PROPOSED ROOF FORM AND MASSING EXTERIOR ELEMENTS HABITABLE AREA / MASS (REVISED) SHADED FOOTPRINTS REPRESENT PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL (PLANS) THE CONNECTION ELEMENT DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PRIMARY HISTORIC AND NEW PROPOSED MASSING HAS BEEN MAINTAINED, BUT BY SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ROOF DETAILING, A VISUAL INCREASE OF 6" OF ADDITIONAL SEPARATION IS ACHIEVED. THE CONNECTOR HAS ALSO BEEN REDUCED BY 10" IN WIDTH FURTHER SETTING THE ELEMENT BACK. BETWEEN THE REDUCTION OF THE LIVING ROOM MASSING AND SITE ALIGNMENTS, A PHYSICAL INCREASE OF SEPARATION BETWEEN THE ROOFS OF THE GARAGE AND THE PROPOSED LIVING ROOM MASSING HAS BEEN INCREASED FROM 5'-11" TO 6'-5" (ROOF), INCREASING THE DISTANCE OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW VISUAL MASSING OF THE MAIN HOME THE REAR YARD MASSING HAS BEEN REDUCED BY 1'-3" BETWEEN MASS AND OVERHANG REDUCTION. ORIGINALLY 9', THE DISTANCE TO THE REAR YARD PROPERTY LINE (DESCRIBING VERTICAL MASS) IS NOW APPROX. 10'-3". THE VISUAL MASS PROPOSED FOR THE FIREPLACE TO THE EXTERIOR NEW LIVING AREA HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE REDUCED IN DIMENSION FROM 4'-8" X 2'-6" TO 3'-8" X 2'-2" - / HEIGHT OF THE FIREPLACE VENTING STACK WILL ALSO BE REDUCED BY 1'-6" PER THE REDUCTION OF THE RIDGELINE HEIGHT 4'-8" 3'-8"2'-6"2'-2"A-ALT-3 333-PLANS UPPER LEVEL CONCEPT APPR1 A-ALT-3 CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED UPPER LEVEL PLAN (W/ PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OVERLAY) :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" HPC FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o 173 1 2 3 4 5 61((")4170&.'8'. '.'8žÁ5+6''.'8ž  LINE OF FINISH GRADE 9'  16 12 16 12 1.0 EX-PR 16 12 2.0 PR 15' R-6 Subgrade Habitable Limit 3.0 EX-PR 6.0 EX-PR 8.0 EX-PR 7.0 PR 4.0 EX-PR 5.0 EX-PR HC ELECTRIC12 12 T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 124'-10 1/2" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 14/12 Entry Gable Roof (N-S) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Elev. Existing Main Level/ Reconstructed Entry Porch Stair ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.)12'-634"T.O. F.F. Existing Upper Level ELEV - 109'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Spring Point 14/12 Upper Roof (N-S Entry Gable) ELEV - 115'-11" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.)2'9'-11"14'-1112"26'-1012"4'-612"1'-434"(ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.64 F.F.E. : V.I.F.) T.O. F.F. Proposed Main Lvl. Living ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Proposed Breezway / Spring Point 12/12 Living Area ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Ridge 16/12 Upper Rear Roof (N-S Mansard Hybrid) ELEV - 129'-5" (V.I.F.)9'30'-934"3'-7"T.O. Ridge 16/12 E-W Cross Gable ELEV - 125'-10" (V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) T.O. F.F. Conc. Lower Lvl. / Subgrade ELEV - 85'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.)19'-8"6"T.O. Ridge Proposed 12/12 Gable Living Area ELEV - 109'-0" T.O. Plate Proposed Chimney & Screen Mesh Surround ELEV - 122'-6"25' R-6 Height Limit 25' R-6 Height Limit 9'-9"13'-2"T.O. Plate Proposed Subgrade Habitable ELEV - 94'-5 1/4" (T.B.D.) Shaded Area represents Historic Garage Mass situated in front of proposed new construction as viewed from Third Street Elevation 7906 1 1 3 3 5 55 3 6 6 7 9 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 16 16 172'-378"1'-2"1'-1058"61((")4170&.'8'. '.'8žÁ5+6''.'8ž 61(("722'4.'8'. '.'8žÁ9'-11"614+&)'".19'4411( '.'8ž8'4+(; 614+&)'"722'4411( '.'8žÁ8'4+(;14'-1012"3'-1"27'-1012"1 2 3 4 5 61((")4170&.'8'. '.'8žÁ5+6''.'8ž 61(("722'4.'8'. '.'8žÁ9'-11"614+&)'".19'4411( '.'8ž8'4+(; 614+&)'"722'4411( '.'8žÁ8'4+(;14'-1012"3'-1"27'-1012"2 3 3 4 5 A-ALT-4 333-PLANS ELEVATIONS ALTS 1 A-ALT-4 WEST ELEVATIONS (PREVIOUS / CURRENT) - CORRECTIONS / MODIFICATIONS COMPARISON :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 1" = 9'-0" HPC FINAL ISSUANCE SEAL DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT # SCALE DATE 333- BLEEKER 01 HPC FINAL APPROVAL c 1 FRIDAY DESIGN, LLC 2015333 BLEEKER ST"M+J RESIDENCE"333 Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611PROJECT DESIGNER / CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1 Friday Design PO BOX 7928 Aspen, Colorado 81612 T: 970.309.0695 www.1friday.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bluegreen 300 South Spring Street; Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 T: 970.429.7499 www.bluegreenaspen.com d e r e k m s k a l k o PREVIOUS CURRENT 2 A-ALT-4 NORTH (BLEEKER ST) + WEST (THIRD ST) ELEVATIONS (PREVIOUS / CURRENT) - CORRECTIONS- OVERLAY COMPARISONS (SHADED AREAS REVISED MASS & WINDOW/ DOOR LOCATES) :: 333 BLEEKER SCALE : 1" = 9'-0" 174 BUILDING ENVELOPE PROPERTY LINE GREY BASALT STONE PAVERS GRAVEL LAWN LEGEND PERENNIAL PLANTING AREA SINGLE STEM ASPEN MULTI STEM ASPEN EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREES DWARF MUGO PINE EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREES PROPOSED FENCE RE 1/L800 GROUNDCOVER PLANTING AREA 0 4 8 scale north L300 landscape plan 11/12/2019 civil coordbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com333 w bleeker st l aspen, colorado333 w bleekerdate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINELINE OF BASEMENT BELOW 5' SETBACK 1' GRAVEL STRIP RAISED PLANTER STEEL EDGE RAISED PLANTER FENCE RE 1/L800; 72" MAX HEIGHT FENCE AND GATE RE 1/L800; 42" MAX HEIGHT B L E E K E R S T R E E TT H I R D S T R E E T DITCH FLOW LINE HVAC CONDENSERS POTENTIAL GAS AND ELECTRIC METER LOCATIONS PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK175 L800 details 10/18/2019 hpc draft reviewbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com333 w bleeker st l aspen, colorado333 w bleekerdate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen 1 L800 STEEL PICKET FENCE - TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2" x 2" SQUARE STEEL TUBE PICKETS 6" DEPTH PLANTING MEDIUM STEEL BASEPLATE WELDED TO STEEL PICKET AND BOLTED THROUGH METAL TRUSS SUPPORT IRON MOLDING METAL TRUSS; GALVANIZED 2" TYP.STEEL FENCE NOT TO EXCEED 72"ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE; RE L300 FORHEIGHT AND LOCATIONS6"CONCRETE FOOTERS TO FROST DEPTH; POST LOCATIONS MAY VARY DEPENDING ON LOCATION OF EXISTING TREE ROOTS; RE STRUCTURAL STEEL PLATE WELDED/BOLTED TO METAL TRUSS; RE STRUCTURAL 2" SQUARE STEEL TUBE WELDED TO BASE PLATE AND EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE FOOTER 176 ENTRY WALKWAYTHIRD STREET BLEEKER STREETALLEY - BLOCK 4410' SIDE Y A R D SETBAC K 211072110' REAR YARDSETBACK5' SIDEY A R D SETBAC K 10' FRONT YARDSETBACK5' REAR YARDSETBACKPR:3.4AREA:222 SFPR:3.3AREA:269 SFPR:3.0AREA:298 SFPR:3.1AREA:317 SFPR:3.2 AREA:8 7 S FPR:2.0AREA:73 SFPR:2.2AREA:233 SFPR:2.1AREA:233 SFPR:2.3AREA:192 SFPR:2.4AREA:192 SFDS-1CONNECT BASINPR:2.4DS-2CONNECT BASINPR:2.3SPREE-1DS-4CONNECT BASINPR:2.1 WITH INTERNALDRAIN SYSTEMSPREE-2SPREE-4DS-5CONNECT BASINPR:3.3 WITH GUTTER& DOWNSPOUTDS-6CONNECT BASINPR:3.4 WITH GUTTER& DOWNSPOUTSPREE-3INLET-1COLLECT BASINSPR:2.0 & PR:2.1DRYWELLSET LID 4" BELOW GRADECOVER LID WITH SODMIN WQCV: 32 CFMIN VOL (FS=2): 64 CFVOL PROVIDED: 100 CFPROPERTYBOUNDARYGRASS BUFFERMIN AREA: 615 SFAREA PROVIDED: 826 SF10.00 FT6.06 FTEXISTING DITCHWALKWAY TO BE TREATED BY GRASS BUFFEROF EQUAL SIZE LOCATED ADJACENT TO WALKCABLECABINETCABLEPHONEPHONEDS-3CONNECT BASINPR:2.2 WITH INTERNALDRAIN SYSTEM11/18/2019DATE OF PUBLICATIONC0.0COVER SHEET333 W BLEEKER ST REMODEL 333 W BLEEKER ST., ASPEN2/27/19 HPCWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLCP.O. BOX 575WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656(P): 970-429-8297WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COM11/15/19 HPC-REVISED0 5 1020 40Scale: 1" = 10'NNC200GRADING &DRAINAGE PLANNOTES:1. CURB AND GUTTER HASRECENTLY BEEN REPLACEBY THE CITY. IF CURB ANDGUTTER IS DAMAGEDDURING CONSTRUCTIONTHEN REPLACE DAMAGEDCURB AND GUTTER.2. HOUSE, ADDITION ANDGARAGE SHALL WATERQUALITY CAPTURE VOLUMEREQUIREMENTS SHALL BETREATED BY A GRASSBUFFER (LOCATED OVERBASEMENT) AND DRYWELL.3. WALKWAY WATER QUALITYCAPTURE VOLUME SHALLBE TREATED BY A SECONDGRASS BUFFER TO BELOCATED ADJACENT TOTHE WALKWAY.4. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATEDIN A SIDEWALK DEFERREDAREA AND THUS NOSIDEWALK SHALL BEREQUIRED.5. UTILITIES ARE LOCATEDBASED ON EXISTINGPAINTED SURFACELOCATES. SURVEYEDLOCATES WILL BEREQUIRED.PIPEGUTTERUTILITY SERVICEE=ELECTRICUG=UNDERGROUNDGASSS=SANITARY SEWERW=WATERTel=PHONE LINECable=CABLE LINE177 11/15/2019DATE OF PUBLICATIONC0.0COVER SHEET333 W BLEEKER ST REMODEL 333 W BLEEKER ST., ASPEN2/27/19 HPCWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLCP.O. BOX 575WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656(P): 970-429-8297WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COM11/15/19 HPC-REVISED0 0.5 1 2 4Scale: 1" = 1'NNC300DRYWELL DETAILNOTES:1. SET RIM 3" BELOWSURROUNDING GRADE.2. VEGETATE TOP OF SOLIDLID.178 12345678911101213141516171819202122BLEEKER STREETTHIRD STREETGARAGE 2 - STORYFRAME HOUSE333 E. BLEEKERSTREETLOT 2LOT 1ALLEY - BLOCK 44BYNO.DATE BYPROJECT NO.OR 534 - 06700 IN METRO DENVER UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIESEXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OFBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, ORCALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE 1-800-922-1987 CENTER OF COLORADOCALL UTILITY NOTIFICATIONREVISIONHIGH 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 8160121616351 OF 1333 BLEEKER, LLC CITY OF ASPEN IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LOT 1 - BLEEKER STREET CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO WJN BWAB 8.30.17 1635_2019.DWG 1 3.7.18 ADD SURVEY INFO BAJ 2 8.3.18 ADD SURVEY INFO BAJ 3 8.8.18 NEW TITLE COMMITMENT WJN 4 1.8.19 UPDATE BOUNDARY & FEATURES WJNTREE TYPE SIZE DRIPTREE CHARTLOT 1, BLEEKER STREET PARTNERS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONSECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH P..M.CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOIMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYLEGENDSITEVICINITY MAPPROPERTY ZONED: R-6 MEDIUMDENSITY RESIDENTIALSURVEYOR'S NOTES179 From:Bill Toler To:Sarah Yoon Subject:333 W Bleeker - PID#2735-124-01-401 Date:Monday, January 6, 2020 11:06:38 AM Dear Sarah: Happy New Year! I was away from my mailbox for a while over the holidays. I received notice of a public hearing on this Wednesday, January 8th, for the final HPC review of 333 W. Bleeker St. I think the revisions made since the last review on 6/19/2019 are an improvement. I support this proposal and the variations supported by Staff. A 1’-7” rear setback variance and a 2’-2” west side set back variance (vs 5’ setback per code) will enhance the historical appearance from Third Street and provide much needed widening of the alley entrance from Third Street. Thank you for your assistance with information during this approval process for 333 W Bleeker. Best regards, Bill Toler Owner of 327 W Bleeker St Public Comment_01