Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.HPC.20200212
1 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 12, 2020 4:30 PM, I.12:00 SITE VISIT Please meet at 234 W. Francis, which will be followed by a site visit to 227 E. Main II.4:30 ROLL CALL III.MINUTES III.A.Draft Minutes from 1/22/2020 minutes.hpc.20200122.pdf IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VII.PROJECT MONITORING VII.A.Project Monitor List PROJECT MONITORING.doc VIII.STAFF COMMENTS VIII.A.Typical Meeting Procedures typical proceedings.pdf IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED X.CALL UP REPORTS XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XII.4:40 OLD BUSINESS XII.A.234 W. Francis - Conceptual Major Development, Floor Area Bonus, and Setback Variations, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 11, 2019 1 2 234WFrancis_Memo_02.12.20.pdf 234WFrancis_Resolution_02.12.20.pdf ExhibitA.1_HPGuidelinesCriteria.pdf ExhibitA.2_SetbackVariationCriteria.pdf ExhibitA.3_FloorAreaBonus.pdf ExhibitB_ReferralComments.pdf ExhibitC_Application.pdf XIII.5:30 NEW BUSINESS XIII.A.227 E. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation, Setback Variations, PUBLIC HEARING 227 E Bleeker_Memo_02.12.20.pdf 227 E Bleeker_Resolution_Draft.pdf Exhibit A_HPGuidelinesCriteria.pdf Exhibit B_Relocation Criteria.pdf Exhibit C_SetbackVariationCriteria.pdf Exhibit D_Application.pdf XIV.7:00 ADJOURN Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met. Revised April 2, 2014 2 3 3 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Sheri Sanzone Absent were: Bob Blaich, Nora Berko Staff present: Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes from December 11, 2019. Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes from January 8th, 2020. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None CONFLICTS: None. PROJECT MONITORING: 105 E Hallam Ms. Simon stated that this is a recently approved project that had a condition at Final that the full board was to review the material palate for the addition. Materials were represented at Final, but the board wanted time to digest and have the applicant come back and just focus on that. They are in the building permit review, and staff are trying to make sure this condition has been taken care of. Seth Hmielowski introduced himself and Melanie Noonan as being from ZGroup Architects. He stated that they are going to be going over the exterior cladding of 105 E Hallam. They have an updated landscape plan that they are also going to discuss. Their landscape architect Amy Barrow is also present at the meeting and can speak to that. Ms. Noonan stated that the approved landscape plan was what was in the memo. Since that time, they have brought on board a landscape architect who has given them a more detailed landscape plan as well as a fence plan and fence design, which they did not touch on at their final submission. The main thing that they wanted to touch on are the exterior materials. They have stayed with the horizontal and vertical siding. They have made some slight modification to that mainly in the color of the siding. At the initial presentation, the horizontal wood siding was a darker natural wood. They are looking to find something that compliments and works with the brick better. She brought physical samples of the original proposal and the current. They feel that the lighter brown that they are now proposing is a better compliment to the brick. She showed photos on the slide that illustrated the difference between the two. They are looking for that horizontal wood siding to have a relationship. They are looking at the two brick coursing to match up with the siding. Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Simon who the project monitor is for this. Ms. Simon stated that she is not certain that they assigned someone. The condition was to come back to the whole board. 4 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Moyer asked the applicants what kind of wood they will ultimately use on the siding. Ms. Noonan stated that the sample is an infused bamboo, which is what they’re proposing to use. Mr. Moyer stated that the Commission does not tell applicants what color they can use. That’s their discretion. He asked which of the two options depicted in the memo they are proposing regarding the fencing. Ms. Noonan identified the fencing proposed in their packet. Mr. Moyer asked if the fencing will start from the face of the house and go around and if the front of the house will be the existing metal fence. Ms. Noonan stated that the metal fence just runs along the front of the property. It doesn’t actually turn in. Ms. Simon stated that it’s not an original Victorian fence. Ms. Thompson asked the applicants to speak to the landscape lighting that they’re proposing. She is not seeing that identified in the plans. Ms. Noonan stated that that was in their previous plans, it’s not currently shown in the landscape plans in front of the Commission. Mr. Kendrick asked if the pattern shown with the vertical white siding is what they’re planning to use. Ms. Noonan stated that it is. The front of the house, the open gable and the porch have a lot of wood detailing. It creates a nice texture. They wanted to do something that speaks to that. Ms. Sanzone asked what they grey hatch around the perimeter of the building is proposed to be. Ms. Barrow stated that it is a gravel border. Ms. Sanzone asked if the iron fence at the front is proposed to be removed. Ms. Barrow stated that that stays. Mr. Moyer stated that over the years they’ve discussed that the fencing should not hide the resource. He is okay with the fence as shown starting from the face of the house back. He would like to see the metal face return to the house so that the front of the house is totally visible from the street. Ms. Greenwood stated that she agrees with the privacy fence coving the resource. It doesn’t belong. She asked if this is something that was approved or it’s a whole new concept. Ms. Simon stated that she doesn’t think they saw a fence design at final, so this is new. Until you reach the façade of the house, the fence has to be an open picket, so there is an issue with this that needs to be resolved. Ms. Greenwood asked about the size of the house. Ms. Simon stated that, once you get past the front façade, you’re allowed to have a more privacy, 6-foot tall fence. 5 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Greenwood asked if the guidelines allow that. Ms. Simon stated that they do. Ms. Greenwood stated that she thinks that a “miss.” You don’t get to see the beauty of three facades of the historic resource. Ms. Barrow stated that they do have the fence lower at the front façade so that you can see over it for the first bit. The more privacy aspect of the fence is about halfway back on the building and then it goes to the shed on the rear. That happens on both sides. Mr. Kendrick stated that the drawing shows the privacy fence ending at the front of the building. He asked what goes from the front of the building up to the front of the property. Ms. Barrow stated currently nothing. Mr. Kendrick asked if they’re not proposing a fence for that section. Ms. Barrow stated that that is correct. Ms. Sanzone asked if the topography on the site goes downhill towards the alley. Ms. Barrow stated that it’s pretty flat. Ms. Noonan stated that the alley is about a foot higher than the front of the house. It’s a gentle slope. Ms. Sanzone asked if they imagine other splits in the fence other than what they’ve shown. Ms. Barrow stated that that is correct. Ms. Sanzone stated that there are plantings proposed next to the outdoor patio that are hedge-like. She asked if they’ve received any comments from Zoning about those. Ms. Barrow stated that they have not. Ms. Simon stated that those are not in the area where a hedge would be a concern, but it will have to go through the permit process. Ms. Barrow asked how tall the proposed hedges get. Ms. Barrow stated that they get two to three feet tall. Ms. Simon stated that Ms. Yoon did pull up the project monitor list and Mr. Halferty is the monitor. To the extent that the board wants to leave anything to further review, it would be to him. Ms. Greenwood asked if they want them to make a decision as a board as to the siding materials and the fence. Ms. Simon stated that at least the siding materials. It’s stated in the resolution that it should be a board decision. The landscape plan is traditionally the monitor. The fence would fall to the monitor unless the Commission wants to weigh in or give Mr. Halferty direction. Ms. Sanzone stated that she would prefer if the board weighed in on the landscape plan and the fence design rather than just providing direction to Mr. Halferty. 6 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Greenwood asked if everyone is okay with the siding materials. She thinks it’s a better choice from a color standpoint. Ms. Thompson stated that she is happy with the materials. They look appropriate. Mr. Halferty stated that he is also happy with the materials. Mr. Moyer stated that he’s happy with the bamboo. Ms. Sanzone stated that she finds that the landscape plan and the fence are compliant with the HPC guidelines. She would support the design. Ms. Greenwood stated that it is compliant with the guidelines. She wishes that most of the fence would be 42-inches for the length of the historic resource. Since that’s not in their guidelines, she can’t really ask the applicants to do it. She thinks it’s important. Little details like that make a difference in a community when everyone wants to see the historic resource. Mr. Halferty stated that he agrees with the landscape plan. What’s proposed is compliant with the HPC guidelines. He echoed the same comment as Ms. Greenwood regarding being able to see the historic resource. Ms. Greenwood stated that applicants don’t always have to go with the guidelines. They should be sensitive to all the effort that’s gone into restoring the historic resource. The right thing to do would be to keep the fence low until it reaches the new addition. It’s not like it’s creating a whole lot of space. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that there are a lot of people attending the meeting. She encouraged the commissioners to speak closely into their microphones. She reminded everyone to state their name when they speak for the benefit of the clerk producing minutes remotely from the recording. Ms. Simon stated that staff and several commissioners are going to be at the Colorado Preservation Inc. conference next week from Wednesday to Friday. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 920 E Hyman Avenue – Minor Development, Relocation, Setback Variations, and TDR Ms. Yoon introduced the project. 920 E Hyman is a 3,000 square foot lot, historically designated, has a one-story miner’s cabin to the front of the property and it’s connected with an above-grade addition that was approved by HPC back in 1999, so it doesn’t have the traditional connecting element that we see today. Looking at the Sanborn Maps from 1904, it appears to be roughly in the same location. It currently has a setback, which is approximately 22-feet from the property line in a district where 10-feet is required. The site also has a number of large trees that are located towards the front of the property. It is located in the RMF zone district. With this application, the applicant wishes to convert an existing crawl-space into a full basement, add new lightwells, make some exterior material changes and fenestration changes. The fenestration changes are concentrated on the above-grade addition, not the historic resource. 7 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Yoon stated that the request for the relocation is needed because any work that requires underpinning of the structure is considered relocation according to the design guidelines. No new above-grade or structures are proposed. Nothing is essentially being moved. The applicant plans to make modifications to the front walkway with this proposal. There is a step towards the front of the property that is large, so they are going to make that modification there. In relation to stormwater mitigation, they are proposing to use pervious walkway pavers. The applicant does need to work more with the Engineering and Parks Departments to home in on the requirements for drainage and stormwater, but those are underway. The material that the applicant was providing this week related to the pervious pavers is going to be a brick paver. In the process, staff recommends that the applicant try to meet the Design Guideline 1.6. Currently, the existing walkway is not perpendicular. More investigation into why that is is needed. It is staff’s recommendation to try and meet Guideline 1.6 as this walkway is being restudied. Ms. Yoon stated that it was represented in the drawings provided by the architects that footers are already existing. Two new lightwells are abutting the historic resource towards the rear to provide egress for the rooms on the sub-grade level. They are slightly larger than what is required by minimum building code. The modifications to the size of the two existing lightwells are also proposed. Ms. Yoon stated that fenestration changes are proposed on the north east west elevations of the non- historic addition. No fenestration changes are proposed on the historic resource. The applicant also included the addition of new downspouts along the east and west elevation. Staff did provide a recommendation for additional re-study of where the downspouts are to be located. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant does plan to change the roofing material of the existing addition and the historic resource. It was represented in the application that the historic resource would be restored to cedar wood shingles. The addition would be changed to a standing seam metal roof. Staff does find that both of these materials, and in combination with what is existing, meet the criteria and design guidelines. Since the proposal does trigger relocation, new setback variations will be necessary to memorialize the location of the existing historic resource, which is currently encroaching into the east and west setbacks. Additionally, the lightwells are proposed in the setbacks and the applicant is asking for setback variations for these features. Staff does find that the criteria for granting setback variations are met with this request. In addition, the applicant is also requesting the establishment of one TDR. Staff supports the establishment of the TDR that will reduce developable floor area on the site. It does meet the criteria, as shown in the packet. It is important to note that the establishment of TDRs can only be done by City Council. HPC is a recommending body for the TDRs. All floor area calculations must be verified prior to the creating of the TDR certificates. Those all need to be considered. Ms. Yoon stated that staff does recommend approval of the project. They ask that the applicant restudy the walkway to be perpendicular if possible, utilizing the pavers and material that’s historically appropriate. They should work with staff-in-monitor to find that balance. This is to be done before the submission of building permit. Also the restudy of the downspouts, which are on the non-historic addition. That final configuration to also be reviewed by staff-in-monitor. In the responses that the applicant sent on Tuesday, they did provide a roof plan. It does show the dimensions and locations of 8 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 new flues and vents. They also provided additional information about snow clips, so Condition Three has been met and can be taken off. Staff ask that the lightwell curb heights be six inches or less to make sure that it’s not too high. There was a request in the application related to the stained glass window. Additional research and investigation of the materials themselves will be necessary. Staff encourages the applicant to explore the stained glass that’s there to see if it is historic. It’s unclear at this moment. Staff do not have enough documentation to support its removal. Working with all relevant City departments regarding storm water mitigation and urban runoff management plans, the referral agencies, the Engineering and Parks Departments did provide some comments indicating more conversation needed related to the drainage and the stormwater mitigation. Those final plans are to be reviewed and approved by staff-in-monitor prior to building permit submission. The setback variations are to be granted to memorialize the location of the historic resource. It also encompasses the proposed lightwells. The setback variation applies to above and below grade. Staff is in support of the establishment of one TDR with the finalized floor areas to be verified by the appropriate City departments before its establishment. Nine is the financial assurance required for relocation. Ms. Thompson asked if the rear yard setback needs to be reestablished or if that’s set from the old ordinance. Ms. Yoon stated that the rear yard setback is set from the old ordinance. There is no work being done in that area. That one will remain as well as what was approved previously. Ms. Sanzone asked if the application was submitted after the board required concepts about site drainage. Ms. Yoon stated that their guidelines ask for preliminary concepts. She believes that the applicant did reach out to Engineering and had a preliminary discussion. Since then, staff referred it to the Engineering Department. There’s been more discussion related to that. Ms. Sanzone stated that she thought HPC clarified that it was a plan or some sort of drawing that would be a part of the application that the Commission could review. Ms. Simon stated that the applicant did provide that and their intention was to tear up the existing sidewalk and use pervious pavers. Engineering had a change of opinion about the extent of mitigation, which is why they are now less certain. Ms. Greenwood asked if they need a rear-yard setback for excavation below-grade. Ms. Yoon stated that they’re not doing any excavation on the rear. It’s all concentrated to the front where the historic resource is. Ms. Thompson stated that they are changing the size of the lightwells. She would anticipate the grading around them changing. She thinks that that is important to look at, too. 9 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 APPLICANT PRESETNATION: Mark Janion of B2 Builders introduced himself. He introduced Colleen Loughin and Bill Pollock of Zone 4 Architects. He stated that the applicants are meeting with the necessary departments at the City next week to hash out drainage and parks issues that Ms. Simon mentioned. Regarding the excavation, there’s already an existing basement under the entire addition and about half the historic asset. The applicants are going to hand-dig out the remaining half, take the dirt out. It’s already a full-height crawlspace. They are only taking out a small portion. The design from the engineer goes straight down on the existing foundation, which is why they need the setback variation. The original house was in the setback and they are just going straight down. They are not going outside of the original perimeter. Mr. Halferty asked if Jack discussed the underpinning and foundation extensions, regarding the excavation. Mr. Janion stated that it would be four-foot sections. Mr. Halferty asked if it will all be dug from inside the structure. Mr. Janion stated that it will be. Mr. Kendrick asked about the excavation on the window wells. It appears that, on the east side, it goes past the footprint of the house. On that side of the house, it’s very tight with the adjoining property. Mr. Janion stated that they would hand-dig that as well and try to work with the engineer to see if they can come up with a detail to not go over the property. Everything that they do will be on their property. Mr. Kendrick asked if the window well goes past their property line. Mr. Janion stated that it does not. Ms. Sanzone asked if the soil will be wheelbarrowed to the back of the property. Mr. Janion replied that it will be. Ms. Sanzone asked how the applicants propose to remove the soil and get it through the area with the existing tree. Mr. Janion stated that they can cover the window well and take it over to the driveway in the back. Ms. Sanzone asked how they plan to do that with the tree in between. Mr. Janion stated that they will do it with buckets and carry it around. Ms. Sanzone asked if they have talked with the Parks Department about how they might accomplish work in that area. 10 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Janion stated that they have not. Ms. Sanzone stated that she would like them to include that as a part of their conversation. Ms. Greenwood asked if the applicants are in agreement with what the City is asking them for. Mr. Janion replied that they are. Mr. Moyer asked if the applicants foresee any problems with various pipes protruding through the roof, as related to staff Condition Three. Mr. Janion stated that it’s not an issue. Mr. Moyer asked if they know whether the stained glass window is historic or not. Mr. Janion stated that he does not know. The oldest photos they could find have the window. Ms. Thompson asked why the lightwells behind the historic bump out past the existing wall instead of just continuing straight back. Mr. Pollock stated that it’s related to constructability. They also do need some room. They could bring it in a bit, but for code reasons they need to be minimum 3x3. Mr. Janion stated that they will bring it in as small as they can. Mr. Pollock stated that it was recommended that way by the structural engineer. Ms. Sanzone asked if the large spruce tree that was added back in the site plan is to remain. Mr. Janion stated that it is to remain. Ms. Sanzone asked how the front path will be both snow melted and pervious. Mr. Janion stated that it will be accomplished with sand and drilled insulation to let the water through the insulation and then the insulation protects from heating the ground. Ms. Sanzone asked if the reason that’s proposed to be pervious is to accomplish the additional drainage requirements or if that’s only related to the walkway. She asked if that includes any impacts with the other sitework including the two new window wells. Mr. Janion stated that the roof currently just sheds. There’s a dry well that’s in the right of way that Engineering doesn’t want them to keep. So they are proposing taking their drainage through that walkway. 11 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Sanzone asked if it’s a new pipe connection under the walkway. She asked if the drywall would be in the right of way or in the street. Mr. Janion stated that it would just be the rock bed below the pervious pavers. Ms. Sanzone asked what they think the excavation depth is going to be. Mr. Janion stated that he thinks it was seven by three feet. Ms. Sanzone asked if protections for trees that might come up in their discussions with Parks would alter the design. Mr. Janion stated that trying to get the walkway straight is impacted by the trees, so they are going to work with Parks, Engineering, and Ms. Simon to figure out what the final alignment looks like. Ms. Sanzone asked if they are married to the width of the walk that they’re showing in the plans. Mr. Janion stated that they are not. Ms. Sanzone stated that she would suggest narrowing that to help reduce the impact on the trees. It may be that they can do deeper versus wider to accomplish the drainage requirements. Mr. Janion stated that they would be fine with that. Ms. Sanzone asked if they are confident that they will be able to protect the trees on the neighbors’ property during their work. Mr. Janion stated that they are. Ms. Sanzone asked if that will be discussed with the Parks Department. Mr. Janion stated that that is. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Yoon stated that staff did receive public comment on the project that was sent out to the commissioners. COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION: Ms. Greenwood stated that there are conditions in the application for this project to move forward. Mr. Moyer stated that he is in concurrence with staff’s recommendation. 12 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Halferty stated that he concurs with the recommendations of staff and the guidelines are met. They’ve thought about the constructability and conservation of the trees. He could support this application as is. Mr. Kendrick stated that he concurs with staff recommendations. The applicant has done a good job addressing the concerns. Ms. Thompson stated that she agrees. Ms. Sanzone asked if they are coming back for a Final. Ms. Greenwood stated that this is a minor development, so this is their only hearing. Ms. Sanzone asked if the irrigation control box is in a yard box. Mr. Janion stated that it is. Ms. Sanzone asked what will happen with the path lights if they straighten the path. Mr. Janion stated that they will do whatever staff, the board, and the guidelines recommend. Ms. Sanzone stated that, in general, the guidelines wouldn’t support this marching of lights to the front door. She suggested eliminating those. Ms. Greenwood stated that they have a lot to work out with the stormwater and landscaping. It might be a simple situation where a monitor could work with staff on it. They are more landscaping issues than they are building issues. Ms. Sanzone stated that, with that, she would support the application and staff’s recommendation. Ms. Greenwood stated that she does not see any problem with this application. Mr. Kendrick motioned to approve Resolution Three as written. Mr. Moyer seconded. Role Call Vote: Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone. Ms. Sanzone volunteered to be the monitor for this project. 620 Gillespie Avenue and 845 Meadows Rd, Aspen Institute – Historic Designation and Benefits, Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design, Growth Management, Planned Development, Special Review, Transportation Impact and Trash Storage 13 11 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jim Curtis introduced himself as the Aspen Institute Owner’s representative. He invited the commissioners and the public to look at the model he brought. Mr. Curtis introduced the project team. He introduced Dr. Dan Porterfield, the CEO of the Aspen Institute. Richard Stadler, the Vice President for the Aspen Institute campus. Becky Ward, who has been working with Mr. Curtis on the day-to-day. Jeff Berkus and Norman Tai were the design architects for the Bayer Building. Sarah Broughton and Craig Lawrence have been the architects for the Bettcher renovation. Dr. Porterfield thanked the Historic Preservation Commission for this project. He stated that he works out of their headquarters at the DC office. He is in Aspen typically over the summers and tries to come two or three times in the off season. He wanted to be at the meeting in person to present the Institute’s vision for the Bettcher Seminar Building and for the proposed Center of Herbert Bayer Studies. He also wanted to convey the Institute’s strong desire for this whole reimagined corner of the Aspen Meadows campus to be a new bridge connecting the Institute and the community. Since he joined the Institute in 2018, he has become increasingly aware of and inspired by the role of Herbert Bayer and his contemporaries such as Fritz Benedict in the development of Aspen as well as the Aspen Institute. The founders of the Institute, Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke, commissioned Herbert Bayer to design the Aspen Meadows campus in the early 1950’s, which including the buildings, the earth works, landscapes, the sculptures, paintings, tapestries. It’s a work of art. Since then, largely as a result of this remarkable history and Bayer’s transformational role in Aspen, the Institute has become an important repository of Bayer’s work, mostly with the acquisition in 2018 of the anaconda marble sculpture from the Denver Art Museum and a gift last year of more than 13 Bayer artworks from the Bayer family to the Institute. Because of this legacy, the Institute feels a very profound responsibility to preserve and celebrate Bayer’s work in a facility that’s befitting of his artistic genius. The new building that’s proposed will allow the Institute to preserve and honor the art, to showcase, exhibit, and grow their collections. It will allow them to borrow from other major cultural institutions and to create new exhibitions that will educate the public about Bayer’s living legacy in Aspen. Mr. Curtis stated that, similarly, they see the renovation of the adjacent Bettcher Seminar Building and the surrounding landscaping as an integrated component of the vision of the Bayer Center. Designed by Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict, the Bettcher Building has not been updated since its completion in 1975 and is showing its age. Because of the historical significance of that building, the Institute has volunteered to designate it as part of the Aspen modern inventory. They see this a tremendous opportunity to renovate and preserve a key part of Aspen’s historic heritage. The two buildings will deepen the Institute’s contribution to the community of Aspen. Bayer’s work is relevant to contemporary thinking and the processes of problem-solving that are central to what the Aspen Institute is today. The campus visitors and members of the Aspen community will be able to visit the Bayer Center to learn about the principals of design and creativity and see how they live on today in Aspen and at the Institute. Then they can go next door into the renovated Bettcher Building to apply those principals to their own work, which might be an art, entrepreneurship, social improvement. They plan to develop educational programs for small groups of local students and give residents a place if they want to inform themselves about design thinking in order to address local problems. The Aspen Meadows campus has always been a gathering place for the Aspen community, thought leaders, 14 12 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 speakers from around the world and the Institute is very proud of it. As a nonprofit people and community-serving organization, they take joy in the heritage, their mission of service, and their relationship with Aspen. The Bayer Center and the renovation of Bettcher will reinforce all three of those core elements: their aesthetic heritage, their mission of service, and their relationship with the Aspen community. Mr. Curtis stated that Mr. Berkus is going to give an overview of the project. Mr. Berkus stated that this project represents where Bayer came from at the Bauhaus about that total work of art. When the team first looked at the site, they looked at all of the surrounding elements, Gillespie Street, the Aspen Music Festival, and the Physics Center. They were very sensitive about Amy’s Meadow to the north and how to center the Bettcher building in this site as the primary piece of art and surround it with a sculpture garden. How would the community interface in a better way than it’s currently doing now. Come in from the corner where the bus lane drops off and where the community pedestrians interface. They are suggesting improving the bus lane and a pedestrian walkway since so many people use that way to get to the campus for the Music Festival in the summer. Mr. Berkus stated that, stretching the project around Bettcher, they took the line of the existing lawn around the Physics Center. They are not going to go any farther into the sage than is already done along that side. Within that line, they started the landscape design using mounds to create the kind of space that Bayer would do around his buildings where he would define edges with landscape and buildings and in gathering spaces with a lawn in between. In his earlier works, there wasn’t the budget or use for the lawns and there was more sage. As the Institute has grown into this iteration, there is a culture of gathering in the outdoor spaces directly adjacent to the buildings. The applicants feel that is an appropriate way of addressing the building from the north and south and to have the natural swaths of the sage still around the entire site. Now, with the Bayer retention ponds, that is starting to have the rain gardens come into effect, so they’ve made that part of the landscape of this building. The beauty is that you can see a side of Bettcher that hasn’t really been shown to the community. It’s been the backside where cars have parked for years. There’s a walkway that comes around the back and is slightly raised so the community has a great place to look towards Ajax in the background and towards a nice side of the building. In the composition of the building, when they took Bayer as a centerpiece, they talked about where do they locate the Bettcher building. The most deferential place was to pull it back to the corner and open up the forecourt for the community to continue to see the resource of the building to establish a line from the side of the entry. It’s a 54 by 54 foot square, which is fairly small for a building that’s going to have this much art, but it was more important for the applicants to do the right thing on the site. They have 3100 square feet upstairs and 4200 square feet downstairs. The downstairs gallery continues out underneath the forecourt for the building. The idea of, when you approach on the angle, you are looking straight at the historic resource and at the entry of the resource. It’s a nice view of the building. The applicants are suggesting to move the spruce further away from the building, opening up the façade to the street from where it is now. They’ve had great success in transplanting trees of that size. Mr. Berkus stated that, regarding the architecture, Bayer is a very simple building based on the geometries of Bayer with the squares, circles, golden sections, all the principal geometries that he’s 15 13 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 always worked with. It’s very axial and symmetrical on the inside. The plate heights are deferential. They would have loved to have a 10-foot plate, but they’ve chosen the nine-foot six with a thinner assembly to be lower than the plate-height of the Bettcher building beside it. All the proportions of the building are lower than on Bettcher. As far as the materials, Bayer always kept materials to a simple palate and they are doing the same. They are very excited to be able to use steel windows in this project for the first time on campus. That is what was used on those buildings back in the day. Simple palate of grey and white and choosing not to use the exact grey of the Bettcher building. STAFF PRESENTATION: Ms. Simon stated that she is going to give an overview of the process, then focus on the proposed resolution and conditions of approval. Staff is very excited about this project. From a historic preservation point-of-view, they’re seeing the designation of one of the few remaining properties on the campus that are not protected, the Bettcher building, so that is a great thing to have come forward. Also, the idea of having a facility that is focused entirely on Herbert Bayer and will be a place where the existing collection will be displayed. New items may be brought to the community. It’s extremely exciting, right on the heels of the Bauhaus 100 celebration. Staff are grateful for this project. Ms. Simon stated that this is a multi-step review. The Commission’s role is to make a recommendation on historic designation and benefits, because this is a voluntary designation of the Bettcher building. They are also asked to conduct their typical design review role. They are asked to make a recommendation to City Council about employee generation, planned development review, and transportation and parking management, trash and recycling, infrastructure improvements that aren’t always the sort of thing that are in front of this board. Because this project involves a voluntary historic designation, it is on a big of a fast track. It was part of the agreements that were made when the Aspen Modern aspect of the program was created that, if someone volunteered for designation, they would go to the front of the line and the City would try to review their project and make a decision within 90 days. So if the applicant was not happy with the outcome, they hadn’t lost an extraordinary amount of time. With that in mind, the conceptual review is occurring tonight. Council first reading is next Tuesday, the 28th. Second reading for City Council is February 11th. HPC final review is February 26th. If there is something that needs additional time, it will either need to be a condition of approval or the applicant would have to agree to any delay. Time is very important to them in this project, the idea being that there will be some site work conducted in the spring as soon as weather allows, no activity during the summer, and this project would be built from fall 2020 to summer 2021, roughly. This is a lot to accomplish in a short period of time. Ms. Simon stated that, with the historic designation, staff have provided an analysis in the memo finding that the proposal to designation the Bettcher building meets four of the five designation criteria. The association with Bayer and Bennedict, the total integrity of the building. Staff have a scoring system that they use where they analyze whether they have been any changes to the building, alternations over time. This scored 18 out of 20 points. The only place it got dinged is perhaps some window replacement and things like that over time. This is a really important building and it is the one closest to West End proper. Ms. Simon stated that the institute property that was recognized very early on in the Aspen inventory process as significant and needing designation, but it’s evolved over the years. Unlike most sites, where 16 14 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 the City designates the boundaries of the property, this is a 40-acre site that includes two lots. An agreement was made starting in ’95 that only specific aspects of the campus would be designated: Anderson Park, the health club, the reception building are all designated with a very tight boundary around them. HPC has reviewed those properties as project have come in over the years. The Koch Seminar building, the Paepcke Auditorium, and this building are the only ones that are from the original era of the institute and are not protected. Staff hope down the road that they can advance the discussion about Koch Seminar and Paepcke, but this is a really great thing to come in front of the board now. One thing that staff have as a condition of approval in the ordinance is the application suggests that just Bettcher and maybe an inch around it would be designated. Staff would like to see that revised to include the whole area. They feel that the Center for Bayer Studies needs to clearly be under HPC’s purview so that any change in the future would come to this board, any change to the landscape would also have the board’s review. She believes that the applicant is alright with that, they just need to work together to create a map that shows the area. Ms. Simon stated that, as far as HPC’s design review role tonight, the property needs conceptual major development and conceptual major design review. The guidelines are all provided in the memo. Most of the guidelines are addressing development that would happen more in a downtown type of context. They’re not entirely prepared for this campus-type setting. To the extent the guidelines apply, staff finds that they are all met. They agree with the applicant’s analysis. Staff finds the siding of the Bayer building to be appropriate, the height, the scale, the footprint, all to be very sympathetic to the structure. This is an appropriate part of the campus to place the building. Staff like the idea of it being here with easy access for the public and engaging the Bettcher building, which previously has not been as active as other parts of the campus. That’s another reason why this project is very positive and staff have supported the project as proposed. Obviously, there will be a final review. The landscape needs to be discussed in some detail. Staff want to make sure that the meadow and lawn character of the property is balanced. Ms. Simon stated that she met with the applicant today and they came up with some changes for the commission to consider as part of their review. One of the things to discuss is relocation of a tree on the site. Right now, there’s a large spruce tree that’s very close to the Bettcher Building. The applicant has proposed to remove that and the Parks Department has agreed. Initially, they were concerned because it’s a healthy tree. Staff suggested that it’s really impacting the integrity of the building. It is going to be removed. The spruce tree on the model is located in the area of the proposed museum. It is to be relocated, which will be a challenge. Staff do have a condition that the specific place where it will land does need HPC review at final. They want to make sure they are not just recreating the condition they have now. They want to make sure that the mature size of this tree is not going to cause impacts 30 years from now. That’s one of the conditions in the staff memo. In condition number four, the applicant had initially planned to talk to the Parks Department about removing some cottonwoods that are more on the perimeter of the property. The applicant has decided now to not ask anymore. They’re just going to trim and maintain those trees. Condition number six in the memo has to do with some historic preservation benefits. The applicant is asking to be relieved of some fees that might be charged at time of building permit. This is something for Council to approve but it is included in the memo. Historic properties are always exempted, this is a little murkier because not the whole site is designated. Staff have suggested that Council should waive those fees. Number seven touches on a couple of topics. 17 15 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 The applicant is planning on this project not to have any onsite parking. The Commission may want to go into more discussion about this. There’s going to be some new traffic coming to the site. The applicant has had to do a transportation analysis and talk with Engineering about how they’ll mitigate impacts. Their plan for parking is to share parking in the adjacent MAA lot, which is a separate property. There are a number of things that come up with that discussion. It was mentioned that that parking lot, which is currently now all dirt, a portion of it will be paved where the busses come around, to cut down on dust. A better pedestrian path and access from Gillespie toward the tent will be created. The applicant needs to continue to work on that. Staff needs to make sure that all the mitigation and stormwater treatment is properly addressed. Condition seven touches on that. Staff is suggesting that there be a limit on any kind of private events that happen on this property. The museum itself may become an attractive site for weddings of events that have nothing to do with the Institute. Staff want to make sure that that is addressed so that they’re not generating additional traffic, trash, employee generation. Number seven talks about how to deal with that and come up with some language that the applicant can live with that doesn’t limit them from the sort of appropriate activities, like school groups coming to see the museum, versus someone having a party that’s not part of their normal activities. Staff are suggesting a limit on the number of events, that there be no kitchen added to these buildings that doesn’t already exist. One of the things that wasn’t mentioned as a side part of this project is, on Meadows Road itself, some years ago some of the tennis courts that exist there were converted to a storage yard. The tennis fence is still around it. The applicant wants to build a storage shed on that lot just to contain all of that and winter-proof it. Condition number eight in the memo talks about that building. Staff don’t find that it has any kind of visual impact. They want to make sure that it isn’t provided with heat and plumbing and suddenly becomes a workspace or something else like that. Ms. Simon stated that, regarding affordable housing, this property is considered an essential public facility. Unlike most commercial development that has a very specific calculation for how many employees staff think are generated per square foot of the project and what has to be mitigated, this applicant has the ability to make a proposal to the City regarding the number of employees they think are going to be generated by this space and how they’d like to mitigate. In 1991, an approval was granted for the Institute, the Music Associates, and Physics that tried to envision all of their future development and provide approvals so that they could move forward easily. All of that development was really approved with no affordable housing mitigation. All of that has been used up. This new project requires a discussion under today’s tolerances for affordable housing. The applicant has suggested the Bayer Museum generates one-and-a-half employees: a full time curator and an additional half-time staff person. Typically, whatever number of employees are generated must be mitigated at 65%. It comes down to a calculation. The applicant would like to provide a cash-in-lieu payment to the City that the City would use to build housing. At this point, staff is agreeable to that. They would like to see some future auditing to make sure that three more people aren’t added the day after the building opens. That’s standard practice. The housing authority has agreed and is supporting this cash-in-lieu payment rather than sending the applicant off to find affordable housing credits. There is a spirit of compromise and agreement happening on that topic. Ms. Simon stated that, on the topic of affordable housing mitigation and the audit, the applicant is a little uncomfortable with the scope of that. The resolution suggests that staff want a total employee calculation for the total Institute program. They want to narrow that in to make sure it’s just related to 18 16 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 this project alone. The resolution suggests that a draft construction management plan needs to be provided to HPC at Final Review. They’re not ready yet. That is typically a building permit process. They have asked that the Commission strike that wording and have it dealt with at permit. The resolution goes on after that to incorporate, pretty much verbatim, referral comments staff received from the Engineering, Parks, Environmental Health, Zoning Departments. The applicant’s original proposal did not include any trash area for this part of the campus. They wanted to use the central location that’s over by the reception center. Environmental Health was not comfortable with that. There’s going to be a little service yard alongside Bettcher that is going to hold some mechanical equipment rather than put it on the roof. Now it will hold some dumpsters and things that are specific to this part of the campus. The resolution mentions the idea that there needs to be an updated fugitive dust mitigation plan developed for the Music Associates parking lot. The applicant is uncomfortable with the wording of that, so it’s been revised. The applicant is trying to share parking with the MAA. They have done it on other occasions throughout the years cooperatively. It is an agreement that needs to be renewed every five years or so, but it is bringing good things in that there will be some paving and better control of dust on the site. The applicant is concerned with the wording as it was originally shown in the resolution, putting too much burden on them for the remaining dust concerns on that property. Staff want them to continue to work with Environmental Health on something reasonable. Mr. Curtis stated that Ms. Simon has been great to work with. The applicants met with her this morning and went through the resolution. They are fine with all of the proposed amendments and the resolution as it stands. He and Ms. Ward met with the neighbors early on in the process to get their feedback. Consistently, they heard the neighbors say they were very concerned about dust coming from the Music Association bus lane and parking lot to the east. Given that concern, the applicants are proposing significant improvements to the east boundary, working with the Music Association to partially address that concern, but also to make a better entry for the total community coming into the tent. One of the issues that the Music Association has made the applicants aware of is that people walk in the bus lane as they’re going to and leaving the performances. To address that, the applicants have created a well- defined pedestrian walkway that will go from 5th Street all the way to the tent. They want it to be between eight and ten feet. It will have boundaries on both sides. It will be lit at night with low bollard lights. In addition to a wonderful safety improvement, it will also clean up that side of the property visually and help people get to the tent. Concurrently, the applicants will do a five-foot sidewalk along Gillespie Avenue. He has been in conversation with the Parks Department on how to do that sidewalk and work it within the trees. There will be new curb and gutter, new sidewalk on Gillespie Avenue, a major improvement. They are proposing to asphalt pave the bus lane from the entrance at 5th Street to the east side of the bus shelter. When he was speaking with the neighbors, he was hesitant about what he could say. At that point in time, he had not been able to meet with the City Engineering Department and the Environmental Health air quality people. Subsequently, he has been able to meet with Engineering. The issue there is: how do you drain these improvements and meet the City requirements? He had a very good meeting with the Engineering Department. He feels comfortable that they have a conceptual drainage plan that works. The engineers are drawing the technical components of that plan up. He hopes to have the technical drawings and the signoff on that plan by City Council second reading on February 11th. At this point, he is not seeing a technical reason that would preclude them from making those improvements. He personally thinks the major improvements will clean up that boundary for everyone in the community. 19 17 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Greenwood stated that the commissioners will do questions for staff and applicants together. She asked Mr. Curtis if they are going to do different materials for the bus lane versus the walkway. Mr. Curtis stated that, at this point, they are proposing asphalt for both just because it seems to be in character with the past. The difference is that there will be a low-boundary railing separating the pedestrian way from the bus lane. Mr. Moyer stated that he does not want more parking lots. It seems that there are different ways of making a surface that a person can walk on or car can drive on that’s not asphalt, can drain properly, and does not have dust. He has Mr. Curtis if he has done any research into alternatives to asphalt. Mr. Curtis stated that the applicants have not explored that in detail. In the initial conversations with Jeannette Witcomb from the Environmental Health Department, she stated that the primary dust issue is coming from the bus lane just because the bus traffics heavier vehicles. Two summers ago, the Music Association put down recycled asphalt with a dust controllant on top. People have said that that works quite well. The issue is long-term maintenance. They are open to looking at dust controllants, but at this point, in terms of a permanent solution that’s known and doable, they are focusing on the asphalt. Mr. Halferty asked if there will be any spaces lost for the Music Associates. Mr. Curtis stated that there will be no reduction of spaces in the parking lot. Only sharing of spaces. Mr. Halferty stated that, part of the atmosphere of getting to the tent is the gravel paving and patios. There are concrete patios near Harris Hall and the Music Tent. He asked if the applicants have considered other paving that’s more historically representative of the meadows. Is there a way that they could incorporate what is there predominantly, which is the gravel patios that go through the meadow? Mr. Curtis stated that they would be happy to consider crusher fines. At this point, the Building Department has said that will not be ADA compliant. The existing central spine in the music association parking lot today has trees on the other side. That is chip and seal, which they could consider. They were looking for a well-defined walkway, cleaning up the boundary, making it safe, reducing dust, and giving it proper drainage. Mr. Halferty stated that the Bayer detailing with his typical roofs are pretty geometric and simple. The roof that’s suggested for that top portion has a sharp angle. He asked if they have considered any other potential solutions. Mr. Berkus stated that this is pretty heavy and the roof meets the sky in a much lighter way. At the pedestrian level, they are presented with the c channel all the way around. When they studied the building in 3D, it was decided to do a much lighter roof. They found that to be really successful. It has a very thin edge and it just goes away. They are not trying to call attention to any of the height of this building. In their minds, this was a much softer way. 20 18 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Thompson asked the applicants to talk about what they’re proposing on the Bettcher building regarding moving the utilities, enclosing the courtyard, and adding the utility yard. She asked if that is all of the improvements. Mr. Berkus stated that that is correct, with the addition of adding a vestibule between the two pods and enclosing that with glass. Ms. Thompson asked what they are proposing to do with the exterior walls that will be becoming interior walls in the courtyard. Mr. Berkus stated that, for building function, four of them will become furred so that they can run power and not have the conduit exposed. They are still maintaining the CMU on the other four because it’s octagonal-shaped. Ms. Thompson asked if they are removing part of the CMU. Mr. Berkus stated that they are just furring out. Ms. Sanzone asked the applicants to show aerial or survey that shows existing conditions. She asked Mr. Curtis to point to the site and landscape features that they determined were historic or contributed to Bayer’s work. Mr. Berkus stated that this building didn’t have defined edges other than the concrete walkway of the front and the paths. There was one sculpture out in front along the east side. That was really the only sculptural element. They didn’t take the lawn out as far as the irrigated lawn of the Physics Center. Ms. Sanzone stated that there are a couple of ditches that run through the project site. She asked if those were determined to not be historic or contributing to the site design at all. Mr. Berkus replied yes. Ms. Sanzone stated that the one is re-routed and seems to disappear. What happens to that? Mr. Berkus stated that it goes back to the other one. Ms. Sanzone stated that there are also some mounds that are on that side of the property. Were those constructed at the same time as the buildings? Mr. Berkus stated that those were not considered to be part of the resource. The idea of adding the mounds to the back to really give it the defined character was where the applicants took off from the Anderson Park. Ms. Sanzone asked if they know when the spruce trees were installed. 21 19 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Curtis stated that the applicants have a photograph from 1991 and neither of the spruce trees show up in that. At that time, it did show a grass situation in front. They do have permission from the Parks Department to remove the tree that’s infringing on the building. They would like to try to transplant the tree that’s in the center, but the Parks Department has said go ahead and transplant it. If it dies, the applicants will mitigate for that upfront. Mr. Berkus stated that there was some concern about the neighbors parking on the street and more people coming off of Gillespie. There will be a 42-inch high fence along that street that directs people down to the corner. That’s a fence Herbert Bayer designed for the West End. They are taking that fence. It will discourage parking from the neighbors across the street. Mr. Curtis stated that, when the applicants spoke with the neighbors, they had rows of Aspen trees on Gillespie Avenue and the proposed pedestrian walkway on the MAA parking lot. The feedback they got from the neighbors was that didn’t want to see Aspen trees. They wanted to be able to look up above the building and see Red Mountain. What they’ve done is eliminated the proposed Aspen trees and they’re proposing a low hedge, one or two feet above the fence, so pedestrians on Gillespie Avenue and the new pedestrian walkway can look into the complex and continue to see Red Mountain as the backdrop to the two buildings. Ms. Sanzone stated that there are a lot of trees and large shrubs that are along the perimeter of the site. They show up in the Engineering drawings. It looks like there are a lot of utilities being routed through them. Is the intent that, if they’re shown on the existing and proposed, they’re going to stay? Mr. Curtis stated that, to clarify, the trees on the south east corner of the Bayer building are existing and they’re proposing not to touch any of those. At the corner of Gillespie and 5th, there’s a cluster of three cottonwoods and one spruce. To get the five-foot sidewalk in, one of those trees may have to come out with permission from the Parks Department. On the proposed pedestrian walkway to the east, there are some smaller Aspen trees that would come out and a new hedge would go in. The Parks Department has said that they’re fine with the smaller Aspen trees coming out, given that they are quadrupling the mitigation by planting 80-some Aspen trees on the backside of the building. Ms. Sanzone asked if the trees and shrubs that run parallel to the new bus lane would be removed. Mr. Curtis stated that that is correct. The comment they received from the neighbors was that the property doesn’t look “cleaned up.” They are proposing to take out the existing shrubbery, replace it with a more semi-formal hedge to better allow views into the two buildings. Ms. Sanzone asked where the need for the sidewalk along Gillespie came from. Mr. Curtis stated the Engineering Department. Mr. Berkus stated that it’s because of the people walking in the bus lane. 22 20 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Curtis stated that, currently, there’s maybe a two-and-a-half to three-foot crusher fine path that winds through there. The applicants would be happy to upgrade that crusher fine path with an edger and clean it up. He presented that proposal to the Engineering Department at design review comment. They said that it doesn’t comply with City code. Ms. Sanzone asked how the trash and recycling will be removed from the new service area. Will it be by a small cart? Mr. Curtis stated that it will. The meadows behind the Isaacson center has a center has a central service yard with a compactor, dumpsters, a recycling bin all in one location. It works well for them. There’s one dumpster on the property and they don’t even use them because it’s so much easier to manage the central facility. That was unacceptable to the Environmental Health Department. So what the applicants are proposing is to have this enclosure be a holding zone. They’re not looking at big dumpsters. They’re looking at 96-gallong containers. Any food product that’s generated will be gone in one day. It’s a holding zone, it’s not a traditional dumpster. The paving into the mechanical room where the condensers are will be set up so that golf carts can back in there, pick up the 96-gallon containers, and take them to the central service yard. That’s acceptable to Environmental Health and works better for the Meadows operations. Ms. Sanzone asked if the sculpture at the corner is not a Bayer’s sculpture. Mr. Berkus stated that it is a Bayer sculpture. It is an interpretation of his chromatic gates from Santa Barbara that is currently being looked at as a commission elsewhere. Mr. Curtis stated that there is an existing sculpture on the east side of Bettcher. That sculpture is a Rita Blitt. They are looking at donating that sculpture to another nonprofit in the valley with the consent of the artist. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Susanna Reid introduced herself. She stated that she is representing the owner of 775 Meadows Road. She asked the applicant for more detail on the maintenance shed. Maybe a section and a plan showing its relationship to the street. Also how the lighting is going to be handled in that area. Beyond that, as a member of the community, she thinks it is a very exciting plan. Lisa Markalunas introduced herself as a life-long Aspen resident. She walks the Aspen Institute property every day. She thinks the applicants have to be careful about representing the neighborhood as two neighbors who had input with Mr. Curtis. There is a broader spectrum of neighbors, many of whom feel like there’s no point even putting up a comment. This will happen and they will have no say. Even people directly across the street have expressed that to her. She is concerned about the encroachment on the rear meadow. The encroachment onto the sage is much more significant than what’s represented here. Matching the end of the Physics irrigated lawn, if you go out there, it’s a much greater impact on that sage meadow. That sage meadow is a significant meadow. It’s been conserved as part of Amy’s Meadow with a conservation easement there and down on the historic racetrack and meadow. Encroaching into that with the degree to which they are to create an entertaining space is a concern. A rather large water feature. The neighborhood is concerned. They are heavily impacted by 23 21 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 traffic, by the increase in venue use at the Institute and Music Festival. With more events year-round in shoulder seasons is more traffic, more parking issues. The Bettcher building has no parking of its own. Their staff utilizes the Music Festival parking lot, which is shared. They often utilize the Physics parking lot but are restricted when the Physics is in session. Any access to that parking, there needs to be a certain amount of transparency for access for daily use to the building. She applauds the improvements to the bus lane and thinks they have to go with some kind of asphalt. They have to have access to that parking that people are going to use on a daily basis. She questions pushing all of the pedestrian access out to Gillespie Street. The transit picks up in the rear of the Music Festival lot. That’s where all of the bus service stops, not on Gillespie. It’s been an ongoing problem. Thirty years ago, Mary Martin said she does not want the Music Festival lot paved ever. At that time, they had gravel. For the last 25 years, it’s been re-hashed, reproduction of a mess for their entire parking service. On a rainy day, that tracks all the way two blocks up 5th Street. Anytime a RFTA bus pulls out for the MAA students to go to the Bucksbaum campus, the dust just flies. While she applauds an alternative surface, it’s long overdue that the entire parking area and the bus lanes are asphalted. In the winter, more ploughing than ever has occurred on the site. It creates a lot of impacts that Steve Fallender and Jan Collins feel being most directly across from the entrance. They need to have access to parking because pushing everybody on to Gillespie street is problematic, especially at concert hour. Regarding the sidewalk on Gillespie, she doesn’t think she’s ever seen anyone use that raised sidewalk that’s there. She hesitates to encourage the applicants to take out existing landscape and foliage to provide a sidewalk to nowhere. It’s a one- block side walk that doesn’t go from anywhere to anywhere. Most of the people who access the property come through the Physics ground, down Gillespie, down 5th street, they walk in the street. They park in the neighborhood. Even at concert hour. Allowing that to push the landscape and take out those existing cottonwood trees, the existing mature Aspen trees that border the Physics lot are important to retain. She doesn’t have any objection to taking out the honeysuckle bushes, but things they have to consider the landscape that is mature landscape and the sage meadow and the encroachment into the sage meadow. She applauds the fact that they are relocating one of the most beautiful trees on the whole campus, the spruce tree. She hopes it can be relocated, it’s worth a try. She applauds the elimination of the conduit. Whenever that was added 20 or 25 years ago to the Bettcher building, it’s an eyesore to the building, it’s not in keeping with Herbert Bayer’s design. It really needs to be cleaned up and rectified because it’s a mess. The Aspen Institute, with its many events, has huge impacts to the neighborhood as does the traffic that the West End is subject to. There were representations made by the Aspen Institute when they developed the lots on the racetrack meadow, when they re-did the town homes that were torn down, when they re-did all of the buildings, that all of their access would go out 7th Street. That access doesn’t go out 7th Street, those shuttles run through the neighborhood down North Street, just like all the commuter traffic does. They have to remember the representations they make to the neighbors and public and hold them accountable to using that. The Meadows van goes down North Street dozens of times a day, down Gillespie dozens of times a day. All of that was not represented to the neighborhood. It’s important that there’s some mechanism where representations that are made about venues, usage, receptions, private receptions, some of that is memorialized, not just forgotten about. She hopes they’ll maintain the simplicity and beauty of Herbert Bayer’s landscape. The beauty that he developed and not over-do the amount of sculpture and water feature and not complicate the site. Cramming that building between the Bettcher and Gillespie is a lot for that site to hold. 24 22 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Jan Collins introduced herself as the closest neighbor to this property. She has been at this property for 55 years. She was there when they built the Bettcher and has been there through all the requirements for what the Bettcher was supposed to be and what it’s turned out to be, which has been an asset to the Aspen community and she has loved it. She doesn’t have a lot of criticisms, but she does have a few. She does not like the multi-colored entrance to the property. It’s not Herbert’s design. He did not ever put on the exterior multi-colors, he painted multi-colors. He did not put multi-colors on the exteriors of his buildings, as you can see in his designs. It just doesn’t go, and she is going to have to look at it and know that he wouldn’t like it. Regarding the bus lane, the neighborhood does suffer a lot from dust and she hopes that they can mitigate it. The dust comes from the busses coming and stopping and then spinning their wheels. It’s not a healthy thing. Along the proposed walkway, there are now mature honeysuckles. They were deliberately put there. Unlike the applicants saying they want to see the building, when Bettcher went in, they didn’t want to see the parking lot. That was their goal when they were designing. In 1975 when it was built, her husband was on P&Z and she was the business director of the Music Festival at that time. They were working together to mitigate anybody looking at the parking. The building was to be kept quiet, and behind that put in the honeysuckles. She would hate to see them go. She walks there everyday and it gives it a natural feeling as you walk along and you can’t see the busses, cars, and parking lot. It’s a wonderful property. For all its neglect, it’s grown up to be a pleasant place. The neighbors enjoy it as a park. She questions the garden party business in the sage meadow. She is not sure they need more entertainment in that building. It’s been a quiet, subtle, subdued place. It’s worked hard for the Ideas conference. It’s a great asset to the community. She worries about any changes in the water features because the water is so tenuous there. She thinks you have to exit that parking lot where it is right now, where the exit goes directly to the Bettcher. She wants to see an overlay of some kind that shows where things are now versus where they are proposed to be. Mr. Berkus pulled up a rendering on the slide. Ms. Collins stated that, one of the things that she can recall from 1965 is that it was important that the Bettcher be 100 feet from Gillespie. At the time, everyone thought that it was a good idea to keep it out of the existing neighborhood. She wants to see them put the building in and still make it a neighborhood feature, as it is today. The entrance should be where it is now and not at the corner. It can be more defined than it is now. If it were there, it would be a bigger utility because of bus access. The corner is high traffic. It should be moved away from there. She would like to be more involved and informed as this project comes down the line. She would like to share her knowledge from being there. She worries about the sage because it’s an endangered species. The building itself looks very compatible. She loves the colors and the way they’re doing it. It’s going to be nice. Steve Fallender introduced himself. He stated that he lives about as directly across the street as Jan Collins. He does not have anywhere near the history that she has. They have been there 15 years. He complimented Mr. Curtis and his efforts to contact the neighbors and keep them informed of the plans. He never really thought of where the entrance would be, but after Ms. Collins’s comments he does have a little bit of concern that the entrance off the corner is going to discourage people who use the Bayer building from parking in the parking lot and rather parking on the street since that’s where the entrance is going to be. They’re not going to want to drive into the parking lot, go in towards the Bettcher 25 23 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 building and make a circle. He appreciates their efforts to clean up the right-of-way along Gillespie Street. The Music Festival and the Institute have beautiful ground that the neighbors enjoy walking through. Unfortunately, they have left Gillespie Street abandoned, and it’s just not very attractive. It’s not maintained well and it’s really not a part of anything. That’s inconsistent with the lawns and yards throughout the West End. It’s encouraging that they’re trying to do that. He does not know if they received a video from Jeannette Whitcomb of the dust that comes off of the parking lot. He recommended it. He has been talking to her for three years about the dust. His family understands that the Institute and the Music Festival are going to generate a lot of traffic during the times of their events. No matter how that parking lot is, they’re going to get cars going through and parking in their neighborhood. They accept traffic. But the dust that comes off of the drive and the parking lot shouldn’t be. The Music Festival has received notices from the City of violation of the City codes. It is critical that the bus lane be paved. It’s not only a bus lane. It serves people who are dropped off by the vans, it serves the trucks that service the Festival and the Institute with tents and all the other stuff that comes during their events. Anything other than paving really won’t work. It’s a commercial vehicle path, it just needs to be paved. The same thing with the exit onto Gillespie Street. It needs to be paved back because now there’s the gravel off of the chip and seal that comes off of the streets, dust from the parking lot. It’s unrealistic to expect that the parking lot is going to be paved. But it could be paved far enough in that there’s no dust. If anybody questions that they should look at the video that Jeannette did. It is a dust storm. It’s a big deal to the neighbors that that be resolved. Ms. Greenwood stated that they should form a neighborhood group and go to the entities separately and try to get that accomplished working with the City. It’s really not the topic tonight. Ms. Simon stated that it is part of what HPC is looking at as far as passing the project on to City Council for further review. Staff are recommending approval of that bus vehicle lane and there is a condition in the resolution that this fugitive dust issue be discussed in more detail. The Institute’s concern is they don’t want to be responsible for the entire problem when they’re just using a portion of the lot. This does need to be revisited. It has come up as a violation recently. She is not sure if HPC needs to resolve anything other than that they have a condition in approval. Ms. Greenwood stated that they can make a recommendation to City Council. With the increased traffic and things like that, because of this development, it’s a situation that needs to be dealt with by someone. That would be something that they could discuss. Mr. Fallender stated that he would just like to make sure that it gets resolved as Mr. Curtis has suggested. If it does, that’s great. Ms. Simon stated that the HPC resolution would include that drawing that shows the bus lane and the pedestrian path paved all the way out to Gillespie and the continued discussion about the fugitive dust issue. And a paved apron out to Gillespie. Mr. Fallender stated that there are multiple houses in the neighborhood that are designated historic. He finds it a little strange that the dust from the parking lot doesn’t affect the historic character of the neighborhood. It definitely effects the whole neighborhood. 26 24 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Greenwood stated that nobody is saying that. There are just a lot of topics to consider. Mr. Fallender stated that it just keeps getting pushed off. Ms. Greenwood stated that she suggests Mr. Fallender go to the City Council meetings regarding this project. The Commission will discuss whether they want to pass on a recommendation that the City should start to think about paving that. Ms. Simon stated that she has two letters to enter into the record in addition to the ones that are in the packet. She forwarded these to the Commissioners by email. Ms. Markalunas sent a letter yesterday after the packet was issued, which covers many of the points she spoke to in public comment tonight. Matt Brown, who also lives on Gillespie in an historic home sent an email today. He’s excited about the project. He is, like other, mostly focused on how pedestrians access the site and the traffic issues. He feels that some improvements need to be made to the Institute or Meadows side of the Gillespie Street, more than has been shown in the plans so far. He is concerned about where people walk and that there is little maintenance of that area. APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Mr. Curtis showed the location of the original preservation zoning line and the Amy’s Meadows conservation line on a rendering on the slide. There was a comment that the public thought they were encroaching on those two boundaries. They are not. Mr. Berkus stated that they are very excited about working with Rowland Broughton. There is a secondary access. That is something that would be used that is closer to the bus dropoff, probably be a primary access for anybody using the parking lot of the public transportation. They did look at keeping the existing path and it just cuts the space in half. They felt it was a much more elegant solution to the two buildings instead of a path that isn’t really focused on anything. The path from the corner came after a lot of consideration. The secondary access to maintain exactly what was brought up. Ms. Simon stated that there is a lot of discussion about the landscape tonight. Any comments about the site plan should be kept high-level. Landscape design is usually a final review discussion. They haven’t really addressed the gate or fence, any of that sort of thing at this point. They would talk about it at final. COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION: Ms. Greenwood stated that, in their packets, they have the conditions for approval. Ms. Simon has laid out exactly what kind of recommendations the Commission needs to make to City Council and they’re included in that packet. Mr. Halferty stated that he agrees with staff’s memo as far as compliance with HPC guidelines, echoing a lot of the comments from the neighbors. The landscape part seems too formal and too specified. It’s not as loose and artistically interesting as what Bayer initially did. The architecture and improvements to the Bettcher building are warranted. The new architecture for the Resnick Hall is compliant, though he did have some questions, but the architects have clearly described those. He feels it is compliant to HPC guidelines. He appreciates the volunteer designation. All of the architectural improvements as far 27 25 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 as removing all of the scabbed on conduit and things like that onto the Bettcher building. Listening to the parking and the surface and dust mitigation stuff definitely needs to be addressed but not necessarily by this board. He feels like he could support this for conceptual approval. Ms. Greenwood stated that he thinks it’s wonderful that the Bettcher is going to be designated historic. That’s significant. This is conceptual and the project is really baked. It’s difficult to give feedback given the schedule that’s imposed upon this project. There are some definite problems. The landscaping is neither formal or informal. It doesn’t have a strong concept with the rows of plants going along the pedestrian walkway. The corner entry to the property with non-Bayer sculpture going beneath it is really a miss. That’s a very crowded intersection between the busses and the people, everyone coming in the narrow funnel to get to the rest of the campus. This is a glorious site with glorious buildings on it and there are very minimal entrances to these properties. You still feel like you’re on the street when you’re going past the new development. She doesn’t think the solution is there yet. She especially dislikes the arches by another artist. That is a laughable idea for Aspen. There should be a Herbert Bayer sculpture incorporated into the entry of this parcel. It feels so wrong. There is a lot of circular movement and a lot of straight paths going places. Getting off the bus and taking the entry to where the trash is going to be, that doesn’t really address how you use the buildings from a public standpoint. The curves on the site are really nice. They do emulate the Bayer building more so than they do the new building. The new building is very square and doesn’t have the movement of the Bettcher building. Yet the landscape is circular. It doesn’t feel like it’s ready for that design yet. It would have been good to be able to have more input and public input into the design of the space given that the neighbors have lived next to it for a long time and it feels like it’s been cooked within a small group of people. The results aren’t there yet for her. She could move it on to City Council because that’s where they are in the process, regardless of the fact that it has some design issues that should be resolved. That’s the entry, landscaping, the relationship of the buildings with the landscaping. It seems very different. She supports staff’s recommendation to move it forward. On a conceptual level, the Commission would typically want to look at some of the issues that were brought up and brought back to them. She doesn’t know how the rest of the board feels, but she thinks that there are some issues that need to get resolved and aren’t. She thinks they should, for the neighbors’ sake, make a strong recommendation to City Council that, given the traffic that’s going to be generated by this, which is hard to predict. She doesn’t see how the City can dictate whether or not they can have private events, they’re going to happen. Given that, the City should do whatever it takes to pave that parking lot. As a board, they could make strong recommendations. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with staff’s recommendations for moving this forward. He sees a few issues with the landscaping. Instead of a water feature, he would rather see more of a natural transition between the historic property and the open space. He asked how they would try to direct people to the secondary entrance to the parking lot. How do you get people to use that instead of just walking down the bus lane again and around to the corner? He’s not sure how they address that. He would rather see a Herbert Bayer entrance than a tribute to Herbert Bayer, but that’s not something that could happen. He thinks the Commission should move this forward, but there are some things he would like to see in terms of the landscaping. 28 26 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Thompson stated that she echoes a lot of Ms. Greenwood’s comments. She is really excited about the designation of the Bettcher building and thinks that the placement of the Bayer Center on the site is appropriate. She thinks additional study for pedestrian access at final with the landscape plan would be extremely helpful. A little bit more consideration to the neighbors’ concerns. She does agree that the sage garden and the formality of the lawn should be considered to be more appropriate to what was originally seen there. Ms. Sanzone stated that she is excited that this building will be designated. She thinks the building is beautiful and it really complies with the guidelines and what they would hope to see adjacent to an historic building. She agrees with all the comments the board members have made so far about the site and landscape. It doesn’t feel like it’s appropriate here. There’s a lot of opportunity in really highlighting some of the unique features that are on the property. Some that the neighbors have brought up, how people have used the property. It’s a great, simple space. Dialing back what’s proposed would go a long way to make this fit in the neighborhood. She would support not putting a formal sidewalk, not putting curbing cutter on Gillespie. They continually fight other departments to keep the West End historic and keep it as it is. She would support dialing back those features. Even though the plantings and vegetation that’s onsite has come long incrementally over time, she thinks that there’s a story to tell of how that’s happened. The Commission has heard some from the neighbors about why the honeysuckle hedgerow is there. She would like to see a greater effort to try to incorporate the existing plant material into the design, especially at the corner. There are some significant trees that could create that gateway. They don’t need to have the new sculpture to do that. There’s an amazing opportunity there. Some of the details will get worked out but there are opportunities to relocate the transformer to make that experience stronger. The sage meadow, the value that those represent historically in the community, there aren’t a lot of those left. Even though it’s outside the preserved area, it would be really awesome if there was a way to incorporate that more deeply into the landscape design. Mr. Moyer asked Lissa what her thoughts are on the entry sculpture. Lissa stated that it is actually a Bayer sculpture. It’s from a maquette that was never actually created into a larger sculpture. The way that Bayer designed his sculptures is that he had a lot of ideas as maquettes and he wasn’t able to realize most of them. This is one that was never realized in human scale. Mr. Moyer asked if the water portion of the landscaping is a practical or aesthetic concept. Mr. Berkus stated that it’s a mix, but it’s more aesthetic. They could narrow it up to be the waterway that it was. But the landscape architect had a very strong feeling about the reflection of the sculpture floating in the water feature. There was a lot of thought on that but they knew it would be up for discussion. Mr. Moyer stated that the more public comments they have, the better projects they have. Staff’s recommendations are fine and the Commission should approve that. He stated that it’s really obvious 29 27 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 that this whole landscaping plan is not ready. He asked Ms. Simon if that is going to interfere with having a better landscaping plan if they approve the resolution. Ms. Simon stated that it won’t. The memo notes that landscaping is a final review issue. The resolution is silent about it. If the Commission needs to add something to be more clear, they can. Her point of view is that none of it is approved at this level, that that is a final review issue. The only thing that concerns her is the gate element because it is over the height limit for any kind of fence or gate. It may be something that Council needs to bless. It sounds like the Commissioners have some concerns about it. It may need some resolution here. Mr. Moyer stated that it’s a great idea when the designer can walk around and say: “if I put this here, people are going to walk there” and feel what people are going to do when they move around and they enter a place or leave a place. In part of the reflection on the landscaping, it’s important to reflect back to when they read Pattern Language and reflect upon that. He’s ready to approve it conceptually. Ms. Greenwood stated that she thinks they should add something about the landscaping, the entry, and the gate. It doesn’t feel like the rest of the property. It feels very kitschy. Bayer’s sculptures don’t produce that. Ms. Sanzone asked if they can broaden the comment to be that they have general concerns about the site and landscape rather than be specific about one element. As they look at it, they may come up with a different design solution that’s more appropriate. Ms. Greenwood stated that she thinks the whole general needs to be thought with the position that they’ve placed the buildings and the traffic in the neighborhood. It’s an odd location. There’s symmetry to the buildings and yet there is an entry that doesn’t embrace that. If she wants to come up with a part of a condition for the general landscaping, she should go ahead. Ms. Simon stated that someone needs to motion to extend the meeting for a little longer. Mr. Moyer motioned to extend the meeting for another fifteen minutes. Mr. Kendrick seconded. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if setback requirements apply to this. Ms. Simon stated that this is a planned development, so there are no rules. Their approval will represent what’s allowed. There is no limit to square footage or setbacks or height or anything. It’s just what the Commission finds meets the guidelines and is acceptable. MOTION: Ms. Sanzone motioned to approve the resolution as staff has presented it with one additional condition that, based on the extensive comment by the board and even though the landscape and site plan wasn’t formally presented to them, they would recommend significant restudy to address the comments that were made by the board and members of the public. 30 28 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Thompson seconded. Ms. Simon asked if they want their condition to read: “restudy of the landscape and site design” or just the “landscape plan.” Ms. Sanzone stated that she would like it to say: “site plan and landscape design.” Mr. Berkus asked how he might direct the landscape architect. This is a lot of pressure on him to come back at final and try to get it right. He is hearing that, if they were to pull back from the sage a little bit, everybody would be happy with that. He is hearing that the corner might want to be restudied. He’s hearing that they should have another solution for the gate. He asked if they all like coming off of the parking lot side better. Ms. Greenwood stated that there’s an awkward relationship between the parking lot, the bus lane, the walking path, and the entry to that building. The curvature getting around to the buildings. It doesn’t flow. For her, she thinks it would be interesting to see different concepts. Mr. Berkus stated that it was all about flow. The idea was to be able to walk around the buildings, because you typically can’t do that. It gives a very nice distance from the building. But he can see how it’s possible to come in through the sage easily. He asked if the curb on the northside is bothering them as well, or if it’s just the way that they approach the buildings. Ms. Greenwood stated that it’s the approach. Mr. Kendrick stated that it’s the flow from the parking lot to the site. Ms. Greenwood stated that also from the street. The buildings are symmetrical and you don’t relate to the buildings. Mr. Berkus stated that you come in on the center line of the two buildings. This is the way that both buildings are seen at once and you see Bettcher in its entirety. Mr. Curtis stated that Mr. Berkus has to listen to the comments. Ms. Sanzone stated that no one here is questioning the placement of the new building. That’s good. For her it’s more fundamental that there are elements of the existing landscape that rise to the top and start to form the structure of the landscape. It involves flow, structure, arrival. There is a lot of comment on this one area, but she doesn’t want him to go away and say that’s the only area they need to take a look at. Ms. Thompson stated that it’s presented in a way that shows that the applicants have considered how the pedestrian flow would occur. She’s not saying she wants to see an access path in a specific location but she wants to see how they’ve come to that solution and how they anticipate it functioning. 31 29 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Berkus asked if they need that for City Council or if that’s for final review with HPC. Ms. Simon stated that, the comments be entered as verbatim as possible into the minutes and that the minutes will be produced quickly so that they can get going. Mr. Moyer stated that this is really important. Thinking of when he had lunch with Herbert at Nora Berko’s parents place, sitting in the garden. What Herbert was like and what he did and so on. He asked if this is important enough that they should have another meeting, just about this design and landscape process. Many people knew Herbert Bayer. There’s something about the whole landscaping thing that just isn’t working. Maybe we should have another meeting before final. Mr. Halferty stated that they should let them rethink it and simplify it. Ms. Greenwood stated that they are always available. Ms. Sanzone asked if Mr. Moyer is suggesting an informal meeting or another HPC board meeting. Ms. Simon stated that, to be realistic, the applicant is already coming back on February 26th for final. She needs the packet at least a week before that. They already only have two and a half or three weeks to turn around. She does not want to try to cram another discussion in. It’s clear what the Commission has concerns with. They have a talented team. They’ll respond. Ms. Thompson asked if the landscape needs to go through Council. Ms. Simon stated that she doesn’t think so. She thinks that she simply has to convey to Council that this was such an important issue to HPC and they want to maintain purview over it, in terms of the final design. Mr. Curtis stated that they have no problem. Ms. Greenwood stated that the applicant is definitely looking for direction. She asked if they would describe their recommendation to be towards a more natural landscape setting. A better flow for pedestrians. A better entry. Mr. Sanzone stated that she thinks it’s everything he’s heard tonight. She doesn’t know if they can summarize it. Mr. Berkus stated that they have the direction. Roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood: yes; Ms. Thompson: yes; Mr. Kendrick: yes; Mr. Halferty: yes; Mr. Moyer: yes; Mr. Sanzone: yes OTHER BUSINESS: None. 32 30 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 PM. Ms. Greenwood seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ______________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager 33 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@BC057D4A\@BCL@BC057D4A.doc 2/6/2020 HPC PROJECT MONITORS-projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 1102 Waters 210 S. First 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 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 201 E. Main 333 W. Bleeker Need to assign: 414-422 E. Cooper 422/434 E. Cooper 305/307 S. Mill 34 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes) Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. Procedure for amending motions: A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion. If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion and voting on the Motion may then proceed. If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails, discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed. 35 Page 1 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner THROUGH: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: February 12, 2020 RE: 234 West Francis Street – Conceptual Major Development Review, Setback Variations, and Floor Area Bonus, PUBLIC HEARING. APPLICANT /OWNER: 234 West Francis LLC REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams LOCATION: Street Address: 234 W. Francis Street Legal Description: Lots K, L and M, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-124-17-003 CURRENT ZONING & USE R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) Residential Use PROPOSED USE: No change SUMMARY: The applicant has requested a Conceptual Major Development review for the demolition of non-historic additions, increase of subgrade living space, and the construction of a new rear addition. Setback variations and a floor area bonus are requested for the proposed design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions identified on pages 9-10 of this memo. Site Locator Map – 234 W. Francis Street 234 36 Page 2 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: 234 West Francis Street is a locally designated landmark and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The 1904 Sanborn Map confirms the current lot includes two historic properties which have since merged into a single 9,000 sf lot in the R-6 zone district. This property contains a two-story Victorian home and a one-story miner’s cabin. The 2000 Historic Inventory Form describes the historic property as lots K, L and M with descriptions of the one-story miner’s cabin as an associated building. In addition to its architectural significance, the property is associated with significant figures such as Judge Davis Waite, and later Herbert Bayer. In the early 90s HPC approved alterations and setback variations to the one-story resource which received Conditional Use approval to be a detached accessory dwelling unit by the Planning and Zoning Commission (Resolution 93-22). A Notice of Approval was issued this year to remove this voluntary deed restriction with conditions (Reception #657651). The building will no longer be a separate dwelling unit. In 1998 the property received HPC approval for the existing rear addition, temporary relocation for a new basement, and setback variations for the garage structure (Resolution 2-1998 and Resolution 17- 1998). Enforcement action took place on this property due to inappropriate construction practices that resulted in the loss of historic material. A remediation plan was reviewed and approved with conditions by HPC to address the situation (Resolution 14-1999). Figure 1 – Sanborn Map, 1904 Figure 2 – Historic Bird’s Eye View, 1893 REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for demolition of non-historic additions and the construction of a new addition towards the rear of the historic property. • Setback Variation (Section 26.415.110.C) for garage addition and subgrade addition. • Floor Area Bonus (Section 26.415.110.F) request for a 472 sf bonus. The HPC is the final review authority, however, this project is subject to Call-up Notice by City Council. 37 Page 3 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing non-historic addition directly behind the two-story Victorian home. The revised above grade addition is mostly one-story with a two-story garage structure to the north west corner of the lot. Currently, there are two separate full basements underneath each historic building. The applicant proposes to connect and increase the basement into a single subgrade space. Restoration work is proposed on both historic structures with the request for a 472 sf floor area bonus. Setback variations are requested for the two-story portion of the addition containing the garage, and the same variation request extends to the subgrade addition. STAFF COMMENTS: Following the November 13, 2019 HPC meeting, the applicant has redesigned the project to address concerns related to site porosity and design compatibility. The revised design removes the second story from the proposed new addition that extends eastward. The design further reduces the height by lowering the mass into grade. These significant changes help alleviate initial concerns regarding visual site porosity and results in a more subordinate addition to the historic structures as perceived from both Francis Street and Second Street. Historic corner lots are held to a more stringent requirement regarding compatibility of form. Staff finds the revised design meets the guidelines by creating a compatible design relationship of form and materials. Staff finds the criteria for a floor area bonus are met with the revised design and the proposed preservation plan. Staff also supports the request for setback variations pertaining to the garage massing and the subgrade levels. The following points go into more detail regarding the proposal for HPC discussion: 1. Site Planning & Relocation: The property is located at the intersection of Francis Street and 2nd Street with an alley abutting the rear of the lot. This condition provides three highly visible elevations. Following the November HPC meeting that applicant met with the Parks Department regarding the large spruce trees along the alley, and they are to remain. Additionally, both historic structures are to remain in their existing locations. Given these set parameters, the location and footprint of the proposed new addition is appropriate. Positive open space is maintained around the historic structures along the street views and the sunken landscape features surround the new addition and has limited impact to the resources. The plans indicate a hot tub in a location that does not interfere or block views of the historic resources. Any built-in furnishings must comply with Design Guideline 1.10. The new location of the garage addition is no longer proud of the historic Victorian on the west elevation and distanced significantly from the closest historic resource with a one-story connecting element. The historically significant Herbert Bayer fence is a feature that is to be maintained and remain in its current location. The survey brought to light that the Bayer fence is outside of the property boundaries in certain areas. The Engineering Department has indicated that a permanent encroachment license may be issued to maintain the location of the fence where it currently 38 Page 4 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com stands. The applicant will need to follow-up on this requirement with the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department also provided updated comments dealing with stormwater and drainage features on the site, as well as curb and gutter requirements. Previously, the applicant provided response to Engineering’s comments. Staff recommends continued communication with relevant City Departments to better define a stormwater and curb and gutter plans that is most appropriate for the site. (See Exhibit B for detailed comments.) Figure 3 – Proposed Site Plan (Revised) 39 Page 5 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Staff finds the location of the proposed addition to be appropriate, and staff supports the portion of the addition that extends eastward with the demonstrated mass and scale changes. Staff recommends the applicant meet with all relevant City Departments finalize the stormwater and drainage plans for the site. 2. Historic Resource – Restoration: There are two historically significant structures on this property. During the 1998 remodel, the exterior of both buildings was altered. The applicant proposes to remove a large lightwell and the non-historic entry facing Francis Street on the one- story miner’s cabin. The windows on the south façade of this structure and the roof ridge are to be restored using historic documentation, and a small addition to the north elevation is to be removed. The applicant proposes to remove the street facing door on the building, which staff finds requires more documentation. The applicant proposes to remove the non-historic porch and reduce the size of the existing lightwells on the east elevation of the two-story Victorian home. The non-historic addition directly behind the resource will be demolished and the dormer and chimney to the rear of the Victorian home will be restored to match historic photographs. The application calls out a number of historic windows to be reopened and restored. Restoration of architectural features require investigation of building fabric and/or historic documentation. Staff finds the plans for preservation and restoration to be appropriate and recommends the applicant work with staff and monitor to verify historic openings and match architectural details to existing conditions and historic documents. Additional, staff recommends curb heights around the lightwells to be 6” or less in height so they do not cover historic material from view. 3. New Addition – Form/Materials/Fenestration: Additions to a historic landmark on a corner lot needs to strongly relate to the historic resource related to form and visual compatibility must be achieved (Design Guideline 10.3 and 10.6). Form: Both historic structures have gabled roofs that define the overall form. The proposed above grade addition consists of a gable roof on the two-story portion of the addition and flat roofs on the one-story elements. The 12:12 gable roof on the garage addition relates to the roof pitch of the two-story Victorian but is lower in height. The one-story elements of the proposed addition have slightly differing heights but are much lower in height compared to the historic resources, and the flat roofs subdues the massing and provides more visual porosity which was considered especially important on this site (Design Guideline 1.7, 10.8 and 10.10). The flat roof with the parapet also creates an appropriate location to install solar panels on the property without attracting attention. The redesigned addition achieves compatibility and desired scale when compared to the historic resource (Design Guideline 7.3). 40 Page 6 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Materials: Horizontal wood siding and cedar shingles are the primary materials found on the historic structures. Architectural details include fishscale shingles, turned wooden posts and simple wood trim details. The cladding material proposed for the new addition is horizontal cedar siding and a lead coated copper roof. The metal roof material does not directly relate to the historic roofing material of cedar wood shingles, however, in this case a large majority of the visible material is wood siding. Fenestration: The proposed design purposefully deviates from fenestration. The south elevation viewed from Francis Street show large areas of glazing that opens into the sunken patio area. The west elevation viewed from Second Street contains the secondary entry with two aluminum clad full-length windows on either side of the door and three more historically scaled windows in the two-story garage structure. Figure 4 – Proposed South Elevation (View from Francis Street) Figure 5 – Proposed West Elevation (View from Second Street) 41 Page 7 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com The design guidelines state that compatibility of form between the new addition and the historic landmark is particularly important on a corner lot. The proposed addition is modestly scaled and compatible in form. The revised design relates to the historic resources in form and material choices while deviating from fenestration. Staff finds the proposed addition meets the Design Guidelines for compatibility. 4. Setback Variations: Setback variations granted by HPC are site-specific approvals that take overall design compatibility into account. When these dimensional variations are granted, it is specified to features represented in the application. 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. The applicant made a decision demolish and rebuild a new garage structure with a new footprint and location. The newly proposed garage structure with living space above now has a footprint that aligns with the west elevation of the historic Victorian and is 5’ from the rear of the property. The subgrade level directly below the garage addition follows the new footprint of the addition. The applicant requests the following setback variations for the proposed garage addition and subgrade level: • 5’ rear yard setback reduction, above and below grade • 2’-7” west side yard setback reduction, above and below grade • 22’-7” combined side yard setback reduction, above and below grade With the two historic resources maintaining their historic alignment along Francis Street and the need to protect and preserve the spruce trees along the alley, the potential area for development is defined. Staff finds the new location for the garage addition helps enhance the presence of the historic Victorian to the west and the subgrade changes do not create any visual impacts to the resource. The character of the property is maintained with the addition and visual impacts are minimized with this design. Staff supports the request for setback variations pertaining to the proposed garage addition and subgrade addition since it meets all of the required criteria by enhancing the historic character of the site and mitigating impacts to the historic structures. 42 Page 8 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com 5. Floor Area Bonus: The applicant plans to remove non-historic additions and undergo restoration/preservation work on both historic structures. The lot size determines the maximum allowable floor area bonus, and the maximum floor area bonus a 9,000 sf lot may receive is up to 500 sf. The applicant suggests a 471.2 sf bonus for this application. The following criteria must be met in order to be considered for a floor area bonus: a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significance of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other nonoriginal finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice the above grade square footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 29 incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. The applicant proposes to restore key architectural elements and remove the complex non- historic addition and other various inappropriate alterations. The applicant plans to use historic documents and photographs to restore significant features that are highly visible, and the roof is to be replaced in kind with a new cedar shingle roof. The revised proposal maintains the historic structures as the key elements on the property. The forms of the addition complement the historic resources and do not compete in scale, and the restoration and preservation efforts deal with removing impactful non-historic additions and restoring key historic features such as the chimney and roof forms. Staff supports the request for a 472 sf floor area bonus because it meets all of the required criteria by providing a preservation scope that includes multiple restoration actions and a new addition that is sensitive to visual integrity. 43 Page 9 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will significantly affect the permit review. The following is a summary of comments received for the revised design. Please see Exhibit C for full comments. Comments from the last design iteration are also included in Exhibit C as reference. Engineering Department: 1. Demonstrate other Best Management Practices (BMPs) were investigated that support the use of drywells as the only solution, and drywells must flow to City system or appropriately sized for detention. Provide information for Final HPC review. 2. Provide additional information about proposed conveyance swale regarding drainage, plantings, and tree impact, for building permit submission. Parks approval will also be required. 3. Provide details related to drainage where the curb and gutter meet Francis Street, for building permit submission. 4. Review functioning conditions of main line to determine if it may be connected to the City storm water system, for building permit submission. 5. Review excavation and stabilization details for new building with Engineering and Parks to minimize tree impact, for building permit submission. 6. Replace curb and gutter along Second Street, for building permit submission. 7. Clarify purpose of drywell to the east of the property and provide additional information regarding conveyance to the street, for building permit submission. 8. Excavation for proposed drywells cannot impact the ROW and Parks will need to review impacts within dripline of large trees, for building permit submission. 9. Drywell and water service line must have 7’ of horizontal separation and minimal impact to trees, for building permit submission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission approve this application with the following conditions: 1.) Work closely with all relevant City Departments to provide a better-defined stormwater mitigation plan that minimizes features in highly visible areas for Final Review. 2.) Design curb heights around the lightwells to be 6” or less. 3.) Investigate historic framing and historic documents before restoration/reconstruction changes are approved, to be reviewed by staff and monitor. 4.) Obtain a permanent encroachment license from the Engineering Department to maintain the existing location of the historic Herbert Bayer fence prior to Building Permit submission. 5.) A 472 sf floor area bonus is granted for this proposal. 6.) The following setback variations for the proposed garage addition and subgrade level are granted: 44 Page 10 of 10 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com • 5’ rear yard setback reduction, above and below grade • 2’-7” west side yard setback reduction, above and below grade • 22’-7” combined side yard setback reduction, above and below grade 7.) 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 (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #____, Series of 2020 Exhibit A.1 – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit A.2 – Dimensional Variations Review Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit A.3 – Floor Area Bonus/Staff Findings Exhibit B – Referral Comments Exhibit C – Application 45 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SETBACK VARIATIONS, AND FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, LOTS K, L AND M, BLOCK 48, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-17-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, 234 West Francis LLC, represented by BendonAdams, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variations, and Floor Area Bonus for the property located at 234 West Francis Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and WHEREAS, for approval of Floor Area Bonus, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F, Floor Area Bonus; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with applicable review standards and recommends approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on November 13, 2019 and February 12, 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 Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variations and Floor Area Bonus for 234 West Francis Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows: 46 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 2 of 3 Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review, Setback Variations, and Floor Area Bonus. HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variations, and a Floor Area Bonus as proposed with the with the following conditions: 1.) Work closely with all relevant City Departments to provide a better-defined stormwater mitigation plan that minimizes features in highly visible areas for Final Review. 2.) Design curb heights around the lightwells to be 6” or less. 3.) Investigate historic framing and historic documents before restoration/reconstruction changes are approved, to be reviewed by staff and monitor. 4.) Obtain a permanent encroachment license from the Engineering Department to maintain the existing location of the historic Herbert Bayer fence prior to Building Permit submission. 5.) A 472 sf floor area bonus is granted for this proposal. 6.) The following setback variations for the proposed garage addition and subgrade level are granted: a. 5’ rear yard setback reduction, above and below grade b. 2’-7” west side yard setback reduction, above and below grade c. 22’-7” combined side yard setback reduction, above and below grade 7.) 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 (6) 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. 47 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 3 of 3 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 12th day of February, 2020. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: _________________________________________________________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk 48 Page 1 of 15 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings NOTE: Staff responses begin on page 14 of this exhibit, following the list of applicable guidelines. 26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. 3. Conceptual Development Plan Review b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: 1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section. 49 Page 2 of 15 Chapter 1: Site Planning & Landscape Design MET NOT MET 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. 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. 1.15 Preserve original fences. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. Chapter 2: Rehabilitation - Building Materials MET NOT MET 2.1 Preserve original building materials. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. Chapter 3: Rehabilitation - Windows MET NOT MET 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. MET MET MET MET CONDITION MET Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review Criteria for 234 West Francis Street The applicant is requesting Conceptual Major Development review for site plan and the construction of a new above grade addition. The proposed design must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET CONDITION 50 Page 3 of 15 Chapter 4: Rehabilitation - Doors MET NOT MET 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. Chapter 5: Rehabilitation - Porches & Balconies MET NOT MET 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. Chapter 6: Rehabilitation - Architectural Details MET NOT MET 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. Chapter 7: Rehabilitation - Roofs MET NOT MET 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. Chapter 8: Rehabilitation - Secondary Structures MET NOT MET 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. 8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure. 8.3 Do not add detailing or features to a secondary structure that are conjectural and not in keeping with its original character as a utilitarian structure. 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. CONDITION MET MET MET MET MET MET CONDITION MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET CONDITION MET CONDITION MET MET MET MET 51 Page 4 of 15 Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. 8.6 Preserve original door and window openings and minimize new openings. 8.7 If a new garage door is added, it must be compatible with the character of the historic structure. Chapter 9: New Construction - Excavation, Building Relocation & Foundations MET NOT MET 9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the historic fabric. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. Chapter 10: New Construction - Building Additions MET NOT MET 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. 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. 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. MET CONDITION MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET MET 52 Page 5 of 15 • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape. • Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. • If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. • The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. 1.15 Preserve original fences. 53 Page 6 of 15 • Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved, removed, or inappropriately altered. • Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair. • Replacement elements must match the existing. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. • The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of significance. • A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations. • Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. • Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. • Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. • If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. • Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. • If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish. • Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. • Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. 54 Page 7 of 15 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. • Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. • Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. • Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. • Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows. • Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them. • Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass for the repair. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. • Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. • Do not change the size of an original window opening. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. • If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. • Changing the window opening is not permitted. • Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. • A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. • The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. 55 Page 8 of 15 • Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. • Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. • If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. • Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. • Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. • A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. • A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered. • Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties. • Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. • When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of the building. • On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads. 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. • Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and spacing of balusters. • Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. • Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. • Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. 56 Page 9 of 15 • Match original materials. • When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. • If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. • Repair only those features that are deteriorated. • Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. • On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. • Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. • Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. • If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. • The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. • When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. • Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. 57 Page 10 of 15 • Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be appropriate on an addition. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. • Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures. • Locate vents on non-street facing facades. • Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. • Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. • If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured. 58 Page 11 of 15 • A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a secondary structure from that time period. • A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. • Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building. • The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. • When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details. • If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. The determination of significance is based on documentation of the construction date of the outbuilding and/or physical inspection. A secondary structure that is related to the period of significance of the primary structure will likely require preservation. 8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure. • Any proposal to attach a secondary structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • The position and orientation of the structure • should be maintained except when HPC finds that an alternative is the best preservation option. • Some AspenModern properties incorporated garages and carports into the architecture. This pattern should be maintained. 8.3 Do not add detailing or features to a secondary structure that are conjectural and not in keeping with its original character as a utilitarian structure. • Most secondary structures are basic rectangular solids, with simple finishes and no ornamentation. 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. 8.6 Preserve original door and window openings and minimize new openings. • If an original carriage door exists, and can be made to function for automobile use, this is preferred. 8.7 If a new garage door is added, it must be compatible with the character of the historic structure. • The materials and detailing should be simple. 9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the historic fabric. • This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting of financial assurances as a building relocation. 59 Page 12 of 15 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. • For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. • HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. • A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. • An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. • An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. • Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. • The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. • The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 60 Page 13 of 15 10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at least 10 feet. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: • The connector element that links the new and old construction is a breezeway or transparent corridor, well recessed from the streetfacing side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two story construction that appears directly behind the one story historic resource is minimal • The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource • The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource • The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically • There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed • The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or • The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred. 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. • Only a one-story connector is allowed. 61 Page 14 of 15 • Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall. • In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave. • The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic resource. • Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. Staff Finding: The applicable sections of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning, building materials, windows, doors, roofs, porches, and building additions. All relevant Design Guidelines in Chapter 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 related to the preservation plan need to be reviewed in detail as part of the permit submittal for further historic evidence and/or investigative demolition in order to ensure no historic fabric is being removed. This will be a condition of Final approval. Staff finds Design Guidelines 1.8 regarding provisions for porosity and positive open space on site are met. Staff acknowledges the site constraints related to the trees along the alley and the location of the historic buildings on site. The proposed addition generally occupies the same area as the previous design but the changes in the footprint better responds to the existing conditions. The most significant change is the removal of the second story massing on top of the portion of the addition that stretched eastward. A two-story development in this area reduced the visual porosity of the site considerably, and 62 Page 15 of 15 this was a characteristic of the site that was deemed particularly meaningful. Staff finds that the revised design provides a level of site porosity that complements the historic buildings. Design Guideline 10.3 addresses the design of the new addition to be compatible with the historic resource, which is considered more important for corner lots. The revised addition consists of a single- story connecting element containing the secondary entry and a sunken single-story living room that extends eastward along the rear of the property. The two-story portion of the above grade addition has a 12:12 pitched roof with a height that is lower than the two-story Victorian home. The west elevation of the addition is no longer proud of the historic resource. The massing of the new addition has been rearranged so that the scale does not compete with the historic resources on site. The addition reads as a subordinate structure that does not cover historically significant features. Staff finds the revised design meets this guideline. Design Guideline 10.6 concerns the design of the new addition to be compatible with the historic resource by considering form, materials, and fenestration. This guideline also highlights the importance of corner lots needing to strongly relate to form when designing a new addition. The revised design relates to the historic resources in regard to form with the two-story portion of the addition reflecting a 12:12 pitched roof, and materials by using horizontal wood siding. Previously, the variety of roof forms and heights prevented a strong connection. The primary building materials for the addition is the use of horizontal wood siding that strongly relates to the historic resources. The design purposefully deviates from fenestration and utilizes glazing to solid wall ratios that reflects modern uses. Design Guideline 10.11 addresses the roof form of the new addition. These forms must be simple and compatible with the historic resource. Typically, a pitched roof is considered the most compatible solution for an addition to a Victorian. The most prominent roof form on the addition is a 12:12 pitched roof and the remaining areas have a flat roof. Although the amount of flat roof on the overall addition is beyond minimal, the use of a flat roof on the sunken living room creates a more compatible relationship between the addition and the historic character of the site. Staff finds that the intent of this guideline is has been met with the revised design. In summary, staff recommends approval with conditions listed in the draft resolution and staff memo. 63 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A.2 Setback Variations Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.110.C: Variances: Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: This corner lot proposal maintains the existing alignment of the two historic structures along Francis Street. The spruce trees along the alley are to remain and it was identified that the visual porosity of the site was an important feature to maintain when designing a new above grade addition. All of these factors directly impact the location and massing of the new above grade addition. The revised design locates the two-story garage behind the two-story Victorian and reconfigures its footprint to align with the historic resource on the west elevation. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY a.) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b.) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. MET Review Criteria for 234 West Francis Street As a historically designated property, HPC may grant dimensional variations of the Land Use Code to allow for development in the side, rear and front setbbacks. The applicant is requesting Setback Variations for the remodeled garage. MET Summary of Review Criteria for Setback Variation Request 26.415.110.C - Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be requried by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 64 Page 2 of 2 Staff supports the request for setback variations pertaining to the revised garage addition, above and below grade, since it enhances the presence of the historic resource and maintains the historic character of the site. Staff finds the criteria are met with this design. 65 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit A.3 Floor Area Bonus Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.110.F: Floor Area Bonus: 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is determined by net lot area such that a 3,000-5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a two hundred fifty (250) square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a three hundred seventy five (375) square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount allowed for the lot. If a property is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on the original lot size, though the bonus may be allocated amongst the newly created parcels to the extent permitted. LOT SIZE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA BONUS REQUESTED FLOOR AREA BONUS 9,000 SF 500 SF 472 SF To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following criteria: MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significance of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other nonoriginal finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice the above grade square footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 29 incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. MET MET MET MET Review Criteria for 234 West Francis The applicant is requesting for Conceptual Major Development review approval, setback variations and a 472 sf floor area bonus. Summary of Review Criteria for Floor Area Bonus Request 26.415.110.F - Floor Area Bonus. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is determined by net lot area such that a 3,000-5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a two hundred fifty (250) square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a three hundred seventy five (375) square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. 66 Page 2 of 3 On any lot where a historic property is permitted a duplex density while a non-historic property is not, the increased allowable floor area that results from the density will be deducted from the maximum bonus that the property may receive. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following criteria: a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significance of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other nonoriginal finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice the above grade square footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 29 incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. 3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. 4. Floor area bonuses are only available for single-family, duplex or 100% affordable housing development. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet total. The award of a bonus is project specific. At such time that more than 40% of an addition to a historic resource that was constructed as part of a project which previously received a floor area bonus is demolished, the bonus may be retained only if the proposed redevelopment is found to meet the requirements of this Section. 5. Separate from the floor area bonus described above, on a lot that contains a historic resource, HPC may exempt wall exposed by a light well that is larger than the minimum required for egress from the calculation of subgrade floor area only if the light well is internalized such that it is entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building façade(s) closest to any street(s), the light well is screened from view from the street by building walls or fences, and any addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction of the light well is entirely one story. 67 Page 3 of 3 Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to restore areas that have been altered over the years and preserve historically significant features by utilizing historic documents and photographs. The historic miner’s cabin will remain free standing, and the proposed addition is limited in height and above grade square footage. The applicant has taken into account the HPC and staff direction given at the last meeting by redesigning the project footprint and massing to better maintain the existing visual integrity and openness of the site. The previously proposed second floor on the new addition and the pergola have been removed. Issues regarding design compatibility has been resolved by simplifying roof forms and heights. Staff finds all of the criteria for granting a floor area bonus has been met with this revised design and supports that applicant’s request. 68 234 W Francis_eng comments Page: 63 Author: pjm File Name: 234wfrancis_reviseddesign_012020.pdf A conveyance swale is proposed in this area, will the shrubs and trees impact conveyance? (Building Permit) 234wfrancis_reviseddesign_012020.pdf (10) Page: 65 Author: pjm File Name: 234wfrancis_reviseddesign_012020.pdf How is drainage conveyed on Francis St where C&G ends? (Building Permit) Page: 65 Author: pjm File Name: 234wfrancis_reviseddesign_012020.pdf Grading for swale may not be permitted within driplines of the trees, Parks Approval required. (Building Permit) Page: 65 Author: pjm File Name: 234wfrancis_reviseddesign_012020.pdf Connection to City storm system will only be permitted if condition of main line is in adequate functioning condition. (Building Permit) Page: 65 Author: pjm File Name: 234wfrancis_reviseddesign_012020.pdf Excavation stabilization system must be designed to minimally impact existing trees. Coordinate with Engineering and Parks Departments. (Building Permit) A conveyance swale is proposed in this area, will the shrubs and trees impact conveyance? (Building Permit) (N 75° 0 9 ' 1 1 " W ) N 74° 2 5 ' 2 4 " W West F r a n c i s S t . 74.72' R - O - W ROOF DRAINS FROM GABLEROOF WILL DRAIN TOBURIED PIPING TO DRYWELL OVERFLOW TO CITY STORM SEWER WITH CHECK VALVE PROPOSEDCURB & GUTTER ACCESS PATH TO BEPERMEABLE PAVERS How is drainage conveyed on Francis St where C&G ends? (Building Permit)(S 14°50'49" W 100.00')S 15°42'37" W 100.32'SWALE FOR OVERFLOW SUMP DISCHARGE TO ALLEY. AREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOF DOWNSPOUT ARE NOT USED DRYWELL OVERFLOW SUMP PUMPTO BE LOCATED BELOW MECHANICALROOM. SURFACE DISCHARGE TOFLOW NORTH TO ALLEY. Grading for swale may not be permitted within driplines of the trees, Parks Approval required. (Building Permit) (90.00 ' ) 89.83' West F r a n c i s S t . 74.72' R - O - W N 09°09'58" W 1372.68 ' BLE TO ELL PATH TO BE REMOVED OVERFLOW TO CITY STORMSEWER WITH CHECK VALVE 4'Ø (WQCV=67.5CF) DRYWELLWITH CONCEALED ACCESS LID.LOCATION OF ACCESS LID TO BE MARKED ON FINISHED GRADE PROPOSEDCURB & GUTTER ACCESS PATH TO BEPERMEABLE PAVERS Connection to City storm system will only be permitted if condition of main line is in adequate functioning condition. (Building Permit) (S 75° 0 9 ' 1 1 " E 9 0 . 0 0 ' )W 100.00')S 74°3 5 ' 5 5 " E 9 0 . 1 8 '" W 100.32'Alley - - B L O C K 4 8 20' R- O - W STRIP DRAIN AT PROPERTYLINE TO DRYWELL SWALE FOR OVERFLOWSUMP DISCHARGE TO ALLEY. AREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFDOWNSPOUT ARE NOT USED AREA INLETS TO DRAINSUNKEN PATIO & SPA Excavation stabilization system must be designed to minimally impact existing trees. Coordinate with Engineering and Parks Departments. (Building Permit) EXHIBIT B - REFERRAL COMMENTS 69 Page: 65 Author: pjm File Name: 234wfrancis_reviseddesign_012020.pdf C&G on 2nd St must be replaced. (Building Permit) Page: 65 Author: pjm File Name: 234wfrancis_reviseddesign_012020.pdf Is this a foundation drain drywell or stormwater drywell? Alley can be considered part of the City's system, can only accept overflow if conveyance to the street can be shown. (Building Permit) Page: 65 Author: pjm File Name: 234wfrancis_reviseddesign_012020.pdf Drywells are the stormwater BMP of last resort. Demonstrate other BMPs were investigated and provide discussion as to why other BMPs are not feasible. (HPC Review) Page: 65 Author: pjm File Name: 234wfrancis_reviseddesign_012020.pdf Proposed drywell location is within dripline of large trees, Parks Department will need to approve this location. Excavation for the drywell will not be permitted to impact ROW. (Building Permit) Page: 65 Author: pjm File Name: 234wfrancis_reviseddesign_012020.pdf Drywell and water service line must have 7' of horizontal separation. Impacts to trees must be minimized. (Building Permit)North 2nd St.75.62' R-O-WFRONT AREA TO DRAIN TO ROW. ALLROOF DRAINS PICKED UP INTERNALLYPATH TO BE BASALT PAVERS. FLAT ROOF AREAS TO PIPE TO DRYWELL NECT TO ROOF DRAIN C&G on 2nd St must be replaced. (Building Permit)(S 14°50'49" W 100.00')S 15°42'37" W 100.32'SWALE FOR OVERFLOWSUMP DISCHARGE TO ALLEY. AREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFGUTTERS ARE NOT USED AREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFDOWNSPOUT ARE NOT USED COORDINATE WITH STRUCTURALFOR PIPE ROUTING THROUGHFOUNDATION DRYWELL OVERFLOW SUMP PUMPTO BE LOCATED BELOW MECHANICALROOM. SURFACE DISCHARGE TOFLOW NORTH TO ALLEY. BASEMENTSUBSTRUCTURE Is this a foundation drain drywell or stormwater drywell? Alley can be considered part of the City's system, can only accept overflow if conveyance to the street can be shown. (Building Permit)9" E 100.00(S 14°50'49" W 100.00')(N 75° 0 9 ' 1 1 " W )5°30'33" E 100.05S 15°42'37" W 100.32'N 74°2 5 ' 2 4 " W (90.00') 89.83' ranci s S t . 2' R-O- W COA GPS-8 COA GPS-6 N 70°13 ' 4 3 " W 5 8 0 . 1 4 'N 09°09'58" W 1372.68' SWALE FOR OVERFLOWSUMP DISCHARGE TO ALLEY. PATH TO BE REMOVED VERFLOW TO CITY STORMWER WITH CHECK VALVE 4'Ø (WQCV=67.5CF) DRYWELLWITH CONCEALED ACCESS LID.LOCATION OF ACCESS LID TO BEMARKED ON FINISHED GRADE OPOSEDGUTTER AREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFGUTTERS ARE NOT USED AREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFDOWNSPOUT ARE NOT USED ACCESS PATH TO BEPERMEABLE PAVERS 4",6",8" STORM DRAINS TO DRYWELL COORDINATE WITH STRUCTURALFOR PIPE ROUTING THROUGHFOUNDATION DRYWELL OVERFLOW SUMP PUMPTO BE LOCATED BELOW MECHANICALROOM. SURFACE DISCHARGE TOFLOW NORTH TO ALLEY. BASEMENTSUBSTRUCTURE Drywells are the stormwater BMP of last resort. Demonstrate other BMPs were investigated and provide discussion as to why other BMPs are not feasible. (HPC Review)(75°09' 1 1 " W )S74°25' 2 4 " W (90.00' ) 89.83' t. COA GPS-8 N 70°1 3 ' 4 3 " W 5 8 0 . 1 4 'N 09°09 '58" W 1372.68 ' PATH TO BE REMOVED STORMVALVE 4'Ø (WQCV=67.5CF) DRYWELLWITH CONCEALED ACCESS LID. LOCATION OF ACCESS LID TO BEMARKED ON FINISHED GRADE AREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOF GUTTERS ARE NOT USED H TO BEPAVERS 4",6",8" STORM DRAINS TO DRYWELL COORDINATE WITH STRUCFOR PIPE ROUTING THROU FOUNDATION FLOW NORTH TO ALLE BASEMENT SUBSTRUCTURE Proposed drywell location is within dripline of large trees, Parks Department will need to approve this location. Excavation for the drywell will not be permitted to impact ROW. (Building Permit) (N 75° 0 9 ' 1 1 " W ) N 74°2 5 ' 2 4 " W (90.00 ' ) 89.83' ancis S t . O-W COA GPS-8 COA GPS-6 N 70°13' 4 3 " W 5 8 0 . 1 4 'N 09°09 '58" W 1372.68 ' PATH TO BE REMOVED LOW TO CITY STORMR WITH CHECK VALVE 4'Ø (WQCV=67.5CF) DRYWELLWITH CONCEALED ACCESS LID.LOCATION OF ACCESS LID TO BEMARKED ON FINISHED GRADE EDER AREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFGUTTERS ARE NOT USED ACCESS PATH TO BEPERMEABLE PAVERS 4",6",8" STORM DRAINS TO DRYWELL COORDINATE WITH STRUCTURALFOR PIPE ROUTING THROUGHFOUNDATION BASEMENTSUBSTRUCTURE Drywell and water service line must have 7' of horizontal separation. Impacts to trees must be minimized. (Building Permit) EXHIBIT B - REFERRAL COMMENTS 70 EXHIBIT B - REFERRAL COMMENTS(COMMENTS FROM 11.13.19)71 234 Page: 88 Checkmark: Unchecked Author: jimp File Name: 234WFrancis_Application_zoning comments.pdf Fireplace encroaching on neighbors property 234WFrancis_Application_zoning comments.pdf (2) Page: 107 Checkmark: Unchecked Author: jimp File Name: 234WFrancis_Application_zoning comments.pdf Fireplace encroaching on neighbors property 4 3 2 Not sure if these heights are going to work. It does not appear that they are measuring height from the most restrictive grade.26'-9 1/4"Not sure if these heights are going to work. It does not appear that they are measuring height from the most restrictive grade. EXHIBIT B - REFERRAL COMMENTS (COMMENTS FROM 11.13.19) 72 From:David Radeck To:Sarah Yoon Subject:RE: HPC Referral Project: 234 W. Francis Street Date:Wednesday, October 30, 2019 1:25:06 PM Attachments:image001.png image009.png image010.png image011.png image012.png Hi Sarah, Parks Comments: 1.Air spading required at dripline of Spruce where new foundation will be on the north side of proposed basement. 2.Bio retention pond piping to stay against foundation of house to minimize impacts to the Spruce tree on the north side of proposed basement Thanks! Dave. David Radeck Project Technician Parks Department 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970.429.2025 c: 970.274.2175 f: 970.920.5128 www.cityofaspen.com To apply for a Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit, register here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SFNewUser Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit Online Permit Application: https://cityofaspen.force.com/applicantportal/s/login/? startURL=%2Fapplicantportal%2Fs%2F&ec=302 If you need assistance for the online portal, please contact customer support: sfsupport@cityofaspen.com or call 970-920-5065 EXHIBIT B - REFERRAL COMMENTS (COMMENTS FROM 11.13.19) 73 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM January 21, 2020 Sarah Yoon Historic Preservation Commission c/o Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 234 West Francis Street – HPC revisions for Conceptual Design, Variations and FAR Bonus Dear Sarah and HPC, Thank you for your comments and questions during the November 13, 2020 HPC hearing. We have taken the past two months to restudy the project and address the concerns raised by the Commission. Minutes are not yet available for the hearing. In summary the main points were: 1. Restudy the two story flat roof addition to increase porosity onsite. 2. Remove trees along the rear property line. 3. Restudy the roof forms. Response to point 1: The proposed addition has been restudied and massing has been shifted on the property. The existing garage is proposed to move east to align with the landmark. A bedroom is proposed on top of the garage to align the second story mass behind the landmark as suggested by HPC. A small one-story addition extends east for a living room. The height of the living room is reduced by sinking the addition into grade. The addition does not block views between the landmarks as shown in the rendering below: Figure 1: Revised proposal 74 Page 2 of 5 Jan. 20, 2020 revision Response to point 2: We met with the Parks Department following HPC’s comments about the trees along the alley. Parks is not willing to approve a tree removal permit for the large healthy spruce trees. As shown in the site diagram at right, 234 has site challenges that limit the location for new development. The proposed basement has been enlarged since November to accommodate more square footage below grade and the requested FAR Bonus is reduced to 471.2 sf. Response to point 3: Previously the existing garage was proposed to remain in its current location and to become a one-story building. The garage is now proposed to shift to the east and to align with the landmark. The new placement of the garage greatly improves the west elevation facing Second Street and is compliant with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Figure 2: Gold rectangle indicates area for new addition. Figure 3: Proposed site plan with garage aligned with landmark on Second Street. Figure 4: Original HPC submittal with garage in existing location. 75 Page 3 of 5 Jan. 20, 2020 revision The proposed addition behind the landmark is a gable roof form that matches the pitch of the landmarks. The two-story addition is connected with a 21’1” long flat roof connecting element. Wood siding is proposed for the additions. A modest ~500 sf living room is proposed to the east of the garage toward the rear of the property. The living room is an extension of the flat roof connecting element and is sunken into the ground to reduce height. Form and materials relate strongly to the landmarks, while fenestration is more contemporary. Figure 6: Revised proposal in response to HPC comments. Figure 5: November 13, 2019 HPC proposal 76 Page 4 of 5 Jan. 20, 2020 revision Figure 7: November 13, 2019 proposal. Figure 8: Revised proposal based on HPC comments. Solar panels are proposed for the flat roof living room, which is aligned with the City of Aspen’s and specifically City Council’s initiative that properties pursue renewable energy. Solar panels are allowed on non-historic portions of historic properties. The panels are hidden behind a parapet as shown below. Figure 9: Section showing solar panels. 77 Page 5 of 5 Jan. 20, 2020 revision The requested FAR bonus is reduced in size due to square footage being pushed into the basement. The garage setback variation is improved on the west and is brought into compliance at the rear yard for the garage portion of the building (the living space above and below the garage have improved setbacks but still need a variation). Before the HPC hearing, we intend to erect story poles to show the location, 42’1” setback form the front façade of the two- story landmark, and height of the proposed one-story addition. A physical model will be presented to the HPC during the public hearing for this project. Please reach out if you need additional information to complete your review. We look forward to seeing you onsite at noon tomorrow. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP Exhibits (all exhibits already provided in application) A – HP Conceptual Review and Variation Criteria - revised B – FAR Bonus request - revised C – Pre application summary D – Agreement to Pay E – Land Use application – dimensional form revised F – HOA form G – Authorization to represent H – Proof of ownership I – Vicinity Map J – Mailing List K – Notice of Approval to remove ADU L – Previous approvals M – Streetscape context images N – Drainage report O - Drawing set including stamped survey, renderings *a physical model will be presented to HPC P – Revised drawing set dated 1.20.20 78 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 Exhibit A –Conceptual HP Review and Variations 26.415.060.A Approvals Required. Any development involving properties designated on the aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual property or located within the boundaries of a Historic District, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. HPC shall provide referral comments for major projects to rights of way located within the boundaries of a Historic District. Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below: Streetscape 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. Response – The victorian and carriage house are located in their original locations. The existing garage location is moved to align with the west side of the landmark. This improves the current condition that does not meet the design guidelines. Useful open space is preserved around both historic landmarks. New construction is significantly setback from historic street facing facades and from the street. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable. • Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones. • Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add landscape. • Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged. • Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas. • Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a case by case basis. Response – The character defining cottonwoods that border 234 West Francis are protected and preserved. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. • Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets. • Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to the alley. Response – n/a. 79 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. • If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. • Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. Response – The driveway is located off the alley. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. Response – A simple walkway into the main entry is proposed from the sidewalk to the front porch. The walkway leading to the non-historic entrance to the Carriage House is removed. The entry, front porch and walkway to the Carriage House was added previously when the building was converted to a rental unit. We intend to work with Staff and Monitor to determine if the front door originally faced Francis Street, and if there is physical evidence, we propose to restore the original condition. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example, on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. Response – A simple walkway is proposed from Francis Street to the front entry. A secondary walkway is proposed from Second Street. In order for the walkway to address the side door, it increases in width at the building. Large cottonwood trees block the ability for the secondary walkway to be perpendicular to the side door. Paving materials will be presented at Final Design Review. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. 80 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 Response – Open space on the site is shown at right. There is significant green space around both landmarks. The location of the addition has been reduced in width to provide porosity between the two historic resources as shown below 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. Response – A conceptual drainage plan is being developed that directs drainage away from the landmarks. There is an existing drywell onsite behind the Carriage House that is proposed to be removed. New drywells are proposed to accommodate drainage as shown on the plans. Drywells will have a completely concealed access lid and will not require grade change around the concealed lid – the dry wells are not an open grate. 1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. Response – n/a. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape. Figure 1: Rendering of proposed additions. 81 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 • Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred. Response – A conceptual landscape plan is proposed for preliminary review. Built in furnishings are located behind the landmarks and are screened from the street. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. • If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. • The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. Response – Mature cottonwood trees that border the streets are protected and preserved. Large spruce trees along the alley are protected and existing lilacs along the interior lot line are also protected. Tree removals have been discussed and preliminarily approved by the Parks Department. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is over textured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. • In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. Response – A simple landscape with traditional plantings is proposed. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. 82 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. Response – No new planting material is proposed that will damage the historic structures. A detailed landscape plan will be provided at Final Design Review. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. • Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. • Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-by-case basis. • Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. • Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. • Landscape uplighting is not allowed. Response – Landscape lighting is not proposed as this time. 1.15 Preserve original fences. • Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved, removed, or inappropriately altered. • Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair. • Replacement elements must match the existing. Response – The Herbert Bayer fence is proposed to remain and be repaired where necessary. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. Response – n/a. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. Figure 2: Herbert Bayer fence, unpainted. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society. 83 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 • Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the character of a property. Response – n/a. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. • The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of significance. • A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations. • Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. • A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not oversized. Response – n/a. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. • A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature. • For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket. • For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. Response – n/a. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. • A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B. Response – n/a. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls • Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size and finish. 84 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 • Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed. • Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate. Response – n/a. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. • All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure. Response – n/a. 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Response – The historic buildings are proposed to maintain grade similar to existing conditions. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. • An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape should be done before the beginning of any project. • The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved. Response – The character defining cottonwoods are preserved and protected. The existing lilacs bushes along the east (interior) lot line are preserved where possible. 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. • Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape. • Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures. • Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site. • All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work. • New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features. • Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible. Response – The simple historic design of the landscape is maintained in the proposal. The existing west sideyard setback is improved in the proposal, and significant trees are protected. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. • Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation. • Minimize the visual impact of new parking. • Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically. Response – All parking is located off the alley in the garage. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. 85 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 • Protect established vegetation during any construction. • If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species. • New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species. • Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site. • Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements. Response – Large lilacs are proposed to be relocated away from the historic façade to preserve both the historic material and the lilacs. They will be replanted if possible. Restoration Materials 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. • Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. • Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. • If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. • Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. • If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish. • Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. • Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. 86 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. • Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. • Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. • Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. Response – The Carriage House is proposed to be returned to the pre-model appearance using historic photographs (reference Exhibit B for full description). Any replacement materials on the Carriage House will match the original as described in Guideline 2.3. Original material with integrity will be restored or repaired. Original building materials will not be covered. The design team will work with Staff and Monitor during demolition to find evidence of the original location of the front door. Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. • Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows. • Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them. • Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass for the repair. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. • Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. • Do not change the size of an original window opening. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. • If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well. 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. 87 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 • A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. • The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. • Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc. • Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade. • Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window. • Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. • If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub- frames or panning around the perimeter. A storm window should not include muntins unless necessary for structure. Any muntin should be placed to match horizontal or vertical divisions of the historic window. Response – All historic windows will be preserved, and operational components will be repaired as needed. Three windows in the main historic home on the west and east elevations are currently covered and are proposed to be restored. Window locations are restored in the Carriage House as shown in the drawing set and below. Figure 4: Current photograph of Carriage House. Figure 3: Carriage House, August 1974. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society. 88 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 Doors 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. • Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. • Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. • If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. • Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. • Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. • A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. Figure 5: Proposed demolition (red hatch) to restore Carriage House. 89 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 • A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered. • Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties. • Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. • Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource. • Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the building and should be a product of its own time. • Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure. 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. • Match the material, frame design, character, and color of the primary door. • Simple features that do not detract from the historic entry door are appropriate for a new storm door. • New screen doors should be in character with the primary door. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. • When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of the building. • On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads. Response – Original door openings and historic hardware will be preserved. A side entry to the Carriage House will be restored and the non-historic front entry will be removed, unless evidence is found during demolition and inspection with Staff and monitor. Porch 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. • Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and spacing of balusters. • Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. • Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. 90 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 • Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. • Match original materials. • When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony • Steps should be located in the original location. • Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc. • Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps. 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. • If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony. Response – The historic front porch on the main two story historic landmark is not proposed to change. Unoriginal side entry porches on the historic home (east and west elevation) and unoriginal front and side porches on the Carriage House are removed. Architectural Details 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. • Repair only those features that are deteriorated. • Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. • On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. • Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. • Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. • If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish. 91 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. • The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. • When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. • Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. • Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. Response – Architectural details will be repaired as needed. Historic photographs will be used to accurately restore the Carriage House. Roof 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be appropriate on an addition. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. • Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures. • Locate vents on non-street facing facades. • Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible. 92 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. • Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists. 7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. • A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary, character defining façade. • A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. • The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. • While dormers improve the livability of upper floor spaces where low plate heights exist, they also complicate the roof and may not be appropriate on very simple structures. • Dormers are not generally not permitted on AspenModern properties since they are not characteristics of these building styles. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. • If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non- reflective finish. • Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured. • A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a secondary structure from that time period. • A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. • Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. • Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building. • The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building. 93 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 Response – The rear historic dormer, shown below, is proposed to be restored and used as venting. Wood shingles are proposed for the historic resources. Gutters and downspouts are not proposed at this time, but if necessary, will be included in the Final Design Review application. Carriage House 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. • When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details. • If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. The determination of significance is based on documentation of the construction date of the outbuilding and/or physical inspection. A secondary structure that is related to the period of significance of the primary structure will likely require preservation. Response – The carriage house is preserved. 8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure. • Any proposal to attach a secondary structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • The position and orientation of the structure should be maintained except when HPC finds that an alternative is the best preservation option. • Some AspenModern properties incorporated garages and carports into the architecture. This pattern should be maintained. Response – The carriage house is detached. Figure 6: Aerial photograph from Denver Public Library Western Heritage Collection. 94 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 8.3 Do not add detailing or features to a secondary structure that are conjectural and not in keeping with its original character as a utilitarian structure. • Most secondary structures are basic rectangular solids, with simple finishes and no ornamentation. Response –Non-historic gingerbread details are proposed to be removed. 8.4 When adding on to a secondary structure, distinguish the addition as new construction and minimize removal of historic fabric. • Additions to a secondary structure must be smaller in footprint than the original building and lower in height. Maintaining the overall mass and scale is particularly important. • Do not alter the original roof form. • An addition must be inset from the corners of the wall to which it attaches. Response – The carriage house has two non-historic rear additions added in the 1990s. The closet addition is proposed to be removed and the small bathroom is proposed to remain. No new additions are proposed to the carriage house. 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. Response – Original building materials are not proposed to be removed. Any patches will match existing material. 8.6 Preserve original door and window openings and minimize new openings. • If an original carriage door exists, and can be made to function for automobile use, this is preferred. Response – Original door and window openings are restored using historic photographs. Original door openings are unknown at this point. Rather than guess, the project team proposes to consult with staff and monitor during demolition to inspect framing in case there are clues to the original door location. 8.7 If a new garage door is added, it must be compatible with the character of the historic structure. • The materials and detailing should be simple. Response – n/a. 8.8 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary structure to a functional use is encouraged. • The reuse of any secondary structure should be sensitive so that its character is not lost. 95 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 Response – The carriage house is incorporated into the overall use of the property as a single family home. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. Response – n/a. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. • For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. • HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. Response – The 1990s rear addition, street facing lightwell, and non-historic porches are proposed to be removed as shown in the roof plan below. New Addition 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significant in its own right. Figure 7: Carriage house roof plan. Red hatching shows area for demolition. Figure 8: 1889 Sanborn Map 96 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 Response – n/a 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. Response – The 1990s addition at the rear of the two story historic landmark and two story garage are proposed to be removed as shown on the next page and in the drawing set. 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. Response – The proposed addition has been restudied and massing has been shifted on the property. The existing garage is proposed to move east on the property to align with the landmark. A bedroom is proposed on top of the garage to align the second story mass behind the landmark as suggested by HPC. A small one story addition extends east for a living room. The height of the living room is reduced by sinking the addition into grade. The detailing of the additions is simple and complimentary to the two landmarks. 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 97 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. Response – The ~500 sf carriage house is not proposed to have an addition. The two story main historic home is proposed to have a two story rear addition with one story connecting element, and a small one story living room addition. The gross historic square footage of the main historic is 1,679.6 sf (861 + 818.6) and the proposed new square footage for the addition is (965 first floor + 213.3 garage + 591.7 second floor bedroom on top of garage) = 1,770 sf. There is a slight difference of ~90 sf between historic square footage and the new addition. Six of the criteria to grant an exception are met. 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. Massing is stacked behind the two story landmark with a short one story extension that is sunken into the ground. Figure 9: Footprint comparison diagram. 98 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource. Non-historic additions and lightwells are proposed to be removed. The additions to both historic resources blend new and old construction and confuse the historic interpretation of the site. o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically. The interior of the two story landmark is fully utilized. o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street The property is 9,000 sf in size. The addition is setback from the front façade of the landmark by 42’1”. o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed. The only variation requested is for the existing garage – the current setback variation is proposed to be brought into closer compliance with the Code by aligning the west elevation of the garage with the landmark. o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. Significant trees and associated driplines along the alley push new construction to the center of the lot and prohibit a full basement excavation within the building envelope. The team met with the Parks Department in November after the HPC meeting. Parks reiterated that the trees are not permitted to be removed. 10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at least 10 feet. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: • The connector element that links the new and old construction is a breezeway or transparent corridor, well recessed from the street facing side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two story construction that appears directly behind the one story historic resource is minimal • The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource • The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource • The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically 99 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 • There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed • The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or • The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. Response – n/a. The landmark is two stories. The one story carriage house is not proposed to have an addition. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. Response – The proposed addition behind the landmark is a gable roof form that matches the pitch of the landmarks. The two story addition is connected with a 21’1” long flat roof connecting element. Wood siding is proposed for the additions. A small less than 500 sf living room is proposed to the east of the garage toward the rear of the property. The living room is an extension of the flat roof connecting element and is sunken into the ground to reduce height. Form and materials relate strongly to the landmarks, while fenestration is more contemporary. 100 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 Figure 10: Renderings of proposed form, material and fenestration. 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. • Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. An addition can not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. Response – n/a. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred. Response – The addition is lower than the height of the primary building. 101 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. • Only a one-story connector is allowed. • Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall. • In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave. • The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic resource. • Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information. Response – n/a. The addition is not taller than the historic building. A 21’1” long connecting element is proposed between the two story landmark and the two story garage. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Figure 11: Proposed east elevation. 102 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 Response – The addition is located to the rear of the primary building and is significantly setback form the front façade. The proposed addition highlights the original footprint of the landmark and replaces non-historic additions. A full basement exists and is proposed to be enlarged within the building envelope. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. Response – A simple gable roof form is proposed behind the two story landmark. The 12:12 proposed gable pitch matches both landmark on the property. Flat roof area are limited to the connecting element and a small living room. Figure 12: Historic Photograph circa 1910 showing traditional roof forms. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. Response – n/a. The addition does not obscure historically important features, but rather highlights and restores character defining features. 10.13 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of the historic building. 103 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 Variations for existing garage Response – n/a. 10.14 Set a rooftop addition back from the street facing façades to preserve the original profile of the historic resource. • Set the addition back from street facing façades a distance approximately equal to its height. Response – n/a. 10.15 The roof form of a rooftop addition must be in character with the historic building. Response – n/a. 26.415.110.C. Variations. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variations of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Response – In 1998, HPC approved Resolution 17-1998 for the garage and breezeway including the following variations: rear yard setback is 2’ granting an 8’ variation for living space; and the side yard facing Second Street is 0’ granting a 12’4” variation. The location of the garage is proposed to be improved to align with the landmark. The new placement of the garage allows square footage to be pushed below grade into the basement. A second floor is proposed above the garage for a bedroom which moves square footage to directly behind the landmark as opposed to in the middle of the lot. The setback variations requested enhance the landmarks, improve existing setback conditions, and mitigate adverse impacts on the landmarks by pushing floor area below grade and to the rear of the lot. Locating mass behind the landmark is consistent with patterns within the West End both historically and currently. 104 Exhibit A Conceptual Design Review/ Variations 1.20.20 R-6 requirement 1998 approval proposal West side yard 10 ft min./ 12’4” for combined yards 0’ 7 ft 5 in Rear side yard 5ft garage/ 10 ft living 2 ft garage/ 2 ft living 5 ft garage/5 ft living Combined yards 30 ft 0’ 7 ft 5 in Note: The carriage house received a sideyard setback variation of 8’ for the bathroom at the rear of the building in 1993.1 The variation is actually 0’ as shown on the as-built drawings. The small rear addition is unchanged in this application and the variation is maintained. 1 The variation is referenced in the HPC minutes on May 12, 1993 and May 25, 1993. HPC did not typically adopt resolutions in 1993. 105 Exhibit B FAR Bonus 1.20.20 Exhibit B – FAR Bonus 26.415.110 Benefits F. Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is determined by net lot area such that a 3,000 – 5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of two hundred fifty square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a three hundred and seventy five square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount allowed for the lot. If a property is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on the original lot size, though the bonus may be allocated amongst the newly created parcels to the extent permitted. On any lot where a historic property is permitted a duplex density while a non-historic property is not, the increased allowable floor area that results from the density will be deducted from the maximum bonus that the property may receive. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following criteria: a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and The landmark is the primary entrance into the property. The addition is significantly setback from both historic buildings, which highlights the landmarks as the focal point of the property. b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significant of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other non- original finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and Character defining site features such as the Bayer fence and mature cottonwood trees are preserved. Restoration is proposed including removing non-historic additions that appear to be historic, reopening historic windows, restoring the rear dormer, removing non-conforming lightwells and a full restoration of the carriage house. The carriage house will be returned to its pre-1990s remodel appearance using historic photographs and the sanborn maps. c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and The historic carriage house is preserved as a free standing structure above grade. 106 Exhibit B FAR Bonus 1.20.20 d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structure on the site, limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice that above grade square footage of the historic resource, limited the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. Preservation is the top priority for this project. The square footage added to the landmark is less than twice the square footage of the resource. The height of the addition is lower than the height of the landmark. The carriage house is fully restored – windows, primary side entrance, and siding will be restored and repaired. A non-historic rear addition is removed from the carriage house as well. An incompatible non-historic addition to the main landmark is removed and replaced with an addition that meets the guidelines. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission’s assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. 3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. 4. Floor area bonuses are only available for single family, duplex, or 100% affordable housing development. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet in total. The award of a bonus is project specific. At such a time that more than 40% of an addition to a historic resource that was constructed as part of a project which previously received a floor area bonus is demolished, the bonus may be retained only if the property redevelopment is found to meet the requirements of this Section. A 472sf FAR bonus is respectfully requested. 5. Separate from the floor area bonus described above, on a lot that contains a historic resource, HPC may exempt wall exposed by a light well that is larger than the minimum required for egress from the calculation of subgrade floor area only if the light well is internalized such that it is entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facades closest to any street, the lightwell is screened from view from the street by building walls or fences, and any addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction of the light well is entirely one story. n/a. 107 City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Proposed % of demolition: __________ DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: _____Existing: ______Required:___________Proposed:_ _____ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing: Required:___________Proposed:_______ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed: ____ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:____ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ 234 WEST FRANCIS ST. LOTS K, L, M, BLOCK 48 9000 SF 3594.5 SF 3660 SF / 4160 SF W/ BONUS 4129 SF 2 10'-0" / 15'-0" 20'-11" / 28'-11" 20'-11" / 28'-11" 23'-3"17'-6" 30'-0"7'5"0' E W 0' maintain existing carriage house variation 10'-0" Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: __ _ __________________________________________________________________________Existing garage encroaches on side yard and rear yard setbacks; Historic structures encroach on both side yard setbacks_______________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _ 2 29% 2 1 44.8% 25'-0"26'-6" no change 26'-6" 17'-9"25'-0" 1'-4" GARAGE 40% MAX 33.3% 2 10'-0" / 5'-0" GARAGE 5'" GARAGE & Basement 234 WEST FRANCIS LLC, represented by BendonAdams and Selldorf Architects 0' 0'10'-0" 7'-5" 38'- 6'25'-0"49'-9" 10'-0" R-6 9,000 SF n/a variations for basement living space (5') and west side yard variation for addition/garage (7'5") and combined side yards. n/a [carriage house] 108 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_T-000_TITLE.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSDWG. LIST, GEN. NOTESABBREVS. & SYMBOLS1912FRCC-T-0001 of 25ASPEN, CO 81611234 W. FRANCIS STREET1.20.2020HPC CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION2 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS109 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_G-001_GENERAL_NOTES.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSDWG. LIST, GEN. NOTESABBREVS. & SYMBOLS1912FRCC-G-0012 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS110 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-050_SITE_PLAN_EXISTING.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSEXISTING SITE PLAN1912CC1/8"=1'-0"DM-0503 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS111 181 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-051_AREADIAGRAM_EXISTING.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSEXISTINGAREA CALCULATIONS1912CC1/8"=1'-0"DM-0514 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS112 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-100_PLAN_00.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855DEMOLITION SCOPEEX'G BASEMENT PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-1005 of 251 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJS2 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS113 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-101_PLAN_01.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855DEMOLITION SCOPEEX'G FIRST FLOOR PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-1016 of 251 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJS2 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS114 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-102_PLAN_02.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855EXISTINGEX'G SECOND FLOOR PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-1027 of 251 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJS2 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS115 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-103_PLAN_03.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855EXISTINGEX'G ROOF PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-1038 of 25 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJS12 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS116 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-200_ELEV_S_N.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSDEMOLITION SCOPEEX'G SOUTH/NORTH ELEV.1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-2009 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS117 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-201_ELEV_W.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSDEMOLITION SCOPEEX'G WEST ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-20110 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS118 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_DM-202_ELEV_E.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSDEMOLITION SCOPEEX'G EAST ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"DM-20311 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS119 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-040_SITEDIAGRAM.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855SITE DIAGRAM1912CC1/8"=1'-0"A-04012 of 251 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS2 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS120 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-050_SITE_PLAN.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSSITE PLAN1912CC1/8"=1'-0"A-05013 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS121 212223241819 10# DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-051_AREADIAGRAM.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, D ISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSPROPOSEDAREA CALCULATIONS1912CC1/8"=1'-0"A-05114 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS122 MASSAGE RM8'-6" X 12'-4"BEDROOM19'-8" X 13'-4"SPA8'-8" X 7'-1"MECHANICAL282 SFWINECELLAR7'-6" X15'-7"BATH5'-10" X9'-6"BEDROOM15'-1" X15'-10"BATH5'-5" X9'-2"SHOWER9'-4" X 6'-2"LAUNDRY14'-3" X 15'-7"SAUNA/STEAM9'-0" X 10'-5"THEATER24'-10" X17'-1"BEDROOM15'-10" X17'-7"MECHANICAL7'-1" X 8'-7"GYM27'-8" X 14'-9"W/DW/DSTORAGE4'-7" X5'-0"PWDR RM8'-8" X 3-0"BATH8-8" X 9'-8"STOR.STORAGE219 SF#DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-100_PLAN_00.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSBASEMENT PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-10015 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS123 KITCHEN14'-0" X 16'-9"GARAGE26'-1" X 20'-4"LIVING ROOM28'-0" X 17'-7"BEDROOM15'-3" X 11'-10"BATH8'-2" X9'-1"MUD ROOM15'-8" X 9'-7"DINING14'-0" X 10'-0"ENTRY6'-7" X 6'-9"STUDY10'-1" X 14'-9"PWDR RM4'-6" X 5'-3"DWDWREFMECH.BREEZEWAY15'-8" X 10'-10"HOTTUB#DATEDESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-101_PLAN_01.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSFIRST FLOOR PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-10116 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS124 BEDROOM13-11" X 12'-0"OFFICE/DRESSING17'-9" X 17'-8"BATH8'-11" X 10'-2"BEDROOM15-1" X 20'-3"BATH7-0" X 6-10"#DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-102_PLAN_02.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSSECOND FLOOR PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-10217 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS125 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-103_PLAN_03.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSROOF PLAN1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-10318 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS126 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-200_ELEV_S.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSSOUTH ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-20019 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS127 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-201_ELEV_W.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSPROPOSEDWEST ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-20120 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS128 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-202_ELEV_N.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSNORTH ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-20221 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS129 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-203_ELEV_E.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.28551 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSEAST ELEVATION1912CC1/4"=1'-0"A-20322 of 252 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS130 # DATEDESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-700_MATERIALS.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20HPC CONCEPTUALJSADDITION MATERIALS1912CC-A-70023 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS131 # DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-900_MODEL.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSMASSING MODEL1912CC-A-90024 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS132 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-901_3D_01.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSSTREET PERSPECTIVES1912CC-A-90125 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS133 #DATE DESCRIPTIONCHKFILENAME: 1912_A-902_3D_02.DWG SCALE (24x36)PROJECT NO.Drawn BySEAL & SIGNATUREALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, AND IDEASEMBODIED THEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS ANDSHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, OR USED INCONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FORWHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE© SELLDORF ARCHITECTSPRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SELLDORF ARCHITECTS.KEY PLAN6ABCDE7675432154321ABCDE234 W. FRANCISSTREETASPEN, CO 81611RESIDENCECIVIL ENGINEERHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.925.2855NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBLUEGREEN BLD300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 940.945.8676HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBENDON ADAMS300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 202ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855NLOCAL ARCHITECT1FRIDAY DESIGNPO BOX 7928ASPEN, CO 81612 970.309.0695STRUCTURAL/ MEP ENGINEERRESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP 502 WHITEROCK AVE, SUITE 102CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970.925.2855 2019-08-20 HPC CONCEPTUALJSSTREET PERSPECTIVES1912CC-A-90225 of 2512 2019-10-22HPC CONCEPTUAL R1JS3 2020-01-20HPC CONCEPTUAL R2JS134 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 788 5 78 8 6 7886 788578867886 7886 78867885 7886788778 8 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TREE REMOVAL SUMMARY EX. CONIFER TO BE REMOVED SYMBOL TYPE SIZE QTY. EX. DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED 4"-18" CAL. 6"-12" CAL. TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: NOTES: 1. TREES REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENCE AND/OR IN RESPONSE TO POOR HEALTH. 2. FOR PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, REFER TO PLANTING PLAN (LA 200). 3. REFER TO PLANTING PLAN (LA200) FOR MITIGATION. 4. EXISTING TREE(S) TYPE, LOCATION, SIZE AND CALIPER BY OTHERS; REFER TO SURVEY. 5. ALL EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED ARE REPRESENTED HERE, INCLUDING THOSE NOT MEETING THE 4"/6" CALIPER STANDARD (I.E. NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION). TREE MITIGATION SUMMARY TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE OF PROPOSED NATIVE TREES (REFER TO PLANTING PLAN): TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: 5 3 LEGEND TOTAL REMAINING: EX. DECIDUOUS TO REMAIN EX. CONIFER TO REMAIN VARIOUS VARIOUS 13 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 4 8 scale north L100 tree mitigation plan 08/18/2019 hpc submission 10/17/2019 hpc submission 01/16/2020 hpc submissionbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com234 w francis l aspen, colorado234 w francisdate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen PROPERTY LINE ALLEY 2ND STREETW FRANCIS STREET 5' SETBACK 10' SETBACK 10' SETBACK 15' SETBACK10' SETBACKTREE #SPECIES DIAMETER (IN.) 1 2 ASPEN 10 TREE TABLE MAXIMUM MITIGATION VALUE $0.00 3 4 ASPEN ASPEN 10 10 $0.00 $0.00 5 6 ASPEN SPRUCE 8 10 $0.00 $0.00 ASPEN 12 $0.00 1 L100 TREE PROTECTION FENCE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NOTE: 1. ADDITIONAL PROTECTION OUTSIDE AT TREE DRIP LINE MAY BE REQUIRED (EX. 12 IN. OF MULCH). 2. FENCE MAY BE CONTINUOUS TO PROTECT MULTIPLE TREES 3. MAINTAIN FENCE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. 4. REFER TO LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONS AND GOVERNING BODIES/AGENCIES FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. EXISTING TREE(S) TO REMAIN STURDY PROTECTION FENCING TO BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED AT TREE DRIP LINE EXISTING GRADE TO REMAIN NO DISTURBANCE WITHIN TREE DRIPLINE TREE DRIP LINETREE DRIP LINE7 SPRUCE 5 $0.00 8 SPRUCE 6 $0.00 135 136 precedent imagery 234 W Francis aspen | colorado bluegreen 16 january 2020 www.bluegreenaspen.com 300 south spring street l suite 202 | aspen, colorado 81611 | t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499 © copyright bluegreen 2015137 (N 14°50'49" E 100.00')(S 75°09'11" E 90.00')(S 14° 5 0 ' 4 9 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' )(N 75°09'11" W)N 15°30'33" E 100.05'S 74°35'55" E 90.18'S 15° 4 2 ' 3 7 " W 1 0 0 . 3 2 'N 74°25'24" W(90.00')89.83'West Francis St.74.72' R-O-WNorth 2nd St.75.62' R-O-W Alley -- BLOCK 4820' R-O-WCOA GPS-8COA GPS-6N 70°13'43" W 580.14'N 09°09'58" W 1372.68'STRIP DRAIN AT PROPERTYLINE TO DRYWELLROOF DRAINS FROM GABLEROOF WILL DRAIN TOBURIED PIPING TO DRYWELLSWALE FOR OVERFLOWSUMP DISCHARGE TO ALLEY.FRONT AREA TO DRAIN TO ROW. ALLROOF DRAINS PICKED UP INTERNALLYPATH TO BE BASALT PAVERS.PATH TO BE REMOVEDOVERFLOW TO CITY STORMSEWER WITH CHECK VALVE4'Ø (WQCV=67.5CF) DRYWELLWITH CONCEALED ACCESS LID.LOCATION OF ACCESS LID TO BEMARKED ON FINISHED GRADEAREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFDOWNSPOUTS ARE REMOVEDPROPOSEDCURB & GUTTERAREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFGUTTERS ARE NOT USEDAREA INLETS IF EXISTING ROOFDOWNSPOUT ARE NOT USEDACCESS PATH TO BEPERMEABLE PAVERSFLAT ROOF AREAS TOPIPE TO DRYWELL4",6",8" STORM DRAINS TO DRYWELLCONNECT TO ROOF DRAINAREA INLETS TO DRAINSUNKEN PATIO & SPACOORDINATE WITH STRUCTURALFOR PIPE ROUTING THROUGHFOUNDATIONDRYWELL OVERFLOW SUMP PUMPTO BE LOCATED BELOW MECHANICALROOM. SURFACE DISCHARGE TOFLOW NORTH TO ALLEY.BASEMENTSUBSTRUCTURECOGEORFREVIEWBYNO.DATEPROJECT NO.REVISION+,*+ &28N75< (N*,N((5,N* ,N&. 3+2N( F$; 2 ZZZ.hcenJ.coP drawn by: checked by: date: file: %/$.( $9(N8( S7( */(NW22' S35,N*S &2 COLORADO 811CALL BEFOREYOU DIGUtility NotificationCenter of Colorado2 2......&..2234 WEST FRANCIS LLC CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO 2 W. F5$N&,S S75((7 +3& S8%0,77$/ *5$',N* '5$,N$*( $N' (52S,2N &2N752/ 3/$N MGG RDN 1-16-20 GR-01.dwg 1 1-16-20 HPC SUBMITTAL MGG 138 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS E E UT UT UT UT UT UTUT UT UT UT UT UTE G 7 8 8 5 78 8 5 7 8 8 6 78877886 788578867886 7886 7886 7885 78867887 7 8 8 5 DW E GV WVIVB IVB IVB IVB WSOIVB DSDSDSDS DSDSMH MH FFE ENTRY 7885.72 FFE ENTRY 7886.86 FFE 2ND FLOOR7896.70 SLOT TRENCH WINDOW WELL ELV: 7885.37 WINDOW WELL, BRICK ELV: 7886.44 FFE 7886.51 STONE PAVER (TYP.) PLANTER LINE (TYP.) CURB & GUTTER PAVED WALK (TYP.) A B COA GPS-8 COA GPS-6 FOUND No.5 REBAR w/1.25in. ORANGE PLASTIC CAP LS 33638 FOUND NAIL w/1in. CAP ILLEGIBLE FOUND No.4 REBAR w/1in. RED PLASTIC CAP LS 24303 FOUND No.4 REBAR w/1in. RED PLASTIC CAP LS 24303 5'10'10'10' 10' FRONT & SIDE SETBACK PRINCIPAL BUILDING (ASPEN LAND USE, ZONE R-6)15'15' FRONT SETBACK ACCESSORY BUILDING 5' REAR SETBACK FOR PORTION OF PRINCIPAL BUILDING USED AS GARAGE & FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING 10' SIDE SETBACK ACCESSORY BUILDING 7.4' 20.5' 0.5' ENCROACHMENT OVERHANG 0.4' ENCROACHMENT BUILDING10'10 REAR SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDING IF NOT USED AS GARAGE COVERED PORCH (TYP.) DRYWELL LID:7884.84 4" PVC VERT TOP:4879.52 2" PVC INV:7872.49 4" ADS INV:7863.87 GRAVEL:7852.87 SS MANHOLE LID:7886.02 CENTER FL:7879.32 29.1' 29.0' 1.8' 1.1' GATE GATE GATE WINDOW WELL, BRICK ELV: 7886.43WV STONE WALL WINDOW WELL, BRICK ELV: 7886.41(N 14°50'49" E 100.00')(S 75° 0 9 ' 1 1 " E 9 0 . 0 0 ' )(S 14°50'49" W 100.00')(N 75 ° 0 9 ' 1 1 " W )N 15°30'33" E 100.05'S 74° 3 5 ' 5 5 " E 9 0 . 1 8 'S 15°42'37" W 100.32'N 74° 2 5 ' 2 4 " W (90.0 0 ' ) 89.83 ' 2.2 25.32.0 3.5 7.03.9 3.97.5 6.96.9 16 7 . 0 7.72.315 0.7 25.80.95.122 19 7.010.6 3.6 21 6.6 10.414.26.90.77.914.90.6 2.515.418.3 0.8 0.60.618.0 0.7 3.0 0.62.9 2.70.60.7 0.7 0.6 13.3 0.73.0 13.3 5.61.75.414.86.810.9 4.19.5 5.28.8 1.72.60.6 7.20.7234 W. Francis St. 9,017 Sq.Ft. ± 0.207 Acre ± Parcel No. 2735-124-17-003 2-Story Frame House 1,363 Sq.Ft. 1-Story Frame Cabin 615 Sq.Ft.Lot N Lot O Lot K Lot M Lot A Lot B Lot C Lot D Lot E 212 W. Francis St. Parcel No. 2735-124-17-004 426 N. 2nd St. Parcel No. 2735-124-17-800 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 N 70° 1 3 ' 4 3 " W 5 8 0 . 1 4 'N 09°09'58" W 1372.68' West F r a n c i s S t . 74.72 ' R - O - WNorth 2nd St.75.62' R-O-WAlley - - B L O C K 4 8 [BASIS OF BEARINGS]20' R- O - W 1-Story Frame Garage 598 Sq.Ft. Lot L GARAGE 7885.94 1 inch = ft. (IN U.S. SURVEY FEET) GRAPHIC SCALE 0010 5 10 20 40 10 BYNO.DATEBYPROJECT NO.OR 534 - 06700 IN METRO DENVERUNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIESEXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OFBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, ORCALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE1-800-922-1987CENTER OF COLORADOCALL UTILITY NOTIFICATIONREVISIONHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.PHONE (970) 945-8676 - FAX (970) 945-2555www.hceng.comdrawn by:checked by:date:file:1517 BLAKE AVENUE, STE 101, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601SHEET NUMBER 2191661 1 of 1John SpencerAspen, COImprovement Survey Plat234 W. Francis St.Pitkin CountyGEBBWAB09.03.20191 9.10.19fixed tree diameters and drip radiigeb210.03.19tree chart nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 13geb3 10.09.19 garage elev., note 10gebUTIVB E WSO DW GV G DS WV E 234 W. Francis St. MH NO. SPECIES SIZE (IN.) DRIP RADIUS (FT.) 1 ASPEN 11 17 2 ASPEN 10 13 3 ASPEN 10 13 4 ASPEN 10 10 5 ASPEN 10 10 6 ASPEN 10 8 7 SPRUCE 11 10 8 ASPEN 8 10 9 SPRUCE 10 10 10 SPRUCE 14 14 11 SPRUCE 12 10 12 ASPEN 12 10 13 SPRUCE 10 8 14 ASPEN 12 13 15 ASPEN 8 16 16 ASPEN 12 15 17 ASPEN 11 18 18 COTTONWOOD 45 25 19 COTTONWOOD 38 30 20 COTTONWOOD 35 26 21 COTTONWOOD 34 23 22 COTTONWOOD 36 29 23 COTTONWOOD 33 25 24 ASPEN 13 12 25 COTTONWOOD 30 43 26 COTTONWOOD 32 30 27 SPRUCE 5 4 28 SPRUCE 6 4 VICINITY MAP STREET SIGN BUILDING SETBACK LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE ADJOINER LINE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN CITY AND TOWNSHIP OF ASPEN, LOTS K, L & M, BLOCK 48 SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO LAND SURVEY PLAT DEPOSIT CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE DRY WELL MANHOLE GAS VALVE GAS METER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL WATER VALVE WATER SHUTOFF IRRIGATION VALVE BOX ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER UTILITY POLE/POWER POLE CUT OFF LIGHT POLE ELECTRICAL METER ELECTRICAL OUTLET FOUND PROPERTY CORNER - AS DESCRIBED BENCHMARK / CONTROL POINT LEGEND MAIL BOX WOOD FENCE LINE THIS LAND SURVEY PLAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FOR DEPOSIT IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO THIS ____ DAY OF __________, 2019, PLAT BOOK _____, PAGE ______, AS RECEPTION NO.________________. TITLE 38, ARTICLE 50, §101 C.R.S. (5)(a) PLATS SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF RECORDING INFORMATION ON SURVEYING MONUMENTATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SURVEY DATA FOR SUBSEQUENT LAND SURVEYS AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT, IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, THE DESCRIPTION OF A SUBDIVISION, LINE, OR CORNER CONTAINED IN THE OFFICIAL PLATS AND FIELD NOTES FILED AND OF RECORD OR TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY. (b) NO PLAT DEPOSITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION SHALL CONSTITUTE NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 38-35-109 CRS. IN THE EVENT THIS SURVEY CANNOT BE DEPOSITED, THIS IS YOUR NOTICE THAT THIS IS NOT A RECORDABLE DOCUMENT. ______________________________________ CLERK AND RECORDER BY:____________________________________ DEPUTY ASPHALT BUILDING LINE HATCH CONCRETE PAVED WALK WOOD PORCH CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE BUILDING OVERHANG LINE FLOW LINE MAJOR CONTOUR LINE MINOR CONTOUR LINE 7885 DOWNSPOUT NOTES 1. DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: AUGUST 8, 20 & 21; OCTOBER 3, 2019, AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY IT WAS CLEAR. 2. THE ASSUMED BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF N15°30'33"E ALONG THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN "A" THE SOUTHWEST CORNER A FOUND REBAR AND RED PLASTIC CAP LS 24303 AND "B" THE NORTHWEST CORNER A FOUND REBAR AND ORANGE PLASTIC CAP LS 33638 AS SHOWN HEREON. 3. ALL DISTANCES ARE GROUND DISTANCES BASED ON A COMBINED SCALE FACTOR. 4. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON TO DETERMINE: A) OWNERSHIP OF THE TRACT OF LAND B) COMPATIBILITY OF THIS DESCRIPTION WITH THOSE OF ADJOINERS C) RIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD AFFECTING THIS PARCEL. 5. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENT, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. RELIED UPON TITLE COMMITMENT No. 461120 ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE COMPANY, EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 7, 2019 AT 8:00AM. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. 6. THE CLIENT DID NOT REQUEST THAT ANY ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS BE RESEARCHED OR SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 7. ALL DIMENSIONS AND COURSES ARE AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD UNLESS DENOTED IN PARENTHESES, WHICH DENOTE THE BOUNDARIES OF RECORD ON THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF OFFICIAL MAP, CITY OF ASPEN IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. 8. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88) REFERENCED FROM NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) BENCHMARK STATION S 159 HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 7720.88. 9. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT. 10. BUILDING MEASUREMENTS ARE AT LOWEST PRACTICABLE POINT ON VENEER. 11. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY REMOVES, ALTERS OR DEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MONUMENT OR LAND BOUNDARY MONUMENT OR ACCESSORY COMMITS A CLASS TWO (2) MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-4-508 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES. 12. NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED ON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY ACTION BASED ON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. 13. NOTICE: THIS PLAT AND THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL OR EXTENDED PURPOSE BEYOND THAT FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED AND MAY NOT BE USED BY ANY PARTIES OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHICH IT IS CERTIFIED. THIS DOCUMENT AND THE WORK IT REPRESENTS IS THE PROPERTY OF HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE STORED, REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED OR USED TO PREPARE DERIVATIVE PRODUCTS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION. AN ORIGINAL SEAL AND ORIGINAL SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED TO VALIDATE THIS DOCUMENT AND IS EXCLUSIVE TO HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. AND THE OWNER(S) OF RECORD AS OF THIS DATE, OF THE PROPERTY DELINEATED HEREON AND THE SUBJECT OF THE SURVEY. THIS PLAT IS RESTRICTED TO THE INTENT OF TITLE 38, ARTICLE 50, §101, 5 (a) AND (b) C.R.S. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION I, BILL W.A. BAKER, A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO (#23875) DO BY THESE PRESENTS CERTIFY THAT THE DRAWING SHOWN HEREON, WITH NOTES ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, REPRESENTS A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF SAID SURVEY IS RENDERED BY THIS PLAT. THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE, IS NOT A GUARANTY OR WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. THIS SURVEY PLAT COMPLIES WITH TITLE 38-51-102, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES. BILL W.A. BAKER, COLORADO PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR #23875 CERTIFIED FEDERAL SURVEYOR #1699 7887 TREE CHART 139 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: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: February 12, 2020 RE: 227 E. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation, Setback Variations, PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT /OWNER: 227 East Main LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors LOCATION: Street Address: 227 E. Main Street Legal Description: Lot F, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2737-073-28-003 CURRENT ZONING & USE MU (Mixed Use) Currently in Commercial Use PROPOSED USE: Residential SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval for Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations to restore and expand this Victorian era home. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation for restudy as described in this memo. Site Locator Map – 227 E. Main Street 227 140 Page 2 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: 227 E. Main Street was built in 1886, making it one of the older surviving miner’s cottages in Aspen. The property has recently sold, after being in the long-term ownership of the Moore family, who retains the lots to the east. Sporadically used as a retail shop, 227 E. Main is in a deteriorated condition. Asbestos shingle siding has been installed and original porch and window details (pictured below) have been removed. A very small non-historic addition is in place at the back of the house. The outbuilding shown on the Sanborn map was demolished some time ago. Images below are among those that can be used to guide the project. Top left- Sanborn Map, 1904 Top right- Photo of 227 E. Main, 1975 Left- View of the Moore Building and 227 E. Main, date unknown 141 Page 3 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for demolition of non-historic additions and construction of a new addition towards the rear of the historic building. • Relocation (Section 26.415.090.C) to move the historic home forward 7 feet and westward 2 feet. • Setback Variations (Section 26.415.110.C) for The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority, however this project is subject to Call-up Notice to City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: Following is a summary of staff findings. Please see Exhibits A, B and C for more detail. Site Planning, Demolition, Relocation: In general, staff supports the proposed site plan. The resource remains in its historic location, separated from the addition with a 10’ connector. The architect has pushed the addition towards the southeast corner. Only one of the two required parking spaces is garaged, allowing for a small amount of open space on the ground plane. This may become important as the applicant may need to accommodate a transformer on the site. There are a number of trees on the property. Parks has preliminarily agreed to remove them all. There is a concern with the driplines of trees on adjacent properties. The applicant must investigate this further and may have to adjust their basement excavation. Additional work is needed on the proposed stormwater plan. The applicant has proposed a drywell, but Engineering is promoting green roofs. Accommodating the proposed development on a 3,000 square foot lot is a challenge. The historic resource is almost as wide as the lot. The applicant has requested a number of setback variations, but more detail is needed about how construction will occur and how future maintenance will be accomplished where setbacks are minimal. Historic Landmark Alterations and New Addition: The property is currently in commercial use. Converting it to residential is subject to a 20% floor area penalty that applies to all new single-family homes in the Mixed Use Zone district. The maximum floor area is 1,920 square feet. The applicant has not requested a bonus. The restoration/rehabilitation plan for the historic resource must be further detailed at Final. Regarding the addition, staff finds it to be acceptable in footprint, but recommends restudy of roof forms. For this and other reasons detailed at the end of the memo, staff recommends continuation for restudy. 142 Page 4 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will significantly affect the permit review. The following is a summary of comments received. ENGINEERING Improvement Survey – A COA compliant survey is required with all HPC submittals, please address the following items on the survey. 1. Tie survey to two City (City of Aspen, GPS Control Monumentation, dated 12-2-2009 on the Engineering website) monuments. 2. Provide one foot contours. 3. Location, species, and trunk diameter of trees at four and a half feet from the ground, as well as the current extent of drip lines. Include neighboring trees whose dripline extend onto subject property. 4. Show location of all utilities. 5. State that the error of closure is less than 1:15,000 6. Call out natural hazards or lack thereof. 7. Show edge of pavement on Main St. Proposed Plan: 8. The proposed project leaves limited available space for stormwater BMPs and treatment. For this conceptual Design phase of the landuse process, the applicant needs to show stormwater treatment has been considered and there exist opportunities for stormwater treatment. Keep in mind drywells are not permitted within 10' of property lines or structures. Greenroofs, raingarden planter boxes, and pervious pavers should all be considered. Before the project moves forward please submit a general idea of possibilities for stormwater treatment. At HPC Detail review a conceptual drainage plan and report needs to be submitted. Please refer to the conceptual drainage plan and report in the appendices of the URMP. 9. Is there an existing transformer that provides sufficient power for the proposed project? Will a new transformer be needed? Please coordinate with the Electrical Department to determine electrical loads and available sources. If a new transformer is needed, it must be placed within the property and have a dedicated easement. The approved plan from HPC should consider any necessary space for a transformer. 10. The proposed landscaping extends onto the neighbors property. Is there an agreement? 11. A 6' sidewalk and 5' landscape buffer will be required. Please show dimensions at Detail Review. 12. At Detail Review please show a possible proposed water service line location and tree location. Installing a new water service without disturbing the street trees will be a challenge on this property. ZONING 1. Floor area calculations must be verified during building permit. 2. A trellis on the west side of the connector has a deep enough overhang that the area below it counts as “deck.” Please account for this in floor area calculations. 143 Page 5 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue the review with the following direction: 1. The architect is to provide additional information on how the resource will be temporarily stored on site or suspended above the basement excavation. 2. The architect is to preliminarily address the constructability of the project given the site conditions and proposed setbacks, and is to address future maintenance of the structure along the side lot lines. 3. It is not clear from the plans that all drainage will be retained on the site. A gutter on the west side of the cabin appears to cross the property line and the garage eaves reach the lot lines with no gutters (unless they are internal and not clearly depicted.) Clarification is needed. 4. The architect must work with Engineering to advance the stormwater plan, and must depict green roofs for HPC review if this becomes the solution. 5. Investigate whether a transformer will be needed on the site. 6. Continue to review the impact of trees on the adjacent properties relative to the planned basement excavation. 7. Restudy the roof on the gable portion of the addition. Staff recommends the addition pitch match the resource and that the spring point on the upper floor be reduced to achieve this. Staff recommends restudy of the roof forms on the east side of the gable to simplify and relate to the resource. The long slope over the stair is particularly unrelated. 8. At final, during permit review, and once the property is under construction, additional study and documentation of the historic resource will be necessary in order to identify and respond to historic conditions that are currently not visible. 9. As part of the approval to relocate the house on the site, the applicant will be required to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application, along with a detailed description of the house relocation approach. 10. The following setbacks are supported by staff: • 5’10” in the front, where 10’ is required. • 0’ on the west side of the resource and the basement below it where 5’ is required • 1’ 1” on the east side of the resource, on the addition, and the basement below them, where 5’ is required. • 1’ on the rear yard, above and below grade, where 5-10’ are required. 11. 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 144 Page 6 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #____, Series of 2020 Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit B – Relocation Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit C – Setback Variations Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit D – Application 145 Page 7 of 7 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com 146 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION AND SETBACK VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 227 EAST MAIN STREET, LOT F, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-073-28-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, 227 East Main LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations for the property located at 227 East Main Street, Lot F, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. As a historic landmark, the site is exempt from Residential Design Standards review; 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 applicable review standards and recommends approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on February 12, 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 Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations for 227 East Main Street, Lot F, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows: 147 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 2 of 3 Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation and Setback Variations HPC hereby grants approval with the following conditions: 1. The architect is to provide additional information on how the resource will be temporarily stored on site or suspended above the basement excavation. 2. The architect is to preliminarily address the constructability of the project given the site conditions and proposed setbacks, and is to address future maintenance of the structure along the side lot lines. 3. It is not clear from the plans that all drainage will be retained on the site. A gutter on the west side of the cabin appears to cross the property line and the garage eaves reach the lot lines with no gutters (unless they are internal and not clearly depicted.) Clarification is needed. 4. The architect must work with Engineering to advance the stormwater plan, and must depict green roofs for HPC review if this becomes the solution. 5. Investigate whether a transformer will be needed on the site. 6. Continue to review the impact of trees on the adjacent properties relative to the planned basement excavation. 7. Restudy the roof on the gable portion of the addition. Staff recommends the addition pitch match the resource and that the spring point on the upper floor be reduced to achieve this. Staff recommends restudy of the roof forms on the east side of the gable to simplify and relate to the resource. The long slope over the stair is particularly unrelated. 8. At final, during permit review, and once the property is under construction, additional study and documentation of the historic resource will be necessary in order to identify and respond to historic conditions that are currently not visible. 9. As part of the approval to relocate the house on the site, the applicant will be required to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application, along with a detailed description of the house relocation approach. 10. The following setbacks are supported by staff: • 5’10” in the front, where 10’ is required. • 0’ on the west side of the resource and the basement below it where 5’ is required • 1’ 1” on the east side of the resource, on the addition, and the basement below them, where 5’ is required. • 1’ on the rear yard, above and below grade, where 5-10’ are required. 11. 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 148 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 3 of 3 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 (6) 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 12th day of February, 2020. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: _________________________________________________________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk 149 Page 1 of 12 Exhibit A Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings Note: Staff findings on the guidelines begins on page 11 of this exhibit. 26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. 3. Conceptual Development Plan Review b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: 1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section. 150 Page 2 of 12 151 Page 3 of 12 Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • 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 152 Page 4 of 12 Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. • If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. • The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. • Protect established vegetation during any construction. • If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species. • New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species. • Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site. • Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements. 153 Page 5 of 12 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. • 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. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. • Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. • Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows. • Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them. • Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass for the repair. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. • Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. • Do not change the size of an original window opening. 3.5 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. 154 Page 6 of 12 • Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. • Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. • Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. • If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. • Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. • Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. • Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource. • Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the building and should be a product of its own time. • Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure. 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. • Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and spacing of balusters. • Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. • Repair only those features that are deteriorated. • Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. • On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. 155 Page 7 of 12 • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 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. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. • A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. • Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. • Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. • Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. 156 Page 8 of 12 • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. • For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. • HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. • A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. • An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. • An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. • Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. • The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. • The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically 157 Page 9 of 12 o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. • Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. An addition can not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred. 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. • Only a one-story connector is allowed. • Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall. • In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave. • The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. 158 Page 10 of 12 • Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic resource. • Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. 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. 159 Page 11 of 12 • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. Staff Finding: The applicable chapters of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning, rehabilitation, relocation, building additions, and service areas. All relevant Design Guidelines in Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 related to the restoration and rehabilitation efforts need to be reviewed in detail as part of the Final review, permit submittal and/or in the field to ensure no historic fabric is being removed. A number of historic conditions are concealed at this time due to the asbestos shingles and the overframed front porch roof, which should be restored. Further investigation of the building will be a condition of Final approval. In general, staff finds that the guidelines are met, or can be met with conditions. One guideline, that needs clarification is 1.8, related to stormwater needs. The applicant has been delayed in receiving a stormwater plan from their civil engineer. The architect proposed a basic concept to drain towards a drywell at the center of the site, however City Engineering has indicated that drywells must be at least 10’ from a property line, which may not be possible. Engineering also views drywells as a last choice. They are encouraging the inclusion of green roofs in this plan. That appears to be possible on the addition, however it could change roof forms, so staff recommends condition of the review for restudy. Regarding the addition, discussion is needed on at least two guidelines. First, guideline 10.4 indicates that the addition can’t be larger than the historic resource. The above grade floor area of the historic resource is approximately 724 square feet and the addition is approximately 1,018 square feet. An exception is allowable if certain criteria are met, which staff finds is the case as follows: 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 160 Page 12 of 12 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. Guideline 10.6 has to do with architectural compatibility between the resource and addition: o 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. The architect appears to plan to vary from the fenestration on the historic house. The materials may be similar between the two elements, but staff does not find that form is met as a second related characteristic. In particular, greater compatibility could be achieved in the roof design, as further discussed in guideline 10.11. 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. The pitched roof on the addition is 7:12, where the historic resource is 9:12. Staff recommends the addition match the resource and that the spring point on the upper floor be reduced to achieve this. Staff recommends restudy of the roof forms on the east side of the gable to simplify and relate to the resource. The long slope over the stair is particularly unrelated. In summary, staff recommends continuation for restudy of the elements noted above. 161 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit B Relocation Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.090.C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect 162 Page 2 of 2 the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes temporary relocation of the historic resource in order to dig a basement and put the home back in place. It is currently slightly crooked on the lot, which will be corrected. A plan for how the house will be stored on site or suspended above the excavation is needed before Relocation approval should be granted. Staff recommends continuation of the review for the applicant to study this issue. The house has settled so that the front porch deck is essentially flush with grade. As part of the Relocation, the architect intends to raise the finished floor elevation so that there is one step in front of the porch. Staff’s supports this modest adjustment. Many of the miner’s cottages have this condition. 163 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit C Setback Variations Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.110.C: Variances: Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: The historic house sits within the front and side setbacks. The applicant proposes to maintain these conditions above grade, and extend the encroachment to the basement below the 164 Page 2 of 2 resource. The new addition conforms to the 5’ west sideyard setback, but on the east, the setback for the addition and basement is 1’ 1”. The proposed rear setback, above and below grade, is 1’. It is already not possible to walk down the side of the property from Main Street to the alley due to the width of the resource. The small setback proposed to continue on the east side of the addition abuts a non-historic structure and parking lot. Pushing the addition to one side accommodates two required parking spaces; one in a garage and one uncovered. Pushing the addition towards the alley helps to distance it from the historic resource. The proposed setbacks are: • 5’10” in the front, where 10’ is required. • 0’ on the west side of the resource and the basement below it where 5’ is required • 1’ 1” on the east side of the resource, on the addition, and the basement below them, where 5’ is required. • 1’ on the rear yard, above and below grade, where 5-10’ are required. Staff supports the variations, however the project will need certain accommodations to meet Fire Code given the close proximity to the lot lines. This may include the installation of fireproof materials on the underside of the eaves, and/or an additional layer of drywall on interiors. It is not clear from the plans that all roof drainage will be retained on the site as required. A gutter on the west side of the cabin appears to cross the property line and the garage eaves reach the lot lines with no gutters (unless they are internal and not clearly depicted.) Staff recommends continuation for clarification. 165 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $.___________flat fee for __________________. $.____________ flat fee for _____________________________ $.___________ flat fee for __________________. $._____________ flat fee for _____________________________ For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that addit ional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: ________________________________ Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director Signature: _________________________________________ PRINT Name: _______________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________City Use: Fees Due: $_______Received $_______ Case #___________________________ Please type or print in all caps Address of Property: ______________________________________________ Property Owner Name: __________________________ Representative Name (if different from Property Owner)_______________________ Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contact info for billing: e-mail: _______________________________________ Phone: __________________________ 166 November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name and Address:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) _____________________________ APPLICANT: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: ___________________________ email: __________________________________ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________ Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage _________ Lodge Pillows______ Free Market dwelling units ______ Affordable Housing dwelling units_____ Essential Public Facility square footage ________ 167 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com DATE: December 17, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 227 E. Main Street REQUEST: Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations DESCRIPTION: 227 E. Main Street is a 3,000 square foot lot located in the Mixed Use zone district and the Main Street Historic District. The property is landmarked designated and contains a Victorian era miner’s cottage which is in a deteriorated condition. The applicant proposes to convert the property from the current commercial use, back to a single-family home. This will include repair and restoration of the historic resource and construction of a basement and rear addition. HPC review for Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations are anticipated. Major Development is a two step process, requiring the approval of Conceptual Design and a Final Design. Conceptual Design review will consider mass, scale and site plan. At this meeting, HPC may also consider any variations requested by the applicant. It is staff’s understanding that the applicant will request setback reductions, but will provide two on-site parking spaces as required. Following Conceptual, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to uphold HPC’s decision or to “Call Up” aspects of the approval for further discussion. This is a standard practice for all significant projects. Following Call Up, HPC will conduct Final Design review to consider landscape, lighting and materials. HPC will use the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Land Use Code Sections that are applicable to this project to assist with their determinations. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.070.D Historic Preservation – Major Development 26.415.090 Relocation of Designated Historic Properties 26.415.110 Historic Preservation – Benefits 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.180 Mixed Use Zone District For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations 168 HPC for decisions City Council for notice of the HPC Conceptual decision. Public Hearing: Yes, at Conceptual and Final Neighborhood Outreach: No Referrals: Staff will seek referral comments from the Building Department, Zoning, Engineering and Parks regarding any relevant code requirements or considerations. There will be no Development Review Committee meeting or referral fees. Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) This fee will be due at Conceptual and Final submittal. Referral Agencies Fee: $0. Total Deposit: $1,950. APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements for HPC Conceptual and Final reviews. At each review step, please submit one paper copy of the application to the City of Aspen Community Development Department for an initial determination of completeness. ¨ Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement. ¨ Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). ¨ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. ¨ Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ¨ HOA Compliance form (Attached). ¨ List of adjacent property owners for both properties within 300’ for public hearing. ¨ An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ¨ Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. ¨ A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed development and any requests for variations or benefits complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application. 169 ¨ A proposed site plan. ¨ Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. ¨ Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location and extent of proposed work. For Conceptual, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above: ¨ Graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials. ¨ A preliminary stormwater design. For Final Review, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above: ¨ Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale. ¨ Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples are preferred for the presentation to HPC. ¨ A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: ¨ 1 digital PDF copy of the complete application packet. ¨ 1 set of all graphics printed at 11x17. ¨ Total deposit for review of the application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 170 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Form 5030000 (1-31-17)Page 1 of 13 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16) ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company Commitment COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued By FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY NOTICE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions,First American Title Insurance Company, a Colorado Corporation (the "Company"), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. First American Title Insurance Company If this jacket was created electronically, it constitutes an original document. 171 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Form 5030000 (1-31-17)Page 2 of 13 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16) COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a) "Knowledge" or "Known": Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records. (b) "Land": The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term "Land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy. (c) "Mortgage": A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law. (d) "Policy": Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (e) "Proposed Insured": Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (f) "Proposed Policy Amount": Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (g) "Public Records": Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (h) "Title": The estate or interest described in Schedule A. 2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. 3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: (a) the Notice; (b) the Commitment to Issue Policy; (c) the Commitment Conditions; (d) Schedule A; (e) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; (f) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and (g) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY (a) The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to: (i) comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; (ii) eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or (iii) acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. (b) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing. (c) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. 172 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Form 5030000 (1-31-17)Page 3 of 13 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16) (d) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount. (e) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any. (f) In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (g) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy. 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT (a) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment. (b) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. (c) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment. (d) The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (e) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company. (f) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy. 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services. 8. PRO-FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. 9. ARBITRATION The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration. 173 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Form 5033708-A (4-9-18)Page 4 of 13 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16) Colorado - Schedule A ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company Schedule A Transaction Identification Data for reference only: Issuing Agent: Winter VanAlstine Issuing Office: Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC Issuing Office's ALTA® Registry ID: 1019587 Loan ID No.: Commitment No.: 19004190 Issuing Office File No.: 19004190 Property Address: 227 East Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: July 17, 2019 at 07:45 AM 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount Premium A. ALTA Owners Policy (06/17/06)$1,700,000.00 $3,926.00 Proposed Insured: 227 East Main LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Certificate of Taxes Due $25.00 Endorsements: CO-110.1 (Delete 1, 2, 3, 4)$85.00 Additional Charges:$0 B. ALTA Loan Policy (06/17/06)$850,000.00 $150.00 Proposed Insured: FirstBank, A Colorado State Banking Corporation, its successors and/or assigns, as their interests may appear Endorsements: CO-100 (Comprehensive Improved Land)$245.00 Additional Charges:$0 Total $4,431.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is Fee simple. 4. The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in: Monarch Building LLC, a Colorado limited liability company 174 SCHEDULE A (Continued) This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Form 5033708-A (4-9-18)Page 5 of 13 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16) Colorado - Schedule A 5. The land referred to in the Commitment is described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO For informational purposes only, the property address is: 227 East Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611. Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC By: Winter VanAlstine Authorized Officer or Agent FOR INFORMATION PURPOSED OR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS COMMITMENT, CONTACT: Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC, 715 West Main Street, Suite 202, Aspen, CO 81611, Phone: 970 925-7328, Fax: 970 925-7348. 175 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Form 5030008-BI&BII (5-18-17)Page 6 of 13 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16) Colorado - Schedule BI & BII ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company Schedule BI & BII Commitment No: 19004190 SCHEDULE B, PART I Requirements All of the following Requirements must be met: 1. The Proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. 2. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. 3. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. 4. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. 5. Payment of all taxes and assessments now due and payable as shown on a certificate of taxes due from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent. 6. Evidence that all assessments for common expenses, if any, have been paid. 7. Final Affidavit and Agreement executed by Owners and/or Purchasers must be provided to the Company 8. Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Monarch Building LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to 227 East Main LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 9. Full disclosure from Seller, of any monetary liens and open Deeds of Trust of record. If you have any knowledge of an outstanding obligation secured by the subject property, you must contact us immediately for further review prior to closing. 10. Deed of Trust from FirstBank, A Colorado State Banking Corporation, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of FirstBank, A Colorado State Banking Corporation, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $850,000.00. 11. Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of Monarch Building LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172. 176 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company Schedule BI & BII (Cont.) Form 50-CO-Disclosure (4-1-16)Page 7 of 13 Disclosure Statement (5-1-15) Colorado 12. Certificate of Good Standing from the Colorado Secretary of State for Monarch Building LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. 13. A copy of the properly signed and executed Operating Agreement if written, for Monarch Building LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to be submitted to the Company for review. 14. Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of 227 East Main LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172. 15. Certificate of Good Standing from the Colorado Secretary of State for 227 East Main LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. 16. A copy of the properly signed and executed Operating Agreement if written, for 227 East Main LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to be submitted to the Company for review. 17. Improvement Survey Plat sufficient in form, content and certification acceptable to the Company. Exception will be taken to adverse matters disclosed thereby. 18. Receipt by the Company of the appropriate Lease Affidavit indemnifying the Company against any existing leases or tenancies, and any and all parties claiming by, through or under said lessees. 19. This Title Commitment is subject to underwriter approval. 177 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Form 5030008-BI&BII (5-18-17)Page 8 of 13 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16) Colorado - Schedule BI & BII ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company Schedule BI & BII (Cont.) Commitment No.: 19004190 SCHEDULE B, PART II Exceptions THIS COMMITMENT DOES NOT REPUBLISH ANY COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION CONTAINED IN ANY DOCUMENT REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SPECIFIC COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION VIOLATES STATE OR FEDERAL LAW BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. The Policy will not insure against loss or damage resulting from the terms and provisions of any lease or easement identified in Schedule A, and will include the following Exceptions unless cleared to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the Public Records, but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct land survey and inspection of the Land would disclose, and which are not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown in the Public Records. 5. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter that appears for the first time in the Public Records or is created, attaches, or is disclosed between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements are met. Note: Exception number 5. will be removed from the policy provided the Company conducts the closing and settlement service for the transaction identified in the commitment 6. Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales. 7. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 8. Any water rights, claims of title to water, in, on or under the Land. 9. Taxes and assessments for the year 2019, and subsequent years, a lien not yet due or payable. 178 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company Schedule BI & BII (Cont.) Form 50-CO-Disclosure (4-1-16)Page 9 of 13 Disclosure Statement (5-1-15) Colorado 10. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed dated November 4, 1887, and recorded April 8, 1889, in Book 59 at Page 552, as Reception No. 029330, providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws." 11. Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen, dated January 29, 1897, and recorded March 1, 1897, in Book 139 at Page 216, as Reception No. 060156. 12. Any and all notes, easements and recitals as disclosed on the recorded Official Map of the City of Aspen, recorded December 16, 1959, as Reception No. 109023. 13. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under An Ordinance Accepting a Map Entitled "Official Map of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, State of Colorado," as the Official Map of the City of Aspen: Providing for Dedication of all streets and alleys, Except such streets and alleys heretofore vacated: and providing for the filing of said map, field notes, and Suppmental Plats with the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County (Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1959) dated November 16, 1959, and recorded December 18, 1959, in Book 189 at Page 354, as Reception No. 109043. 14. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under Ordinance No. 60 (Series of 1976) recorded December 9, 1976, in Book 321 at Page 51, as Reception No. 189906. 15. Any loss or damange due to the fence lines not corresponding to the lot lines, as shown on the Improvement Survey Plat, provided by SGM, dated July 11, 2019, as Job No. 2017-393. 16. Any existing leases or tenancies, and any and all parties claiming by, through or under said lessees. NOTE: Upon receipt of a Lease Affidavit from Seller, this exception will not appear on the final title policy. 179 Form 5000000-EX (7-1-14)Page 10 of 13 Exhibit A ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company Exhibit A File No.: 19004190 The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and is described as follows: Lot: F, Block: 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, Pitkin County, Colorado. 180 Form 50-CO-Disclosure (4-1-16)Page 11 of 13 Disclosure Statement (5-1-15) Colorado DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to C.R.S. 30-10-406(3)(a) all documents received for recording or filing in the Clerk and Recorder’s office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one-half of an inch. The Clerk and Recorder will refuse to record or file any document that does not conform to the requirements of this section. NOTE: If this transaction includes a sale of the property and the price exceeds $100,000.00, the seller must comply with the disclosure/withholding provisions of C.R.S. 39-22-604.5 (Nonresident withholding). NOTE: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that “Every title insurance company shall be responsible to the proposed insured(s) subject to the terms and conditions of the title commitment, other than the effective date of the title commitment, for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title insurance company, or its agent, conducts the closing and settlement service that is in conjunction with its issuance of an owner’s policy of title insurance and is responsible for the recording and filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed. Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, the company will not issue its owner’s policy or owner’s policies of title insurance contemplated by this commitment until it has been provided a Certificate of Taxes due or other equivalent documentation from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer’s authorized agent; or until the Proposed Insured has notified or instructed the company in writing to the contrary. The subject property may be located in a special taxing district. A Certificate of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer’s authorized agent. Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner’s policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. A. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B. That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner’s permission. NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2, Affirmative mechanic’s lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner’s Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic’s and material-men’s liens. D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium, fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. 181 Form 50-CO-Disclosure (4-1-16)Page 12 of 13 Disclosure Statement (5-1-15) Colorado NOTE: Pursuant to C.R.S. 38-35-125(2) no person or entity that provides closing and settlement services for a real estate transaction shall disburse funds as a part of such services until those funds have been received and are available for immediate withdrawal as a matter of right. NOTE: C.R.S. 39-14-102 requires that a real property transfer declaration accompany any conveyance document presented for recordation in the State of Colorado. Said declaration shall be completed and signed by either the grantor or grantee. NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado division of insurance within the department of regulatory agencies. NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of an ALTA Closing Protection Letter which may, upon request, be provided to certain parties to the transaction identified in the commitment. Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless the above conditions are fully satisfied. 182 TELEPHONE 970 925-7328 FACSIMILE 970 925-7348 ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN, LLC 715 West Main Street, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC Privacy Policy Notice PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE Title V. of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly or through it affiliates, from sharing non-public personal information about you with a nonaffiliated third party unless the institution provides you with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such as the type of information that it collects about you and the categories of persons or entities to whom it may be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with this document, which notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC. We may collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources: Information we receive from you, such as on application or other forms. Information about your transactions we secure from out files, or from our affiliates or others. Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate agent or lender. Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic personal information will be collected about you. We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former customer to our affiliates or to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by law. We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following types of nonaffiliated companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we have joint marketing agreements: Financial service providers such as companies engaged in banking, consumer finance, securities and insurance. Non-financial companies such as envelope stuffers and other fulfillment service providers. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY LAW. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. 183 184 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920-5090 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner (“I”): Name: Email: Phone No.: Address of Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) □This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: _________________________ date:___________ Owner printed name: _________________________ or, Attorney signature: _________________________ date:___________ Attorney printed name: _________________________ 227 East Main LLC 970 920-1280 227 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Mark Friedland, Manager 227East Main LLC 01/16/2020 185 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273707328003 on 01/15/2020 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com 186 JPS NEVADA TRUST HENDERSON, NV 89074 1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C MONARCH BUILDING LLC WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PO BOX 126 CARVER RUTH A REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 116 S ASPEN ST DCBD2 LLC DALLAS, TX 75201 2100 ROSS AVE #550 HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC ATLANTA, GA 30327 3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE 360 HEXAGON LLC OVERLAND PARK , KS 66210 9401 INDIAN CREEK PKWY STE 800 JBC PREFERRED PROPERTIES LLC DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 1005 BROOKS LN HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC ATLANTA, GA 30327 3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY 232 EAST MAIN STREET LLC CHICAGO, IL 60614 2001 N HALSTED #304 KRIBS KAREN REV LIV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9994 ROCKING LAZY J PROPS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 202 E MAIN ST 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE 208 MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 623 E HOPKINS AVE HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC ATLANTA, GA 30327 3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC ATLANTA, GA 30327 3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY SEDOY MICHAEL NEW YORK, NY 10022 35 SUTTON PL #19B KATIE REED PLAZA CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 301 E HOPKINS AVE 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST LE VOTAUX II CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 117 N MONARCH ST 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE SHVACHKO NATALIA NEW YORK, NY 10022 35 SUTTON PL #19B AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL PEARCE BERNARD D ASPEN, CO 81611 216 E MAIN ST JBC PREFERRED PROPERTIES LLC DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 1005 BROOKS LN 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE 187 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE WEST END HOUSE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 623 E HOPKINS AVE NUNN RONALD FAMILY LP BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 10500 BRENTWOOD BLVD MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1365 201 EAST MAIN STREET LLC CHICAGO, IL 60614 2001 N HALSTED ST #304 303 EAST MAIN LLLP ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8016 BTRSARDY LLC PALO ALTO , CA 94303 PO BOX 10195 DEPT 1173 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE GETTMAN ROSA H TRUST SEASIDE, OR 971384811 88824 BLUE HERON RD HODES ALAN & DEBORAH AVENTURA , FLA 33180 19951 NE 39TH PLACE ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC HOUSTON, TX 77077 1375 ENCLAVE PKWY SUNNY SNOW LTD SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209 308 TORCIDO DR JPS NEVADA TRUST HENDERSON, NV 89074 1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC ATLANTA, GA 30327 3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY JPS NEVADA TRUST HENDERSON, NV 89074 1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE SHVACHKO NATALIA NEW YORK, NY 10022 35 SUTTON PL #19B CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1365 JPS NEVADA TRUST HENDERSON, NV 89074 1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST JPS NEVADA TRUST HENDERSON, NV 89074 1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C PEARCE RICHARD B ASPEN, CO 81611 216 E MAIN ST ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC HOUSTON, TX 77077 1375 ENCLAVE PKWY SEDOY MICHAEL NEW YORK, NY 10022 35 SUTTON PL #19B SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 304 E HYMAN AVE PEGOLOTTI DELLA ASPEN, CO 81611 202 E MAIN ST 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1365 1543 LLC DENVER, CO 80202 1543 WAZEE ST #400 188 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE HOFFMAN JOHN L & SHARON R TRUST KANSAS CITY, MO 64108 411 E 63RD ST HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC ATLANTA, GA 30327 3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE ASPEN CORNER OFFICE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 200 E MAIN ST 308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 308 E HOPKINS AVE 301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC GREENWICH, CT 06830 411 W PUTNAM AVE JAFFE JONATHAN & KAREN LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 88 EMERALD BAY 189 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 74 Lot: F VICINITY MAP 227 EAST MAIN STREET 190 1.23.20 191 418 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 January 14, 2020 Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 227 E. Main Street Parcel ID: 2737 073 2800 3 Dear Amy, Thank you for your time and assistance with this application to seek HPC approval for the restoration, renovation and addition to the small home on Main Street. This property is in the Mixed Use zone district; which at this time allows residential or commercial use; one or the other. For decades this little house has been used as a retail store. At this time we are proposing converting it back to residential use. This little home has been suffering demolition by neglect for a very long time. It will be completely restored to its historic appearance; squared up and made structurally sound again with a modest addition to the rear. We look forward to working with you and the Historic Preservation Commission on the restoration of this little home. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS SECTION 26.304 1. Please see attached letter of authorization from Mark Friedland, the manager of the 227 East Main Street, LLC; granting Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors, authority to act on their behalf throughout this process. 192 418 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 2. Please see the attached Vicinity Map with a legal description and directions to the property. 3. Please see the attached Title Insurance, Schedule A & B for proof of ownership. 4. Please see attached Site Plan 5. Please see the current survey of the property located at 227 E Main Street. 6. Please also find attached all the forms for this Land Use Application. 7. Please see below, the description and summary of all requested information pertaining to the Land Use Code sections in regard to the proposed development. Additionally, please find a copy of the Pre-application Conference Summary sheet, attached at the end of this packet of information. This application package includes all requested documents as outlined by Amy Simon in the letter dated 12.17.19. SECTION 26.310.60 We will provide the posting and mailing to all the property owners within the 300’ radius of this parcel. The posting and mailing will happen at least 15 days prior to the hearing. The list of property owners is attached. SECTION 26.415.070D Historic Preservation – Major Development Certificate of Appropriateness for major development 1. This project is a major development as we are altering/repairing more than three elements of the historic building; and expanding the building by more than 250 sq. ft. 2. We will be just presenting to the HPC with this application. 3.a This application for Conceptual Review will include the following: 1. General application information and forms 2. Site plan and survey, showing existing and proposed conditions. 3. Scaled drawings showing the structure; existing and proposed addition; massing, height, scale, etc; floor and roof plans and elevations. 4. Primary materials; samples or photos 5. Supplemental material to show context of surrounding the historic resource: photos and 3D computer model. 6. Confirmation that the proposed building meets the RDS; per Section 26.410. The proposed building is a small historic miner’s cabin. By virtue of the size and location, and the fact that it is being restored to its original appearance, it meets the RDS by strict compliance with all standards or by flexible “intent”. 193 418 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 For example, there is a primary window on the front facade, but it is not 4’ wide; there is a front porch, but it is not quite deep enough or 50 square feet. There is a connecting link that is 10’ long, less than 10’ tall and it is less than 10’ wide. The garage faces the alley and is a single car garage. The proposed addition is modest, not overwhelming the historic cabin; and the fenestration, materials and forms are complimentary to the cabin. We feel that we do meet the RDS as outlined in this section. 3.b/c All procedures of this section shall be followed for final approval. 4. Final development plan reveiw: All procedures for this section shall be followed and addressed. SECTION 26.415.090 Relocation of Designated Historic Properties This application is not seeking to re-locate the historic resource. The proposed plan leaves the historic house in its original location. SECTION 26.415.110 Historic Preservation – Benefits Section 26.415.110.C Variations This project is seeking the following variations from the HPC, as provided for in this section. 1. development in the side, rear or front setbacks: a. We are only seeking setback variations for the rear and east side setbacks for the addition; and east and west side setbacks for the historic resource. The historic home, in its original/historic location is beyond both the east and west side setbacks and the front yard setback. We will need a variation for all of these. This proposal is also seeking a side setback variance for the eas t side and the rear of the addition. To grant a variation the HPC must find that the proposed development is similar in pattern, features and character of the historic property and/or 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. The request for the east side setback is similar to the historic home, in that it aligns with the historic home. The linking element is s et further back from the east property line, well within the setback where it attaches to the historic cabin; the link is angled to allow for more of the resource to be exposed. Where the rest of the addition begins, it is set directly in line with the east wall of the cabin. The west side of the addition is within the setback. 194 418 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 The garage is beyond the allowed 5’-0 from the rear property line by 4’-0”. We believe this request also meets the criteria for receiving a variation request in that it supports the character of the historic property in leaving the cabin in its historic location; and not asking to move it forward; it allows for more space between the historic resource and the new construction; and it has no negative affect on anyone else. In addition, the proposed layout meets the requirements of not relocating the historic resource, creates a minimal sized link of 10’-0” length, and less than 10’-0” wide where it attaches to the resource, meets the minimum distance between buildings on the lot with 5’-0 between the house and the detached garage; as required by the R6 zone district, which restrictions are applied to the residence in the MU zone district. We are not seeking any FAR bonuses or exemptions in floor area calculations. We are planning on renovating and restoring this little cabin that is decades into “demolition by neglect”. For these reasons, we believe that this project meets the criteria to receive the setback variances for the rear and east side. The exact variations are as follows: 10’-0 Front yard setback for historic cabin is reduced to 5’-10”. Side yard setback of 5’-0” is reduced by 4’-0 to a 1’-11 setback. Rear yard setback of 5’-0” for the garage is reduced to 1’-0 setback SECTION 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements The proposed development meets all of the requirements and restrictions of the calculations and measurements section of this code; except for the two variances that are being sought with this application. Please see the attached Site plan, floor plans, elevations and FAR calculations. SECTION 26.710.180 Mixed Use Zone District The proposed residential development is fully within the requirements and restrictions of this Mixed Use Zone District. A single family residence is allow by right in this zone district as a Permitted Use, (number 15). This reflects the intent and purpose of the MU zone district in that “Stand alone residential uses are permitted on properties as a reflection of the historic residential nature of the zone district. The FAR for a single family home in the MU zone district is 80% of the R6 zone. R6 allows for 2400 Sq. Ft. on a 3000 Sq. Ft. lot; thus this parcel is allowed 1920 Sq. Ft. of FAR. 195 418 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 The building is below the required 25’ Height limit; has the required 3000 Sq. Ft. of lot area; and is exempt from the pedestrian amenity. Section 10.4 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines The historic resource is the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. The addition to this miner’s cabin is very sensitive to the little cabin. The link at the rear of the cabin, covering a very small portion of the rear of the cabin, putting the addition well behind the cabin. The height of the addition is minimal, and the form and fenestration are similar to the cabin. This project complies with more than 2 of the requirements for allowing the addition to a historic resource to be larger than 100% of the size of the resource: 1. The cabin is visually dominant on the lot, extending almost the entire width of the lot, and is distinguishable against the addition. The materials of the cabin will be restored to the original wood siding; the new wood siding will be more modern in detail. 2. The foot print of the addition is very closely related to the size of the cabin and is sensitive to its scale and proportions. The foot print of the cabin is 724 sq. ft. The foot print of the addition is 524 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft smaller than the cabin; and the garage is detached. The proposed roof is the same pitch as the main gable of the cabin. 3. The interior of the historic resource is fully utilized; the entry door is remaining the entry to the home; the cabin will contain the public spaces for this new home. The proposed home uses the same number of usable floors as the cabin. 4. We are demolishing a small addition that was a added at some point to the rear of the cabin. In summary, we believe that this project meets the criteria for the granting of approval of the addition to the historic cabin and the variances as described above due to the sensitive design of the addition; keeping it discreetly behind the renovated/restored cabin. We are meeting all of the Residential Design Standards that are applicable to this project and have met all of the Historic Preservation guidelines. We look forward to working with the HPC on this project and keeping this little gem from further demolition by neglect. Thank you for your consideration of this project. Respectfully yours, Kim Raymond Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors 196 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. G.0.01 1/31/20 GENERAL INFORMATION DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 81611227 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 197 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.1.00 1/31/20 EXISTING SITE PLAN DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22525'-0"SETBACK10'-0" ORIGINALSETBACK LOT 3000 SQ. FT. SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE 7" : 12" SLOPE 5 1/4" : 12" SLOPE 7" : 12"5'-0"SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINE EXISTING SETBACK LINEMAIN STREETALLEYEXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALKEXISTING SIDEWALKN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 198 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.1.01 1/31/20 PROPOSED SITE PLAN DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22521'-1"3'-11"VARIANCE5'-0"SETBACK10'-0" ORIGINALSETBACK 4'-2" VARIANCE 5'-10" PROPOSEDSETBACK 1'-0"4'-0"VARIANCE PARCEL ID #: 273707328003 BLOCK 74, LOT F LOT 3000 SQ. FT. SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF FLAT ROOF ROOF DECK BELOW SLOPED ROOF BELOW FLAT ROOF BELOW SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF PARKING SPACE PATIO AT GROUND LEVELWINDOW WELL WITH GRATE SLOPE7" : 12"SLOPE7" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE 7" : 12" SLOPE 5 1/4" : 12" SLOPE 7" : 12"5'-0"SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINE EXISTING SETBACK LINEPROPOSED SETBACK LINESLOPE 6 9/32" : 12"MAIN STREETALLEYEXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALKEXISTING SIDEWALKUP N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 199 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.1.05 2/6/20 TREE REMOVAL PLAN DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252 CITY OF ASPEN – TREE REMOVAL / DRIPLINE EXCAVATION SPECIFICATION SHEET • A construction fence must be erected along the entire dripline of all trees on site and any tree canopy from neighboring prop erty. This will serve as the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). This fence is to be constructed in such a manner that the area inside th e dripline is protected and must remain in place until final landscape improvements are made. AN INSPECTION OF THIS FENCE MUST BE PERFORMED BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES BEGIN. PLEASE ARRANGE THIS INSPECTION WITH IAN GRAY, CITY FORESTER, AT 429-2031. • No materials may be stored in the TPZ, including but not limited to, construction backfill, construction traffic, or any other construction materials. • No excavation, grading or trenching may occur within the TPZ without the consent of the City of Aspen Forester or his designee. • No parking of vehicles or equipment and No dumping of any waste products may occur in the TPZ. • Any roots cut during excavation shall be pruned with sharp loppers/pruners back to the soil line. The roots will further be protected by burlap draped over the side of the excavation covering the exposed roots. This burlap shall be kept moist until the excavation is backfilled. • Site inspections shall be performed on a weekly basis, to ensure the above listed conditions are met. • Any unapproved improvements or activities outside of those approved within this permit will be subject to mitigation in the form of restoration. • This permit must be posted on site during the construction process. Drip Line Protection - City Code 13.20.020 (b)(2)(3): Recommended Trunk Protection System: Irrigation Installation Guidelines The design and layout of new irrigation systems shall follow the requirements of the City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscape Standards. Wherever possible, new irrigation lines shall be installed outside of the driplines of existing trees. Mechanical trenching for new irrigation installation shall not be used within the driplines of existing trees. This shall be restricted to hand digging in consultation with the City Forester. Roots over 2” inches in diameter shall not be cut unless absolutely necessary upon approval from the City Forester. Trenches shall not exceed 6” inches in width. The minimum depth for main lines shall be 18” inches and 12” inches for laterals. Separate irrigation zon es for trees with drip, bubbler or soaker-style delivery is recommended so quantities and rates may be appropriately controlled. All trees adjacent to this construction project must receive supplemental watering on an as needed basis depending on soil conditions and precipitation. The following chart may be used a guideline: Tree Size Class Small Trees - x1 Weekly 10 gal/Inch Medium Trees - x3 per Month 10 gal/inch Large Trees - x2 per Month 15 gal/inch Tree Trunk Diameter 1” 2” 3” 4” 6” 8” 10” 12” 14” Deep Root Fork 2 gal/min 5 10 15 minutes 20 30 40 minutes 75 90 105 minutes Deep Root Needle 2 gal/min 5 10 15 minutes 20 30 40 minutes 75 90 105 minutes Soft Spray Wand 4 gal/min 3 5 8 minutes 10 15 20 minutes 38 45 53 minutes Soaker Hose 2 gal/min 5 10 15 minutes 20 30 40 minutes 75 90 105 minutes = DECIDUOUS TREES = CONIFEROUS TREES = EXISTING FENCE = TREE PROTECTION FENCE = DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED = CONIFEROUS TREE TO BE REMOVED = TREE PROTECTION AREA= EXISTING RESIDENCE FOORPRINT TREE #SPECIES DBH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 DECIDUOUS EVERGREEN 14 15 7" 14" 12" 4" 6" 5" 8" 6" 3" 6" 4" 5" 8" 10" 12" STATUS EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TO REMAIN EXISTING TO REMAIN FULL TREE MITIGATION VALUE MITIGATION VALUE PER CITY FORESTER 16 6"TO BE REMOVED FREE TREE PROTECTION & DRIPLINE EXCAVATION NOTES 1. ALL EXISTING TREES IDENTIFIED AS TO BE REMOVED WILL BE FULLY MITIGATED PER CITY OF ASPEN CODE AND REVIEW 2. CODE-SIZED TREES ARE TO REMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THIS PLAN 3. CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE CITY FORESTER PRIOR TO ANY TREES REQUIRING REMOVAL DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED "TO REMAIN". 4. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DOCUMENT IS ON FILE AT ASPEN PARKS DEPARTMENT AND MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE PROJECT SITE. 5. ENGAGE A CERTIFIED ARBORIST TO ROOT PRUNE ANY TREE TO REMAIN THAT WILL HAVE EXCAVATION WORK WITHIN THE TREE'S DRIP LINE. ROOT PRUNING IS TO BE PER THE CITY OF ASPEN'S STANDARDS AND THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY TREE PROTECTION. 6. ALL EXCAVATION WITHIN THE DRIP LINE WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE VERTICAL EXCAVATION ONLY WITH NO OVER-DIGGING. EXCAVATIONS WILL BE SOIL STABILIZED IN A MANNER THAT PREVENTS OVER EXCAVATION OF THE SITE. 7. ALL ROOTS SHALL BE CUT PRIOR TO FULL EXCAVATION USING A CLEAN, SHARP PRUNING SAW. ALL ROOTS WILL BE CUT FLUSH WITH THE EXPOSED SOIL LINE. 8. SIX INCHES OF MULCH ARE REQUIRED TO BE PLACED WITHIN THE ZONE OF VEGETATION PROTECTION. THE MULCH SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT A LEVEL OF 6" DURING THE ENTIRE PROJECT. 9. IRRIGATION OF TREES IS REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PROJECT. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE TREES ARE IRRIGATED AT A RATE WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR PROPER HEALTH. CONSULT WITH CITY FORESTER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR WATERING SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATIONS. ADDITIONAL WATERING WILL TAKE PLACE ALONG THE EDGE OF THE ROOT CUTTINGS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PLACE A BURLAP PROTECTION COVER OVER THE CUT ROOTS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL IRRIGATION THE BURLAP WITH AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF WATER IN ORDER TO KEEP THE BURLAP MOIST. 10. ALL REMAINING TREES ON SITE TO BE MONITORED FOR INSECT, FERTILIZATION, WATERING AND OVERALL HEALTH AND VIGOR WHILE BUILDING IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST. FOLLOW A WATERING SCHEDULE FOR ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AS RECOMMENDED BY ARBORIST. SOURCE OF WATER PER CONTRACTOR BUT ENSURE ARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IMPLEMENTED. 11. THERE WILL NO STORAGE OF MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, OR ACTIVITY ALLOWED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION FENCING. 12. FOR PROTECTED WALKWAYS FOR FOOT TRAFFIC, GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS TO LAY DOWN 6" MULCH WITH 3/4" PLYWOOD OVER FOR TREE PROTECTION. 13. FOR PROTECTED WALKWAYS FOR MACHINERY & STAGING TRAFFIC, GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS TO LAY DOWN 6" BASE, 3/4" PLYWOOD, AND 6' MULCH FOR TREE PROTECTION. GENERAL NOTES 1. THIS PLAN SHOWS BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR CLARITY OF EXISTING SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS ACTIVITIES RELATED TO TREES. = PROTECTED WALKWAY (FOOT PATH) = PROTECTED WALKWAY (MACHINERY) SEE TREE PROTECTION & DRIPLINE EXCAVATION NOTE 12 SEE TREE PROTECTION & DRIPLINE EXCAVATION NOTE 13 12"EXISTING TO REMAIN17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECIDUOUS DECIDUOUS DECIDUOUS DECIDUOUS EVERGREEN EVERGREEN DECIDUOUS EVERGREEN DECIDUOUS DECIDUOUS DECIDUOUS EVERGREEN EVERGREEN EVERGREEN EVERGREEN DECIDUOUS EVERGREEN EVERGREEN EVERGREEN DECIDUOUS DECIDUOUS DECIDUOUS DECIDUOUS 4" 5" 4" 3" 6" 24" 6" 6" DRIP LINE 10' 10' 12' 6' 9' 9' 8' 8' 8' 5' 8' 8' 8' 10' 10' 15' 15' 6' 8' 6' 6' 7' 15' 8' 8' FREE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TO REMAIN EXISTING TO REMAIN EXISTING TO REMAIN 565.20 FREE FREE 5,086.80 1,271.70 2,260.80 1,271.70 1,271.70 FREE 1,271.70 FREE FREETO BE REMOVED - - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL 1,271.70 - - - - - - 15,154.42 TO BE REMOVED 883.12 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 200 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.1.02 1/31/20 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22521'-1"3'-11"VARIANCE5'-0"SETBACK10'-0" ORIGINALSETBACK 4'-2" VARIANCE 5'-10" PROPOSEDSETBACK 1'-0" 4'-0"VARIANCE 5'-0"SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINE EXISTING SETBACK LINEPROPOSED SETBACK LINEEXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED HISTORIC BUILDINGPROPOSED LINKPROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE WOOD DECKINGCONCRETE WALKWAY CONCRETE SIDEWALK TILE PATIO METAL GRATE UP UP TILE PAVERS PARKING PAVERS EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK MAIN STREETALLEYROCK XERISCAPING ROCK XERISCAPING ROCK XERISCAPING ANNUAL FLOWER GARDEN ANNUAL FLOWER GARDENANNUAL FLOWER GARDENANNUAL FLOWER GARDEN ROCK XERISCAPING (ROCK GARDEN) GRASS TILE (PAVERS, OR PATIO) ALLEY WAY CONCRETE WALKWAYS/SIDEWALK METAL GRATE (WINDOW WELL) PROPOSED BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING ANNUALFLOWERGARDENSHED N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 201 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.1.03 1/31/20 PROPOSED STORMWATE R PLAN DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22521'-1"3'-11"VARIANCE5'-0"SETBACK10'-0" ORIGINALSETBACK 4'-2" VARIANCE 5'-10" PROPOSEDSETBACK 1'-0" 4'-0"VARIANCE PARCEL ID #: 273707328003 BLOCK 74, LOT F LOT 3000 SQ. FT. SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF FLAT ROOF ROOF DECK BELOW SLOPED ROOF BELOW FLAT ROOF BELOW SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF PARKING SPACE PATIO AT GROUND LEVELWINDOW WELL WITH GRATE 79067906 7905 7905 7904 790479037904 DRY WELL RAIN GARDEN RAIN GARDENSLOPE7" : 12"SLOPE7" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE 7" : 12" SLOPE 5 1/4" : 12" SLOPE 7" : 12"5'-0"SETBACKGUTTER & DOWNSPOUT GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT GUTTER GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT WATER DRAINS DOWN UNDER LOWER LEVEL OVER TO DRY WELL GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINE EXISTING SETBACK LINEPROPOSED SETBACK LINESLOPE 6 9/32" : 12"MAIN STREETALLEYEXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALKEXISTING SIDEWALKUP N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 202 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.1.04 1/31/20 EXISTING FAR CALCULATIONS DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816115'-0"SETBACK10'-0" ORIGINALSETBACK 5'-0"SETBACK724 sq ft PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINE EXISTING SETBACK LINEEXISTING FLOOR AREA SUMMARY LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA: 0 sq ft MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA: 724 sq ft UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA: 0 sq ft __________________________________________ TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 724 sq ft 203 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.1.05 1/31/20 PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 81611319 sq ft 79 sq ft 123 sq ft 45 sq ft 507 sq ft 117 sq ft 108 sq ft 465 sq ft 111 sq ft 115 sq ft 127 sq ft 103 sq ft47 sq ft 98 sq ft 373 sq ft 55 sq ft 46 sq ft 262 sq ft35 sq ft 26'-8"6'-7" 10'-3 1/8"48'-6" 11'-2"10'-4"44'-6"10'-8"10'-0"10'-8"8'-7 1/2" 31'-3 1/8" 4'-3 1/2" 3'-10"21'-11 5/8"3'-4" 1 3 7 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 15 16 8 W06W05 W04 W03 W02UP 2,059 sq ft W26W30W26W26W26W26 W30W40W39 W37W38D23D24 W36W33W33 GD1W32W33 W31 GD2W40 W36D22W41 W42 W21W22D21W23 W24 D25W25 DN UP UP 83 sq ft EXEMPT 1,297 sq ft 294 sq ft(- 250 & / 2) 22 sq ft DETACHED GARAGE 19 sq ft DECK W30 W26W26W26 W52 W52 W57W56 W30W54W53W55W54D31W52DN 423 sq ft 297 sq ft SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 FAR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR 204 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.2.01 1/31/20 EXISTING PLANS DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22525'-0"SETBACK10'-0" ORIGINALSETBACK 5'-0"SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINE EXISTING SETBACK LINESLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE 7" : 12" SLOPE 5 1/4" : 12" SLOPE 7" : 12" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING ROOF PLAN 205 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.2.02 1/31/20 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252DOUBLE STACKED WASHER/DRYER BENCHSHOWER WC BENCHSHOWER WC W06W05 W04 W03 D01D03 D03 D04W02D05 D06D01D01D06 A A B B C C D D 1 4 66 E E F F G G H H J J 3 2 55 I I 28'-0"14'-0"14'-0"17'-6"6'-0"23'-6"19'-6"30'-4"10'-0"32'-7 1/8" 19'-6"4'-0"5'-0"21'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4" 23'-6"5'-0"21'-4"10'-0"32'-7 1/8" 4'-0"15'-6"4'-0"5'-0"21'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4" 92'-5 1/8" 19'-6"4'-0"5'-0"31'-4"32'-7 1/8" UP FAMILY ROOM GUEST MASTER WINDOW WELL MECHANICAL ROOM LAUNDRY BEDROOM 1 GUEST MASTER BATH GUEST MASTER CLOSET WET BAR BATH 1 POWDER CLOSET PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINECREDENZAART WALLHANGINGHANGING DRAWERS BELOW TV ABOVE TV ABOVE FIREPLACE BELOW HANGINGHANGING CREDENZA PING PONG TABLE DESK/STUDY BUILT-IN BANQUET STYLE SEATING N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 206 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.2.03 1/31/20 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252DW TRASHW26W30W26W26W26W26 W30W40W39 W37W38D23D24 W36W33W33 GD1W32W33 W31 GD2W40 W36D22W41 W42 W21W22D21W23 W24 D25D27 D28W25 D26 A A B B C C D D 1 4 66 E E F F G G H H J J 3 2 55 I I 19'-6"30'-4"10'-0"32'-7 1/8" 19'-6"4'-0"5'-0"21'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4" 92'-5 1/8" 19'-6"4'-0"5'-0"21'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4" 23'-6"5'-0"31'-4"32'-7 1/8" 23'-6"5'-0"21'-4"10'-0"32'-7 1/8"28'-0"14'-0"14'-0"23'-6"12'-6"5'-0"6'-0"1'-1"3'-11"VARIANCE5'-0"SETBACK10'-0" ORIGINALSETBACK 4'-2" VARIANCE 5'-10" PROPOSEDSETBACK 1'-0" 4'-0"VARIANCE REF. FRZ. STORAGE KITCHEN FP /TV ENTRY CLOSETDINING BEDROOM 2 KING BED DRAWERSHANGING POWDER MUDROOM DN UP STAIRWELL GARAGE LIVING ROOM UP HANGING BENCHES + CUBBIES ABOVE PARKING SPACE PARKING SPACE HANGINGHANGING 5'-0"SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINEEXISTING SETBACK LINE EXISTING SETBACK LINEPROPOSED SETBACK LINEN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 207 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.2.03 1/31/20 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLAN DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252W30 W26W26W26 W52 W52 W57W56 W30W54W53W55W54D31W52D32 D34D33A A B B C C D D 1 4 66 E E F F G G H H J J 3 2 55 I I DN MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BATH MASTER CLOSET ROOF DECK BENCHCOMPACT WASHER/ DRYER SLOPED ROOF ALL WALLS & WINDOWS WITHIN 5'-0" MUST BE FIRE RATED & NOT OPERABLE GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT GUTTER PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESTAIRWELL N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 208 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.2.04 1/31/20 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252A A B B C C D D 1 4 66 E E F F G G H H J J 3 2 55 I I SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF FLAT ROOF SLOPED ROOF BELOW ROOF DECK BELOW GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT SLOPE 6 9/32" : 12"SLOPE7" : 12"SLOPE7" : 12"SLOPE 3" : 12" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 209 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.3.01 1/31/20 EXISTING ELEVATIONS DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 81611SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 210 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.3.02 1/31/20 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: NORTH & EAST DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816116 6 4 4 1 1 3 3 2 2 5 5 T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 101'-6" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 101'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" D D C C B B A A J J H H G G F F E E I I T.O. GARAGE SLAB 100'-0" T.O. PLY @ GARAGE ROOF DECK 109'-5" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 100'-0" T.O. EAST GABLE RIDGE 115'-3 1/2" T.O. WEST GABLE ROOF RIDGE 116'-3" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" TOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF 118'-4 5/8" T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE 124'-2" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 110'-0" TOP PLATE @ LINKING ELEMENT 108'-6" 6 6 3 3 2 2 5 5 T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 101'-6" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 101'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" TOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF 118'-4 5/8" T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE 124'-2" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 110'-0"TOP PLATE @ LINKING ELEMENT 108'-11 3/8" T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE 124'-2" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOF 118'-7 7/8" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 2 211 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.3.03 1/31/20 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: SOUTH & WEST DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 81611A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H J J I I T.O. GARAGE SLAB 100'-0" T.O. PLY @ GARAGE ROOF DECK 109'-5" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 101'-6" T.O. EAST GABLE RIDGE 115'-3 1/2" T.O. WEST GABLE ROOF RIDGE 116'-3" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE 124'-2" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 110'-0" TOP PLATE @ LINKING ELEMENT 108'-11 3/8" 4 4 6 6 1 1 5 5 2 2 T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 101'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 101'-6" 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 6 5 5 T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 101'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" TOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF 118'-4 5/8" T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE 124'-2" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 110'-0" T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE 124'-2" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOF 118'-7 7/8" T.O. GARAGE SLAB 100'-0" T.O. PLY @ GARAGE ROOF DECK 109'-5" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1 212 227 E. MAIN - GYPSY WOMAN (1975) 213 LOOKING WEST DOWN MAIN STREET AT 227, (1960s) 214 LOOKING SOUTHWEST ACROSS MAIN STREET (2020) 215 LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS MAIN STREET (2020) 216 RENDERING - VIEW FROM SIDEWALK 217 RENDERING - VIEW FROM MAIN STREET 218 RENDERING - VIEW FROM WEST EXPLORE SIDE WALK 219