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.20201028
1 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 28, 2020 4:30 PM, WEBEX Go to: www.webex.com Click "Join" at the top right-hand corner Enter Meeting Number 126 196 1135 Password provided 81611 Click "Join Meeting" OR Join by phone Call: 1-408-418-9388 Meeting number (access code): 126 196 1135 # I.SITE VISIT II.ROLL CALL III.MINUTES III.A.minutes 10/14 minutes.hpc.20201014.pdf IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VII.PROJECT MONITORING VII.A.109 N. Second Street 109 N Second October 2020 Project Monitoring Memo.pdf Exhibit A_Applicant Proposal.pdf VIII.STAFF COMMENTS IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED X.CALL UP REPORTS 1 2 XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XII.OLD BUSINESS XIII.NEW BUSINESS XIII.A.500 W. Main Street – Final Major Development Review- PUBLIC HEARING 500 W Main_Memo.pdf 500 W Main_Reso.pdf Exhibit A_HPGuidelinesCriteria.pdf Exhibit B_Application.pdf XIII.B.211 W. Hopkins Avenue– AspenModern Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development Review including Relocation, Variations, PUBLIC HEARING 211 W Hopkins HPC Memo.pdf 211 W Hopkins HPC Resolution.pdf Exhibit A_Historic Designation and Benefits.pdf Exhibit B_HP Guidelines Criteria.pdf Exhibit C_Relocation Criteria.pdf Exhibit D_SetbackVariationCriteria.pdf Exhibit E_Application.pdf XIV.ADJOURN XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 2 3 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met. Revised April 2, 2014 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 14 2020 Mr. True introduced newly hired Assistant City Attorney Kate Johnson. Mr. True said that Ms. Johnson come to the City from Garfield County and comes with a lot of governmental experience. Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Sherri Sanzone, Gretchen Greenwood. Commissioners not in attendance: Kara Thompson Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jim True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick motioned to approve the minutes from September 23rd. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in Favor, Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty asked about the construction that is taking place on the Elk’s dome. Ms. Simon stated that there was a leak. She reminded HPC recognized this project about five years ago with an award. Mr. Halferty asked if they will be recladding the dome. Ms. Simon stated that she would need to review the application. Ms. Greenwood stated the metal is getting replaced, that there are little pen holes all over. CONFLICTS: Ms. Thompson has recused herself. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon stated that there are a few projects that need to be reassigned. She said the first project is 720 East Hyman, the old Aspen Athletic Club, the applicant is in for permits to turn the upper floor into residential. Mr. Kendrick stated he will be the monitor for 720 East Hyman. Ms. Simon said that 209 East Bleeker is the old Hayes family home and the project is wrapping up but will need a monitor. Ms. Sanzone stated she will be the monitor for 209 East Bleeker. Ms. Simon said the next one is the Red Onion and Bidwell building. Ms. Sanzone stated she will be the monitor for the Red Onion and Bidwell building project. Ms. Simon said that the Gray Lady building is a teardown and replacement. Mr. Kendrick stated he will be the monitor of the Gray Lady project. Mr. Moyer joined the meeting. Ms. Simon stated that 227 East Main the Gypsy Woman. Mr. Moyer agreed to take 227 East Main. Mr. Moyer stated that he could take on the rest of the project monitoring list. Ms. Simon stated that then she will give 210 South 1st and 110 Neal to Mr. Moyer. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 14 2020 Ms. Greenwood stated that she will be stepping down from HPC at the end of the year. She invited the HPC board members and staff to come and take a look at 210 South 1st Street as that project is wrapping up. Ms. Simon stated that she will be working with the Clerk’s Office on filling these vacancies. STAFF COMMENTS: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 110 Neale Avenue – Final Major Development Review. Steev Wilson Architect from Forum Phi representing the owner. Mr. Wilson reviewed the history of the historic lost split between the historic resource sitting on a lot above the new resource. Mr. Wilson reminded HPC that this project is not the historic resource rather adjacent to the historic resource. Mr. Wilson showed the site plan with the landscape plan. He pointed out there have been additional trees and shrubs added. Mr. Wilson stated that there has been discussion with staff about a slight retaining wall element to separate lawn and mulch. He further showed stepper pads that lead from the auto courtyard to the upper patio and another path leading to the kitchen lawn. Mr. Wilson showed orange dots on the map indicating light elements for the paths. Mr. Wilson said that the stepper paths will be as natural looking as they can to blend in with the surrounding environment. Mr. Wilson showed a rendering of the paths and how they relate and transition to the pervious pavers that wrap around the home while showcasing the ledger cribs that will separate the lawn and mulch. Mr. Wilson stated that the copper light elements are placed to help an individual to navigate in the dark and that the light elements have met the dark sky requirements. Mr. Wilson showed a rendering of the exterior architectural lighting plan showcasing matching scones on entry points. Mr. Wilson stated that there is not an abundance of exterior lighting just enough for one to guide themselves and feel welcomed in. Mr. Wilson said that the onsite material, the existing barn board will be refinished on the current existing finish on the home. Mr. Wilson said the roof will be replaced with painted standing seam metal and matching the fascia as well. Mr. Wilson stated that the material for the second level will match the timber below. Mr. Wilson said that the stone on the building will be earth tone and dry-stacked. Mr. Wilson said there will be natural CBG horizontal cedar siding. Mr. Wilson stated the windows will have a modern profile, square, and simple. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon reiterated the history of the project, that the applicant has come before HPC for conceptual approval. Ms. Yoon stated that apart of the conditions was that the applicant was to stay in communications and work with appropriate departments in the City. She said that has been met. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant is at final approval and will be finalizing details relating to the project. She explained they will be looking at building materials, landscape, and lighting plan. Ms. Yoon stated that the staff had questions about the retaining wall along the garden path. She said that staff would like to see more information about the retaining wall concerning the height and making sure it was meeting 1.22 in the design guidelines. Ms. Yoon said that staff wants to make sure the materials that are being used are in line with historic references. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant submitted a clarifying document about the garden path and its use. Ms. Yoon said that staff had a few comments about the building material. She said the material that will be used is Cedarwood, however, staff focus is on the stonework. Ms. Yoon stated that the finish of the stonework needs to associate with the historic resource referencing design guideline 11.6. She further explained that the stonework proposed does not 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 14 2020 relate historically to the resource and further, a dry stack method is typically not found with historic resources. Ms. Yoon said that similar material with mortar joints is more in line with the historic resource. Ms. Yoon stated that staff is recommending approval with conditions attached to the resolution. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty stated that he agrees with some of the comments made by staff. He said he thinks that overall, the project complies with the guidelines and has been well executed. Mr. Halferty stated that he agrees with staff about the stonework and that it needs to conform. He further said that staff and monitor could handle flush anything out. Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with staff’s comments. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Yoon if there is a number for the public to call into. Ms. Yoon stated that the number to participate is on the packet, and the public can always reach out to staff for assistance. Ms. Simon stated that with each item that is put on the agenda there is great care to reach out to neighbors, and vested individuals. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with staff and with a little tweaking with the stone and lighting, and staff and monitor this project should move forward. Ms. Sanzone stated that she agrees with staff. Ms. Sanzone asked Ms. Yoon if staff is comfortable with the late documents providing clarification of the stone steps. Ms. Yoon said they are comfortable with the documentation and will work with staff and monitor finalize. Ms. Greenwood stated that she agrees with staff and the Resolution as presented. Mr. Halferty moved to approve Resolution #21-2020. Mr. Kendrick seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Sanzone, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Moyer will be the monitor 110 Neale Avenue. NEW BUSINESS: 707 North Third Street – Conceptual Major Development. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant has withdrawn their application. Mr. Moyer asked will it happen in the future. Ms. Yoon stated that at this time the applicant has fully pulled their application. Ms. Simon stated the applicant received neighbor comments and wants to respect them and will return with an updated plan at an unknown time. Mr. Moyer stated with the extreme fire risk we live in now maybe HPC should reconsider their stance on metal roofs to help avoid losing these historic resources if something were to happen in Aspen. Ms. Simon stated that this conversation should cover citywide. She further explained that yes HPC encourages historic homes to keep their wooden roofs however, roof permits usually are handled administerial. Mr. True stated that this is an issue that has come up before and there has been reviewed with the building code trying to address this question. Mr. True offered to meet with Com Dev and the 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 14 2020 Building Dept to see the direction they would like to go in and if Council would like to take up this issue. ADJOURN: All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. 7 Page 1 of 1 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: October 28, 2020 RE: 109 N. Second Street (formerly known as 300 W. Main Street) BACKGROUND: 109 N. Second is a landmarked property containing a log cabin built in 1944. An HPC approved project on the property is underway and an opportunity to re-establish a historic window that was covered by a recently removed addition has been identified. The property owner has made two proposals: • Move a historic sash that is located in the interior of the home into this newly exposed exterior opening. This would require cutting the original logs to make the historic sash fit into a location that was originally occupied by a smaller window. Staff and monitor (Roger Moyer) reviewed the proposal on-site and do not support changing the original design in this way. or • Leave a non-historic and awkwardly proportioned window that partially fills the newly exposed opening in place and piece in new logs around it. This was not discussed on site but staff does not support altering the original design in this way. Staff recommends HPC require a new window sash to be installed to match the size and style seen in the historic photo below. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Applicant proposal 8 ANNABELLE CABINGarage Window Restoration14 OCTOBER 2020Existing Window Opening - Slit Window (Original Window reduced in size at time of 1988 Addition)Original Window Opening - Portion covered by Existing Garage9 ANNABELLE CABINGarage Window Restoration14 OCTOBER 2020Option 1: Move the existing historic window currently located in the garage to be displayed on the exterior. 10 ANNABELLE CABIN14 OCTOBER 2020Option 111 ANNABELLE CABINGarage Window Restoration14 OCTOBER 2020Option 2: Maintain existing window & infi ll log to match surrounding logs12 ANNABELLE CABIN14 OCTOBER 2020Option 213 ANNABELLE CABINGarage Window Restoration14 OCTOBER 2020Historic Photograph14 Page 1 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: October 28, 2020 RE: 500 W. Main Street – Final Major Development Review- PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT /OWNER: 500 West Main Street, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Rowland + Broughton LOCATION: Street Address: 500 W. Main Street (address of new home TBD) Legal Description: Lot R, Mesa Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-124-43-008 CURRENT ZONING & USE MU (Mixed Use) Vacant, used as a garden PROPOSED ZONING & USE: MU (Mixed Use) Single-family home SUMMARY: The applicant requests Final Major Development approval for a new home on a lot created through a historic landmark lot split. The property is currently used as a garden, associated with Rowland+Broughton’s office. While approval was granted to remove all development rights from the site via Transferable Development Rights, the applicant is not required to do so and has elected to build a home on the site instead. HPC granted Conceptual with conditions on July 22nd. City Council was informed of HPC’s decision through Call-Up Notice and upheld the commission’s findings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the project and recommends approval with conditions stated in the Resolution. Site Locator Map – 500 W. Main Street, Lot R 15 Page 2 of 4 130 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 approval. • Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for Final design approval. Please note that a Residential Design Standards variation was asked of the board, but staff has since determined this to be unnecessary and has found the design to be in compliance. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff finds that the historic preservation design guidelines are all met by this project. As a condition of the Conceptual approval, HPC directed that the project be adjusted to meet the One-story Element and Garage Door Design requirements of the Residential Design Standards, which has occurred. In addition, for Final review, the applicant was to further study the front porch on the ground and upper floor and to consider adjusting the upper floor roof overhang. A comparison of the Conceptual and Final designs is seen below. The deck railing is reduced in height and opacity. Detail is added to the porch and to the fascia on the gable end. The applicant’s restudy for this meeting is responsive to HPC’s input and has improved the new building’s compatibility with the surrounding architectural context. The only recommended conditions of approval are that the stone proposed for the front porch deck be identified and reviewed by staff and monitor prior to building permit submittal. A wood deck or a masonry related to the palette of the Main Street Historic District is preferred. The applicant will also be required to propose an alternative Conceptual Design Final Design 16 Page 3 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com lighting design for the upper floor decks as the proposed linear lights are not permitted by the outdoor lighting code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission grant Final Major Development approval with the following conditions: 1. The stone proposed for the front porch deck must be identified and reviewed by staff and monitor prior to building permit submittal. A wood deck or a masonry related to the palette of the Main Street Historic District is preferred. 2. The applicant must propose an alternative lighting design for the upper floor decks, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor, as the proposed linear lights are not permitted by the lighting code. 3. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 500 W. Main Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. 17 Page 4 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #____, Series of 2020 Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit B – Application 18 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 WEST MAIN STREET, LOT R, MESA SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-43-008 WHEREAS, the applicant, 500 West Main Street LLC, represented by Rowland+Broughton, has requested HPC approval for Final Major Development review for the property located at 500 West Main Street, Lot R, Mesa Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4 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, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with applicable review standards and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on October 28, 2020. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Final Major Development for the property located at 500 West Main Street, Lot R, Mesa Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as follows. Section 1: The approval is subject to these conditions: 1. The stone proposed for the front porch deck must be identified and reviewed by staff and monitor prior to building permit submittal. A wood deck or a masonry related to the palette of the Main Street Historic District is preferred. 2. The applicant must propose an alternative lighting design for the upper floor decks, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor, as the proposed linear lights are not permitted by the lighting code. 19 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 2 of 3 3. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 500 W. Main Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. 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. 20 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 a special meeting on the 28th day of October, 2020. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _______________________________ _______________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: __________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk 21 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit A Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. 4. Final development plan review. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. (4) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: The applicable chapters of the design guidelines are as follows: Site Planning and Landscape Design, and New Buildings on Landmarked Properties and Accessibility, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Services Areas, & Signage. 22 Page 2 of 7 23 Page 3 of 7 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 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. 24 Page 4 of 7 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. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. • Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. • Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case- by-case basis. • Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. • Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. • Landscape uplighting is not allowed. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the character of a property. 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. 25 Page 5 of 7 • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. 26 Page 6 of 7 • Overall, details shall be modest in character. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. 27 Page 7 of 7 Staff Findings: Staff finds that the guidelines are met. The new home sits between two historic resources; on the east is the substantial false-front building that houses the applicant’s architecture firm and on the west is a miner’s cottage which is part of an affordable housing development. The architect has designed the new home to align with the face of the miner’s cottage. The landscaped front yard is appropriate to the residential context on this end of Main Street. Stormwater needs are proposed to be addressed through an existing drywell developed for the office building. The new house meets the setback requirements and includes the two required on-site parking spaces. The first floor plate aligns with the adjacent buildings, and the front porches create a strong relationship between the buildings. The window sizes, placement and orientation help to distinguish the building as new construction. Materials and exterior lighting are simple but related to the Victorian context in scale and finish. Staff does recommend discussion of the proposed stone surface on the front porch to ensure that it meets the compatibility goals. The second floor of the new home is recessed slightly to reduce the two story form’s presence next to the one story miner’s cottage. The house features a gable roof, like the surrounding buildings and the ridge height is lower than theirs. Staff finds that the design guidelines are met and that the proposed building is a good fit for the context. 28 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTIVATIVE: Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review 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 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 Name: Address: Phone#: email: Address: Phone #: email: Name: Project Name and Address: Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 29 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist Project and Location Applicant: Zone District: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area: **Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area Please fill out all relevant dimensions Single Family and Duplex Residential 1) Floor Area (square feet) 2) Maximum Height 3) Front Setback 4) Rear Setback 5) Side Setbacks 6) Combined Side Setbacks 7) % Site Coverage Existing Allowed Proposed Multi-family Residential 1) Number of Units 2) Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10) 3) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 4) Floor Area (square feet) 4) Maximum Height 5) Front Setback 6) Rear Setback Existing Allowed Proposed 8) Minimum distance between buildings Proposed % of demolition 7) Side Setbacks Proposed % of demolition Commercial Proposed Use(s) Existing Allowed Proposed 1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 2) Floor Area (square feet) 3) Maximum Height 4) Off-Street Parking Spaces 5) Second Tier (square feet) 6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet) Proposed % of demolition Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: Lodge Additional Use(s) 1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 2) Floor Area (square feet) 3) Maximum Height 4) Free Market Residential(square feet) 4) Front setback 5) Rear setback 6) Side setbacks 7) Off-Street Parking Spaces 8) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet) Proposed % of demolition Existing Allowed Proposed 30 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Address of Property: Please type or print in all caps Property Owner Name: Representative Name (if different from Property Owner) Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to: Contact info for billing: e-mail: Phone: 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 additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Phillip Supino, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $ Received $ Case # Signature: PRINT Name: Title: 31 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT April 2020 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: 32 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM Project: Mesa Store, 500 W. Main Street – Residential Design Standards, Insubstantial Amendment, Trash Storage, Major Development Subject: Project Description Date: 10 September 2020 500 West Main Street, LLC is requesting review and approval of a new single-family home for the lot adjacent to the Mesa building, located at 500 W. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado. Land Use Summary: • Floor Area: o Allowed FA for Single-Family Residence for 3,000 SF Lot, with Lot Area Adjustments: 1,862 SF o Proposed FA: 1,862 SF • Residential Design Standard Variations Requested: o Articulation of Building Mass (non-flexible) o Non-Orthogonal Window Limit (flexible) • Administrative Approvals: o Trash and recycling o Parking easement Responses to Review Criteria: • 12.10.030 Space Required for Trash and Recycling o The existing Commercial building, the Mesa Building, will have the trash and recycling relocated from Lot R to the rear of the building, fac ing the alley. The space provided is a minimum of twenty (20) linear f eet adjacent to the alleyway must be reserved for trash and recycling facilities. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level is provided. • 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures o The project will follow the Common Development Review Procedure requirements. • 26.410 Residential Design Standards o The new residence will create a bridge between the Mesa Store building to its east and the single-story historic residence to its west. Historically, a single-story, false-front storefront occupied the site. See the historic image below. Based on the comments from the Conceptual hearing we further defined the single story porch on Main Street. o Location and Massing (non-flexible): ▪ We believe that the proposed residence meets the intent of the RDS by reducing the overall perceived mass and bulk of the building by creating a single-story element on Main Street. ▪ The design is meeting the intent of the RDS by: • Breaking the massing on the second floor at both Main Street and the alley. 33 Page 2 of 3 • The use of material articulation between the first and second floor break the 2-story massing up. We shifted the planter outside of the guardrail, which further drops of the massing of the second story deck. ▪ We are requesting a variation from this standard by extending the side wall depth beyond the 45’-0” + linking element. We do not believe this RDS requirement works with the density of this block. The prominence of the Mesa Building, and the singularity of the side wall depth, led us to this design solution. The two buildings are unified in the site relationship, with the residence reduced in mass and scale. o Non-orthogonal Window Limit (flexible): ▪ The façade requiring this variation is setback 21’-0” from the property line with a wall of glass doors and windows. Since this is a gable form, there are more than one non-orthogonal windows. • 26.415.070.d Historic Preservation – Major Development o This application is for a new single-family home located between two historic resources. o The design intent is to relate and reference the commercial and residential neighbors, while being of this time. o The building materials proposed include: ▪ Painted Wood or Hardi -Board – Color TBD ▪ Exposed Steel Structure 34 Page 3 of 3 ▪ Wood Windows and Doors ▪ Metal Standing Seam Roof o The building form is a simple gable with single story elements on Main Street and the Alley. ▪ We believe this is the respectful solution for the single st ory residence to the west, while allowing an opportunity to reveal and deconstruct the concept of the false store-front, which as you can see from the image above is a gable with a vertical face to the street. ▪ By simplifying the building mass and reducing the scale from the street, we believe we have achieved a solution most appropriate for the con text. • 26.480.080.b Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment o The project will follow the Common Development Review Procedure requirements found in Section 26.304.030 • 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements o Lot Area: 3,000 SF, with reduction: 2,910 SF (3,000 SF - 90 SF (5’x18’ parking easement). o Floor Area, allowable: 1,862 SF (3,000 SF Lot – (Parking Easement Reduction: (5’x18’ (90 SF) = 2,910 SF 80 SF of FA per 100 SF of Lot Area = 2,328 SF @ 80% = 1,862 SF o Building Height: 22’-11” proposed • 26.710.180 Mixed Use Zone District o The character of Main Street includes a mix of commercial, residential and lodging. The block of our project is primarily residential with the high-profile Mesa Store commercial building anchoring one corner. o Free-market residential is a permitted use. o All applicable setbacks and dimensional requirements are met. No variations requested. 35 Page 1 of 1 28 May 2020 Amy Simon City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Mesa Lot R – 500 W. Main Street – Residential Design Standards, Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment, Trash Storage, Major Development Dear Amy, As the property owner of 500 W. Main Street Lot R we submit this Land Use Application for review of Residential Design Standards, Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment, Trash Storage, Major Development, located within the Main Street Historic District. Rowland+Broughton Architecture’s employees are authorized to act on behalf of 500 West Main Street, LLC. Thank you. Sincerely, John Rowland, AIA Rowland+Broughton Architecture / Urban Design / Interior Design 500 West Main Street, LLC 500 W. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-544-9006 36 37 X SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEE E E E E E E E E E E E E SS SS SS SS SS SS SS G G G G G G G WWW W W W W W W W W W W WGGGGGGGGG G SSSSSSSSSSSS UEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEE EN 15°44'11" ES 7 4 ° 1 5 ' 1 6 " E 3 0 . 0 0 'S 15°44'15" W 100.00'(N 14°50'49" E(S 7 5 ° 0 9 ' 1 1 " E 3 0 . 0 0 ' )(S 14°50'49" W 100.00')FOURTH STREETMAIN S T R E E T CO 100.01'100.00')FOUND No.5 REBAR, BENT (S 7 5 ° 0 9 ' 1 1 " E 3 0 . 0 0 ' ) S 7 4 ° 1 5 ' 2 3 " E 3 0 . 0 0 ' SET No.5 REBAR w/YELLOW PLASTIC CAP LS38215 SET No.5 REBAR w/1.25in. YELLOW PLASTIC CAP LS23875 SET No.5 REBAR w/ORANGE PLASTIC CAP LS38215 30.00' W.C. N 7 4 ° 1 5 ' 5 2 " W 6 0 . 0 0 ' (N 7 5 ° 0 9 ' 1 1 " W 6 0 . 0 0 ' ) SET 1in. BRASS TACK LS38215 SITE BENCHMARK ELEV:7918.44 (S 14°50'49" W 100.00')S 15°44'08" W 100.00'A B Parcel No. 2735-124-43-008 3,000 Sq. Ft. 3,000 Sq. Ft. LOT R LOT S 1 inch = ft. (IN U.S. SURVEY FEET) GRAPHIC SCALE 0010 5 10 20 40 10 VICINITY MAP BYNO.DATEBYPROJECT NO.REVISIONHIGH 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 NUMBERSECTION -TOWNSHIP -RANGE -2201026 1 of 1Rowland+Broughton500 West Main StreetImprovement Survey PlatMesa SubdivisionCity of Aspen, ColoradoGEBBWAB05.19.20201210S84WNOTES 1.DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: SEPTEMBER 7, 2018, MARCH 1, 2019 AND MAY 5, 2020. 2.THE ASSUMED BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF S74°15'23"E ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN "A" A SET REBAR AND YELLOW PLASTIC CAP LS 23875 AND "B" THE NORTHEAST CORNER A FOUND REBAR AS SHOWN HEREON. ALL DISTANCES ARE GROUND DISTANCES BASED ON A COMBINED SCALE FACTOR. 3.THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR OF THE BOUNDARY 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. 4.DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF SURVEY MONUMENTATION CONTROLLING THE BOUNDARY LOCATIONS OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL OF LAND, A GRANT BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT WAS UTILIZED CONFORMING TO THE EXISTING RECOVERED AND VALIDATED SURVEY MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON AND PRESERVING THE GEOMETRY OF THE ORIGINAL LOTTED PARCEL. 5.FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENT, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. RELIED UPON TITLE COMMITMENT NO. PCT24641W ISSUED BY WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, EFFECTIVE DATE: DECEMBER 28, 2016 AT 8:00 AM. THIS BOUNDARY IS SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. 6.THE CLIENT DID NOT REQUEST 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 ASPEN TOWNSITE 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). SITE BENCHMARK OF 1-INCH BRASS TACK HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 7918.44. 9.CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT. 10.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. 11.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. 12.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 BOUNDARY 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. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT A PARCEL OF LAND COMPRISED OF LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 30, CITY OF ASPEN TOWNSITE BEING A PART OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 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 #1699OSWGG E E UE UE UE G G G SS SS SS W W W CO LEGEND Site Location 38 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com DATE: April 20, 2020 PROJECT LOCATION: 500 W. Main Street, Lot R, Mesa Subdivision REQUEST: Residential Design Standards, Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment, Trash Storage, Major Development DESCRIPTION: Lot R, Mesa Subdivision is a 3,000 square foot lot located in the Mixed Use zone district and the Main Street Historic District. The property was created through a historic landmark lot split and is currently developed with a garden, plus parking and trash storage related to the adjacent office building. At the time of the historic landmark lot split, the property owner received approval to sever Transferable Development Rights from the site, but has decided to develop a single-family home instead. The maximum floor area is 1,920 square feet. The development is not eligible for any dimensional variations from HPC, other than those that may be requested through a determination of hardship, which would be difficult to establish. To accommodate the house and two required on-site parking spaces within the dimensional requirements the applicant needs to pursue two Administrative approvals; approval from Environmental Health to move the trash storage area that sits on Lot R but serves the commercial use on Lot S, and approval by the Community Development Director to shift a parking easement that is currently on Lot R but serves Lot S so that it straddles the common lot line. The project must comply with the Residential Design Standards, or receive approval for any variations. It is anticipated that the applicant will request relief from Articulation of Building Mass and Non-orthogonal window limit. The Administrative Residential Design Standards Checklist is to be submitted as part of the application. This will allow the RDS review to either be approved if the home is compliant or will allow for any guideline exceptions that are necessary to be folded into the HPC review. HPC review will be a two step process. Conceptual Design review will consider mass, scale and site plan. 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 12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Residential Design Standards 39 26.415.070.d Historic Preservation – Major Development 26/480.080.b Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment 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 District Design Guidelines Review by: Staff for completeness of application, for determinations on Residential Design Standards, Trash Storage and Subdivision Amendment, and for recommendations to HPC on Residential Design Standards Variances and Major Development Review HPC for decisions on Residential Design Standards Variances and Major Development Public Hearing: Yes 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 for these contacts. Staff will refer the application to Environmental Health for review of the relocated trash area serving the commercial use on the adjacent lot. 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: $650 flat fee, Environmental Health, billed one time, at Conceptual. Total Deposit: $2,600 at Conceptual; $1,950 at Final. APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements. Please email the entire application as one pdf to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. The fee will be requested after the application is determined to be complete. 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. 40 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. 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 completed Residential Design Standards Administrative Review checklist. 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. A written description of the proposal and written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application. A Draft Plat meeting the plat requirements of Chapter 26.490—Approval Documents 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. 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. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 VICINITY MAP HIGHLAN D S DOWNT O W N north - 3 - MESA LOT R 49 DNUP DN UP UP UP DN DN PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS WALL LABEL EXPOSED WALL AREA (SFTOTAL WALL AREA (SF) 1 - EAST WALL PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS MAIN LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) GARAGE GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) GARAGE FLOOR AREA EXEMPTION (SF) MAIN LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,388 412 331 1,057 412 - 250 = 162 = (976+81) TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS BASEMENT FLOOR AREA (SF) UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SF) MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SF) 30 768 1057 TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,862 DECK/PORCH AREA CALCULATIONS TOTAL DECK/PORCH AREA (SF) MAIN LEVEL ENTRY PATIO (SF) 286 279 < 279 SF ALLOWABLE < 1,862 SF ALLOWABLE PROPOSED AREA CONSTRAINTS LOT AREA (SF) MAX ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) MAX ALLOWABLE DECK AREA (SF) 3,000 1,862 279 15% * 1,862 DECK/PORCH FLOOR AREA (SF)7 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ROOF DECK BONUS (SF) 7 2 - NORTH WALL 3 - SOUTH WALL 4 - WEST WALL 787.50 0 194.25 0 194.25 0 787.50 44 OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SF) 1,963.50 EXPOSED WALL AREA (SF)44 % OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL) 2.24% BASEMENT TOTALS PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS BASEMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) BASEMENT COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,326 30 1,326 * 2.24% (162 @ 50%) = 81+250= 331 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS UPPER LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) UPPER LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 768 768 81GARAGE COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF)= 412 - 331 ROOF DECK FAR (SF) 0 = (976+412) MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SF)976 = (976+81) = (279-286) 976 SF FLOOR AREA GARAGE 412 GSF 81 CSF COVERED ENTRY PORCH768 SF FLOOR AREA 175 SF DECK AREA 111 SF DECK AREA STAIR EXEMPT RAISED PLANTER RAISED PLANTERFLOOR AREA 1326 GSF 30 CSF EGRESS WINDOW WELL WALL AREA - 44 SF EGRESS WINDOW WELL WALL AREA - 44 SF TOTAL WALL AREA: 194.25 SFTOTAL WALL AREA: 787.50 SF TOTAL WALL AREA: 787.50 SF TOTAL WALL AREA: 194.25 SF1218 SF NET LIVABLE AREA 956 SF NET LIVABLE AREA GARAGE EXEMPT COVERED ENTRY PORCH696 SF NET LIVABLE AREA RAISED PLANTER RAISED PLANTERDECK DECK Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 C:\Users\sharris\Documents\22014.00_MESA JARDIN_CENTRAL_steve.harris5Z5U7.rvt8/31/2020 2:21:25 PMAs indicated LU0.6 22014.00 MESA LOT R 500 W MAIN STREET - LOT R ASPEN, CO 81611 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 LEVEL 1 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 LEVEL 2 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 BASEMENT LEVEL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 BASEMENT LEVEL - NET LIVABLE SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 5 LEVEL 1 - NET LIVABLE SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 6 LEVEL 2 - NET LIVABLE 05.07.2020 LAND USE APPLICATION 07.06.2020 LAND USE REVISION #1 50 UP W/D1 1 2 2 B B A A C C D D E E 13'-8" x 8'-7" BED #1 5'-11" x 8'-7" BATH #1 5'-10" x 8'-7" BATH #2 14'-1" x 11'-6" BED #2 8'-3" x 2'-9" CLOSET 3'-5" x 7'-3" MECH WATER 20'-6" x 16'-4" GYM LOUNGE 9'-11" x 7'-3" LAUNDRY 9'-11" x 8'-7" MECH Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 C:\Users\sharris\Documents\22014.00_MESA JARDIN_CENTRAL_steve.harris5Z5U7.rvt8/31/2020 2:21:23 PM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.0 22014.00 MESA LOT R 500 W MAIN STREET - LOT R ASPEN, CO 81611 BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.0 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 51 T DNUP 1 1 2 2 B B A A C C D D E E 6' - 0"9' - 0"44' - 0"22' - 0" 81' - 0" EGRESS WINDOW WELL EGRESS WINDOW WELLLINE OF DECK ABOVE ROOF ABOVE 16' - 0"21'4" x 17'4" GARAGE 13'-9" x 12'-1" MASTER BED 14'-1" x 9'-0" MASTER CLOSET 10'-6" x 9'-0" MASTER BATH 5'-0" x 8'-4" POWDER 8'-5" x 7'-8" ENTRYPORCH Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 C:\Users\sharris\Documents\22014.00_MESA JARDIN_CENTRAL_steve.harris5Z5U7.rvt8/31/2020 2:21:23 PM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.1 22014.00 MESA LOT R 500 W MAIN STREET - LOT R ASPEN, CO 81611 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.1 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 52 DN DW 1 1 2 2 B B A A C C D D E E 17'-2" x 13'-5" LIVING 15'-4" x 11"-5" KITCHEN 7'-11" x 17'-4" DINING 8'-10" x 17'-4" DECK STOR STOR PANREF PLANTER PLANTER5'-4" x 17'-4" DECK Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 C:\Users\sharris\Documents\22014.00_MESA JARDIN_CENTRAL_steve.harris5Z5U7.rvt8/31/2020 2:21:23 PM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.2 22014.00 MESA LOT R 500 W MAIN STREET - LOT R ASPEN, CO 81611 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.2 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 53 T DNUP LU4.2 2 LU4.1 1 LU4.1 2 LU4.2 1 PROPERTY LINE (E) FENCE (E) TRANSFORMER WILL REQUIRE UTILITY EASEMENT 500 W MAIN STREET SETBACK 10' - 0"SETBACK5' - 0"SETBACK5' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINECOVERED PORCH EGRESS WINDOW WELL EGRESS WINDOW WELL 2 CAR GARAGE 16' - 0"81' - 8" LINE OF DECK ABOVE CONCRETE WALK (E) LILAC WEST MAIN STN 4TH STREET 8' - 6"NEW LANDSCAPING NEW LANDSCAPING (E) TREE (E) TREE(E) TREE(E) TREE (E) TREE -ROOTS TO BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION (E) SIDEWALKROOF ABOVE ALLEY PARKING EASEMENT FOR 500 W MAIN STREET 18' - 0" ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE ACCESSIBLE AISLE 3' - 0"RELOCATED TRASH AREA19' - 1 1/2"6' - 0"PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE12' - 1 1/4"50' - 7 1/2"19' - 0"RAISED PLANTER DECK RAISED PLANTER DECK STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFSOLAR PANEL QUANTITY AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED 10" / 1'-0"Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 C:\Users\sharris\Documents\22014.00_MESA JARDIN_CENTRAL_steve.harris5Z5U7.rvt8/31/2020 2:21:26 PM1/8" = 1'-0" LU1.1 22014.00 MESA LOT R 500 W MAIN STREET - LOT R ASPEN, CO 81611 SITE PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU1.1 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 SITE PLAN 05.07.2020 LAND USE APPLICATION 07.06.2020 LAND USE REVISION #1 SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH LU1.1 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 ROOF PLAN 54 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY RIDGE 128' -3 1/2" T.O. LEVEL 2 PLATE 119' -6 7/8" T.O. METAL AND GLASS WINDOW 12' - 10"6' - 2 11/16"1' - 10 5/8"10" 1'-0" 10" 1'-0"PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPOSED EXISTING STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY22' - 10 1/8"BUILDING HEIGHT 10/12 PITCH EXISTING STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY 8' - 8 5/8"9' - 0 7/8"10' - 6"10' - 6"19' - 6 7/8"28' - 3 1/2"WOOD SIDING METAL AND GLASS WINDOW OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BASEMENT 5' - 2 1/4" 5' - 2 1/4" METAL AND GLASS SLIDING DOOR METAL AND GLASS DOOR METAL GUARD RAIL BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY RIDGE 128' -3 1/2" T.O. LEVEL 2 PLATE 119' -6 7/8" T.O. WOOD SIDING STANDING SEAM METAL PANEL 5' - 0"2' - 6"2' - 6"10' - 0" STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF METAL AND GLASS WINDOW 2' - 6"5' - 0"PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPOSED CHANGES OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BASEMENT OUTLINE OF WINDOW WELL 10' - 6"10' - 6"9' - 0 7/8"8' - 8 5/8"19' - 6 7/8"28' - 3 1/2"WOOD TRIMWOOD TRIM 8' - 1 1/4" 27' - 1 3/4" 22' - 2 3/4" Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 C:\Users\sharris\Documents\22014.00_MESA JARDIN_CENTRAL_steve.harris5Z5U7.rvt8/31/2020 2:21:29 PM1/4" = 1'-0" LU4.1 22014.00 MESA LOT R 500 W MAIN STREET - LOT R ASPEN, CO 81611 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:LU4.1 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION_LU SCALE:LU4.1 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION_LU 05.07.2020 LAND USE APPLICATION 07.06.2020 LAND USE REVISION #1 55 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY RIDGE 128' -3 1/2" T.O. LEVEL 2 PLATE 119' -6 7/8" T.O. 2' - 6"5' - 0"10' - 0"2' - 6"2' - 6"5' - 0"WOOD SIDING METAL AND GLASS WINDOW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEWOOD TRIM 10' - 6"8' - 8 5/8"9' - 0 7/8"10' - 6"19' - 6 7/8"28' - 3 1/2"WOOD TRIM OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BASEMENT 22' - 2 3/4" 27' - 1 3/4" 8' - 5 3/4" BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY RIDGE 128' -3 1/2" T.O. LEVEL 2 PLATE 119' -6 7/8" T.O.PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEWOOD GARAGE DOOR WOOD SIDING WOOD TRIM 8' - 0"16' - 0" METAL AND GLASS WINDOW METAL PANEL OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BASEMENT 10" 1'-0" 10" 1'-0" PROPOSED7' - 2 11/16"0' - 10 5/8"8' - 0"8' - 8"8' - 8" BUILDING HEIGHT 10/12 PITCH 22' - 10 1/8"EXISTING STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY EXISTING STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY 8' - 8 5/8"9' - 0 7/8"10' - 6"10' - 6"19' - 6 7/8"28' - 3 1/2"5' - 4 3/4" 5' - 2 1/4"5' - 2 1/4" 5' - 4 3/4" Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:FOR CITY OF ASPEN rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 C:\Users\sharris\Documents\22014.00_MESA JARDIN_CENTRAL_steve.harris5Z5U7.rvt8/31/2020 2:21:31 PM1/4" = 1'-0" LU4.2 22014.00 MESA LOT R 500 W MAIN STREET - LOT R ASPEN, CO 81611 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:LU4.2 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION_LU SCALE:LU4.2 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION_LU 05.07.2020 LAND USE APPLICATION 07.06.2020 LAND USE REVISION #1 56 57 58 Residential Design Standards Administrative Review Section 26.410.020.B. of the Land Use Code requires an Administrative Review for compliance with the Residential Design Standards (RDS) for all residential projects, unless otherwise exempted pursuant to Section 26.410.010.C. All residential projects affecting the exterior of the building shall submit for RDS Administrative Review prior to building permit submittal. If exterior work is proposed, and the scope of work meets one of the exemptions listed above, staff shall provide a signed exemption form to be included in the building permit application. Review Process: The Community Development Department staff shall review an application for applicability and compliance with Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. If the application complies with all applicable standards as written, a signed Checklist and stamped plan set shall be provided to the applicant to be included with building permit submission. If the application does not comply with one or more applicable standards, an unsigned Checklist and redlined plan set shall be emailed to the applicant including comments from staff on which standard(s) the application does not comply with and a description of why the standard(s) is not compliant. The applicant shall be provided the opportunity to revise and resubmit the design in response to the comments. Staff will keep an application open for 30 days from the date an unsigned Checklist is emailed to the applicant. If after such time no revisions are submitted, the application will expire. Application for RDS Administrative Review: An application for RDS Administrative Review that DOES NOT require Alternative Compliance (see Page 2) shall be submitted to the Community Development front desk on a USB drive or emailed to planneroftheday@gmail.com. Applicants will be notified of received application by email and if additional documents are required. Certain application requirements may be waived by staff depending on the scope of work. An application for RDS Administrative Review shall include the following documents in digital format: • Site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor (no older than one year from submittal date) • Proposed Site plan (scaled 24”x36”) • Proposed Floor plans (scaled 24”x36”) • Proposed Elevations (scaled 24”x36”) • Existing Elevations if a remodel (scaled 24”x36”) • Complete scope of work noting all exterior areas affected by the proposed project • Complete RDS applicant checklist (attached) addressing how each standard is met with sheet references for each standard Page 1 of 2 59 Alternative Compliance or Variation: Pursuant to 26.410.020.C, projects that do not meet the criteria for Administrative Review or Alternative Compliance (as determined by staff) may be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, or HPC if appropriate, at the applicant’s request. An applicant may choose to apply directly for a Variation from the Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.410.020.C. A pre-application summary will be required for an Alternative Compliance or Variation request. Application for Alternative Compliance or Variation: An application for Alternative Compliance or a Variation will require a pre-application summary provided by Community Development staff, and shall be submitted as a Land Use Application. Required application submittal items shall be outlined in the pre-application summary. Page 2 of 2 Residential Design Standards Administrative Review 60 Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Single Family and Duplex Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions (Flexible) Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached. Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 2 61 Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes C.4.Garage Door Design (Flexible) D.1.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) D.2.Door Height (Flexible) D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) E.1.Principle Window (Flexible) E.2.Window Placement (Flexible) E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Page 2 of 2 Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Single Family and Duplex 62 An Employee-Owned Company 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone (970) 945-8676 Fax (970) 945-2555 Land Surveying Civil Engineering May 4, 2020 TO: Rowland + Broughton Architecture/Urban Design/Interior Design 500 West Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 FROM: High Country Engineering, Inc. 1517 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado RE: Lot R Drainage in Mesa Subdivision High Country Engineering, Inc. has reviewed the potential development of Lot R of the Mesa Subdivision and utilizing the existing stormwater infrastructure of Lot S. Lot R and S were evaluated together with the drainage report submitted for the remodel to the historic Mesa Store, as part of the proposed construction included Lot R. The drainage infrastructure designed and installed for the Mesa Store project should allow additional Lot R drainage to be feasibly incorporated into Lot S. The existing drywell, which already receives a small portion of Lot R drainage, should have capacity for both lots because the drywell was sized to meet the City of Aspen’s minimum requirements. If Lot R and Lot S were almost completely (95%+) impervious, the existing drywell capacity should be adequate to meet the City of Aspen water quality standards, assuming the stormwater from Lot R can be conveyed to the drywell. HCE has provided this document regarding the Lot R development to provide a preliminary review into combining Lot R and Lot S drainage. We believe the existing drainage infrastructure of Lot S can receive Lot R drainage while meeting the City of Aspen stormwater management plan. Incorporating the two Lots into one system would alleviate the impact of installing unnecessary stormwater infrastructure and still provide sufficient stormwater treatment. Please let me know if you have questions or comments. Feel free to contact me if you require any additional information. Sincerely, Roger Neal, P.E. Principal 63 Tube Dark Sky Outdoor Wall Sconce 64 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: 273512443007 on 05/12/2020 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com 65 ALPINE BANK GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 2200 GRAND AVE SCOTT BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 W HOPKINS AVE GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 501 MAIN ASPEN LLC GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503 ALDRICH PL #200 OTTAWA AVE NW ALPINE BANK ASPEN GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 2200 GRAND AVE 433 W BLEEKER LLC CHICAGO, IL 60654 300 N LASALLE #5600 430 WEST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 432 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 617 E COOPER 420 W MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR #TH5 MCCOY CARLTON ST HELENA , CA 94574 500 TAPLIN RD FORNELL CLARITY ELISE ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN #B-206 SCHULMAN WILLIAM PAUL CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720 301 MERCER BLVD JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81612 435 W MAIN ST BLEEKER STREET LLC CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 5299 HAMMOCK DR KARBANK 430 LLC MISSION, KS 66205 2000 SHAWNEE MISSION PKWY #400 PERRY IAN MICHAEL ASPEN, CO 81611 426 E HYMAN AVE SAMUEL JOSHUA MOSES DILLON, CO 80435 PO BOX 756 WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 E MAIN ST JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST COSTA MESA, CA 92626 2018 PHALAROPE BLEEKER STREET PROP LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 PO BOX 491246 LHG HOLDING LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 TOMS CONDO LLC ERWINNA , PA 18920 6 SHULL FARM RD 420 W MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR #TH5 ASPEN FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 137 WESTVIEW DR SLONE MICHAEL DAVID II FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 4476 WATERSIDE CT CHRISTIANA A105 LLC MENLO PARK, CA 94026 PO BOX 4132 FORNELL CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST HY-MOUNTAIN TRANSPORT INC ASPEN, CO 81611 214 B AABC GANT CONDO ASSC ASPEN, CO 816112142 610 S WESTEND ST 66 CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST HILLMAN TATNALL L REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 504 W BLEEKER ST 420 W MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR #TH5 SGSG ASPEN CONDO LLC DENVER, CO 80237 8100 E UNION AVE #2303 DUNKELBERG AMBER & KEVIN SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5804 501 WEST MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 816111818 532 E HOPKINS AVE KATZMAN LORI ANN CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720 301 MERCER BLVD HORNE CHRISTOPHER & BRANDI AUSTIN, TX 78746 5214 BUCKMAN MTN RD FELER LAURIE & CLAUDIO CARBONDALE, CO 81623 550 FOX RUN MARSHALL TRACEY CAUSEY LIV TRUST AUSTIN, TX 78746 3107 WESTLAKE DR GANT CONDO ASSOC INC ASPEN, CO 816112142 610 S WESTEND ST ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 617 E COOPER CARINTHIA CORP ASPEN, CO 81611 45 E LUPINE DR SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G DALLAS, TX 75205 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 617 E COOPER LHG HOLDING LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL 400 W HOPKINS CONDO LLC DALLAS, TX 75209 5403 NEOLA DR WERLIN LAURA B TRUST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 2279 PINE ST MACDONALD BETTE S TRUST ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 15 BLACKMER RD HOPKINS & FOURTH LLC CHICAGO, IL 60614 2001 N HALSTED ST #304 LEADINGHAM CAROLINE ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #A-102 REECE MARK ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #A-102 STUART DANIEL S & TAMARA B ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3274 GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 NATIONWIDE THEATRES CORP LOS ANGELES , CA 90048 120 N ROBERTSON BLVD 3RD FL GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 HARRIS ANGELA ASPEN, CO 816111618 518 W MAIN ST #C107 WENDT ROBERT E II PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 617 E COOPER DENBY SAMUEL ROBERT WASHINGTON, DC 20016 4861 INDIAN LN NW 67 BLOCKER LAURA G ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9213 HAVANDJIAN GASTON MATIAS ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #B205 FISCHER SISTIE ASPEN, CO 81611 442 W BLEEKER 420 W MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR #TH5 EYXEFC2 LLC ARVADA, CO 80002 7310 W 52ND AVE #A129 GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 401 WEST BLEEKER LLC MIAMI, FL 33131 777 BRICKELL AVE 10TH FLR PHILLIPS SHAUN E ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #8105 CLEANER EXPRESS ASPEN, CO 81611 435 E MAIN ST TUCKER LUCY LEA ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 1480 420 W MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR #TH5 SEAL MARK ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9213 LINDAUER REBECCA F AUSTIN, TX 78703 1115 ELM ST MAUPIN KENNETH ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #C-207 NORTHWAY CONDO OWNERS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 420 W MAIN ST GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 DAHL W ROBERT & LESLIE A GREENWICH , CT 06831 83 PECKSLAND RD HESSIAN ASPEN LLC WINTER PARK, FL 327894881 1470 GENE ST #B DJORDJEVIC VLADAN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9566 FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT 420 W MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR #TH5 BONETTI MARYSUE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 569 ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 617 E COOPER FERGUS ELIZABETH REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1515 LHG HOLDING LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL ALPINE BANK GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 2200 GRAND AVE CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC ASPEN , CO 81612 PO BOX 4937 RAINBOW CONNECTION PROPERTIES LLC MORRISON, CO 80465 151 SUMMER ST #771 DAY JEROD ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #B203 68 ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 520 W MAIN ST PROMISE LAND LLC ENGLEWOOD, CO 801114628 6412 S QUEBEC ST 400 W HOPKINS CONDO LLC DALLAS, TX 75209 5403 NEOLA DR 604 WEST LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 604 W MAIN ST BLEEKER STREET PROP LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 PO BOX 491246 ALPINE BANK ASPEN GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 2200 GRAND AVE MCGUIRE JENNIFER ERIN ASPEN, CO 81611 501 E DEAN ST ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 617 E COOPER HILLMAN DORA B TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 504 W BLEEKER SCHALL FAMILY TRUST ENCINO, CA 91436 3841 HAYVENHURST DR ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 520 W MAIN ST CONNERFAMILY LLC PALISADE, CO 81526 PO BOX 38 WELLES PETER S & SONDRA T CARBONDALE, CO 81623 5343 CR 100 ALPINE BANK GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 2200 GRAND AVE PROMISE LAND LLC ENGLEWOOD, CO 801114628 6412 S QUEBEC ST KARBANK 430 LLC MISSION, KS 66205 2000 SHAWNEE MISSION PKWY #400 GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R ASPEN, CO 81611 430 W HOPKINS #2 FAVORITE PRATHUAN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9566 STERTZER ELIANE C NEW YORK, NY 10065 160 E 65TH ST #23E HUERGO DELFINA ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #A101 69 Page 1 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: October 28, 2020 RE: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue– AspenModern Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development Review including Relocation, Variations, PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT /OWNER: Matt Joblon, 205 S. Detroit Street , Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206, with the consent of property owner Vaughan Capital Partners, LP REPRESENTATIVE: Rowland + Broughton BendonAdams LOCATION: Street Address: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue Legal Description: Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen Parcel Identification Number: PID# 273512463003 CURRENT ZONING & USE: Single-family home, R-6: Medium Density Residential PROPOSED ZONING & LAND USE: Two detached homes, R-6: Medium Density Residential SUMMARY: The applicant has offered voluntary AspenModern historic designation of a 1956 Pan Abode, and requests Major Development, Relocation and Variation review for a project which involves restoring the resource, excavating a basement below it, and constructing a detached new home along the alley. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation for restudy of the design of the new unit. Site Locator Map – 211 W. Hopkins Avenue 211 70 Page 2 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: 211 W. Hopkins is a 6,000 square foot lot located in the R-6zone district. The site contains a 1956 Pan Abode, which is essentially unaltered. It is still owned by the same family that originally built it. REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • AspenModern Historic Designation (Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030) for negotiation of a voluntary designation. • Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for removal of a non-historic addition, restoration on the Pan Abode and construction of a new structure at the rear of the property. • Relocation (Section 26.415.090.C) to excavate a basement below the Pan Abode in its original location. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is making a recommendation to Council on this application. STAFF COMMENTS: Following is a summary of staff findings. Please see Exhibits A, B, C and D for more detail. Staff supports the voluntary designation of this property as one of the best and most intact examples of a Pan Abode home in Aspen. Staff finds the benefits requested for designation (tree removal fee waivers, expedited permit review, and a floor area bonus) to be reasonable in consideration of the community benefit of the project. Staff finds the project approach to model the ideal preservation outcome. The cabin is preserved with no addition and new construction is detached and located at the rear of the site. Staff recommends some restudy of the design of the new unit in order to achieve the most sympathetic and compatible relationship with the small historic structure being preserved. The new structure must meet the Residential Design Standards, which will be confirmed based on the restudy. The location of a fence near the front of the Pan Abode is also to be reconsidered as part of a recommendation to continue this hearing for revisions to the application. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred out to other City departments to preliminarily identify requirements that may affect permit review. Applicant follow-up on these comments is needed prior to the next hearing. Parks: The new water line is to be installed under where the front walk is now located to minimize impacts to the spruce and aspen in the front yard. A site visit with the Forester is needed prior to this installation so he can direct the best route for the tree roots. 71 Page 3 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com A tree permit must be issued for all removals. This permit will call out specifics for the dripline excavation for the trees at the front of the property. No trees in the right-of-way on West Hopkins are approved to be removed. The impact of the project on the driplines of neighbor’s trees will be need to be considered. Some neighboring trees might need to be removed. The applicant will be required to provide the Forester with a letter from the trees’ owners saying they accept the impacts and risks to their trees. The applicant may need to treat impacted trees with growth regulating hormones and trunk injections for bark beetle protection. Zoning: If the variation required for the east lightwell is approved, the maximum interior dimensions of the lightwell are to be stated in the motion, since this is the way the limit is expressed in the code. Engineering: One item needs to be addressed for this property prior to HPC approval. 1. The proposed transformer shown on sheet L300 does not have adequate space. 10’ in depth and 13’ in width needs to be provided for a 7’x7’ vault with 3’ clearances on the sides and back. The plan sheet shows only 5’ from the property line to the building. The following items will need to be addressed at building permit. 1. The proposed drywell must be 10’ from the neighboring property. A Geotech or structural engineer must supply a stamped letter stating the drywell within 10’ of the proposed structure and existing cabin foundation will have no adverse effects. 2. At building permit the project may be required to detach the existing sidewalk and install a new sidewalk with a 5’ landscape buffer between the curb and sidewalk. The neighboring property to the west has a current building permit and may detach their portion of the sidewalk depending on existing tree constraints. If this happens the sidewalk at 211 W shall also be detached. 3. At building permit the project will need to determine the water service line size and configuration for the two buildings. Currently two service lines are proposed per sheet L300. The water service line on the east runs under the dripline of the large spruce tree. The excavation that close to the tree trunk will most likely kill the tree. This needs further vetting. 4. Foundation drywells are proposed in close proximity to the east spruce tree. Excavation cannot take place within the dripline of the tree. It needs to be shown excavation can take place to accommodate the foundation drywells without adversely affecting the tree. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue the project with the following direction: 72 Page 4 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com 1. Consider the Parks and Engineering referral comments and any potential adjustments needed to the project design. 2. Work with Utilities to determine the necessary transformer size and location, which may impact the placement of the new unit. 3. Restudy the fence on the west side of the Pan Abode. 4. Restudy the new unit for compliance with guidelines 11.3., 11.4 and 11.6. 5. HPC is to provide direction on the appropriateness of a floor area bonus and setback variation for the lightwell proposed for the east side of the new unit. 6. Staff supports the request for tree mitigation fee waiver, expedited permit review, 150 square feet in total floor area bonus and 115 square feet in deck bonus. 7. 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. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Exhibit A – Historic Designation and Benefits Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit B – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit C – Relocation Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit D – Setback Variation Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit E – Application 73 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW INCLUDING RELOCATION AND VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 53, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PARCEL ID: 2735-124-63-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Matt Joblon, 205 S. Detroit Street , Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206, with the consent of property owner Vaughan Capital Partners, LP has requested HPC approval for AspenModern Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations for the property located at 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the AspenModern designation process is described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; 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, HPC reviewed the project on October 28, 2020, considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1: Approvals HPC hereby approves the proposed project with the following conditions: 74 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 2 of 2 1. 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. 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 28th day of October, 2020. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: __________________ __________________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk 75 Page 1 of 6 Exhibit A Historic Designation and Benefits Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.030 Designation of Historic Properties. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect. C. Aspen Modern 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two (2) of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below: a) The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b) The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c) The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d) The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e) The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. 76 Page 2 of 6 Staff Finding: This Pan Abode home on 211 W. Hopkins is an excellent example of the pre-fabricated kit homes that were constructed in Aspen post World War II. It exemplifies this era of development in Aspen and is recognized as a contributing style of architecture to the local context. A context paper documents this method of construction in more detail. The home that is on this property has been minimally altered, therefore, clearly demonstrates the following key features of a Pan Abode: tongue and groove cedar log construction, overlapping notches, deep overhangs with a low-pitched roof, natural wood finish, and a one- story structure. The staff integrity score for this structure is a 19 out of 20 which put this property in the “best” range for historic integrity. Although the home is not directly associated with a significant individual, this is not a requirement. Staff finds that 4 of the 5 criteria for designation are met. Staff fully supports the designation of this property that contains one of the best examples of an Aspen Pan Abode home. 26.415.030.C.1 Aspen Modern Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. MET NOT MET a.The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b.The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; NOT MET c.The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d.The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e.The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.415.030 - Historic Designation. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect. MET Designation of Historic Properties The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) shall evaluate the application and forward their recommendation to City Council to make the final decision. MET MET MET 77 Page 3 of 6 The designation of properties as AspenModern is voluntary and allows the applicant to request benefits on a case by case basis as follows. 26.415.025.C. AspenModern Properties. Properties associated with Aspen’s 20th century history shall be called AspenModern. Properties identified on the AspenModern Map shall be eligible for certain preservation benefits without being designated by City Council and may be awarded preservation incentives above and beyond those identified at Section 26.415.110, as follows. Property owners are encouraged to meet proactively with the historic preservation commission before undertaking development plans to receive preliminary feedback on appropriate development and benefits. 1. Ninety-Day Negotiation Period. In the case that the owner of a property on the AspenModern Map submits a land use application which includes voluntary landmark designation, a negotiation period of up to 90 days shall be initiated. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this ninety-day negotiation period shall accompany the land use application. The ninety-day negotiation period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by the Council, or longer if mutually acceptable to both the Council and the property owner. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing any land use application or building permit affecting the subject property during the ninety-day negotiation period. Within the ninety-day negotiation period, the following shall occur: a) The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark. b) The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property’s conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a “good, better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. c) The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding the proposed land use application or building permit, the nature of the property, and the 78 Page 4 of 6 staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of its historic significance and the effects of the application or building permit. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. d) The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations. Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the property is identified as a “good, better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century history and shall also seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process. The monetary value of benefits being requested shall be defined, to the extent possible. Council shall seek compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. When benefits are awarded as part of the negotiation, Council shall require that the property be designated as a Historic Landmark, pursuant to the standards and limitations of Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may choose to require the land use application or building permit that initiated the negotiation to be withdrawn by the property owner if said application or permit would have negatively affected the historic significance of the property. Once a property identified on the AspenModern Map is designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, additional negotiation under this section is not allowed. e) If, upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected land use applications shall be issued a Development Order upon compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The City Council, or the property owner, may choose to terminate negotiations at any time. Staff Findings: The applicant has requested benefits related to voluntary designation, as follows. Tree Mitigation Fee Waiver: The project involves removal of a number of trees that line the back of the property, cutting off alley access. The applicant has met on site with the Parks Department and have calculated the tree mitigation fee to total $20,122.75. This is requested as a fee waiver. Staff supports this as a reasonable request. Many of the trees are placed too closely together, and alley access is necessary. Large street trees at the front of the property are preserved. 79 Page 5 of 6 Expedited permit review: The applicant requests review under the City’s expedited policy. This provides quicker response time to the initial review and processing of the building permit. Staff supports this as a reasonable request. Floor area bonus: Under the recently revised floor area bonus criteria for landmarks, this project is only eligible for a 15 square foot bonus. The project receives a 360 square foot floor area boost by taking advantage of the allowance for a historic property to have a duplex on this lot size. In order to avoid the floor area bonus becoming a “double dip,” the duplex increase of 360 square feet is deducted from the 375 square foot bonus allowance, leaving only 15 square feet. Staff supports award of the 15 square foot bonus. As a negotiated AspenModern benefit, the applicant also requests 135 square feet of floor area for enclosed space and 115 square feet of deck bonus. Typically, 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 c) 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 d) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and e) 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 incompatible non- historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. Staff finds that the preservation approach in this project is ideal and deserving of the requested bonuses. This is a voluntary landmark designation resulting in the Pan Abode being preserved in place with no addition. The application proposes removal of non-original addition and restoration of the rear facade, removing non historic paint and shutters and restoring windows. The new construction is completely detached. 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 80 Page 6 of 6 any addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction of the light well is entirely one story. The applicant requests a 17 foot floor area bonus for a lightwell on the east side of the new unit. Staff questions whether this bonus benefits the landmark. The lightwell also requires a setback variation. HPC discussion is needed. 81 1) Tongue and groove cedar log construction Character Defining Features of the Rustic (manufactured) Style 4) Low-pitched roof, usually gabled but occasionally shed 7) All or most of features 1-6 must be visible at the front façade. Total Points, 0 –10 8) Natural, stained wood 2) Overlapping notches at corners 3) Original wood framed, multi-light picture window 5) Deep overhanging eaves Check box if statement is true. One point per box. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A building must have 6 of the 10 character defining features, either present or clearly documented through photographic of physical evidence to qualify as Rustic (manufactured) Style. Restoration may be required as part of the award of incentives. If the property earned 6 or more points, continue to the next page. If the property earned less than 6 points, scoring ends. 9) Simple, rectilinear footprint 10) One story 6) Recessed entrance with rounded or squared corners 8 9 10 82 INTEGRITY SCORING If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: Best: 15 up to 20 points Better: 12 up to 15 points Good: 10 up to 12 points Not Eligible:0 up to 10 points Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- mum of 10 points: LOCATION OF BUILDING ON THE LOT: The bui l di ng i s i n i ts ori gi nal l ocation.2 poi nts The bui l di ng has be e n shi ft e d on the ori gi nal parce l , but mai ntai ns i ts ori gi nal al i gnme nt and/or prox i mi ty to the stre e t.1 poi nt SETTING : The prope rty i s l ocate d wi thi n the ge ographi cal are a surrounde d by Castl e Cre e k, the Roari ng Fork Ri ve r and A spe n Mountai n.1 poi nt The prope rty i s outsi de of the ge ographi cal are a surround by Castl e Cre e k, the Raori ng Fork Ri ve r and Aspe n Mountai n.1/2 poi nt DESIG N: The form of the bui l di ng (f ootpri nt, roof and w al l pl ane s) are unal te re d f rom the ori gi nal de si gn.3 poi nts a.) The f orm of the bui l di ng has be e n al te re d but l e ss than 25% of the ori gi nal wal l s have be e n re move d, OR b.) The al te rations to the f orm al l occur at the re ar of the subj e ct bui l di ng, OR c.) The f orm of the bui l di ng has be e n al te re d but the addi tion i s l e ss than 50% of the si ze of the ori gi nal bui l di ng, OR d.) The re i s a roof top addi tion that i s l e ss than 50% of the footprint of the roof. 2 poi nts MATERIALS Exteri or mate rial s The original e x te ri or mate ri al s of the bui l di ng are stil l i n pl ace , wi th the e x ce ption of normal mai nte nance and re pai rs.2 poi nts 50% of the e x te ri or mate ri al s have be e n re pl ace d, but the re pl ace me nts match the ori gi nal condi tion.1 poi nt Windows and doors The ori gi nal wi ndows and doors of the bui l di ng are stil l i n pl ace , wi th the e x ce ption of normal mai nte nance and re pai rs.2 poi nts 50% of the ori gi nal wi ndows and doors have be e n re pl ace d, but the re pl ace me nts match the ori gi nal condi tion.1 poi nt 83 Page 1 of 16 Exhibit B Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. 1. Conceptual Development Plan Review b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: 1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section. Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: The applicable chapters of the design guidelines are as follows: Site Planning and Landscape Design, Materials, Windows, Doors, Porches, Roofs, Relocation, Building Additions, New Buildings on Landmarked Properties and Accessibility, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Services Areas, & Signage. 84 Page 2 of 16 85 Page 3 of 16 86 Page 4 of 16 87 Page 5 of 16 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 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. 88 Page 6 of 16 1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. 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. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. • In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. 89 Page 7 of 16 90 Page 8 of 16 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. • Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. • Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-by-case basis. • Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. • Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. • Landscape uplighting is not allowed. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. • Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the character of a property. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. • The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of significance. • A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations. • Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. • A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not oversized. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. 91 Page 9 of 16 • A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature. • For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket. • For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. • A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B. 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. 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. 92 Page 10 of 16 • 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. 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. • 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. 93 Page 11 of 16 • 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. 4.7 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. 5.5 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. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. • Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures. • Locate vents on non-street facing facades. • Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible. 94 Page 12 of 16 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. • Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. • If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured. • A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a secondary structure from that time period. • A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming. 7.10 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. 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. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. • Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. • In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. 95 Page 13 of 16 • If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. • A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. • Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. • Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. • Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. 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. 96 Page 14 of 16 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. • The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. • During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. • For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. • HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. 97 Page 15 of 16 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. 98 Page 16 of 16 • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. Staff Finding: The basic concept of this project, preserving the Pan Abode with no addition, and placing all new construction in a detached rear unit is ideal in terms of the preservation guidelines. The application includes guideline compliant restoration work on the Pan Abode, including removal of a non-original addition and restoration of the rear facade, removing non-historic paint and shutters, and restoring windows. Staff recommends restudy of a fenced area directly on the west side of the historic resource to preserve public views of the structure as described in guideline 1.20. Regarding the addition, staff finds the location to be appropriate. The building area is limited in footprint. Staff does find that some restudy of this structure is needed per guidelines 11.3, 11.4 and 11.6. The new unit appears to be somewhat imposing behind the historic resource, particularly due to the low pitched but wide gable end sitting behind the Pan Abode. The materiality and fenestration on the new unit also appear to be too close a match to the resource, blurring the reading that the construction at the rear of the site is detached. Staff recommends restudy as described above. 99 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit C 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 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. 100 Page 2 of 2 Staff Finding: The applicant proposes removal of the non-historic addition at the rear of the house and temporarily lifting the Pan Abode to excavate a basement. The Pan Above will then be set back down in its original location. No variations are requested. Staff supports this as a low impact means to increase the size of the home and finds that the criteria above are met. Standard conditions of approval regarding appropriate relocation techniques, and a security to be held by the City during construction are included in the resolution. 101 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit D Setback Variations Criteria Staff Findings 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 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 application accommodates the Pan Abode in its original location and protects the significant trees in front of it. The area for development of remaining floor area is limited. A new detached home is proposed, which is the preferred scenario over an addition to the historic resource. To adequately push away from the Pan Abode, the new unit is placed within 5’ of the rear lot 102 Page 2 of 2 line, where 10’ is required for all but the garage. Staff finds that setting the new unit as far to the rear of the site is a benefit to the historic landmark and supports this variation finding Criterion B is met. On the east side of the new unit, a lightwell in the side setback is larger than the 3’x3’ code required egress that is permitted without a variation. Staff recommends the board discuss the appropriateness of this setback reduction, particularly because it also requires a floor area exemption discussed in Exhibit A. 103 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM September 22, 2020 Revised October 16, 2020 Historic Preservation Commission and Aspen City Council c/o Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 211 West Hopkins Avenue – AspenModern Application Dear HPC, City Council and Staff, Please accept this application for voluntary AspenModern historic designation. As part of the AspenModern negotiation the following reviews are included in this application: Conceptual Major Development Review, Setback Variations, Historic Benefits, Relocation and 135sf of the FAR Bonus for the property located at 211 West Hopkins Avenue. Property Background The property is 6,000sf in size and is located in the R-6 Zone District along West Hopkins Avenue. A small Pan Abode home, constructed in 1956, sits centered at the front of the property with two large spruce trees framing the log kit residence. There are surprisingly few alterations to this structure, all of which are reversible: a 1970s Pan Abode style addition is located on the rear (south)elevation, a few windows have been enlarged on the east elevation, shutters were added in the 1960s, and the exterior logs were painted. This is the best example of Pan Abode in Aspen. Figure 1: 211 West Hopkins Avenue, circa 1958. Photograph courtesy Aspen Historical Society. Page 1 of 124 104 Page 2 of 6 Figure 2: 211 West Hopkins, circa 1965. Figure 3: 211 West Hopkins, 2020. Page 2 of 124 105 Page 3 of 6 Rustic Style - Pan Abodes The AspenModern program recognizes Pan Abode construction as a historically significant representation of Aspen’s post World War II Rustic Style. Pan Abode is a type of pre-fabricated construction technique popular during the housing boom after World War II. Similar to a life-sized version of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Lincoln Log toy, Pan Abodes were an affordable do-it-yourself option that ‘fit in’ to the rustic mountain town context of Aspen as a vacation destination. Pan Abodes in Aspen were primarily sold by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company out of Renton, Washington. The logs were milled of Western Red Cedar and were joined on the top and bottom with a single tongue and groove design that fitted tightly to avoid any chinking or interior insulation. Building corners reveal the interlocking tongue and groove system – which is a signature characteristic of Pan Abode construction, and is preserved at 211 West Hopkins. According to the City of Aspen’s Pan Abode context paper, character defining feature are as follows, all of which are evident at 211 West Hopkins: • 3” x 6” single tongue and groove cedar log construction • Overlapping notches at the corners • Original wood framed, multi-light picture window • Low pitched roof, usually gabled but occasionally shed • Deep overhanging eaves • Recessed entrance with rounded or squared corners. At the height of their popularity in the 1950s and 1960s, Jack Holst was the official Pan Abode Cedar Homes representative living and selling homes in Aspen. He worked with the local Marthinsson Nostdahl Construction Company to build new Pan Abodes in Aspen for about $10 a square foot. Aspen used to have numerous Pan Abodes throughout town due to the quick and affordable construction style; however, most of these modest homes have been heavily altered or demolished due to the small footprint and lack of interior insulation. Pan Abode homes were indicative of the post-World War II renaissance of Aspen as an international ski resort. These affordable and easy to assemble buildings contributed to the development of vacation homes and the establishment of Aspen as a destination. As stated in the City of Aspen’s Pan Abode context paper: Aspen’s Pan Abode buildings represent six important hallmarks of the postwar era: • The pre-manufactured building movement following World War II; • Do-It-Yourself attitudes; • Rustic Style residential architecture; • Affordable construction attainable by many; • Adaptable architecture to suit a wide variety of building functions; and • Close associations with the rise of Aspen’s international ski and tourism industries. The adopted period of significance according to the City of Aspen’s documentation is 1956 – 1970 – 211 West Hopkins was constructed in 1956. The AspenModern website lists 7 Pan Abodes in the City of Aspen: 4 are designated historic landmarks (1 of which is city owned), and most have been heavily altered with additions, roof form changes, and window replacements. 211 West Hopkins Avenue is arguably the best example of pan abode style in Aspen and scores 20 points out of a possible 20 points (Exhibit B) with the proposed restoration work – removal of a 1970s Page 3 of 124 106 Page 4 of 6 addition, window restoration, and paint removal. The proposed project removes development pressure from the cabin and ensures the preservation of this exemplary pan abode without alteration. AspenModern Proposal A 6,000 sf lot in the R-6 zone district is allowed 3,240sf of floor area. The current Pan Abode is about 1,146sf leaving roughly 2,094sf of unused floor area on the property. Historic properties are allowed an additional dwelling unit on a 6,000sf lot in the R-6 zone district as an incentive for historic preservation that removes development pressure from the historic landmark. The development pressure on this property is evident in the numerous demolition permits applied for and issued since 2001. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines strongly recommend detached new construction on a historic landmark site, especially when the landmark is one story. This successful concept shifts development pressure from the landmark to a separate structure which clearly delineates between new and old construction, avoids altering the historic resource, and provides open space on the lot. The 211 project is consistent with this tenet and proposes to restore the footprint of the Pan Abode to the original 1956 rectangular shape, remove non-historic paint and shutters, restore the south elevation in accordance with historic photographs, dig a basement under the pan abode, and construct a new detached single family home at the rear of the property. This project is aligned with the allowances in the Land Use Code and previous AspenModern negotiations for properties with much lower integrity and significance scores. The proposed new building has a strong relationship to the simple pan abode. Subtle detailing - such as overlapping boards at the corners of the rain screen – create a relationship between the two homes and highlights important characteristics of the pan abode. Window styles and shapes, roof shape and slope, and the simple material palette of the new home reflect the pan abode and reinforce the important features of this simple manufactured pan abode style. A summary of the AspenModern request is found in Table 1 and described below. Table 1: AspenModern Request & Fee Summary (estimated based on 2,469sf floor area increase) Fee Request Affordable Housing 0.4 FTEs at Category 2 ~ $137,040 cash in lieu No request. TDM/Air Quality ~$1,506.09 No request. Parks Development ~$13,456.05 No request. Tree Removal Mitigation ~ $20,122.75 Request wavier of tree removal mitigation. Building Permit Review n/a Expedited permit review. Dimensional Variations n/a Rear setback – 5’ for living space Side setback – 3’5 ¾” for lightwell Historic Development Benefits n/a 135 sf FAR bonus; 115sf of deck exemption; 17sf lightwell exemption Page 4 of 124 107 Page 5 of 6 Tree Removal Mitigation – The trees along the alleyway are very closely spaced which impacts their health and the ability to utilize the alley as a vehicular access point to the property, which is a Code requirement. A tree health assessment is included as Exhibit Q, and the Parks Department has been to the site many times. The ability to remove the trees along the alleyway directly impacts the location of new construction and increases the distance between the cabin and new building. The most significant trees on the property that contribute to the Pan Abode’s context, setting and overall Rustic Style are the two large spruce trees in the front yard that frame the cabin. These are proposed to remain and to be protected. Building Permit – AspenModern properties are allowed to request expedited building permit review in accordance with the City’s adopted policy. This incentive is focused on review process rather than on development fees or development incentives and helps get a historic project, associated restoration and maintenance started sooner than the typical permit review time. Variations and Historic Benefits – A few variations are requested that mitigate adverse impacts on the cabin by pushing floor area below grade and toward the alley. • An FAR Bonus of 135sf is requested for restoration of the cabin’s south elevation and the original footprint. • The Code allows HPC to exempt lightwells that are larger than the minimum size from floor area calculations to incentivize below grade space – a non-egress well in the east sideyard setback that would count as 17sf of floor area is requested to be exempted from the basement calculation and is requested as a small side yard setback variation. • A rear yard setback variation for living space to be 5ft where 10ft is required is requested to push development away from the pan abode. A stacked deck at the second floor and rooftop along the alley breaks up the south (alley) elevation and avoids the visual impacts of a tall two story mass fronting the alley. • As part of the AspenModern negotiation we respectfully request a deck exemption of 115sf be applied to the new building at 211 West Hopkins. We request outdoor decks on the second floor and rooftop of the new building - these spaces are meaningful, useful and add to the livability of the project, and more importantly do not impact the historic preservation of the Pan Abode. We feel that the community benefit of designating 211 West Hopkins as a local landmark and restoring the original footprint far outweighs the requested AspenModern incentives. 211 West Hopkins is the best example of Pan Abode construction in Aspen which represents the pre- manufactured building movement following World War II that contributed to the development of Aspen’s international ski and tourism industries. Thank you for reviewing this application. We look forward to presenting this project and preserving this important piece of Aspen’s history. Please reach out if you need additional information to complete your review. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP Page 5 of 124 108 Page 6 of 6 Exhibits A – AspenModern B – Pan Abode Integrity Score C – City of Aspen Pan Abode Context Paper D – HPC Design Reviews 1. HP Conceptual Review Criteria 2. FAR Bonus 3. Setback Variation 4. Parking 5. Relocation E – Pre application summary F – Agreement to Pay G – Land Use application H – HOA form I – Authorization to represent J – Proof of ownership K – Vicinity Map L – Mailing List M – Streetscape context images N – Stamped survey O – Residential Design Standards for new home P - Drawing set including 3D renderings Q – Aspen Tree Service Tree Assessment R – Preliminary storm water summary Page 6 of 124 109 Exhibit A AspenModern Exhibit A – AspenModern 26.415.025. - Identification of historic properties. (a) Surveys, Maps and Historic Context Papers. The Community Development Director shall conduct or cause to be conducted such preliminary surveys, studies or investigations as deemed necessary or advisable to adequately inform City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission of those properties located within the City which represent Aspen's 19th and 20th century history. The Community Development Director shall memorialize the results of surveys, studies and investigations in a series of historic inventory forms, maps and historic context papers. Said inventory forms, maps, and context papers shall be maintained by the Community Development Department and shall be made available for public inspection at all reasonable times. New inventory forms, maps and historic context papers shall not be adopted by City Council except for every tenth year, starting in January 2011. These resources shall be referenced by the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council when reviewing applications for designation. Response – 211 West Hopkins Avenue is identified on the AspenModern map, is referenced in the adopted Pan Abode context paper (attached as Exhibit C), and has been included in City of Aspen surveys since 2000. In addition, the National Trust for Historic Preservation sponsored a booklet on AspenModern properties that features 211 West Hopkins as shown below. Figure 1: AspenModern booklet Figure 2: Page featuring 211 West Hopkins Avenue. Page 7 of 124Page 7 of 124 110 Exhibit A AspenModern (c) AspenModern Properties. Properties associated with Aspen's 20th century history shall be called AspenModern. Properties identified on the AspenModern Map shall be eligible for certain preservation benefits without being designated by City Council and may be awarded preservation incentives above and beyond those identified at Section 26.415.110, as follows. Property owners are encouraged to meet proactively with the historic preservation commission before undertaking development plans to receive preliminary feedback on appropriate development and benefits. (1) Ninety-Day Negotiation Period. In the case that the owner of a property on the AspenModern Map submits a land use application which includes voluntary landmark designation, a negotiation period of up to 90 days shall be initiated. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this 90-day negotiation period shall accompany the land use application. The 90-day negotiation period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by the Council, or longer if mutually acceptable to both the Council and the property owner. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing any land use application or building permit affecting the subject property during the 90-day negotiation period. Response - The contract purchaser and the property owner understand the AspenModern negotiation process and the ability to withdraw or to extend the application should an agreement not be met within the 90-day time frame. 2) Voluntary review/Processing Advantages. Owners of properties included on the AspenModern Map who voluntarily comply with the provisions of this Chapter may proceed with approved work without making application for designation. The Community Development Director shall consider waiver or reduction of permit fees for the subject work. If this is not achievable within the City budget, the Community Development Director shall ensure that the land use application and building permit review proceed ahead of all other applications except those associated with affordable housing and Essential Public Facilities. Response – The applicant respectfully requests an expedited permit review for the proposed project. (3) Transferable Development Rights. Properties which are included on the AspenModern Map shall be eligible to create and sell transferable development rights according to the provisions of Chapter 26.535 of this Code, even if they are not designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Response – TDRs are not requested at this time. (4) Removal from AspenModern Map. Owners of properties included on the AspenModern Map may apply to the Community Development Director to be removed from the AspenModern Map. If the property owner indicates in writing that they have no interest in designation or negotiation, the property shall be removed from the AspenModern Map and the Community Development Director shall issue the owner a certificate documenting the removal from the map. Except upon the written request and consent of the owner(s) of the subject property at the time of the request, the subject property shall not be eligible for historic designation in the City of Aspen for a period of ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this certificate. The certificate shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Response – n/a. Page 8 of 124Page 8 of 124 111 Exhibit A AspenModern (5) Addition to AspenModern Map. Owners of properties not included on the AspenModern Map may apply to the Community Development Director to be added to the map by submitting a written request. The Community Development Director shall determine if the property is eligible, based on the designation criteria. Response – n/a. Sec. 26.415.030. - Designation of historic properties. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect. (a) Establishment of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures. The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures has been established by City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and objects located in Aspen that have special significance to the United States, Colorado or Aspen history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. The location of properties listed on the inventory shall be indicated on maps on file in the Community Development Department. (c) AspenModern. (1) Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two (2) of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; Response – 211 West Hopkins represents the pre-manufactured building movement following World War II that contributed to the development of Aspen’s international ski and tourism industries. The pan abode style is documented in an adopted context paper., and is considered part of Rustic Style residential architecture (typically log cabins and heavy timbers) that is important on a regional and national level as a symbol of the nation’s interest in pioneer life out west. Pan abode cabins embody the Rustic log cabin aesthetic but with a post-World War II pre- manufactured approach. b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; Response – n/a. c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic Page 9 of 124Page 9 of 124 112 Exhibit A AspenModern achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; Response – 211 West Hopkins scores 20 points out of 20 points on the integrity score sheet, and has long been regarded as the best example of pan abode style in Aspen. The distinctive characteristics of pan abode construction are all evident at 211 West Hopkins. Preservation of this disappearing type of construction and important style is imperative to Aspen’s post War heritage, as noted in the City’s pan abode context paper. d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and Response – According to the adopted context paper, it is believed that the City of Aspen had one of the largest collections of pan abode cabins in the State due in large part to local Jack Holst who was the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company representative. The City of Aspen is down to four protected pan abodes on the Historic Inventory, all of which have additions and alterations. The opportunity to protect 211 West Hopkins and to prevent future alterations or demolition will significantly contribute to the character and sense of place in Aspen and the AspenModern program. e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. Response – The property earns a perfect score on the integrity score sheets when considering the proposed restoration – paint removal, window restoration, and removal of the 1970s addition. Without the proposed restoration, the property still scores 18 out of 20 points. The building has never been moved, the two fir trees framing the cabin are intact, and the only alteration to the footprint is a 1970s pan abode addition on the rear of the structure. The high level of integrity, location, and setting contribute to the determination that 211 is the best example of pan abode residential construction in Aspen. The proposed project does not alter the pan abode in a way that impacts the integrity score or jeopardizes the significance of the structure. Page 10 of 124Page 10 of 124 113 1) Tongue and groove cedar log construction Character Defining Features of the Rustic (manufactured) Style 4) Low-pitched roof, usually gabled but occasionally shed 7) All or most of features 1-6 must be visible at the front façade. Total Points, 0 – 10 8) Natural, stained wood2) Overlapping notches at corners 3) Original wood framed, multi-light picture window 5) Deep overhanging eaves Check box if statement is true. One point per box. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A building must have 6 of the 10 character defining features, either present or clearly documented through photographic of physical evidence to qualify as Rustic (manufactured) Style. Restoration may be required as part of the award of incentives. If the property earned 6 or more points, continue to the next page. If the property earned less than 6 points, scoring ends. 9) Simple, rectilinear footprint 10) One story 6) Recessed entrance with rounded or squared corners 8 9 10 x x x x x x x x x x 10 points Page 11 of 124Page 11 of 124 114 1 2 3 4 - 10 211 West Hopkins Ave. The numbers correspond to page 1 of the integrity score sheet. Page 12 of 124Page 12 of 124 115 INTEGRITY SCORING If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: Best: 15 up to 20 points Better: 12 up to 15 points Good: 10 up to 12 points Not Eligible:0 up to 10 points Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- mum of 10 points: LOCATION OF BUILDING ON THE LOT: The building is in its original location.2 points The building has been shi ft ed on the original parcel, but maintains its original alignment and/or proximity to the street.1 point SETTING: The property is located within the geographical area surrounded by Castle Creek, the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain.1 point The property is outside of the geographical area surround by Castle Creek, the Raoring Fork River and Aspen Mountain.1/2 point DESIGN: The form of the building (footprint, roof and wall planes) are unaltered from the original design.3 points a.) The form of the building has been altered but less than 25% of the original walls have been removed, OR b.) The alterations to the form all occur at the rear of the subject building, OR c.) The form of the building has been altered but the addi tion is less than 50% of the size of the original building, OR d.) There is a roof top addi tion that is less than 50% of the footprint of the roof. 2 points MATERIALS Exterior materials The original exterior materials of the building are still in place, with the exception of normal maintenance and repairs.2 points 50% of the exterior materials have been replaced, but the replacements match the original condi tion.1 point Windows and doors The original windows and doors of the building are still in place, with the exception of normal maintenance and repairs.2 points 50% of the original windows and doors have been replaced, but the replacements match the original condi tion.1 point 10 points 10 points 20 points Page 13 of 124Page 13 of 124 116 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context Prepared For: City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Prepared By: TEC, Inc. 1658 Cole Boulevard, Suite 190 Golden, Colorado 80401 Generously funded in part by the Modernism + Recent Past Intervention Fund, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Page 14 of 124Page 14 of 124 117 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 1 June 2010 Table of Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 2 The Pre-Manufactured Building in the U.S. ................................................................................... 2 The Pan Abode Companies ............................................................................................................. 7 Pan Abode Architecture .................................................................................................................. 7 Purchasing and Construction Process ........................................................................................... 11 Pan Abode Building Types in Aspen ............................................................................................ 13 Historic Significance of Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen .............................................................. 16 Period of Historic Significance ..................................................................................................... 17 References ..................................................................................................................................... 19 List of Figures Figure 1. Classic Notch System, as shown by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company ................. 7 Figure 2. A 1951 building by the Pan Abode Company’s sister-company in British Columbia, the Pan-Abode Company. ..................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Recessed entrance at 630 Main Street, built in 1965. ...................................................... 9 Figure 4. Curved brackets at the entrance of 1208/1210 Snowbunny Lane, built in 1965. ........... 9 Figure 5. A Chalet Style Pan Abode (demolished) ....................................................................... 10 Figure 6. The picture windows of Pan Abodes, as seen at 509 West Main Street, left, and 1355 Sage Court, right. .......................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7. Picture windows, as seen in 300 West Hyman. ............................................................ 11 Figure 8. Advertisement for Richard Wright, one of the Pan Abode contractors in Aspen, 1965 ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 9. 1970 Pan Abode single-family houses at 103 Ardmore (left) and 110 Ardmore (right). ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 10. Multiple family building at 403 and 404 Park Avenue, built in 1964. ....................... 14 Page 15 of 124Page 15 of 124 118 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 2 Summary This historic context statement on Pan Abode buildings has been prepared for the City of Aspen to determine the potential significance of the city’s group of at least 50 buildings that were pre- manufactured by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Company and built in and around Aspen in the 1950s and 1960s. The City retained TEC Inc. (TEC) to conduct primary and secondary research to expand upon the existing information compiled on Pan Abode buildings in Aspen. Historical research focused on the local, regional, and national historic context of Pan Abode buildings and relevant historical themes. Resources consulted included materials from the City of Aspen, Pitkin County Assessor, Denver Public Library, Prospector Interlibrary loan, and historic maps, photographs, and newspaper archives. TEC also conducted oral history interviews with current and past Aspen residents familiar with the history of Pan Abode buildings to supplement information available in the written record. This historic context statement is an assessment of the significance of Pan Abode buildings in Aspen based on this research only. The project did not include fieldwork or evaluations of individual buildings; rather it assessed the significance of the Pan Abode building type using information compiled in this historic context. The City of Aspen provided the photographic illustrations included in this narrative. Based on this information, TEC recommends that the 1950s and 1960s-era Pan Abode buildings have historic significance on the local level in Aspen. The following paper explains this recommendation and includes a description of the Character-Defining Features of Pan Abode buildings. Page 16 of 124Page 16 of 124 119 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 3 The Pre-Manufactured Building in the U.S. The historical origins of the Pan Abode buildings of the 1950s and 1960s begin with the factory- made balloon frame houses made popular by the Sears, Roebuck & Co. mail-order catalog introduced in 1908 and, to a lesser degree, the Aladdin Homes catalog introduced in 1910. These pre-manufactured “kit” houses were essentially packages of pre-cut, numbered wood parts that were delivered to the desired building site to be easily erected by any person unskilled in the building trades. Their affordability and easy do-it-yourself construction became most attractive during the nation’s most uncertain economic times. Pre-manufactured building’s first wave of popularity followed the end of World War I in 1918 when soldiers returning home sought affordable housing in which to start a family. While new building technologies emerged throughout the Depression years of the 1930s, advances in pre-manufactured materials and building methods skyrocketed during the World War II years between 1942 and 1945 when the United States (U.S.) military concentrated its building efforts on fast, efficient, and inexpensive construction techniques. The private sector applied these techniques to meet urgent building needs that followed the end of the war. Six million returning veterans found an inadequate supply of suitable buildings to house themselves and their new families and pre-manufactured ready-to-assemble buildings became especially attractive to the many people in need of decent housing during the nation’s postwar housing crisis. It was this dire and urgent need for housing that spurred the second wave of factory-made buildings to new heights of affordability and sophistication (Ebong 2005). The population growth in the rest of the country boomed during the postwar years of the late 1940s and 1950s, but building activity was comparatively quiet in Aspen. The silver crash of 1893 deeply affected Aspen’s mining industries, and the town witnessed a dramatic decline that left it sparsely populated through the 1930s. Aspen struggled for the first three decades of the twentieth century until the commercial ski industry began to revive the town. The development of ski areas in and around Aspen in the 1930s and 1940s brought a renewed need for buildings and infrastructure. Although many of the nineteenth-century buildings were available for use, prospective buyers were required to pay back taxes on these properties, many of which carried unpaid property taxes since 1893. Thus by the early 1940s, buying property in Aspen became prohibitively expensive due to the accumulation of taxes owed on many of the existing properties. This circumstance made affordable building options an attractive feature of Pan Abode kit buildings, and for many it was the only way they could afford to live in Aspen during the early postwar years. Page 17 of 124Page 17 of 124 120 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 4 Although their low cost and easy construction was a critical factor, Pan Abode buildings also offered something more intangible than simply affordable shelter. Their log-frame architecture gave its inhabitants the romanticized rustic aesthetic that many sought in their mountain homes. The log cabin’s symbolism is deeply rooted in the American identity for its associations with the American frontier and our national ideals of rugged individualism. This identity and mythology is particularly entrenched in the American West, including Aspen, Colorado, where the town’s scenic mountainous surroundings became a backdrop for Rustic Style architecture as early as the 1930s. The Rustic Style developed in Colorado after 1905 and is identified through its log construction with battered walls, overhanging roofs, and small paned windows. The style grew out of the Pioneer Log structures found in Colorado which are often associated with the American west. After World War II, Americans extolled these ideals with even greater enthusiasm through popular culture and even children’s toys such as the iconic “Lincoln Logs” blocks. The Pan Abode’s cedar logs were grown, milled, and manufactured in a far-off location, but for many Americans these “log” buildings still resonated with their cultural past, even if they was a modern facsimile of a romanticized concept. For people looking for adventure, the Pan Abode’s self-built quality presented an opportunity for the “can-do” generation of the 1950s and 1960s to tackle a realistic project that reaped the rewards of an entirely new building. By the 1950s, “do-it-yourself” became a cultural phenomenon of the postwar generation. The attitude began as part of the postwar suburban ideal, but it undoubtedly carried into the vacation home. Many returning veterans welcomed the opportunity to apply technical skills they learned during the war toward realizing the postwar dream of a modern and comfortable new home (The National Building Museum 2003). In rural Colorado, people took this attitude one step farther in part due to the romanticized influence of the western frontier’s spirit of hearty self-reliance. Once Americans began establishing themselves as the well-off and burgeoning population of the middle class in the early 1950s, families began to enjoy recreational activities afforded by the nation’s newfound economic prosperity. They also enjoyed more leisure time than ever before. The New Deal’s Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 regulated a maximum 40-hour work-week, and after World War II the five-day work-week became typical. By 1950, leisure time accounted for over 34 percent of American’s waking lives (Gilbert 1995). At the same time, increasing personal wealth and the dramatic rise of personal automobile ownership gave Americans the freedom and mobility to venture outside of their hometowns in search of weekend getaways. Improved roads and the nation’s new interstate highway system provided access to areas not readily available before the war. Americans began traveling the highways and staying in motels Page 18 of 124Page 18 of 124 121 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 5 on Route 66 and at National Forest visitor cabins. As Americans discovered new communities, they sought modest vacation homes in their pursuit of outdoor leisure activities, such as skiing. Attracted to the town’s picturesque Rocky Mountain setting as well as its three highly regarded ski areas established by 1958, vacationers found their way to Aspen for lodging or to establish second homes. Kit buildings sold by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company fulfilled many of these buyers’ preferences for Rustic Style architecture in the mountain town. Pan Abodes were an affordable choice in addition to being easily transportable, and reflected the romanticized idea of a western log cabin. These buildings also interested buyers due to their simplicity and ease of construction. Pan Abodes were often viewed as a symbol of the do-it-yourself independence of the west. In 1947, 37,000 of kit homes built nationwide were constructed using prefabricated components, and by 1960 the number had grown to 126,000 houses, or nine percent of all homes built. Prefabricated techniques for permanent house construction in particular grew parallel with the increasing market for vacation homes (Randl 2004). This increasing need for vacation homes was especially visible in Aspen, where many of the Pan Abode buildings constructed in the 1950s and 1960s were used as second homes associated with the ski industry. Individuals and families from Denver, Texas, New York, and other areas around the country utilized the ease of construction and affordability associated with Pan Abode buildings in order to construct their vacation homes. The increasing interest in Aspen’s ski industry in the late 1950s is evidenced by an increase in the number of new homes constructed in the city between 1958 and 1959. According to the Aspen Times, eight new homes were constructed in 1958 while in 1959 that number increased to 19 (Aspen Times 1960a). During this era of second home growth, Pitkin County’s population increased roughly 44 percent and Highway 82 leading into Aspen saw a traffic increase which was the highest of any road in Colorado. In 1960, the road experienced a 10.9 percent increase in traffic over the 1959 numbers (Aspen Times 1960b). Aspen’s Pan Abode homes allowed many owners to purchase a second home when they might not otherwise have been able to afford the cost of building. On average new houses cost $15.00 a square foot to build in 1960; however, the cost of a Pan Abode structure averaged between $8.06 and $13.67 a square foot around this time. Indeed, during the early 1960s, Pan Abode buildings constructed in Aspen cost roughly $10.00 a square foot, significantly less than the national average (City of Aspen 2010). Ski areas that were largely run by local ski clubs before the war and catered to locals as well as a handful of elite clientele transformed themselves into business ventures during this era. New ski areas were established and older slopes were improved to serve the new postwar consumer Page 19 of 124Page 19 of 124 122 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 6 culture. Backed by prominent financiers, the ski industry aimed to attract all types of visitors, from destination skiers to weekend visitors from Denver. In the process, Aspen became home to some of the earliest well-developed ski areas in the country. In 1946, the Denver Post magazine headlined with “Money Fever is Running in Aspen Again: Famed Silver Town Looks to Day When It Will Be World Ski Capital.” Although other skis areas had also been established in Colorado and other western states at the time, in 1950 Aspen was chosen to host the International Skiing Federation championships, the largest international competition of the year and one that had never before been held in the U.S. With thousands of people flocking to Aspen each year, Aspen distinguished itself from other ski areas early, and the flourishing postwar economy helped make this possible (Gilbert 1995). While the Pan Abode served as an idealized version of the western log cabin for many, in Aspen Pan Abodes also served as an integral part of the fledgling American ski industry. Aspen’s ski industry created an immediate need for buildings and infrastructure, including single-family homes, rental properties for tourists, multi-family apartments, and commercial buildings. Due to the temporary nature of the industry’s employment, employees interested in buying a residence were unable to qualify for traditional home mortgages. However, if a buyer had purchase money for a parcel of land, he or she could buy an affordable Pan Abode kit. By Aspen’s standards, the cost of a pre-manufactured building was significantly less than the cost of purchasing an existing home or hiring a contractor to build a house by traditional building methods. Perhaps seizing upon Aspen’s postwar growth, the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company stationed a sales representative in Aspen to sell Pan Abode buildings. The sales representative was also able to answer potential buyer’s questions about financing and referred buyers to institutions providing mortgages. By the 1960s, Pan Abode kit buildings became the most common type of Rustic Style architecture built in Aspen, with more than 50 Pan Abode buildings erected during the mid- 1950s through the late 1960s. Prior to the construction of Pan Abode buildings in Aspen, the majority of buildings were constructed using an architect’s plan, making these pre-planned buildings a different resource within the city. Part of the rise of Pan Abodes’ popularity can be attributed to the fact that they offered an attractive, affordable alternative to costly architect- or builder-designed buildings. During the earliest postwar years of the late 1940s and early 1950s, the U.S. was still trying to adjust to a peacetime economy after four years of war. Adjustment to a non-military economy and demand for single-family homes expanded exponentially. The U.S. housing construction industry could not keep up with the demand due to scarcity of materials and adequate financing immediately after the war. Before pre-manufactured kit houses became available, buildings often took many months or even years to construct. The Pan Abode Cedar Page 20 of 124Page 20 of 124 123 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 7 Homes company’s assortment of kit houses allowed these new homeowners to move into their houses within a few weeks instead of months. The Pan Abode Companies Aage Jensen, a Danish cabinetmaker, established the original Pan-Abode International, Ltd. in 1948 in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada, to create pre-manufactured cedar log buildings. Jensen expanded his venture to the U.S. in 1952 with a second factory located in Renton, Washington, where the American company still operates today. The two companies became separate corporations: the American company assumed the name Pan Abode Cedar Homes, while the British Columbian company is distinguished by their hyphenated name, Pan-Abode. The main difference between the pre-manufactured buildings produced by the two companies lies in the British Columbian company’s double tongue-and-groove system, while the Renton, Washington, factory produces a single tongue-and-groove interlocking system. Because the 1950s and 1960s Pan Abode buildings in Aspen were sold by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company in Renton, each features this single tongue-and-groove construction. Pan Abode Architecture Each Pan Abode was entirely constructed of milled logs made of Western Red Cedar. The company hailed cedar’s low-expansion properties that include resistant to shrinking, swelling, and warping during drastic changes in temperature. Cedar timber also provides good insulation, an important feature in Pan Abode buildings since the only insulation came from the 3-inch thickness of the cedar logs themselves. The buildings included no insulation within the walls until much later. All of the Pan Abode logs manufactured between 1952 and 1970 in the Renton factory were milled in 3”x6” rectangular logs with flat edges to create a relatively flat exterior and interior wall surface. The logs were joined on the top and bottom using a single tongue-and-groove design to create a tight seal that required no traditional chinking or any other interfacing (Figure 1). The ends of the logs formed overlapping, interlocking corners that Figure 1. Classic Notch System, as shown by the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010) Page 21 of 124Page 21 of 124 124 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 8 joined in a style the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company calls the “Classic Notch” solid wall system. The continuous vertical notch at all of the building’s corners thus became a distinguishing characteristic of the building. The overlapping corner notch was intended to strengthen the building and facilitate construction (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010). The length of the log timbers were cut to size depending on the Pan Abode model ordered through the company catalog. Window and door openings were wood-framed. During the 1950s and 1960s, the majority of Pan Abode-manufactured buildings were one-story buildings between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet. The Pan Abode’s interior walls featured no additional finishes, leaving the cedar walls bare on the inside of the building. Electrical and plumbing infrastructure could be inserted through the walls, down joint seams, or inserted into the floor depending on local ordinances. Although the vast majority of the Pan Abode buildings sold were stock models advertised in the company catalog, a small portion of the company’s sales consisted of custom-designed buildings that were pre-manufactured and cut to size by request. These early custom-designed buildings also used 3”x6” timbers using the Classic Notch design. Pan Abode buildings were typically covered by a low-pitched, gabled roof; however, some were covered by a low-pitched shed roof (Figure 2). Roofs almost always had open overhanging eaves with wood trim. As a result, the one-story Pan Abode buildings took on the form and appearance of a mid-century Ranch-style house. The fascia board at the end of the roof Figure 2. A 1951 building by the Pan Abode Company’s sister-company in British Columbia, the Pan-Abode Company. Page 22 of 124Page 22 of 124 125 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 9 eaves was usually left flat with straight edges, but in a few cases the fascia was cut into a decorative cut-out vergeboard trim. Distinctive architectural features common to Pan Abode houses of the 1950s and 60s include recessed entrance porches that are framed at the edges by the building’s log ends with curved corners (see Figures 3 and 4). The logs ends were used decoratively in a variety of ways in the Pan Abode. This is also seen in the supporting brackets for a Pan Abode house’s entrance gable in Figure 4. Pan Abode buildings in Aspen were usually plain and lacked ornamentation. However, Aspen had at least one “Chalet Style” Pan Abode building that featured notched ends shaped into ornate scalloped curves, deep overhangs, vergeboard fascia, and cut-out patterns at the balustrade, window trim, and decorative shutters (Figure 5). Figure 3. Recessed entrance at 630 Main Street, built in 1965. Figure 4. Curved brackets at the entrance of 1208/1210 Snowbunny Lane, built in 1965. Page 23 of 124Page 23 of 124 126 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 10 Figure 5. A Chalet Style Pan Abode (demolished) A ca. 1950s and 60s Pan Abode buildings’ fenestration typically featured at least one large multi- light picture window at the façade. The multi-light arrangement was divided into horizontally oriented rectangular lights, which formed the module by which all of the original Pan Abode windows were based. The size of the window was determined by the number of rectangular lights used. The house in Figure 3, above, has one large 12-light picture window, as does the house in Figure 6, below. The house at right in Figure 6 depicts a house with one 9-light window and one narrow three-light rectangular window. The building in Figure 7 includes two large 9-light windows, one in each of its two projecting wings. In the case of most Pan Abodes constructed during the 1950s and 1960s, the fenestration consisted of either fixed panes, such as in large multi-light windows or sliding as in the case of smaller single and double light windows. Occasionally large multi-light windows would made into sliding windows; however, these windows have a large bar affixed to the window’s interior panes to ease their opening. Often these fixed windows are replaced with multi-light pivoting casement windows (Pan Abode Cedar Homes personal correspondence 2010). Page 24 of 124Page 24 of 124 127 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 11 Figure 6. The picture windows of Pan Abodes, as seen at 509 West Main Street, left, and 1355 Sage Court, right. Figure 7. Picture windows, as seen in 300 West Hyman. Purchasing and Construction Process One major selling point of the Pan Abode was its ease of construction from beginning to end. Once a customer selected a Pan Abode model, the company shipped the prefabricated building materials directly to the building site on a flatbed truck (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010). The Renton Pan Abode Cedar Homes company estimates that roughly 100 kit homes were sold each year during the 1950s and 1960s (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010). Although there is little documentation of how many Pan Abodes were built nationwide, a company representative revealed that the company’s largest clients during those years were ski companies across the Western U.S. The U.S. Forest Service also purchased numerous Pan Abode kits to erect small Page 25 of 124Page 25 of 124 128 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 12 cabins in national forests in the western U.S. The U.S. Forest Service documents that it began building small Pan Abode cabins along with A-frame cabins in Alaska at the Tongass National Forest in 1962 and in the Chugach National Forest in 1963 (Lantz 2009). The Pan Abode Cedar Homes company advertised and sold their buildings through their company brochures and their home office in Renton, Washington, but perhaps most importantly through the Pan Abode company representatives located in strategic cities across the western U.S. One such sales representative named Jack Holst played a prominent role in Aspen during the 1950s and 1960s. Jack Holst’s position with Pan Abode Cedar Homes Company lasted approximately 20 years in Aspen. During this time, his sales resulted in a substantial concentration of Pan Abode buildings in Aspen. Although all company representatives used a marketing brochure to show and describe the pre-designed kit plans to prospective buyers, representatives like Jack Holst built their own Pan Abode buildings to serve as models for selling Pan Abodes.1 An interview with Magne Nostdahl revealed that Jack Holst was the only official Pan Abode representative in Aspen (Nostdahl personal correspondence 2010). Pan Abode Representative Jack Holst handled all of the arrangements for new Pan Abode construction in Aspen from selling the building to ordering the structure, to the necessary transportation from Renton, Washington to Aspen, Colorado. Marthinsson and Nostdahl Construction Company worked alongside Holst constructing the new buildings for the owners. Nostdahl recalls that the majority of Pan Abodes he and his partner constructed measured between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet while only a few measured under 1,000 square feet. During the 1960s, the Marthinsson and Nostdahl Construction Company charged $10 a square foot to construct the new Pan Abode buildings. Marthinsson and Nostdahl Construction Company constructed Pan Abode buildings for roughly seven years before the market for these easy to assemble buildings began to fade. Nostdahl remarked that he believed Pan Abodes began to lose their popularity due to the lack of insulation in the structures. A city ordinance in Aspen required a level of insulation in each building and Pan Abodes did not conform to these needs. As a result, Jack Holst began ordering double walled Pan Abode buildings which increased the cost of the building and led to a decrease in buyer’s interest in the buildings (Nostdahl personal correspondence 2010). 1 Like a number of Aspen’s residents during the 1950s and 1960s, Holst continued to work several jobs in order to keep busy and afford the new postwar lifestyle. In addition to serving as the Pan Abode company representative in Aspen, Holst was also a commercial airline pilot and a ski instructor. Page 26 of 124Page 26 of 124 129 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 13 Pan Abode Building Types in Aspen Research suggests that Pan Abode buildings were primarily constructed throughout the western U.S. as small cabins for the U.S. Forest Service or as privately owned vacation homes (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010). In Aspen, Pan Abodes were used for a wider variety of purposes that were both unique and representative of Aspen’s economic circumstances in the 1950s and 1960s. Although Pan Abode buildings were most often built as single-family primary and secondary dwellings in Aspen, there are examples of Pan Abodes used as multiple-family apartment buildings, commercial buildings, a church hall, and even for ticket sales, administration, ski patrol, and maintenance facilities at Highlands Ski Area. City records indicate that the majority of the Pan Abodes in and around Aspen were built as modest-sized single-family dwellings. This was representative of the Pan Abode company sales during the 1950s and 60s, as most of the buildings sold consisted of smaller dwellings less than 2,000 square feet, with few custom plans (Pan Abode personal correspondence 2010). Building permits for known Pan Abodes in Aspen state they were constructed in Kennydale, Washington, a neighborhood in Renton. One building in Aspen, the Cortina Lodge may have been purchased from the Pan-Abode Company in Richmond, British Columbia due to its double tongue and groove construction. In 1970, two entire subdivisions, Ardmore and East Meadow, were platted and developed by local Pan Abode Cedar Homes contractors in Aspen. It was a speculative venture whereby this group of Pan Abode developers built and sold the Pan Abode houses along with their lots as a residential subdivision. The Ardmore subdivision had eight Pan Abode houses, and the East Meadow subdivision contained five Pan Abode houses (Figure 9). Charles Brinkman was a developer of the Ardmore subdivision, and longtime company representative Jack Holst was at least one of the developers of the East Meadow subdivision of Pan Abodes. Figure 8. Advertisement for Richard Wright, one of the Pan Abode contractors in Aspen, 1965 Page 27 of 124Page 27 of 124 130 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 14 Figure 9. 1970 Pan Abode single-family houses at 103 Ardmore (left) and 110 Ardmore (right). Pan Abodes catered directly to the ski industry, which needed to house seasonal workers. At least one Pan Abode in Aspen served as a multiple-family residence. The apartment building at 403 and 404 Park Avenue consists of a raised two-story building with shallow overhanging eaves and decorative vergeboard at the side-gabled ends (Figure 10). This 10-unit multi-family building was developed in 1964 by Pan Abode contractors Arne Marthinsson and Magne Nostdahl. Both Marthinsson and Nostdahl were typical contractors who held multiple jobs. In the case of Marthinsson and Nostdahl, they were contractors during the summer months and ski instructors during the winter. Ski industry pioneer and founder of the Aspen Highlands ski area, Whipple “Whip” Van Ness Jones utilized two Pan Abode buildings to help establish the ski mountain in 1956 and during its long tenure. When Jones first moved to Aspen in the early 1950s, he purchased a property on 2nd Street that included a Pan Abode building. He also purchased the property across the street that housed a stable that was also of Pan Abode construction. When Jones established a new ski resort on the outskirts of downtown Aspen, instead of contacting one of the two architects or two designers listed in town in 1955 to Figure 10. Multiple family building at 403 and 404 Park Avenue, built in 1964. Page 28 of 124Page 28 of 124 131 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 15 construct new buildings, Jones determined it would be easier and more cost effective to relocate two Pan Abode buildings from his property in town up to the Aspen Highlands ski area (Doremus 2010). These two buildings became the ticket sales, administration, ski patrol, and maintenance buildings in 1957 and were used until the Aspen Highlands’ ownership transferred in 1993. When Jones needed a larger administration building, he ordered a new Pan Abode building to replace the old building because Pan Abodes were easy to assemble, inexpensive, functional, and fit into the aesthetic alpine environment with their cedar log materials and Rustic architectural style. After fire destroyed the Cloud 9 restaurant on the Aspen Highlands in the 1970s, the replacement restaurant consisted of a new Pan Abode building. The new building’s erection took roughly 45 days from start to finish. Subsequent to the Aspen Skiing Company assuming ownership of Aspen Highlands in 1993, the Pan Abode buildings at Aspen Highlands were demolished with the exception of Cloud Nine (Doremus 2010). In addition to owning several Pan Abode buildings at the Aspen Highlands mountain, Whip Jones and his family also resided in a Pan Abode building in town. According to his stepson Andrew Doremus, the Jones family moved from his original Pan Abode on 2nd Street to a second Pan Abode house on Francis Street. One of the more unusual uses for a Pan Abode building in the 1960s was for a church. The Messiah Lutheran Church erected a Pan Abode building in 1963 when the congregation relocated to its current site on Mountain View Drive. The church used the Pan Abode building for its services until 1985, when the Pan Abode was moved to Redstone for use as a private residence (Aspen Times 2004). The energy crisis of the 1970s slightly changed the design of Pan Abode-manufactured buildings, as the company introduced wider cedar log dimensions of 4”x6” for improved insulation and greater energy efficiency (Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010). The slightly wider style of the post-1970 design appears to be a distinguishing feature between the company’s pre- 1970 and post-1970 designs. Later designs also introduced a double-wall structural system in which two 3”x6” timbers were separated by a 4” gap that could be filled with rigid foam insulation (Log Home Living Magazine 1987). Page 29 of 124Page 29 of 124 132 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 16 Historic Significance of Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen Aspen’s postwar-era Pan Abode buildings are significant under the City of Aspen’s significance Criterion 2a as a representative building trend closely associated with Aspen’s period of rise of the local international ski industry and tourism, both important historical events of the city’s postwar history. In an emerging tourism town, Pan Abode buildings fulfilled a basic need for buildings and lodging. Their flexible design made them highly adaptable for a wide variety of functions, resulting in a diverse group of Pan Abode buildings in Aspen. Pan Abode’s structural adaptability allowed them to serve in a variety of situations. They were also well-equipped for adaptive reuse; two were relocated to the Aspen Highlands ski area for nearly 40 years of continuous use. This architectural flexibility accommodated Aspen’s changing needs like no other building could. The Pan Abode Cedar Homes company sold at least 50 Pan Abode buildings in Aspen during the 1950s and 1960s. This may be considered a large collection of Pan Abode buildings at that time when the Pan Abode Cedar Homes company produced only about 100 per year nationwide. Aspen’s group of contractors even developed two small speculative subdivisions consisting only of Pan Abode houses in the early 1970s. As a result, preliminary research suggests that Aspen’s had a relatively high concentration of Pan Abode buildings when compared with similar cities in Colorado and possibly the Western U.S. Aspen’s postwar Pan Abode buildings are also significant under Criterion 2c for their building design. Pan Abode buildings’ distinctive pre-manufactured method of construction was representative of the architectural technology available following World War II. They are also architecturally significant as unique representatives of national historical themes and attitudes of the postwar age. Their ability to be easily constructed by unskilled labor is evocative of the emerging “do-it-yourself” spirit that permeated the postwar generation of the 1950s and 60s nationwide. They also fulfilled the need for affordable construction, and their easy financing made them attainable to people who ordinarily would not qualify for traditional home mortgages or who could not afford Aspen’s expensive back-taxes on the existing pre-World War II building stock. This was especially important for the temporary employees who worked in the seasonal Aspen’s Pan Abode buildings represent six important hallmarks of the postwar era: The pre-manufactured building movement following World War II; Do-It-Yourself attitudes ; Rustic Style residential architecture Affordable construction attainable by many; Adaptable architecture to suit a wide variety of building functions; and Close associations with the rise of Aspen’s international ski and tourism industries. Page 30 of 124Page 30 of 124 133 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 17 ski industry. Finally, the Pan Abode form as an entirely cedar-log-built building represents the popularity of Rustic Style architecture during the postwar years, particularly in the mountainous regions of Colorado. In summary, Pan Abode buildings’ historic significance in Aspen lies not simply in the fact that they are kit houses, but the manner in which they were ideally suited to Aspen’s unique circumstances during the postwar years. Period of Historic Significance Although Pan Abode buildings continue to be manufactured today in the company’s Renton factory, their period of significance in Aspen began in 1956 when the first Pan Abodes were built, and ends in 1970. By 1970, the desire for a modest-sized vacation home in Aspen came to an end as development pressures increased in town. As land values steadily increased in connection to Aspen’s population growth and tourism success, developers sought to maximize the capacity of their properties with larger and taller buildings that capitalize on the allowable square footage. In 1966, the city of Aspen adopted its Aspen Area Master Plan to control growth and development. As Aspen continued to grow in population and popularity as an internationally acclaimed ski resort through the 1970s and 1980s, the city sought to reduce the density and future population of Aspen and utilized growth management plans and ordinance restrictions to aid in achieving this goal. The Pan Abode buildings constructed between 1956 and 1970 represent the last generation of buildings prior to the institution of these regulations. Character-Defining Features of Pan Abode Buildings are the physical characteristics of the buildings from their period of significance between 1956 and 1970. They are: • 3”x6”, single tongue-and-groove cedar log construction • Overlapping notches at the corners • Original wood-framed, multi-light picture window • Low-pitched roof, usually gabled but occasionally shed • Deep overhanging eaves • Recessed entrance with rounded or squared corners Character-Defining Feature: A prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or characteristic of a historic property that contributes significantly to its physical character. Structures, objects, vegetation, spatial relationships, views, furnishings, decorative details, and materials may be such features. NPS 2010 Page 31 of 124Page 31 of 124 134 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 18 All or most of these character-defining features should be visible at the façade in order to convey the original appearance of the Pan Abode building. These character-defining features can be used as a guide for evaluating individual Pan Abodes; however, individual survey and an assessment of integrity of the individual known Pan Abode properties in Aspen will be required to determine whether a Pan Abode building continues to conveys its historic significance to the 1956-1970 period of significance. Page 32 of 124Page 32 of 124 135 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 19 References Aspen Times (The) 1960a January 8. 1960b January 15. 2004 “Messiah Lutheran Marks 50 Years.” Accessed Online: http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20040922/NEWS/109220011&parentprofile= search 2007 “Jack Holst Obituary.” Accessed Online: http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20071103/ASPENWEEKLY04/111040083&p arentprofile=search City of Aspen 2010 Estimated Cost per Square Foot for Pan Abode Construction, 1956-1969. Ditto, Jerry, and Lanning Stern. 1995 Design for Living: Eichler Homes. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books. Doremus, Andrew 2010 Personal Correspondence. April 1. Ebong, Ima. 2005 Kit Homes Modern. New York: Collins Design. Fetters, Thomas T. 2002 The Lustron Home: The History of a Postwar Prefabricated Housing Experiment. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Gilbert, Alice M. 1995 Re-Creation Through Recreation: Aspen Skiing from 1870 to 1970. Aspen Historical Society. Gordon, Alastair. 2001 Weekend Utopia: Modern Living in the Hamptons. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Holst, Les. 2010 Personal Correspondence. March 30. Koones, Sheri. 2006 Prefabulous: The House of Your Dreams, Delivered Fresh From the Factory. Newtown, CT: The Taunton Press. Page 33 of 124Page 33 of 124 136 Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context 20 Meinecke, Conrad. 1945 Your Cabin in the Woods: A Compilation of Cabin Plans and Philosophy for Discovering Life in the Great Outdoors. New York: Bonanza Books. Meyer, Guido 2010 Personal Correspondence. March 29. National Park Service (NPS) 2010 Denver Service Center Workflows, Design and Construction Definitions (C). Accessed Online: http://www.nps.gov/dsc/workflows/definitionsdc_c.htm. 28 April. Nostdahl, Magne. 2010 Personal Correspondence. June 3. Pan Abode Cedar Homes 2010 “About Us – History.” Accessed Online: www.panabodehomes.com/history.php 2010 “Classic Timber Building System.” Accessed Online: www.panabodehomes.com/classic_timber.php 2010 Personal Correspondence with Tom Prevette. March 31 and April 29. Ramsey, Dan. 1987 Building A Log Home From Scratch, 2nd Edition. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: TAB Books. Randl, Chad. 2004 A-Frame. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Rybczynski, Witold. 1991 Waiting for the Weekend. New York: Viking Press. The National Building Museum 2003 Do-It-Yourself: Home Improvement in 20th-Century America. October 19, 2002- August 17, 2003. Accessed Online: http://www.nbm.org/exhibitions- collections/exhibitions/diy.html Watkins, A.M. 1962 Building or Buying the High-Quality House at the Lowest Cost. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Weslager, C.A. 1969 The Log Cabin in America: From Pioneer Days to the Present. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Page 34 of 124Page 34 of 124 137 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria Exhibit D.1 – Conceptual HP Review 26.415.060.A Approvals Required. Any development involving properties designated on the aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual property or located within the boundaries of a Historic District, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. HPC shall provide referral comments for major projects to rights of way located within the boundaries of a Historic District. Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below: Streetscape 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. Response – The buildings reinforce the traditional grid pattern of the neighborhood. The open space around and in front of the cabin is preserved. 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 – No change to streets or alleys is proposed, and there is no ditch on the property. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. • Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets. • Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to the alley. Response – n/a. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. Page 35 of 124Page 35 of 124 138 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria • 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 – n/a. The alley will provide vehicular access to the property. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. Response – The historic hierarchy of spaces is unchanged in the proposal. Simple walkways and fencing distinguish between public, semi-public, and 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 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 – The simple existing stone walkway to the entrance of the pan abode is maintained in the proposal. In contrast to the perpendicular walkway to the pan abode, a walkway is proposed along the east side yard to access the new detached building. The walkway protects tree roots and has a slight jog at Hopkins Avenue to offer a different experience to the pan abode’s entrance. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. Response – The existing open space in front and at the sides of the pan abode is maintained. Meaningful open space is provided between the two buildings, and on the roof of the new residence. 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 Page 36 of 124Page 36 of 124 139 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria 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 preliminary storm water plan is provided in the application. A more detailed plan will be provided for review at Final Design Review. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape. • Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred. Response – Built in features are not proposed in front of the pan abode. 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 – The large spruce trees on either side of the pan abode are preserved. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is over textured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. Page 37 of 124Page 37 of 124 140 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria • 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 – The preliminary landscape plan honors the existing simple landscape at the front of the pan abode and maintains open side yards for porosity. A walkway is proposed from Hopkins Avenue to access the new residence. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. Response – New plantings will not block the historic structure. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. • Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. • Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-by-case basis. • Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. • Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. • Landscape uplighting is not allowed. Response – Landscape lighting is not proposed at this time. 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 – n/a. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. Response – n/a. Page 38 of 124Page 38 of 124 141 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. • Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the character of a property. Response – A fence is not proposed in the front yard. 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 – A new 6’ tall wood fence is proposed around the new building to define outdoor space for each dwelling. A new 6’ tall fence is proposed in the west side yard of the pan abode to define outdoor space for the cabin. The fence design pulls details from the pan abode’s overlapping corners. 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 – There are two fence designs proposed – one is a horizontal privacy fence to create a private outdoor space behind the pan abode, and the second is a more transparent fence that references the overlapping ends of the pan abode. Fence details and design will be finalized at Final HPC review. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. • A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B. Page 39 of 124Page 39 of 124 142 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria Response – The privacy fence is only around the southwest corner of the pan abode. The entire north and east elevations of the pan abode are visible to the public. The fence design and location will be further studied for the final HP application. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls • Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size and finish. • Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed. • Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate. Response – n/a. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. • All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure. Response – n/a. 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Response – Regrading will be limited and will comply with Parks requirements for tree protection. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. • An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape should be done before the beginning of any project. • The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved. Response – n/a. 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. • Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape. • Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures. • Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site. • All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work. • 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 – n/a. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. • Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation. Page 40 of 124Page 40 of 124 143 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria • Minimize the visual impact of new parking. • Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically. Response – n/a. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. • Protect established vegetation during any construction. • If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species. • New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species. • Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site. • Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements. Response – n/a. 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. Page 41 of 124Page 41 of 124 144 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. • Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. • Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. • Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. • Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. Response – The south elevation 1970s addition will be removed and restored to match the 1965s photograph. Areas of the pan abode are deteriorated from normal wear and tear. Existing material will be restored and replaced if necessary (potentially using the demolished 1970s material), with staff and monitor review in the field. Figures 1 & 2: 1965 photograph of south elevation (top) compared to current condition (bottom). Page 42 of 124Page 42 of 124 145 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria 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. • 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. Page 43 of 124Page 43 of 124 146 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria • 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 – Historic windows will be repaired as needed. Windows on the south elevation will be restored to match the 1965 photograph (see Figure 1 above). Doors 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. • Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. • Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. • If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. • Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. • Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. • A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. • A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered. • Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties. • Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. Page 44 of 124Page 44 of 124 147 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria • 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 – The existing pan abode doors are proposed to remain and to be repaired as needed. Porch 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. • Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and spacing of balusters. • Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. • Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. • Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. • Match original materials. • When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. Page 45 of 124Page 45 of 124 148 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria 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 original front porch/entry is proposed to remain and be repaired as needed. Architectural Details 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. • Repair only those features that are deteriorated. • Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. • On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. • Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. • Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. • If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. • The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. • When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. Page 46 of 124Page 46 of 124 149 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria • 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 are proposed to be repaired and/or replaced using the 1970s addition as needed with staff and monitor approval in the field. Roof 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be appropriate on an addition. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. • Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures. • Locate vents on non-street facing facades. • Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. • Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists. 7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. • A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary, character defining façade. • A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. • The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. • While dormers improve the livability of upper floor spaces where low plate heights exist, they also complicate the roof and may not be appropriate on very simple structures. Page 47 of 124Page 47 of 124 150 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria • 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. Response – The pan abode roof will be replaced with wood shingle to match existing. New Detached Home 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. Response - The new building is oriented parallel to the lot lines to maintain the traditional grid and to relate to the pan abode. Page 48 of 124Page 48 of 124 151 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. Response – A front porch is proposed to define the entry into the new building. A walkway is proposed from Hopkins that reinforces the entrance and the separation between the new building and the pan abode. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. Response – The new building is divided into smaller modules to relate to the size and style of the pan abode. The proportions of the new building reflect the shallow pitch and the picture windows found in the pan abode. A skinny gable roof form relates to the adjacent landmark property to the east, and breaks up the mass into appropriate modules. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. Response – The primary plane of the new building is similarly scaled to the historic building in the breakdown of massing. The new building is taller than the one story historic structure; however, the front porch is lower in height. The large protected spruce trees that flank the pan abode shield the full view of the new residence, and significant distance between the two buildings separates the massing. 11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new structure(s). Figure 2: Streetscape elevations showing adjacent properties and context. Page 49 of 124Page 49 of 124 152 Exhibit D.1 Conceptual HP Review Criteria • This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot split. Response – While this is not a lot split project, the majority of the floor area is allocated to the detached new building at the rear of the property. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. Response – The new structure is consistent with form and materials, and diverts from the pan abode in the fenestration category. The primary form reflects the pan abode’s proportions, roof pitch and fenestration style. The secondary form of the new building is a steeper gable roof to break up massing. Horizontal wood siding is proposed on the second floors to reinforce the wood pan abode. The windows of the new building along the alley and first floor have a similar vocabulary to the pan abode, but are products of their own time. The windows most visible from the street directly reflect the size, style, and characteristics of the pan abode. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. Response -The new building reflects on the pan abode but is a clearly a product of its own time. The details are simple and subordinate to the pan abode -such as overlapping boards at the corners of the rain screen. A strong relationship is created between the two homes which highlights important characteristics of the pan abode. Window styles and shapes, roof shape and slope, and the simple material palette of the new home reflect the pan abode and reinforce the important features of this simple manufactured pan abode style. Page 50 of 124Page 50 of 124 153 Exhibit D.2 FAR Bonus Exhibit D.2 – 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 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 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 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. Response – 211 West Hopkins is eligible for 15sf of bonus floor area on top of the 3,600sf of floor area allowed by right on a 6,000sf lot with two detached dwellings. As part of the AspenModern negotiation the project is also asking for 120sf of additional bonus floor area for a total of 135sf of floor area. The pan abode is the key element of the property and is the primary entry into the site. A detached building is proposed behind the cabin to remove all development pressure from the cabin and to avoid any future Page 51 of 124 154 Exhibit D.2 FAR Bonus addition to the original footprint. There is no above grade square footage added to the cabin and a 1970s addition is removed from the cabin to restore the original footprint. A basement with two small lightwells is proposed beneath the pan abode. As part of the AspenModern negotiation for this important pan abode, we respectfully request a 135sf FAR bonus for this property. Table 1: Use and Square footage breakdown for bonus Allowed floor area by right Floor area bonus (375sf) Single family 3,240sf Maximum of 3,597sf Two detached 3,600sf Maximum of 3,615sf 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. Response – A non-egress well that contributes ~17 sf of floor area to the basement calculation is proposed in the detached residence that is recessed behind the front façade of the new residence. The lightwell is setback more than 50 feet from the street and is not visible from the street. There are no additions proposed to the pan abode. Page 52 of 124 155 Exhibit D.3 Setback Variation Exhibit D.3 - Setback Variances 26.415.110. Benefits. The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and maintaining their property. Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both economically vital and cherished by many. Only designated properties may be eligible for the following benefits. C. 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. Page 53 of 124Page 53 of 124 156 Exhibit D.3 Setback Variation Response – We respectfully request the following variations: Required Proposed Rear yard 10’ living space 5’ living space East Side yard 5’ 3’5 ¾” for lightwell Protection of the two large spruce trees at the front of the property result in a larger than required front setback for the cabin. Maintaining at least 10 feet between detached buildings to have ample separation between the cabin and the new residence pushes development toward the alley. The proposed variations allow the new development to be pushed away from the pan abode to the rear of the lot and below grade. Page 54 of 124Page 54 of 124 157 Exhibit D.4 Parking/Transportation Exhibit D.4 Transportation Transportation and Parking Management 26.515.060.C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards: 1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines. Response – n/a. 2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050. Response – The project is required to provide 2 onsite spaces for the residence. 3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that increment of the expansion. Response – There is currently no parking onsite for the pan abode, which will be maintained. The project triggers 2 onsite spaces which are provided in the garage. 4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking. Response – n/a. Page 55 of 124Page 55 of 124 158 Exhibit D.5 Relocation 211 West Hopkins Ave. Exhibit D.5 Relocation 26.415.090. Relocation of designated historic properties. The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Response – The historic landmark is proposed to be stabilized and temporarily lifted or potentially moved to dig a basement and to replace the foundation. It will be placed back in its original location after the basement is completed. The structure is capable of being picked up, and the new foundation will provide structural stability ensuring the future of the landmark. 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. Page 56 of 124Page 56 of 124 159 Exhibit D.5 Relocation 211 West Hopkins Ave. Response –In order to keep construction impacts minimized, protect the large trees and limit disturbance on Hopkins Avenue, we are exploring two options – 1) shift the pan abode to the south temporarily; or 2) temporarily lift the pan abode in its current location. We have met with Parks onsite to discuss tree protection and foundation location in relationship to tree roots. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. • Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. • In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. • If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. Response – Only a temporary relocation is proposed to excavate a full basement. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. • A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. • Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. Response – The structure will be in its original location. 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. Page 57 of 124Page 57 of 124 160 Exhibit D.5 Relocation 211 West Hopkins Ave. Response – The structure will maintain the same relationship to grade as existing. Grade will be documented prior to relocation to ensure an accurate final grade. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. Response – The new foundation will match the existing concrete foundation. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. Response – Lightwells are minimized to the greatest extend possible while still providing natural light to below grade bedrooms. The lightwells are not located in a setback, and are the minimum size per Building Code. 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. • The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. • During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. Page 58 of 124Page 58 of 124 161 Exhibit D.5 Relocation 211 West Hopkins Ave. Response – A letter from a housemover will be provided prior to the HPC hearing. 9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged. • Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative. Response – n/a. Page 59 of 124Page 59 of 124 162 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com DATE: August 31, 2020 PROPERTY: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, sara@bendonadams.com REQUEST: Historic Designation, Major Development DESCRIPTION: 211 W. Hopkins is a 6,000 square foot lot zoned R-6. It is developed with a Pan Abode home built in 1956 which makes the property eligible for voluntary historic designation through the City’s AspenModern program. This designation process allows for the negotiation of site-specific benefits to be awarded by City Council in response to the owner’s commitment to historic preservation. It is staff’s understanding the applicant’s approach will be to preserve the Pan Abode, with the possible removal of a non-original addition, and to construct a detached second dwelling unit on the site. The second unit is an option only available to landmarks. Variations and waivers may be requested related to setbacks, parking, affordable housing and other requirements. There are numerous trees on the property which need to be preserved or issued tree removal permits through the Parks Department. The first review step will be a hearing with HPC, who will provide a recommendation to City Council on the appropriateness of landmark designation and the benefits package. At this hearing, HPC will also conduct Conceptual review of the redevelopment plan. 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. Following approval, staff will provide Council with Notice of Call-Up of the HPC design determinations and will provide HPC’s recommendation on designation and benefits. Council will respond to the Call-Up Notice and will make the final determination on the designation and benefits. The Municipal Code provides that the Council review is to be accomplished within 90 days of application submission, unless the City and applicant agree to a longer timeframe. The applicant may withdraw from the process at any time until a designation ordinance is passed. Following Council, HPC will conduct Final Design review to consider landscape, lighting and materials. This review is not required to happen within the 90 day negotiation timeframe. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Historic Preservation Land Use Application Land Use Code Land Use Code Section(s) Page 60 of 124Page 60 of 124 163 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards (new unit only) 26.415.025.C Identification of Historic Properties 26.415.030 Designation of historic properties 26.415.070.D Historic Preservation – Major Development 26.415.090 Relocation 26.415.110 Benefits 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations HPC for recommendations on designation and benefits, and decisions on Major Development and Relocation review Council for decisions on designation and benefits Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC and Council Planning Fees: Planning Staff hours related to review of Historic designation are exempt from land use fees. 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. A $1,950 deposit for 6 billable hours of staff time will be due at Conceptual and Final submittal. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) To apply, email the following information in a single pdf to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com: Completed Land Use Application. An 8 1/2” x 11” vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 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. A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation and the high-water line and 100 year flood plain (flood hazard area) showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. HOA Compliance form. Page 61 of 124Page 61 of 124 164 List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing. A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. A map indicating the boundaries of the historic designation. Historic property description, including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. Written description of historic preservation benefits which the property owner request be awarded at the time of designation, and relationship to Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent of the historic preservation program. 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. 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. Page 62 of 124Page 62 of 124 165 Page 63 of 124Page 63 of 124166 City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ Applicant: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_______________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:________________________________________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 211 West Hopkins Avenue - AspenModern 211 West Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO 81611 2735-124-63-003 Matt Joblon and Vaughan Capital Partners LP 205 Detroit St. Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206 508-344-2557 matt@bmcinv.com BendonAdams and Rowland + Broughton 300 S. Spring Street, #202, Aspen, CO, 81611 and 500 West Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 925-2855 and 544-9006 sara@bendonadams.com + john@rowlandbroughton.com Page 64 of 124Page 64 of 124 167 City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Proposed % of demolition: __________ DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 65 of 124 168 Page 66 of 124Page 66 of 124169 Page 67 of 124Page 67 of 124170 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM September 10, 2020 Phillip Supino, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 211 West Hopkins Avenue; Aspen, CO. Mr. Supino: Please accept this letter authorizing Matt Joblon and BendonAdams to represent our ownership interests in 211 West Hopkins and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to contact me. Property – 211 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description – Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen Parcel ID – 2735-124-63-003 Owner – Vaughan Capital Partners LP Kind Regards, VAUGHAN CAPITAL PTNRS LP PO BOX 390 HEBRON IL 60034 Charles S. Vaughan 09/10/2020 Nicole Rowean 09/11/2020 Howard A. Vaughan 09/16/2020 Page 68 of 124Page 68 of 124 171 Land Title Guarantee Company Customer Distribution PREVENT FRAUD - Please remember to call a member of our closing team when initiating a wire transfer or providing wiring instructions. Order Number:Q62011752 Date: 09/08/2020 Property Address:211 W HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER'S ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS For Closing Assistance Closing Processor For Title Assistance Melissa J. Jones 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 925-1678 (Work) (303) 393-4941 (Work Fax) mejones@ltgc.com Contact License: CO450818 Company License: CO44565 Marc Obadia 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 925-1678 (Work) (800) 318-8202 (Work Fax) mobadia@ltgc.com Company License: CO44565 Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title Team 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 927-0405 (Work) (970) 925-0610 (Work Fax) valleyresponse@ltgc.com Buyer/Borrower MATT JOBLON Delivered via: Electronic Mail Seller/Buyer Agent CHRISTIE`S INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTATE ASPEN SNOWMASS LLC Attention: NICK LINCOLN 510 E HYMAN AVE #21 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 544-5800 (Work) (970) 544-8185 (Work Fax) nick@christiesaspenre.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail Seller/Owner VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP Attention: Charles S. Vaughan Delivered via: Electronic Mail Buyer/Borrower Erin Fetter Attention: ERIN FETTER 510 E HYMAN AVE #21 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 544-5800 (Work) (970) 544-8185 (Work Fax) erin@christiesaspenre.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail Page 69 of 124Page 69 of 124 172 Land Title Guarantee Company Estimate of Title Fees Order Number:Q62011752 Date: 09/08/2020 Property Address:211 W HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 Parties:MATT JOBLON VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Visit Land Title's Website at www.ltgc.com for directions to any of our offices. Estimate of Title insurance Fees "ALTA" Owner's Policy 06-17-06 $10,402.00 Deletion of Standard Exception(s)$75.00 Tax Certificate $26.00 Total $10,503.00 If Land Title Guarantee Company will be closing this transaction, the fees listed above will be collected at closing. Thank you for your order! Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These documents, such as covenants conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and use of the property. You may wish to engage legal assistance in order to fully understand and be aware of the implications of the effect of these documents on your property. Chain of Title Documents: Pitkin county recorded 07/02/1965 under reception no. 121094 at book 213 page 528 Pitkin county recorded 01/16/1997 under reception no. 400963 Pitkin county recorded 07/25/2008 under reception no. 551440 Pitkin county recorded 01/05/2010 under reception no. 565887 Page 70 of 124Page 70 of 124 173 Copyright 2006-2020 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form 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. Property Address: 211 W HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: 08/21/2020 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured: "ALTA" Owner's Policy 06-17-06 Proposed Insured: MATT JOBLON $6,000,000.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A FEE SIMPLE 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 5. The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 53, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule A Order Number:Q62011752 Page 71 of 124Page 71 of 124 174 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part I (Requirements) Order Number: Q62011752 All of the following Requirements must be met: This 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. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. 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. 1. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. 2. FURNISH A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO, FOR THE PARTNERSHIP NAMED BELOW, FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PARTNERSHIP NAME: VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 3. A FULL COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO FOR VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP MUST BE FURNISHED TO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY UPON REVIEW OF THIS DOCUMENT. 4. DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SETTING FORTH THE NAME OF VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AS A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST STATE UNDER WHICH LAWS THE ENTITY WAS CREATED, THE MAILING ADDRESS OF THE ENTITY, AND THE NAME AND POSITION OF THE PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITY AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-30-172, CRS. NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER. 5. SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FROM VAUGHAN CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO MATT JOBLON CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. Page 72 of 124Page 72 of 124 175 REQUIREMENTS TO DELETE THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS IN THE OWNER'S POLICY TO BE ISSUED A. UPON RECEIPT BY THE COMPANY OF A SATISFACTORY FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT FROM THE SELLER AND PROPOSED INSURED, ITEMS 1-4 OF THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED. ANY ADVERSE MATTERS DISCLOSED BY THE FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT WILL BE ADDED AS EXCEPTIONS. B. IF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE CONDUCTS THE CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTIONS AND RECORDS THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, ITEM NO. 5 OF THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED. C. UPON RECEIPT OF PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL PRIOR YEARS' TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, ITEM NO. 6 OF THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS WILL BE AMENDED TO READ: TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2020 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part I (Requirements) Order Number: Q62011752 All of the following Requirements must be met: Page 73 of 124Page 73 of 124 176 This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction, or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 8. RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE DEED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED NOVEMBER 02, 1887 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 75, 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. 9. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, NO. 21, SERIES OF 2009 RECORDED DECEMBER 4, 2009 AS RECEPTION NO. 565020. 10. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, NO. 19, SERIES OF 2017 RECORDED AUGUST 9, 2017 AS RECEPTION NO. 640553. 11. CLAIMS OF RIGHT, TITLE AND/OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BETWEEN THE BOUNDARY LINE AND THE FENCE AS DEPICTED ON THE SURVEY PREPARED BY ROCKY MOUNTAIN SURVEYING, JOB NO. 17586 WHETHER SAID CLAIMS ARISE BY ABANDONMENT, ADVERSE POSSESSION OR OTHER MEANS. SAID DOCUMENT STORE AS OUR ESI 36115478 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: Q62011752 Page 74 of 124Page 74 of 124 177 LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that 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 may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real property). (B) The 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. (C) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. (A) 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. (B) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's liens. (C) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of 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. (E) Page 75 of 124Page 75 of 124 178 Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, in Schedule B-2. 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 a closing protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and (A) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. (B) Page 76 of 124Page 76 of 124 179 JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF SUMMIT COUNTY LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information"). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based transaction management system; your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others; a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non-affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Page 77 of 124Page 77 of 124 180 Commitment For Title Insurance Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Corporation 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, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Minnesota 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 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS 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, 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: 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 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. “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a) “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. (b) “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c) “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. (d) “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e) “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. (f) “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. (g) “Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h) the Notice;(a) the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b) the Commitment Conditions;(c) Schedule A;(d) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g) 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: (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) 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. (d) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e) Page 78 of 124Page 78 of 124 181 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. Issued by: Land Title Guarantee Company 3033 East First Avenue Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80206 303-321-1880 Senior Vice President This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Land Title Insurance Corporation. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a 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. 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. (f) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b) 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. (c) 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. (d) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e) 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.(f) Page 79 of 124Page 79 of 124 182 323 311 311 323 323 311 323 323 331 311 323 311 311333 333 333 333 333 311 311 311 311 311 311 301 301 301 301 301 311 233 311 311 233 311 233 200 311 311 311 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 218 300 322 312322 326 315 324 324 325 301 315 334 312 333 303 222 204204 204211 222 233 233 233 233 233 124 233 233 222 233 233 222 205 233 233 222 233 233 233 233 124 127 127 211 116 232 204 232 221 210 214 124 232 300 124 232 216 134 232 212 124 237 232 234 200 308 232 232 211 127 232 232 124 205 232 135 120 232 235 R/MF R-15 R-6 W HY M A N A V E S 1ST STS 2ND STS 2ND STS 1ST STN 2ND STS 1ST STS 2ND STS 2ND STS 3RD ST211 West Hopkins Vicinity Map Historic Sites Historic Districts Parcels Zoning AH Affordable Housing R/MF Residential/Multi-Family R-6 Medium Density Residential R-15 Moderate Density Residential MU Mixed Use P Park PUB Public Roads Zoomed In 9/3/2020, 5:40:18 AM 0 0.01 0.030.01 mi 0 0.03 0.060.01 km 1:1,479 Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS Pitkin County | Page 80 of 124Page 80 of 124 183 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: 273512463003 on 09/03/2020 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Page 81 of 124Page 81 of 124 184 HITE ANGELA R FAMILY TRUST WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PO BOX 155 MULLINS MARGARET ANN ASPEN, CO 81611 216 W HYMAN AVE DWR AI LLC CHICAGO, IL 60607 1101 W MONROE ST #200 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST TRAGGIS ELIZABETH G NEW LONDON, CT 06320 PO BOX 284 ASPEN A CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 308 W HOPKINS AVE BIELINSKI JUDITH R TRUST GLENVIEW, IL 60026 2121 TROWBRIDGE CT CHISHOLM HEATHER M ASPEN, CO 81611 205 W MAIN ST EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC OMAHA, NE 68022 18081 BURT ST SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE BACON SHIRLEY LIV TRUST MIAMI, FL 33133 3 GROVE ISLE DR # 1608 SWISS CHALET/KITZBUHEL PARTNERSHIP ASPEN, CO 81611 333 E DURANT AVE WEST HOPKINS LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 400 S HOPE ST, STE 1000 108 HYMAN LLC MIAMI, FL 33133 3500 N BAY HOMES DR 211 WEST MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 323 W MAIN ST INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST FRANK VALERIE EXEMPT TRUST U/W PORTLAND, OR 972013544 1500 SW 11TH AVE #1504 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST ALBANO DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 121 W HYMAN AVE WINKELMAN WENDY L ASPEN, CO 81611 108 W HYMAN AVE #8 SEIDER FAMILY TRUST MALIBU, CA 90265 26642 LATIGO SHORE DR INVENTRIX LLC CHICAGO, IL 60606-5096 227 MONROE WARSHAW MARTIN R TRUST 1 ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2585 1058 SCOTT PL CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M & CANDICE L ASPEN, CO 81611 1240 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR GREENASPEN LLC KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 30 ISLAND DR BRENNAN SHAWN TIFFANY MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 408 TENNESSEE GLEN WY 235 W HOPKINS B LLC BOCA RATON, FL 33432 250 S OCEAN BLVD # 14A SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST ANLUJO CAPITAL INC ROAD TOWN TORTOLA BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS VG 1110, WOODBOURNE HALL POB 3162 Page 82 of 124Page 82 of 124 185 PECHTER JEFFREY S DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 280 NE 2ND AVE GROVER FREDRICK W & PAULA J ST PETERSBURG, FL 337043717 725 BRIGHTWATERG BLVD NE SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC OMAHA, NE 68022 18081 BURT ST CONNOR WILLIAM E II TRUST RENO, NV 89502 990 S ROCK BLVD #F JACOBSON SUZAN & JAY ASPEN, CO 81611 108 W HYMAN #7 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE DHM FAMILY TRST ATLANTA, GA 30309 2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12 STRAUCH ELAINE B GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 4327 S YOSEMITE CT POOL ALEXANDRA M DENVER, CO 80206 1650 FILLMORE ST #1304 DIMITRIUS RALLI TRUST PASADENA, CA 91103 535 FREMONT DR FRANK EDMUND H EXEMPT TRUST PORTLAND, OR 972013544 1500 SW 11TH AVE #1504 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1248 BIELINSKI ROBERT A JR HOUSTON, TX 77018 523 WEST 34TH ST SHADOW MOUNTAIN DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W HOPKINS AVE TIEMANN CAROLYN ASPEN, CO 81611 124 W HYMAN AVE #2D NAUGHTON ANN N COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 36 BROADMOOR AVE WILLIAMS ROBERT A REV TRUST ENCINO, CA 91436 16255 VENTURA BLVD #800 BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 HAYMAX LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 101 W MAIN ST BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 COLES DAVID SEP A TRUST CULVER CITY, CA 90232 4223 DUQUESNE AVE SAND KATHERINE M ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 51 212 WEST HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 212 W HOPKINS AVE JLR QPRT TRUST CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 355 MARQUESA DR Page 83 of 124Page 83 of 124 186 MCBEE LISA A SANTA ANA, CA 92705 2306 KEEGAN WY STEVENSON KAREN H ASPEN, CO 81611 205 W MAIN ST HARPER MARILYN HILL & HILL ASPEN, CO 81612-7952 PO BOX 7952 SONNENBERG FAMILY TRUST BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 350 S BEVERLY DR # 300 135 HOPKINS LTD AUSTIN, TX 78738 12400 HWY 71 W #350-371 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE YONCE SUSAN GREENWICH, CT 068313721 81 ROUND HILL RD SMITH MARKELL LEIGHTON CHICAGO, IL 60657 645A W SURF ST # A2 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST COLES PETER SEP A TRUST MASSACHUSETTS, MA 02138 20 PRESCOTT ST #41 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST GILDENHORN MICHAEL S BETHESDA, MD 20816 5008 BALTON RD COTTONWOODS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 124 W HYMAN AVE HYMAN STREET CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 719 W HYMAN AVE HITE HENRY HARRIS REVOC TRUST WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PO BOX 155 COHEN ALIX O & CRAIG S ROCKVILLE CENTRE, NY 11570 5 BUCKINGHAM RD MAYER KEVIN ASPEN, CO 81611 222 W HOPKINS AVE #2 BERGHOFF MICHAEL R TRUST INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236 9112 WALNUT GROVE DR INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST SHADOW MOUNTAIN LODGE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W HOPKINS AVE CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST HOLTZMAN L BART & PATRICIA G SAINT LOUIS, MO 63124 9741 LITZSINGER RD HAYMAX LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE SHOAF THOMAS L DALLAS, TX 752053021 4224 BEVERLY DR ROSS PAULINE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9969 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST WEIGAND FAMILY LLC WICHITA, KS 67202 150 N MARKET Page 84 of 124Page 84 of 124 187 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE #202 MARTIN SCOTT M ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 51 GOLDSMITH HENRY JOSH PIKESVILLE, MD 21208 7902 BRYNMOR CT #504 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 12384 ASPEN TOWNHOMES 3 LLC BASALT, CO 81621 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD THOMAS GAIL HICKS REV TRUST BEDFORD, VA 24523-1508 1242 HAMPTON RDG INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST TARPLEY GERALD W JR & SUSAN ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 2255 PLACID WY BERGHOFF KRISTIN TRUST INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236 9112 WALNUT GROVE DR BRENNAN SAMANTHA SCOTT MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 408 TENNESSEE GLEN WY FCB LLC SNOWMASS, CO 816549102 525 SHIELD O RD SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE MORGAN DONALD ATLANTA, GA 30309 2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12 BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 WEIGAND FAMILY LLC WICHITA, KS 67202 150 N MARKET KOCH TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W HYMAN AVE KOENIG RAYMOND J NEW LONDON, CT 06320 PO BOX 284 SALTER CLAUDE C ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 5000 SHIELD JULIET E ASPEN, CO 81611 221 N STARWOOD DR BOWMAN AL MOUNT DORA, FL 32757 700 HELEN ST SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945 409 OCEAN AVE ZITELLI MARK C ASPEN, CO 81611 414 N 1ST ST MARTIN SCOTT M ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 51 POOL JUDY F M DENVER, CO 802113829 3038 ZUNI ST WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 234 W HOPKINS AVE DEAN FAMILY LTD PTSHP LLP BOULDER, CO 80301 590 DELLWOOD AVE Page 85 of 124Page 85 of 124 188 LAMPTON PATRICIA M TRUST ASHEVILLE, NC 28814 PO BOX 18013 BOURKEY888 LLC SINGAPORE 436853, 16 THIAM SIEW AVE JES 2002 GRANTOR TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 221 N STARWOOD DR GARET CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E MAIN ST #2 HALCYON ENTERPRISES LLC PRINCETON, NJ 08540 78 LOVERS LN SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST SAND KATHERINE M ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 51 ASPEN UPTOWN LLC SNYDER, OK 73566 PO BOX 348 WINER CAROL G BETHESDA , MD 20817 6740 SELKIRK DR MELTON DAVID ASPEN, CO 81611 135 W MAIN ST Page 86 of 124Page 86 of 124 189 Neighborhood Uses 1 - 234 West Hopkins, 3 units 2 - 222 West Hopkins, 6 units, AspenVictorian 3 - 212 West Hopkins, single family, AspenVictorian 4 - 200 West Hopkins, single family, AspenVictorian 5 - 205 West Hopkins, single family, AspenVictorian 6 - 211 West Hopkins, proposed 2 detached units, potential AspenModern 7 - 221 West Hopkins, single family 8 - 235 and 237 West Hopkins, duplex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 Page 87 of 124Page 87 of 124 190 Page 88 of 124Page 88 of 124 191 Residential Design Standards Administrative Review Section 26.410.020.B. of the Land Use Code requires an Administrative Review for compliance with the Residential Design Standards (RDS) for all residential projects, unless otherwise exempted pursuant to Section 26.410.010.C. Exempt projects include: • An addition or remodel to an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building • A remodel of a structure where the alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by any of the RDS • A residential unit within a mixed-use building • A designated historic resource listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. New buildings on a historic landmark lot are not exempt. All applicable residential projects shall submit for RDS Administrative Review or Alternative Compliance prior to building permit submittal. An applicant may choose to apply directly for a variation from the Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.410.020.C. A pre-application summary will be required for a variation request. Review Process: The Community Development Department staff shall review an application for applicability and compliance with Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. If the application complies with all applicable standards as written, a signed Checklist and stamped plan set shall be provided to the applicant to be included with building permit submission. If the application does not comply with one or more applicable standards, an unsigned Checklist and redlined plan set shall be emailed to the applicant including comments from staff on which standard(s) the application does not comply with and a description of why the standard(s) is not compliant. The applicant shall be provided the opportunity to revise and resubmit the design in response to the comments. Staff will keep an application open for 30 days from the date an unsigned Checklist is emailed to the applicant. If after such time no revisions are submitted, the application will be removed from the review system. Pursuant to 26.410.020.C, projects that do not meet the criteria for Administrative Review or Alternative Compliance (as determined by staff) may be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, or HPC if appropriate, at the applicant’s request. A pre-application summary will be required for a variation request. Page 1 of 2Page 89 of 124Page 89 of 124 192 Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions (Flexible) Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached. Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 2Page 90 of 124Page 90 of 124 193 Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes C.4.Garage Door Design (Flexible) D.1.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) D.2.Door Height (Flexible) D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) E.1.Principle Window (Flexible) E.2.Window Placement (Flexible) E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Page 2 of 2Page 91 of 124Page 91 of 124 194 DNUPDNDNUPUPUPDNPROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONSWALL LABELEXPOSED WALL AREA (SF)TOTAL WALL AREA (SF)PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONSMAIN LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF)GARAGE GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF)GARAGE FLOOR AREA EXEMPTION (SF)MAIN LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF)1,2515002501,376500 - 250 - 125 = 125TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONSBASEMENT FLOOR AREA (SF)UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SF)EXISTING CABIN AREA (SF)4937832TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (SF)DECK/PORCH AREA CALCULATIONSTOTAL DECK/PORCH AREA (SF)MAIN LEVEL ENTRY PATIO (SF)655258< 540 SF ALLOWABLE> 3,615 SF ALLOWABLEPROPOSED AREA CONSTRAINTSLOT AREA (SF)MAX ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA (SF)MAX ALLOWABLE DECK AREA (SF)6,0003,61554015% * 3,600ROOF DECK AREA (SF) N/AFLOOR AREA CALCULATIONSLEVEL 2 DECK - COVERED TERRACE (SF)3971243348 17 - EXEMPT HPC BENEFIT443 0443 0348 44OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SF) 1,582EXPOSED WALL AREA (SF)44% OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL) 2.78%NEW HOUSE BASEMENT TOTALS (WALLS 1 - 4)PROPOSED NEW HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONSBASEMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF)BASEMENT COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF)1,767491,767 * 2.78%PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONSUPPER LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF)UPPER LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF)1,4031,403125GARAGE COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF)ROOF DECK (SF)-3,600 + 15 HPC BONUSMAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,376PER ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE 26.575.020.d.7, 26.575.020-21,403ROOF FLOOR AREA (SF)UPPER LEVEL DECK AREA (SF) N/AALLOWANCE REQUESTEDREQUEST: EXCESS OF 115 SF DECK ALLOWABLE AND 120 SF FAR 3,8505212 062072080OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SF) 862EXPOSED WALL AREA (SF)40% OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL) 4.40%CABIN BASEMENT TOTALS (WALLS 5 - 8)PROPOSED CABIN BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONSBASEMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF)BASEMENT COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF)86238862 * 4.40%245212245BASEMENT CABIN AREA (SF) 383,7351251 SFMAIN LEVEL AREAGARAGE AREA500 GSF125 CSF832 SFCABINOPEN TO ABOVE AND BELOWEXTERIOR AREAFENCEEXTERIOR AREAFENCEFRONT PORCH WITHIN 30" OF FINISHED GRADE IS EXEMPT FROM FAR CALCULATIONS -IT IS ALSO OPEN ON TWO SIDESTWILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSURE6' - 4 1/2"FIREPLACEOPEN TO ABOVE258 SFCOVERED TERRACE1403 SFUPPER LEVEL AREAFLAT ENTRYROOF BELOWOPEN TO BEYONDOPEN TO BEYONDLOWER LEVEL AREA1767 GSF49 CSFNON-EGRESS LIGHTWELLEGRESS LIGHTWELLLOWER LEVEL AREA862 GSF38 CSF2143EGRESS LIGHTWELLEGRESS LIGHTWELL6875397 SFROOF DECKROOF LEVEL INT.AREA37 SFOPEN TO BELOWOPEN TO BELOWNON-USABLE ATTIC SPACE1146 SFEXISTING CABINNON-HISTORICAL ADDITIONrowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.90061830 blake st.denver, co 80202303.308.1373Consultants:Issuances and Revisions:COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.SCALE:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\acook\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_adam.cookCCP4E.rvt10/20/2020 1:29:00 PMAs indicatedA0.622037.00PAN ABODE211 W. HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611FLOOR AREACALCULATIONSSCALE:PLAN NORTHTRUE NORTHA0.61/8" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED LEVEL 1 FARSCALE:PLAN NORTHTRUE NORTHA0.61/8" = 1'-0"3PROPOSED LEVEL 2 FARSCALE:PLAN NORTHTRUE NORTHA0.61/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED BASEMENT FARSCALE:PLAN NORTHTRUE NORTHA0.61/8" = 1'-0"4PROPOSED ROOF FARSCALE:PLAN NORTHTRUE NORTHA0.61/8" = 1'-0"5EXISTING LEVEL 1 FAR09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 195 UPWDUPA4.12A4.31AA1144A4.21A4.11A4.41MEDIALAUNDRYGUEST SUITE #3BATHMECHANICALMULTIWET BAR BELOW STAIRNON-EGRESSLIGHTWELLBUNKS ABOVEBATHTV3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELLBBWDCCDD2338' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0"48' - 0"GUEST SUITE #4QTTPROPERTY LINEALLEYSETBACKOPEN TO ABOVECHIMNEY FOUNDATIONHOPKINS AVENUESETBACKPROPERTY LINEA4.327' - 5 1/2"3' - 5 3/4"80' - 1 3/8"3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELLPROPERTY LINESETBACKHIDDEN DOORMECHANICAL / LAUNDRYBEDROOMBEDROOMBATHROOMBATHROOMFLEX ROOM3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELLKQrowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.90061830 blake st.denver, co 80202303.308.1373Consultants:Issuances and Revisions:COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.SCALE:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\acook\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_adam.cookCCP4E.rvt10/15/2020 5:12:59 PM1/4" = 1'-0"A2.022037.00PAN ABODE211 W. HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611PROPOSEDBASEMENT FLOORPLANSCALE:PLAN NORTHTRUE NORTHA2.01/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2Page 93 of 124Page 93 of 124196 DNUPDNA4.12A4.31AA114448' - 0"A4.11A4.41MUDPOWDERCOVERED STONE ENTRYOPEN TO ABOVE AND BELOWWALKFENCE AND GATEGARAGEEXISTING CABINWITH ADDITION REMOVEDGRAVEL ALLEYSETBACKPROPERTY LINENON-EGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOWEGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOWFIREPLACESTONE WALKHOPKINS AVENUEEGRESS LIGHTWELLBELOWGUEST SUITE #2(GEMMA)GUEST BATHBBGUEST BATHGUEST SUITE #1(LOLA)QQCOAT CLOSETBOOK SHELVESCLERESTORY WINDOWOFFICEKITCHENBATHROOMBEDROOMSTAIRLIVING ROOMCABIN GARDEN TERRACECCDD23DRESSERDRESSER13' - 5 3/4"A4.3238' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0"80' - 1 3/8"FENCE AND GATEFENCE AND GATEFENCE AND GATEFENCETTRRWILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSUREREFCLOSETPROPERTY LINESETBACKPROPERTY LINESETBACKCOVERED ENTRYCONCRETE APRON1 1/2"4 1/2"10 1/2"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"OPEN TO BELOWEGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOWEGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOWrowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.90061830 blake st.denver, co 80202303.308.1373Consultants:Issuances and Revisions:COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.SCALE:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\acook\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_adam.cookCCP4E.rvt10/15/2020 5:13:02 PM1/4" = 1'-0"A2.122037.00PAN ABODE211 W. HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611PROPOSED LEVEL 1FLOOR PLANSCALE:PLAN NORTHTRUE NORTHA2.11/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2Page 94 of 124Page 94 of 124197 DNUPA4.12A4.31AA1144A4.21A4.11A4.41COVERED TERRACEMAIN BEDBALLAST FLAT ROOF ABOVE ENTRYEXISTING CABIN ROOF,ADDITION REMOVEDCHIMNEYPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEKTV / FPBBLIVING ROOMKITCHENOPEN TO BEYONDOPEN TO BEYONDTV / FPALLEYCCDD2348' - 0"REFBARBBQCOVERED ENTRYA4.32MAIN WICMAIN BATHBENCH38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0"80' - 1 3/8"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEHOPKINS AVENUEPANTRYWOOD PAN ABODE LOG SCREEN, ALTERNATING CORNERNEW WOOD SHAKE SHINGLESrowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.90061830 blake st.denver, co 80202303.308.1373Consultants:Issuances and Revisions:COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.SCALE:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\acook\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_adam.cookCCP4E.rvt10/15/2020 5:13:05 PM1/4" = 1'-0"A2.222037.00PAN ABODE211 W. HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611PROPOSED LEVEL 2FLOOR PLANSCALE:PLAN NORTHTRUE NORTHA2.21/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2Page 95 of 124Page 95 of 124198 DNA4.12A4.31AA1144A4.21A4.11A4.41CHIMNEYBARTOWELSOPEN TO BELOWOPEN TO BELOWBBEXISTING CABIN ROOFADDITION REMOVEDLIVING ROOM CHIMNEYMAIN BEDROOMCHIMNEYROOF DECKSPACCDD2348' - 0"FPBALLAST ROOF OVER ENTRYA4.3238' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0"80' - 1 3/8"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEALLEYHOPKINS AVENUE3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0"NEW WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0"8 3/8" / 1'-0"8 3/8" / 1'-0"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFBALLAST ROOFrowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.90061830 blake st.denver, co 80202303.308.1373Consultants:Issuances and Revisions:COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.SCALE:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\acook\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_adam.cookCCP4E.rvt10/15/2020 5:13:09 PM1/4" = 1'-0"A2.322037.00PAN ABODE211 W. HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611PROPOSED ROOFPLANSCALE:PLAN NORTHTRUE NORTHA2.31/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED ROOF PLAN09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2Page 96 of 124Page 96 of 124199 BASEMENT LEVEL89' -6"T.O. SLABLEVEL 1100' -0"T.O. PLYLEVEL 2110' -6"T.O. PLYROOF LEVEL120' -6"T.O. FINISH1410' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"20' - 6"COVERED FRONT ENTRYFENCE AND GATEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE23EXISTING CABIN99' -8 13/32"T.O. FINISHBUILDING HEIGHT8 3/8 / 12 PITCH24' - 6 5/8"81281225' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE31210' - 4 7/8"31' - 9 1/4"5' - 9 7/8"48' - 0"CABIN BASEMENT90' -8 13/32"T.O. FINISHBOARD FORM CONCRETERECLAIMED BARN WOOD SIDINGEXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND:LOG SCREENWOOD SHAKE SHINGLESSTANDING SEAM ROOFLEVEL 1100' -0"T.O. PLYLEVEL 2110' -6"T.O. PLYROOF LEVEL120' -6"T.O. FINISHEXISTING CABIN99' -8 13/32"T.O. FINISHPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEAST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLYWEST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLYrowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.90061830 blake st.denver, co 80202303.308.1373Consultants:Issuances and Revisions:COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.SCALE:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\acook\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_adam.cookCCP4E.rvt10/15/2020 5:13:13 PMAs indicatedA4.122037.00PAN ABODE211 W. HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATIONSSCALE:A4.11/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED - NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE:A4.11/8" = 1'-0"2NORTH ELEVATION - STREET09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2Page 97 of 124Page 97 of 124200 BASEMENT LEVEL89' -6"T.O. SLABLEVEL 1100' -0"T.O. PLYLEVEL 2110' -6"T.O. PLYROOF LEVEL120' -6"T.O. FINISHAALLEYBPROPERTY LINECDEXISTING CABIN99' -8 13/32"T.O. FINISHCRAWL SPACEBASEMENT± 12' - 2 1/2"10' - 0"PROPERTY LINE25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE10' - 0"10' - 6"20' - 6"38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0"80' - 1 3/8"312312EXISTING PAN ABODESIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE BUILDING HEIGHT8 3/8 / 12 PITCH24' - 6 5/8"CABIN BASEMENT90' -8 13/32"T.O. FINISHBOARD FORM CONCRETERECLAIMED BARN WOOD SIDINGEXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND:LOG SCREENWOOD SHAKE SHINGLESSTANDING SEAM ROOFrowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.90061830 blake st.denver, co 80202303.308.1373Consultants:Issuances and Revisions:COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.SCALE:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\acook\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_adam.cookCCP4E.rvt10/15/2020 5:13:18 PMAs indicatedA4.222037.00PAN ABODE211 W. HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATIONSSCALE:A4.21/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2Page 98 of 124Page 98 of 124201 BASEMENT LEVEL89' -6"T.O. SLABLEVEL 1100' -0"T.O. PLYLEVEL 2110' -6"T.O. PLYROOF LEVEL120' -6"T.O. FINISH14ALLEY10' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 6"20' - 6"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEBASEMENTFENCE AND GATEFENCE AND GATEGARAGE DOOR25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE18' - 0"312BUILDING HEIGHT8 3/8 / 12 PITCH24' - 6 5/8"48' - 0"TRANSFOMERWILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSURECABIN BASEMENT90' -8 13/32"T.O. FINISH23EXISTING CABIN99' -8 13/32"T.O. FINISHNEW WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTINGCRAWL SPACE31' - 9 1/4"± 11' - 7 7/8"BOARD FORM CONCRETERECLAIMED BARN WOOD SIDINGEXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND:LOG SCREENWOOD SHAKE SHINGLESSTANDING SEAM ROOFrowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.90061830 blake st.denver, co 80202303.308.1373Consultants:Issuances and Revisions:COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.SCALE:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\acook\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_adam.cookCCP4E.rvt10/15/2020 5:13:22 PMAs indicatedA4.322037.00PAN ABODE211 W. HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATIONSSCALE:A4.31/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE:A4.31/4" = 1'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING CABIN10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2Page 99 of 124Page 99 of 124202 BASEMENT LEVEL89' -6"T.O. SLABLEVEL 1100' -0"T.O. PLYLEVEL 2110' -6"T.O. PLYROOF LEVEL120' -6"T.O. FINISHAALLEYB10' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 0"20' - 6"PROPERTY LINECDEXISTING CABIN99' -8 13/32"T.O. FINISHCRAWL SPACEBASEMENT± 12' - 2 1/2"PROPERTY LINE25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0"80' - 1 3/8"SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE 312CABIN BASEMENT90' -8 13/32"T.O. FINISHBOARD FORM CONCRETERECLAIMED BARN WOOD SIDINGEXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND:LOG SCREENWOOD SHAKE SHINGLESSTANDING SEAM ROOFrowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.90061830 blake st.denver, co 80202303.308.1373Consultants:Issuances and Revisions:COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.SCALE:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT NO:File Path:Plot Date:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\acook\Documents\22037.00_PAN ABODE_adam.cookCCP4E.rvt10/15/2020 5:13:27 PMAs indicatedA4.422037.00PAN ABODE211 W. HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATIONSSCALE:A4.41/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2Page 100 of 124Page 100 of 124203 PROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING 5' SETBACKSIDE W A L K WEST H O P K I N S A V E N U E EXIS T I N G 1 0 ' S E T B A C K EXISTING 5' SETBACKEXIS T I N G 1 0 ' S E T B A C K ALLE Y B L O C K 5 3 PROPOSED 3' SETBACKPROP O S E D 5 ' S E T B A C K PROP O S E D 1 0 ' S E T B A C K 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 5 10 11 12 13 TREE REMOVAL SUMMARY EX. CONIFER TO BE REMOVED SYMBOL TYPE SIZE QTY. EX. DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED 4"-18" CAL. 6"-12" CAL. TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: NOTES: 1. TREES REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENCE AND/OR IN RESPONSE TO POOR HEALTH. 2. FOR PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, REFER TO PLANTING PLAN (LA 200). 3. REFER TO PLANTING PLAN (LA200) FOR MITIGATION. 4.EXISTING TREE(S) TYPE, LOCATION, SIZE AND CALIPER BY OTHERS; REFER TO SURVEY. 5. ALL EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED ARE REPRESENTED HERE, INCLUDING THOSE NOT MEETING THE 4"/6" CALIPER STANDARD (I.E. NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION). TREE MITIGATION SUMMARY TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE OF PROPOSED NATIVE TREES (REFER TO PLANTING PLAN): TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: 4 8 LEGEND TOTAL REMAINING: EX. DECIDUOUS TO REMAIN EX. CONIFER TO REMAIN VARIOUS VARIOUS 5 7 $20,122.75 NA $20,122.75 $20,122.75 LEGEND TREE PROTECTION FENCE EXISTING SETBACK LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY TREE PROTECTION ZONE PROPOSED SETBACK LINE L100 tree mitigation 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 0 4 8 scale northbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com211 W Hopkins l aspen, coloradopan abodedate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen TREE #SPECIES DIAMETER (IN.) 1 2 CONIFER 14 TREE TABLE MITIGATION VALUE ADJUSTED BY CONDITION 25% 3 4 CONIFER DECIDUOUS 8 12 25% 25% 5 6 CONIFER DECIDUOUS 12 12 50% 50% CONIFER 14 50% 7 CONIFER 9 25% 8 CONIFER 12 25% 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 CHAINLINK FENCING TO BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED AT TREE DRIP LINE EXISTING GRADE TO REMAIN NO DISTURBANCE WITHIN TREE DRIPLINE TREE DRIP LINETREE DRIP LINE9 10 12 75% 11 12 11 9 25% 75% 13 0% CONIFER CONIFER DECIDUOUS DECIDUOUS PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT PROPOSED HISTORIC RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT - REMOVAL OF NON-HISTORIC ADDITION EXISTING RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT MAXIMUM MITIGATION VALUE $6462 $2110 $5087 $4748 $5087 $6462 $2671 $4748 $4748 $3989 $2861 $0 $1617 $528 $1272 $2374 $2544 $3231 $668 $1187 $3561 $998 $2146 $0 ACTUAL MITIGATION VALUE 13*10 0%CONIFER $0 $0 *pending neighbor approval Page 101 of 124Page 101 of 124 204 QQPROP O S E D F F E +94.0 0 DECK 94.00 FFE + 9 4 . 5 0 FFE + 9 4 . 5 0 FFE + 9 4 . 0 0 WW94.00WW BS 94 . 0 0 TS 94 . 4 0 93.00 WW 93.00 D E C K 9 3 . 5 0 WW 94.00 WW 94.00 EXIST I N G F F E +93.7 0 93.5 0 93.5 0 93.50 93.35 93.30 93.40 93.30 93.10 93.70 LP 93.40 93.70 93.50 94.45 94.45 94.45 94.45 94.30 94.30 94.10 93.50 93.50 93.70 93.15 93.70 93.70 93.40 93.30 LP 93.15 93.20 93.50 93.50 94.50 94.50 94.50 94.50 94.40 94.40 94.00 WW 94.45 WW 94.00 93.75 94.20 DECK 94.00 94.45 LP 93.90 94.35 LP 94.15 94.00 94.00 93.25 93.25 LP 93.10 LP 93.40 TS 94 . 0 0 BS 93 . 5 0 WW 93.50 LEGEND GAS LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SPOT GRADE PROPOSED SETBACK LINE SANITARY SEWER LINE 85.36 FLOW ARROW WATER LINE L200 grading/drainage 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 0 4 8 scale northbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com211 W Hopkins l aspen, coloradopan abodedate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen Page 102 of 124Page 102 of 124 205 QQPROPERTY BOUNDARYSIDE W A L K WEST H O P K I N S A V E N U E ALLE Y B L O C K 5 3 PROPOSED 3' SETBACKPROP O S E D 5 ' S E T B A C K SETBACK LINE LEGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED 6' FENCE L300 site plan 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 0 4 8 scale northbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com211 W Hopkins l aspen, coloradopan abodedate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen HARDSCAPE HARDSCAPE WALKWAY MAINTENANCE BAND WALKWAY MAINTENANCE BAND PROPOSED 6' FENCE HARDSCAPE BEAR PROOF TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED GATE PROPOSED 6' FENCE DECK EXISTING TREES UTILITY LOCATIONS STORMWATER DRYWELL EXISTING HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE FOUNDATION DRY WELL SLOT DRAIN HARDSCAPE DRAIN PLANTING RE L400 RAISED PLANTER GATE PROPOSED 6' FENCE PROPOSED 6' FENCE PROPOSED 6' FENCE HARDSCAPE STEP TRANSFORMER Page 103 of 124Page 103 of 124 206 L800 details 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 0 4 8 scale northbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499 l f 970 429 9499www.bluegreenaspen.com211 W Hopkins l aspen, coloradopan abodedate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" FENCE TYPE 1 - TYP. L801 1 2X2 METAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO ARCH ENTRYHIDDEN FASTERNERS TYP.2X2 BOARDS, INTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY, TYP. 5'-0" ELEVATIONSECTION 2X2 BOARDS, ON INTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ADDITION, TYP. 2X2 METAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY 6'-0"INTERIOR OF PROPERTY EXTERIOR OF PROPERTY 2" TYP1"TYP4X2 BOARDS, ON INTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ADDITION, TYP.4"TYPSCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" FENCE TYPE 2 - TYP. L801 2 4X4 NOMINAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO ARCH ENTRY 1X4 BOARDS, BOTH SIDES AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY, TYP. 5'-0" ELEVATIONSECTION 1X4 BOARDS, OFFSET ON BOTH SIDES AND PAINTED TO MATCH ADDITION, TYP. 4X4 NOMINAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY 6'-0"1X2 NOMINAL POST ATTACHED HORIZONTALLY TO POST Page 104 of 124Page 104 of 124 207 Page 105 of 124Page 105 of 124 208 Page 106 of 124Page 106 of 124 209 Page 107 of 124Page 107 of 124 210 Page 108 of 124Page 108 of 124 211 Page 109 of 124Page 109 of 124 212 Page 110 of 124Page 110 of 124 213 Tree Survey Report 211 West Hopkins, Aspen CO October 9, 2020 PROVIDED BY: Jason Jones Board Cer,fied Master Arborist #RM-0734B Aspen Tree Service Inc. Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-3070 jason@myaspentree.com exhibit Q Page 111 of 124Page 111 of 124 214 Summary I have been asked by MaQ Moritz of Bluegreen to analyze and comment on the tree resource located at 211 West Hopkins Street in Aspen. I have also been asked to expose the roots and comment on any poten,al founda,on impacts that may be notable as a result of a large tree growing very near the house. I have provided an inventory and evalua,on of all of the significant trees and results of the air excava,on performed on the tree near the house. There are 34 significant trees (over 6 inch in diameter) on the property. All of these trees are in rela,vely good health and there are no immediate concerns over health or structural integrity in any of these trees a this ,me. Basic maintenance pruning and removal a few trees that are crowding understory trees could be beneficial to the long term health of the landscape. While the exposing of the tree roots of the large spruce on the Northwest corner of the house indicated roots up against the founda,on, it did not appear these roots had damaged the wall at this ,me. Methodology I reviewed the site and performed a visual inspec,on on each tree located within the boundaries of the site. I measured each tree at approximately 4.5 feet above ground level to obtain an accurate Diameter Breast Height (DBH). I was provided a base map from which I numbered and labeled each tree on the map and affixed a metal tag with the tree numbers physically to the south side of each tree stem. Individual trees were entered into the aQached tree inventory worksheet with an accurate DBH, condi,on ra,ng and comments specific to each tree. Condi,on values were assigned as a result of visual indicators such as the presence of dead limbs, signs or symptoms of disease/insects, or structural defects. Details of the condi,on scale are as follows: 1)A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 2)Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3)Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mi,gated by regular care. 4)Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant pathogen ac,vity or structural defects that cannot be abated. 5)Tree is in severe decline, highly hazardous or is dead. I was also asked to evaluate one tree, number 16 , in regards to poten,al founda,on damage. This tree has a large structural root near the house that is growing in the direc,on of the founda,on wall. I u,lized a high pressure air tool called an “Air-Knife’ and a high pressure compressor to remove the soil and expose these roots and the wall. Upon request the area was lee exposed and flagged with cau,on tape so that further analysis could be performed by other par,es if desired. Limits of the Assignment My inves,ga,on is based solely upon the informa,on noted on my visit to the site on October 9, 2020. I have not performed any laboratory examina,ons, studied soil composi,on or employed any other Page 112 of 124Page 112 of 124 215 diagnos,c techniques beyond visual examina,on of the trees and the site. I have developed general conclusions of tree health and provided recommenda,ons based upon these observa,ons. This document is strictly a tree survey report and individual tree risk assessment or long term management plan for the site may be performed addi,onally upon request. Any comments pertaining to the impacts of roots to the founda,on wall are strictly based on my observa,ons as I am not qualified to provide informa,on pertaining to structural walls or impacts from the trees roots. A structural engineer should be engaged for a complete analysis of this maQer if desired. Observations Site Description The property is a single family home located at 211 West Hopkins in downtown Aspen. There are numerous trees of various sizes on the site, some that have been planted and some that have come up as volunteers over ,me. In general all of the trees are in good condi,on and no risks of imminent hazards to people or property were noted at this ,me. There are two large Engelman spruce in the front of the house that are the most significant trees. There is also a significant grouping of trees along the back fence screening the property from the alley behind. There are also trees between the house and the neighboring property to the West as well a mature aspen group par,ally in the city right of way. General Site Observations The landscape in general is in good condi,on overall. The property has been irrigated and the trees have generally grown well. The trees on the site are aspen (Populus tremuloidies) , and two varie,es of spruce, blue spruce (Picea pungens ‘glauca’), and Engleman spruce (Picea englemannii). There are several smaller aspen trees that have come up as volunteers (not planted) that are very close to the house or fences that should be removed before they cause damage. SpeciFic Tree Observations Each tree was evaluated visually and entered into the aQached tree inventory worksheet. This worksheet contains the tree species, condi,on and any specific notes. I have further elaborated on any other specifics pertaining to individual trees and below. Trees #14,#15,#34,#33,#32- Blue spruce trees- This grouping consists of the trees along the West border of the property and separates the two homes. The trees are somewhat crowded in this area as there are also trees on the neighboring property line. The lead tree in the group, #14, is the most valuable tree in this row and the rest of these trees will ul,mately not be sustainable in these loca,ons for the long term due to spa,al constraints. Trees #16, #17-These trees are the most significant and largest trees on the property. They are growing very close to the house but upon examina,on do not appear to be causing any structural damage at this ,me. The removal of some low limbs making direct contact with the house would be recommended and the removal of dead limbs in the interior would improve the aesthe,cs of these trees. One of the trees, number 16, has a co-dominant stem high within the crown. This condi,on could make this tree more likely to split in a high wind situa,on but no imminent threat exists. The installa,on of a cable/brace in the canopy of this tree could mi,gate this risk further. These trees are also suscep,ble to the Spruce bark beetle which is currently exhibi,ng high pressures to this tree species in the area. If these trees are Page 113 of 124Page 113 of 124 216 deemed highly valuable to the property then some preven,ve treatment op,ons should be evaluated. Tree number 16 was evaluated specifically to determine if the tree roots were causing visible founda,on damage. We u,lized a high pressure air tool to excavate the soil away from this wall without damaging roots. This tree species is, in general, fibrous rooted and not par,cularly invasive or impachul to infrastructure. The roots that were exposed were growing right against the wall but no cracking or penetra,on into the concrete was noted. These roots were of a rela,vely small diameter with the largest root es,mated at no more than 2 inches in diameter. Trees #18 through #23-Quaking aspen- This group of trees is at least par,ally if not en,rely within the city right of way. These trees are generally healthy although tree number 22 has a significant scar from a previous branch failure and tree number 21 has a co-dominant stem that could present a structural issue at some ,me in the future. All of these trees would benefit from maintenance pruning and show signs and symptoms of previous aphid and mite ac,vity. These pests could be easily controlled through the implementa,on of a plant health care program. Trees #24-#31 Engelman and blue spruce, quaking aspen- This group of trees is notable in that they provide valuable screen from the alley and homes behind the house. The trees were planted very closely together and the faster growing aspen have dominated the spruce. These larger aspen while currently rela,vely healthy may be considered for removal as they are causing significant impact to the spruce trees. These spruce will ul,mately live much longer and therefore this species could benefit the site for the long term in comparison to the aspen stems that live typically less than 30 years in these sejngs. Tree 26 has two co-dominant stems that are beginning to split at the base as evidenced by the crack going to the ground. This tree is most severely impac,ng the growth of the spruce. Pruning could also provide some clearance for these trees and removal of the dead limbs in the spruce would also improve aesthe,c and tree health long term. Miscellaneous other trees- I noted several other trees that were not of significant size but should be considered due to the loca,ons. There is an apple tree in the city right of way that is in poor condi,on as it has likely been repeatedly damaged by bears harves,ng fruit. There are also 3 aspen growing very close to the house that will cause roof damage in the near future as they grow. One of these trees is just under the 6 inch diameter size that would require a permit from the city for removal. At 5.9 inches in diameter if this tree is not removed promptly it will likely require a permit to be removed. The other two trees are on the East side of the house and these trees are around 4 inches in diameter. There are also several aspen growing within the fenceline on the west side of the house in the back. These trees should be removed as they are beginning to cause damage to the fence and do not have room to grow any further in this loca,on. Recommendations Upon review of each tree on the site I would make the following recommenda,ons- •Remove the aspen trees under code sized growing very near the roof line to prevent damage. •Prune or remove trees numbered 26 and 28 to allow the spruce trees in this area to grow properly. This work would require a permit and it is not certain the City of Aspen would allow this work. Page 114 of 124Page 114 of 124 217 •Prune all of the spruce trees along the west border of the property to clear the roof of the house. Some of these trees could be evaluated for removal as this is a limited area and the trees are very crowded. The city would need to issue a permit here as conifers over 4 inches in diameter require permits for removals. •While the large spruce number 16 does not outwardly appear to be cracking the founda,on it would be advisable to contact a structural engineer to confirm. •If the health, aesthe,cs and longevity of the trees on this site are of importance to the property owners the property should be reviewed for an annual plant health care program to manage insect, disease and cultural issues trees may be facing. This program should administered by a company with a Cer,fied Arborist. Page 115 of 124Page 115 of 124 218 Map of Site and Trees Page 116 of 124Page 116 of 124 219 Tree Inventory Tree #Species D.B.H.Condi3on Comments 14 Blue Spruce 12.5 2 Crowded by neighboring coQonwood tree. Overall good health 15 Blue Spruce 8.5 3 Very crowded, dead limbs interior, limbed up heavily 16 Engleman spruce 20.5 3 Has co-dominant stem high in canopy. Very close to house. Dead limbs in interior. Overall health is good. Prune away from house. 17 Engleman spruce 24.5 2 Some dead and broken limbs in canopy, Some lean but not of structural concern. Very close to house, no outward signs of structural damage 18 Aspen 11 2 Good health 19 Aspen 9 2 Good health 20 Aspen 11.5 2 Good health 21 Aspen 11,10 3 Co-dominant stem with included bark, overall health good and currently structurally sound. 22 Aspen 13.5 3 Large tear out of branch and decay signs in main stem, crowded. 23 Aspen 9 2 Good health 24 Engleman spruce 15 3 Crowded by aspens above, Co-dominant stem in top 25 Engleman spruce 8.5 3 Crowded, lots of deadwood 26 Aspen 13.13.5 3 Co-dominant stem with included bark , overall health good. Removal would benefit surrounding trees. 27 Engleman spruce 13 2 Good health, crowded by aspens above, some mechanical damage to stem. 28 Aspen 13 3 Crowding understory spruce, leaning towards alley, overall good health. 29 Engleman spruce 14.5 2 Good health, crowded by aspens above 30 Engleman spruce 5.5 3 Crowded by spruce on each side, co-dominant stem, significant dead limbs in interior. 31 Blue Spruce 12.5 3 Stem irregulari,es, significant deadwood in interior, lean. 32 Blue Spruce 12.5 2 Overall good health 33 Blue Spruce 11.5 3 In between houses, interfering with roof, significant deadwood in interior, limited space to grow long term 34 Blue Spruce 12.5 3 In between houses, interfering with roof, significant deadwood in interior, limited space to grow long term Page 117 of 124Page 117 of 124 220 Photos Tree # 17 showing need to clear low limbs for building clearance Page 118 of 124Page 118 of 124 221 Tree #16- Showing proximity to house and exposed roots next to foundation. Page 119 of 124Page 119 of 124 222 Trees #17-23-Aspens in right of way in good health Page 120 of 124Page 120 of 124 223 Trees 24-30- Showing crowding of spruce from faster growing, shorter lived aspen stems and co-dominant stem with included bark on tree 26. Page 121 of 124Page 121 of 124 224 Photo showing smaller trees that should be removed growing close to house roofline. Page 122 of 124Page 122 of 124 225 p. 1 of 2 www.bluegreenaspen.com to Aspen Historical Preservation Committee from Bluegreen date Oct 14th, 2020 project name 211 W Hopkins subject Stormwater Management Plan Purpose: The purpose of this report is to address the water supply, wastewater disposal, other utilities, and storm water drainage, for 211 W Hopkins. The applicant, 211 W Hopkins LLC, intends to construct a single family residence on the lot while maintaining the Historic house on site. 1.Location a.The property is located in the City and Townsite of Aspen Block 48: Lots K, L, M. See survey of property attached separately. The location is show below. 2.Water Supply a.This residence is served by City of Aspen Water. The curb box will be located and service size will be replaced if necessary. An additional service line will be placed during construction for the new single family structure from Hopkins. The Historic Pan Abode will be serviced from replaced existing line, or a new direct line with be constructed from Hopkins. 3.Wastewater Disposal memorandum exhibit R Page 123 of 124Page 123 of 124 226 p. 2 of 2 www.bluegreenaspen.com a. The existing residence is served by Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and the service line is located within the alley. This service may be replaced if the service age dictates need for replacement. Evaluation and the design will be coordinated with the district requirements. 4. Other Utilities a. The lot at 211 W Hopkins is currently served by other utilities including telephone, gas, and electricity. b. The existing buried electric service line crosses into the property from the alley to the south. This electric line is owned, operated and maintained by City of Aspen Electric. The applicant has no plans to alter this public service upgrade is necessary. Phone likely runs with the electric service. A gas line also currently serves the property and will continue to serve the proposed residence. 5. Storm Water Drainage a. The applicant intends to construct storm water improvements in conjunction with the proposed buildings. Anticipated storm drainage improvements include storm drainage swales, piping, inlets, and drywells. The storm water runoff is to be mitigated via a proposed drywell located in-between the two buildings in the center of the property that would overflow to the city storm sewer if inundated through an overflow pipe. Otherwise the drywell will percolate after being treated into soil below. Runoff from the proposed single family residence will be directed to the drywell to limit runoff rates to the pre-developed condition of the site. 6. Conclusion a. It is our professional opinion that the proposed property can be adequately designed from the aspects of water supply, wastewater disposal, utilities, storm drainage and public services and maintain the historic character of the residences. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Matt Moritz Bluegreen Page 124 of 124Page 124 of 124 227