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.20140709
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 9, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISITS: Please review revised story poles at 301 Lake Avenue on your own. 5:00 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes- June 25, 2014 C. Public Comments D. Commission member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest(actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificates of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. 435 W. Main Street- Substantial Amendment to Major Development approval, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 5:40 B. 301 Lake Avenue- AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development and Variances, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 6.40 C. 28 Smuggler Grove Road- Conceptual Major Development, Floor Area bonus, Setback variances, Parking waiver, Demolition of non-historic additions, Relocation, Residential Design Standards variance, PUBLIC HEARING WORKSESSIONS A. None 7:50 ADJOURN TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH). Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation(20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes) Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion(15 minutes) Motion(5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. PROJECT MONITORING- Projects in bold are currently under construction. Jay Maytin 435 W.Main-AJCC 204 S.Galena 233 W.Hallam 507 Gillespie 1102 Waters 420 E. Cooper 420 E.Hyman Lift One Nora Berko 332 W.Main 1102 Waters 1006 E.Cooper 602 E.Hyman Sallie Golden 206 Lake 114 Neale 534 E.Hyman 517 E.Hyman(Little Annie's) 212 Lake Hotel Aspen Willis Pember 204 S.Galena Aspen Core 514 E.Hyman 624 W.Francis 407 E.Hyman Patrick Segal 204 S.Galena 623 E.Hopkins 701 N.Third 612 W.Main 624 W.Francis 206 Lake 605 W. Bleeker Holden Marolt derrick 212 Lake John Whipple Aspen Core 208 E.Main 201 E.Hyman 420 E.Cooper 602 E.Hyman Hotel Aspen Jim DeFrancia 420 E.Cooper 420 E.Hyman 407 E.Hyman M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc 6/30/2014 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 435 W. Main Street, Aspen Jewish Community Center- Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval- Continued Public Hearing DATE: July 9, 2014 SUMMARY: 435 W. Main Street is located within the Main Street Historic District, and is a designated landmark due to the presence of a group of 1940s era lodging cabins on the site. The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen (AJCC), owner of the property, has been in the land use review process since 2004 seeking approvals for a sanctuary, preschool, and administrative building on the west portion of the lot (currently under construction), preservation of the historic cabins for use as affordable housing and lodging for visitors related to church events and programming, and a parsonage so that the Rabbi and family can live on site and receive the congregation. The design of the parsonage received HPC Final approval in 2013. The applicant requests an amendment to change the roof form and exterior materials on the parsonage in order to lower the building height and provide views from the sanctuary towards Independence Pass. The building footprint is to remain essentially the same. For the June 11th public hearing before HPC, the applicant provided two shallow pitched roof options and two flat roof options (flat roof concept shown below). - - _ ,r 4 j sire I t 1 The hearing was continued with the recommendation that the applicant pursue the flat roof, but restudy proposed materials, in particular the use of less stone and windows that are more residential in character. Attached are two new designs. One is the restudied flat roof concept and one includes a gable roof over the entry element into the home. APPLICANT: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur Chabon, architect and Alan Richman Planning Services. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-100. ADDRESS: 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT- SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT 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 of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 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. Staff Response: The relevant design guidelines include the HPC guidelines for new development on a landmark lot, and the Main Street District guidelines found in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic Districts design document. They are attached as "Exhibit A." Planning staff has attempted to provide the applicant with various suggestions for roof forms and materials that might ensure that the revised parsonage is a successful fit for the site. Staff understands the purpose for the redesign and, while we supported the approved project, we also acknowledge that the steeply pitched roof created a substantial mass on the site. A lower profile building could have merit as well. In terms of the pitched roof concepts that were proposed on June 11th, staff found the very shallow pitch to be out of character with both the cabins on the property and the new main building. Staff suggested that the applicant consider plan form changes that would allow for a different roof plan, but a "starting from scratch" approach is beyond the scope of what the applicant hopes to take on. The footprint and placement of the house were discussed at length and deemed appropriate by HPC. Staff suggested the applicant consider a flat roof, which could create a "quiet" building that did not conflict with the roof pitches already established by the other buildings on the property. We suggested that, if a flat roof was used, the whole building should have a more modern approach 2 than what was presented to HPC last month. The board seemed to agree and requested a restudy along those lines. Staff finds that the entirely flat roof design still lacks the residential character that has been recommended. In preparation for this meeting, we suggested that the applicant continue to try to incorporate a gable form into the house, which is now proposed. Staff finds that the gable, although minimal, does help to meet the guidelines by including forms that are common in the surrounding buildings, at a degree of pitch that is traditional in the neighborhood. The scale of the revised parsonage has a good relationship to the adjacent cabins. The rustic detailing that was represented on June I 11h has been removed. Staff still recommends that stone be minimized as an exterior material. On the approved design, stone is primarily limited to the foundation of the building. We recommend this be revised for review and approval by staff and monitor. Overall, the windows have been redesigned as directed by the board. Staff recommends the band of windows on the front fagade, upper floor, be amended since this window pattern is not found elsewhere on the site or in the district. Staff and monitor review would be appropriate. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant approval for a Substantial Amendment to the Major Development approval for the parsonage at 435 W. Main Street with the following conditions: 1. The approved option has a gable roof over the entry element. 2. Reduce the use of stone as an exterior material to the foundation level of the building, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 3. Restudy the continuous band of windows on the front fagade, upper floor, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 4. The approval of this Substantial Amendment does not extend the three year period of Vested Rights established in the Development Order granted after Final HPC approval, effective April 25, 2013. 3 Exhibits: Resolution# , Series of 2014 A. Relevant guidelines B. Minutes of June 11, 2014 C. Application "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 435 W. Main Street, Final Major Development" 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. ❑ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. ❑ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. ❑ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. ❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. ❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. ❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. ❑ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ❑ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. ❑ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 4 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ❑ These include windows, doors and porches. ❑ Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. ❑ These include windows, doors and porches. ❑ Overall, details should be modest in character. 7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not apart ofAspen's history are especially discouraged. 7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. ❑ When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and their placement. 7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A-I, BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO._, SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-100 WHEREAS, the applicant, The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur Chabon, architect and Alan Richman Planning Services, requested a Substantial Amendment to the Major Development approval for a parsonage at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A- I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070.E.2 of the Municipal Code states that " all changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment;" and WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report dated July 9, 2014, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines"were met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 9, 2014 the HPC considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," and approved a Substantial Amendment to the Development Order, with conditions, by a vote of_to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC grants approval for a Substantial Amendment to the Major Development approval for the parsonage at 435 W. Main Street with the following conditions: 1. The approved option has a gable roof over the entry element. 2. Reduce the use of stone as an exterior material to the foundation level of the building, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 3. Restudy the continuous band of windows on the front fagade, upper floor, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 4. The approval of this Substantial Amendment does not extend the three year period of Vested Rights established in the Development Order granted after Final HPC approval, effective April 25, 2013. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of July,2014. Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11 2014 Vice-chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, John Whipple, Patrick Sagal, Nora Berko and Jim DeFrancia. Absent was Jay Maytin. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Disclosure: John stated that he will recuse himself because he was public noticed on 435 W. Main Street. Sallie said she has spoken to some of the principles of 301 Lake about contracting work and has not been engaged in anything. She can be impartial and has not had any financial gain. Nora said Derek did a collective family lot split and it has nothing to do with these projects. 435 W. Main Street—Aspen Jewish Center - Substantial Amendment to Major Development approval, Public Hearing Exhibit I —Public Notice Amy said the proposal is a substantial amendment to the project. Half of the project is currently under construction. We have six original tourist cabins that are being preserved as part of this project along the alley and on Third Street. We are here to discuss the parsonage house which will be the residence for the Rabi and his family and other functions with the congregation. HPC granted approve a year ago for this new home. The approved version was a very steeply pitched gabled roof which is around 38 feet high. The applicant would like to look at ways to drop that height down. In the packet are concepts for a flatter roof and a flatter but still gabled roof. Our concern is how the building is ending up reading. Staff suggested the possibility of a flat roof building which could be the lowest profile solution but it is also different than the other structures on the site. Staff is concerned with the material and detailing. We are looking for some 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2014 kind of residential expression, possibly a porch. Staff is recommending continuance until July 9'. This is a residential structure and needs to read that way. Rabi Mintz said when construction of the main building happened and we looked out the second floor we found fantastic views that we didn't have before to the east. The changes in the roof are being triggered by the people in the community. Arthur Chabon, architect Arthur showed the approved footprint of the parsonage. The footprint to cabin 19 is 27'4"and the front has an added porch. We developed a shallow pitch design with a gable that is entirely in stone. Another design was to have the gable entirely in wood. Both of these schemes retain the idea of double gables, the main gable of the sanctuary diminishing down to the scale of the parsonage and the smallest scale the cabins. The porch is now applied to the front instead of a wrap around. Another design we explored is a flat roof which is an expression of the parsonage. It unifies the parsonage to the sanctuary. It ends the length of the sanctuary and repetition of the gables. We also feel the flat roof relates better to the scale of the cabins. The detailing would be the same as the sanctuary, the siding is the same siding and the stone would be the same and the windows the same. The fayade of the flat roof design relates to the sanctuary and it keeps the block unified. Willis said it is admirable to want to collect the views and bring them into the sanctuary. Jim asked staff what specifically should be restudied. Amy said a little more work on the fenestration and materials to make sure they are related to the fact that this has become a modernized flat roof with the heavy lintel posts on the front porch. Arthur said the building reads as a modern building. You can now see into the building from the courtyard. Willis said the eastern window of the sanctuary has been enlarged. Amy said it received staff and monitor approval to slightly enlarge that window to become a view window. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2014 Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Jim said he fundamentally supports the requests. I would defer to staff to sort out some of the details. Willis said the existing construction looks very good. The design is close but not there yet. I agree that some of the rustic detailing in a modern structure is a little conflicted. If the flat wall and flat roof is western I am confused. Here we have stone representing Western as opposed to being contemporarily expressed. It looks a little unauthentic with the heavy timbers. I'm not sure Western should be pursued. The scale is there. Sallie said she agrees with staff that the primitive Western detailing is confusing because it is not on the main building. Nora said the board struggled hard to make the block cohesive. I am feeling a huge incongruity. Is the benefit to the congregation of having a view at the expense of the public who doesn't go in there. The windows do not relate to the cabins. The stone is also a concern. I do support the scale as it steps up. Sallie said it could be accomplished with more glass and less stone. Willis said staff mentioned that the fenestration should relate more strongly to the synagogue. Nora said guideline 11.2, 11.3, 11.6 and 11.8 are not met. Patrick said the pitched roof really fit in well and was designed well. I see the compromise because of the views wanting to lower the roof. The low pitch is more in keeping with the guidelines. Flat roofs are discouraged in residential areas in the guideline. It might flow better if there was a soffit around the parsonage. The stone looks too non-residential. If you look at the east end of the sanctuary one sees the tall window with the wood and the stone below it, the stone doesn't overwhelm. I would like to see a wrap around porch that was originally done. Willis said he supports staff recommendation and they are very close. There are minor tweaks such as cladding and I think with a lighter touch and 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2014 maybe less stone this would be successful so that it doesn't look like the Alamo you will get the residential vibe that you are looking for. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 435 W. Main until July 9' to allow dialogue with staff and the applicant; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Arthur asked for a little more definitive direction. UPC direction: Less stone Windows to look more residential and relate better to the sanctuary. The flat roof is OK. Jim said staff knows what the HPC is looking for. 301 Lake Avenue —AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development and Variances, Public Hearing John was seated. Debbie said the affidavit of notice has been provided. Exhibit I. Amy said the AspenModern program has been in place since 2011 and it is on a voluntary basis. The Lundy family has owned the house for 40 years. This is a negotiation to keep this building as part of the community. We have an application for voluntary designation and then we will talk about the design review for the proposed addition, variances and incentive to be proposed to City Council. Council will make the decision on the entire package. Designation: Amy said Victor Lundy lives in Texas and is a highly respected master architect. He set up his practice in Sarasota Florida and made a huge impact on the architecture in Florida at the time. He then moved to New York City and did work for the Smithsonian and world's fair. Two of his buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1980 this building was photographed and it was only 8 years old. The building is completely unaltered and the family has just recently made the decision to sell the property. The building meets all of the designation 4 '•ie , a FT �Yi l inr [: 1111 MM -ON .. nR► "" r ` ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Looking from North-east street corner June 25, 2014 Aspen,Colorado Flat Roof Option Stone playground walls R E-K= ❑ I ❑ I I. :dill I'II II I II I I 'I� ---------- I G I i i i I , , , • : ---=------------------------------- A p p r o v e d P a r s o n a g e 71 Fl A ! , I I� i Ji I 1 / � i ! I i , ------------------- P r o p o s e d S h a I I o w R o o f P a r s o n a g e i I I ' i i i ETI i H 11 ff .I I - -- r - i i !I / / i Eli �I I I I I , : , i I. — � I , I i i I P r o p o s e d F l a t R o o f P a r s o n a g e ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage Main Street Elevations July 01 2014 Aspen , Colorado C o m p a r s o n Scale I i, I r I I 11 � I ! I I is I I Ii ' I i I i I I I I it I II� j I I I I 'I l � III i a I I �_ Off❑ i � _ — I� � tIi I© III oI 'I � j Ii II� � � ', ' -- I — I I I I I II II I �III I � f _ ,1 1 I a� II��� ;�11 � -,� � Ll y� n k J ,I - 1 I� l aa� - I Approved East E l e v a t i o n A p p r o v e d S o u t h E l e v a t i o n A p p r o v e d W e s t E l e v a t i o n 1 I El � I .� I I - - — i — E3 I _ I I I I P r o p o s e d E a s t E l e v a t i o n P r o p o s e d S o u t h E l e v a t i o n Proposed West E l e v a t i o n I — I I — �-II o - III I I I I I I o s e d W e s Elev at i o n I Proposed East Elevation Proposed South Elevation P r P o ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage East , South and West Elevations July O1 2014 Aspen , Colorado C o m p a r i s o n Scale 1/8"= 1'-0" i ii I I' i i L C Q ri l I I I -- I I I I ❑CC C. ' � I I i i I I I I I I A R T H U R C H A B O N ARCHITECT AJ C C Parsonage P r o p o s e d M a i n S t r e e t E l e v a t i o n J u I y 0 1 2 0 1 4 Aspen , Colorado Flat Roof Option Scale 1/8" = 1'-0" I I _ I _IIIrrI --- SANDINS SEA,�1----"_'----------- - --------------------------------------------------- ❑L I I METAL SNC'N FENCE 'rALF RCI:ND .,.OFFER GJTTER -OPPER LEADER I -- I 'rVOOD �I SONE VENEE"i J O NtAL_ I I E]' GLASS RAILING ROOF _ I �� I I !. ❑L I I rl'I I S _ `G9c..ON�.=.N..L. I I I s[FLAP rr'ooD 51MN5 J I i I I I I --- i I I IIIIHI I I I I i I FIRST FIN F_. I I I i ONGRETE� - �ASE ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage Proposed North Elevation July 01 2014 A s p e n , C o l o r a d o F l a t R o o f O p t i o n S c a l e 1/4"= 1'-0" —` �� I I � I �- - —,2-1A1,I; F ZT- [39 — _� I L - - - -- �I ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage Proposed East Elevation July O1 2014 Aspen , Colorado F I a t R o o f O p t i o n S c a I e 1/4"= 1'-0" —_'.. i i I I I a I WL n = a EjN - N - N I I I I I —�L � � I I I I I I I a I I I I I I I _ I al I 'II i • I r I I i 1_ ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage Proposed South Elevation July 01 2014 Aspen , Colorado F l a t R o o f O p t i o n - e Scale 1/4"= 1'-0" II I I I l°2°'- 1/-.•FIN_ I I 47� 2z mI Ii _ 7919'-5" FIN.200 4ET - V O I I I I I I - 1 IR57 FINiN.-FLj I I I II � ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage Proposed West Elevation July 01 2014 Aspen Colorado Flat Roof Option S c a l e 1/4"= 1'-0" - ROPERT YLINE PORTION Or FACADE REGE55EO IN A�-- 'FRONT YARD GHILLRS—PERT"LI E P 110.OF EU1-114 3— S,'-0/a- 21-05/4' FAGADE CL05E57 TO STREET 43'-15/b' MAIN STRE 0— L—Z - ------- — — -L —ANIQ 7 I I 5'SIDE YARD --7 x ---------- - 'T Ll oR 9031 ti tq— 10 Z� 7 W -iN—F�q4TP 14-11 FL P- 10 7 0% UNDERGROUND FF MIL�'LL- IFE 5 REAR Y� - —ELE RECYCLE SERVICE GREASE IN.—F-TOR � PARKING AREA 17L FOR AIR INTAKE 145-11 21— RESERVED — - OPEN-IcE ----- ----------------------iLLL--- --------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----- - -------------------- T — — — — — — — — — — — — F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - D UPLEX I CONDOMINIUMS A R T H U R C H A B O N A R C H I T E C T A J C C P a r s o n a g e P r o p o s e d S i t e P l a n J u l y 01 2 0 1 4 A s p e n , C o l o r a d o S c a l e 3/32" = 1'-0" To 0 5 6 Y I I ------------- - - - - ____-__ _____________-____________ - - -._-_-___-_---_ _-_-_-__-_---L _ _ _-_____- _-_ _-_---_-_-�G LADDERS ME:.MANIGAI_OGS =i0NE VENE l I -=R WINDOW � i WELL �' �_-_ _ - ___-,_ -____-_-___ _-_ __-__ IDSETI � , - - - - ------------- - --- ---- i EDROOM G2 � � ! , _-_ __� ! GRAWL SPAGE �, GRAWL SPAGE ( I i I ! B— — — — — — ----------- ----- --1 -- ---------i — i----- u I J I A -_-----_-_ ____-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-__ --_-_-_ _-_-_ _-_-.A I O JO 5 6 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Proposed Basement Plan July 01 2014 Aspen , Colorado Flat Roof Option Scale 1/4"= 1'-0" o a' O 00 O T T O O Q 11 1 1 COPPER j LEADER I ----------- — — —® — — J - - - -i - - - - - - - - - - - -!---- — — 1- - - t - - I � I I' .7101'-4 1/2" _-___-_-_-_-_ _ OVEZ7 TERRACE J I I I i I I , I -- OIA a PGII ER ROO I ICI � I �-�ao '-a Imo•' j 0 I II I I I I �I I LIVING ROOM i IOE '�---`–`-- ---LI------------- ---- -- — �l E I $7ao7--� vz• �I I ___ _ X11 PAO R� ' N KITCHEN 3/ , 04 1046 GARAGE � GL � !III^�,r� 106 I,�� I PLAY RGO L ICI II i, P 17R®,I/2, J j IOAA 6-_-_-_- -_-- ------------ � -i-� ( _-_-_-_-_-_-_ _ __1riOE 1 I - s II , I I I I III I I ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage P r o p o s e d F i r s t F l o o r P l a n J u I y 0 1 2 0 1 4 Aspen , C o l o r a d o F l a t R o o f O p t i o n Scale 1/4"= 1'-0" I III - - - - -- -- - — — — — __ �J ✓'C '1 J 1 I i I I I I I I I I ___ ------ ---�I ----- _ - - - - - - --- --_ =II STANDING -EAM METAL li I PITCH ROOF G —_—_—_—_ ---—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_ —- _—_—_—METAL FLUE � ' 'I I TERRACE i I ! I SELGV'1 i SKYLIGHT _—_—_—_—_—_—_ t I II I I 1— i I ' I TERRaGE I B CLGN1 i I —_—_—_— _—_—_—-—-—_ I II 'I I I I 'I Ij Ij - --------- - I b co b � o e 9 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage P r o p o s e d R o o f P I a n J u I y 0 1 2 0 1 4 Aspen , Colorado F l a t R o o f O p t i o n Scale 1/4"= 1'-0" �' ^� � � wig ���` 't�+�i°� •+�. t a l� IE El Ll � �y i I I JPA II ' ' E 77 7 ----------------- I D I � I a I L '�'❑ C I I , ! -! I , e I I I li C CC , iffR � I - ----- Approved Parsonage I FIT I I I I I i I j i i I' ( III II ,I f o p o s e d S h a I I o w R o o f Parson a g e I I a� o o I T7 I r i I C C I I II i I I Pro P a r s o n a g e o s e d F l a t Roof P , ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage Main Street Elevations June 25 , 2014 Aspen Colorado C o m p a r i s o n S c a l e 1/8"= 1'-0" II III i I �, I 1 I I — i I • i i iii i) i I i i _�'�—� i I I � � - , E I[Ell ° ❑ ° 1 ° ❑❑� A p p r o v e d E a s t E l e v a t i o n A p p r o v e d S o u t h E l e v a t i o n A p p r o v e d W e s t E l e v a t i o n _ 1 I - m I i ❑❑ ❑❑❑ P r o p o s e d E a s t E l e v a t i o n P r o p o s e d S o u t h E I e v a t ion P r o p o s e d W e s t E l e v a t i o n 'kI I i �I LID I I i I a l — J — E, hI, tt ❑❑❑ ❑ Proposed East E l e v a t i=n P P r o p o s e d S o u t h E l e v a t i o n roposed West E l e v a t o n ARTHUR CHASON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage E a s t , S o u t h a n d W e s t E l e v a t i o n s J u n e 2 5 2 0 1 4 Aspen , Colorado C o m p a r i s o n o � a� e• Scale 1/8"= 1'.0" i I i i i I I i it r'- 1 ii iir I-r r� •=tom Fa a III II III IY II `ll - — LJLJ \ ❑' \ �L-J Li IIEIIEFI ❑ II � I I I ITR� I I I� Ii i Zillid, I i I 11AU 1 I I� i I I I i I I ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage Proposed Main Street Elevation JUNE 25 2014 Aspen , Colorado Flat Roof Option o z ,• a• Scale 1/8"= 1'-0" :rte I I FT ❑ n__ azg^FIN enaE _ /1la?q'-1Cil/8•=1N �iQQF _ ��T _ =a2-C2�•-=rn°J ❑ .... _•I n SEl ONO FIN.FL. I� � LL � � j I ❑ � � Il I II I I i 'I I I I I ' IRS FIN FL. I j -I ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage Proposed North Elevation June 25 2014 Aspen , Colorado F l a t R o o f O p t i o n Scale 1/4"= l'•0" i I I j I I I I I I .. I I I h Ij - I I I - i - I - I I I C I , I - I I � i I - 9 I y �� ■ �� I I I i I I � I I I I I I A I/' I Ili I I j ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage Proposed East Elevation June 25 2014 Aspen Colorado F l a t R o o f O p t i o n o V 2' a• Scale 1/4"= 1'-0" i i; v I I i I I I I i I I Y I I I II I I I I I ' 'EIEIE 1 111 TL 4]ju -- - -- - ----- -- -- FiRSi rI �F ---- _ _ L - ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Proposed South Elevation June 25 2014 Aspen , Colorado F l a t R o o f O p t i o n o I �• a• Scale 1/4"= 1'•0" i i i i - -0 il-=1N I -lryVlO c�,OND F!N.FL. ri �I I m m � o i I I I i I ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Proposed West Elevation June 25 2014 A s p e n C o l o r a d o F l a t R o o f O p t i o n Scale 1/4"= 1'-0" I ' OR mall VA El t Ego �� ■■ ■i - - - -- - _ !■1 �ti�laQliMNlN - � �� ■ its -=----__--- _----_----- = IP 1 I■1� - - ■ w ■, � - �, ;._ Irk Ir - Irr ■ y� y�-�� �� ���� ■4`.��;1111 i f i i, i � � ^I�� � �� � • O J i I I ii i i i i I I i i i i i i III it i i i i j it i I i i I ------_______;------------- -------- — — ------------ j I ,y I� I I 1 '03--------- - - - -------- ---------- -� - - -- - -- -- - - LADDER MEGHANIGAL 005 I, STONE VENEER WALL '. WINDOW ____________________________ - 4 WELL it I I I I I OSET " eAir+RGG Gs J - - - --- ------ -- ---- - �EDROOMG021 _____' x,898-2 8„ --w ac aas�; I I GRA L SPAG GRAWl°PAG. I UP ISR 9 I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I C--------1--- i - - - - - -- - - - - ----- - - -- - -� -------- ----I ------ - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -OA j i I I o bTi o o b b b I I I ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage Proposed Basement Plan June 25 2014 Aspen Colorado F I a t R o o f O p t i o n S c a I e 1/4"= 1'-0" 1. _' Q YO Q Q Q Q 4 - - �- -- ------------ - - --! - -- __ -i- - - - ----------- - i i I _— _—_—_ — —/� GL !CIA PO ER ROOM I ' 90 1'-4 1/ IO2 I I, I, I 103 11 LIVING RGOM E T_—_—_—_—_'—_—_—_—_- RAM—;- — 7q0-r'-4 1/2,. II I ' I N E _ 15R 4 KITCHEN J TAIR HALL IC9 6E 1048 t GARA CL ! 106 ! f � ,I aL PIAT ROO I I I UP I ! Mud Roots �_—_—_—y—_— 1O4A 'I ------ ------ - ---------1--- -- - - - - - -� Ij I I I I I II I I I I ARTHUR CHABON. ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Proposed First Floor Plan June 25 2014 Aspen , Colorado Flat Roof Option 3 cale 1/4"= 1'•0" '' '' `' 0O it i i i ii i i l _- ______ -- - - --_____- 204 203 �_ U - Ll ------i----�i------------ ----- DRaa --- i --- sEDRCO ----- ---i-----i-- I II I I - - 0 ------ 04 GL - 03 • I e --- d 3KY HT _____ - � ___ ABOVE O T 20 i 311 i BATH -'-------I---------- - j zole zIJ� - 3E ROOM C-- -------- - - �'�-----�'-^ —_j_—_ j - j ----- ---� I I ! l N I i i I ___ ___ _ __________ z10 - � MASTER GLOEET i aos I _ 2G1 � � MASTER BEDROOM ( ', i BEDROOM MASTER BATH --___ _- _ I_-_-_-_-_-_-_ ------------ - ------ --_------------i -----�� — — —i— — — — —� 0 00 b b b b I ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Proposed Second Floor Plan June 25 , 2014 Aspen , Colorado Flat Roof Option Scale 1/4"= 1'-0" I- r ii i i i i j ii i i i i i Ii i i i i --_ -------- --- -- -- - - - -------- i i i i I i i Ij I 1 ------ G ___-_-_ i _-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_-___-_-___ ___�___-_ METAL FLUE E-RAC E BELOW I II i I / ------ -_-_-_-_-_- ___ _____-_-_ �/ I i I I 0- - - j- -1 T -------- -- --- ! -- ---� ii I f �- - - - - - - - ----------------1 -1 ---- -- II I I I I, Ij I I I C--- --- ----- - --- -------- -- ----o - - - - - - - - T - --- -- ------------ -- -- - - -1- - T --- - - - - --- 0 C -------�- - - - --- - - --- - - - ------------- -- ------ ----o j b oo b b b b b ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Proposed Roof Plan June 25 2014 Aspen , Colorado Flat Roof Option Scale 1/4"= 1'0" o �• MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 301 Lake Avenue— AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development and Variances, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 9, 2014 SUMMARY: 301 Lake Avenue is a s. 9,231 square foot lot that contains a single family home built in 1972 and designed by internationally noted }' architect Victor Lundy for his own { family. r` After enjoying the home for over 40 years, the Lundy's have chosen to sell to a new owner. The house is not a landmark and can only be landmarked through a voluntary action by the property owner. In this clear illustration of the important opportunity F created by the AspenModern program, ` the reality is that an application for demolition of the house could have been submitted at any time in the past or present and a new single family home, two detached homes or a duplex are allowed uses on this site. Fortunately, the new purchaser recognizes the architectural significance of the building is interested in discussing alternatives that would allow for preservation. The applicant proposes to make an addition to the Lundy house in the form of a "bar" that hugs the alley and leave three sides of the original structure untouched. HPC is asked to make a recommendation to Council regarding the historic significance of the property and the appropriateness of the requested preservation incentives. In June, HPC held a site visit and a public hearing. The project was continued for restudy (minutes attached) primarily related to the height of the addition. Revisions are illustrated in the attached drawings. Story poles on the site have been relocated and painted to indicate the decreased height of the new proposal. 1 APPLICANT: 301 Lake Avenue, LLC, represented by One Friday Design and Haas Land Planning. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-16-003. ADDRESS: 301 Lake Avenue, the east %2 of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6 and 7, Block 40, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. HISTORIc, DESIGNATION AspenModern 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 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. 2 Staff Response: Victor Lundy was a renowned modernist architect at the time he built a second home for his family at 301 Lake avenue in the West end in 1972. Lundy received a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree in Architecture from Harvard, studying under Walter Gropius and Marcel Breuer, former Bauhaus leaders. After earning his degrees, Lundy moved to Sarasota, Florida in the 1950s, where he started his first office and became well known as one of a small group of architects who designed dramatic modernist structures in the area. Lundy's beautiful sculptural buildings were a departure from the more rectilinear modernist forms that dominated the celebrated architecture of the mid- century period. These examples of his work have been described as "more roof than wall." i t l r 1- 1 Above: Unitarian Universalist Church, Westport, CT, 1959 Above right: St. Paul's Lutheran Church, Sarasota, FL, 1958-1970 Right: Warm Mineral Springs Motel, Sarasota, FL, 1958. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Lundy relocated his office to New York City in 1960 and began receiving important government commissions, such as the U.S. Embassy in Sri Lanka in 1961 and the U.S. Tax Court in 1965. The tax court is one of two Lundy buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, a recognition that is rarely given to the work of a living architect. y � N. I Oki t .,L �F - - w r� i .. � r 10 fit Top left: Shade structures at The Smithsonian Insitute, 1965. Top right: "Space Flowers" inflatable structures designed for concessions at the New York World's Fair of 1964- 65. Bottom: U.S. Tax Court, Washington, D.C., 1965. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1976, Progressive Architecture writer Stanley Abercrombie rated the U.S. Tax Court among the best federal buildings constructed in the previous 50 years and, more recently, a 2003 General Services Administration study of federal government office buildings rated the U.S. Tax Court as one of a small group of buildings that "qualify as Modern masterpieces with high levels of architectural significance." In early 2014, The GSA released a documentary film about Victor Lundy, called "Victor Lundy, Sculptor of Space," which can be viewed at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/185759. The house at 301 Lake Avenue is featured in the film. Lundy describes it as one of his favorite buildings. j` t � 7 Left: Church of the Resurrection lsil ,y _ !, lG•• Harlem, NY, 1966 (demolished in 2007) Below: Model of the U.S. Embassy, Sri Lanka. 1ILLUdi v ' r 1J ' 1111101, .. ����� RI — MOO 11111000111 11 I�N�1 5 The Lundy house at 301 Lake Avenue is unaltered from the original design. Staff finds that it meets all of the designation criteria, including criterion D, related to architecture of singular significance to the City. This criterion has not been cited in any of the previous designation discussions since AspenModern was adopted. The fact that 301 Lake was not just a commission, but the part-time home of the architect and his family for decades illustrates the importance of architectural design as part of the "Mind, Body, Spirit," concept that is so important to the community. In staff's opinion, the property is an iconic example of the importance of the AspenModern program as part of the City's historic preservation efforts. Notably, the building was photographed and identified in the City's first historic resources survey in 1980, only eight years after it was constructed. Lundy, who has received innumerable awards and accolades for his work, is among the most significant of the renowned architects who produced work in Aspen in the mid-century, including Herbert Bayer, Eero Saarinen, Harry Weese, and John Lautner. Lundy is a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, received a Federal Design Achievement Award, the highest honor in design granted by the National Endowment for the Arts, and he has been profiled in many professional and popular magazines, including a feature in Dwell in 2008. The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff's score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Staff scored the building as a "Best" example of AspenModern, with 18 out of 20 possible points. HISTORIC 1"RESERVATION BENEFITS 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 201h century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. 6 Staff Response: The applicant requests preservation benefits that include variances to dimensional requirements, fee waivers, encroachment into the public right of way, and extended vested rights. All of the benefits, except for setback variances and 500 square feet of the requested floor area bonus, are beyond the authority of the HPC and will require review by City Council. Up until 2011, no historic designations in Aspen required "owner consent." City Council could designate any property that was found to meet landmark criteria. Lengthy debates about the appropriate approach to use for non-Victorian era architecture resulted in voluntary program that relies on the negotiation of individualized incentives that address the unique conditions of each property. This concept has led to some remarkably successful historic preservation projects over the last two years and resulted in the recent naming of the Aspen HPC as "Commission of the Year" by the National Alliance of Historic Preservation Commissions. Benefits, particularly relief from certain dimensional requirements, have been critical to the success of the Aspen Historic Preservation program since they were made available over 25 years ago. The HPC carefully uses this flexibility to encourage projects that retain historic resources in the greatest entirety possible, while allowing new construction to occur in a sensitive manner. The "give and take" aspect of this process attempts to offer a degree of fairness in terms of development rights for the less than 300 privately owned properties (only about 15% of the total lots in town) that are responsible for maintaining Aspen's identity as a historic town. Criteria for the variances that are typically within HPC's purview, including setback variances and a 500 square foot floor area bonus, are addressed later in the memo so that HPC may make a recommendation to Council on those incentives. Council will ultimately determine the total package of incentives to be awarded. The additional benefits that will be discussed by Council include the following items. Staff is awaiting input from some other City Departments and we have not formulated a Council recommendation at this time. Waiver of permit fees. Permit fees are related to the valuation of the work and the amount of square footage affected. An estimated cost of the permit fees for this project is $200,000. The applicant has suggested that an alternative is for Council to provide two Transferable Development Rights certificates. Recent sales of TDRs have been in the range of$200,000 to $250,000 each. Waiver of impact fees. Building permits are generally subject to impact fees which include park fees, transportation demand management fees and affordable housing mitigation. These fees are calculated based on any increases in floor area. The proposed expansion involved in this remodel is approximately 2,400 square feet of floor area. All landmarks typically receive waiver of Parks and TDM fees by right through existing code provisions. The applicant requests this standard incentive. Landmarks are also typically HPC Review 07.09.2014 301 Lake Avenue Page 7 of 14 exempt from providing affordable housing mitigation. This project does not require affordable housing because the typical triggers, demolition of more than 40% of the existing structure or addition of a new dwelling unit on the site, are not occurring. By the time of City Council review, the applicant will need to identify any other fees, such as tree removal, that are requested to be reduced. Dimensional Variances. The applicant requests duplex floor area, although the site will be developed as a single- family home. This is an increase in floor area of approximately 420 square feet. The applicant requests a 500 square foot exemption for the garage, instead of the 375 square feet that would normally be waived. The applicant is seeking an exemption of the historically significant fire hearth wall from floor area calculations. This very thick masonry wall, which does not provide livable space, would typically count as approximately 200 square feet of floor area. Note: The total floor area increase being requested, on top of the HPC 500 square foot bonus requested below is approximately 750 square feet. Site coverage allowance of 54.3% instead of 39% is requested. This amounts to a footprint on the ground of approximately 1,400 square feet more than the standard allowance. The areawell does not count as site coverage. The proposal may include a height exception related to the areawell, although this variance has been reduced or eliminated by the new changes to proposed height of the addition. The calculations are being confirmed. Because of the size of the basement level walk out space, in one area where it is close to the master bedroom building height would be measured from the bottom or the areawell to the top of the addition, which could be over the height limit of 25 feet. Enroachment LicenseNacation The applicant asks to install some landscaping in public right of way along Lake Avenue, in coordination with Parks Department. A corner of the master bedroom projects over the public right of way. This requires the City to vacate (i.e. deed) the land to the applicant. Vested Rights According to State statute, all projects that receive a Development Order as a result of a land use review are automatically provided with a three year period of "vested rights" status, which allows the project to be constructed under the land use regulations that were in place at the time of approval. The applicant for this project requests ten years of vested rights, to allow for the possibility that construction would be delayed for some time. HPC Review 07.09.2014 301 Lake Avenue Page 8of14 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is 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 of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 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. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." 301 Lake is an unusual triangular shaped lot at the transition between the original Aspen Townsite and Hallam's addition, where the layout of lots and blocks shifts to follow the curving path of Lake Avenue. On June l It", staff recommended that the project meets the Conceptual review guidelines and is sympathetically designed. We suggested minor reductions to setback variances, however staff believes that there is no other reasonable or less impactful location on the site for an addition to be placed. The north and east elevations are considered "character defining" and should not be altered. Staff also supported the form of the addition as appropriate. The applicant has tried to maximize the livability of below grade space in order to construct a one story, rather than two story addition. The way that the addition "floats" off the ground near Lake Avenue literally gives the new construction a lightness that keeps the focus on the substantial quality of the masonry historic building. Though materials are reviewed at Final, the work appears to be very thoughtful and a worthy addition to such an important building. HPC Review 07.09.2014 301 Lake Avenue Page 9 of 14 At the last hearing, HPC recommended that the height of the addition be restudied. To that end, the applicant has reduced the garage element by 2'3," the kitchen/family room segment by 9," and the master bedroom by 1'8." A minor adjustment to the footprint has also been accomplished by pulling the garage an additional 6" in from the alley. Staff finds that the revised proposal is a successful improvement to the earlier proposal, is consistent with the guidelines and does reinforce the "subservient" quality of the new construction. HPC is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the award for the 500 square foot floor area bonus. FAR BONUS In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Staff Response: The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus, plus additional floor area that HPC does not have the authority to approve. This will be addressed by Council. The applicant held a worksession with HPC in May to generally introduce the project, which is a requirement of any floor area bonus request. The 500 square foot bonus is an invaluable incentive that has motivated many property owners to construct high quality preservation projects throughout town. Staff finds that this project meets the bonus criteria. We find that many possible negative impacts to the original building have been avoided with this project, which is well designed and balances the HPC guidelines with the development opportunities on the site. HPC Review 07.09.2014 301 Lake Avenue Page 10 of 14 SETBACK VARIANCES 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 Response: HPC has the authority to consider setback variances if they allow for better placement of the new construction relative to the historic building. In many instances, a historic preservation project in Aspen includes the repositioning of a historic structure on a lot in order to physically distance it from new construction. This particular home cannot be relocated, and regardless, HPC prefers to maintain original building locations when possible. The existing house is set along the west boundary of the lot and generally complies with today's setback requirements. The applicant has created a design that focuses all new construction along the alley. This is the only area where construction can happen while preserving three sides of the building untouched, and maintaining clear views of the historic building from the street. Staff would not recommend in favor of any construction that was placed in front of the east facade of the existing building. Staff finds that setback variances in this case help mitigate adverse impacts on the historic structure and should be approved. The encroachment of the master bedroom past the property line is a topic that will need more discussion at Council. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The existing home does not comply with some of the Residential Design Standards, which were of course written after the house was constructed. The existing house can maintain the non-complying conditions. Only new work should meet the standards or receive a variance. The new work does not comply with Residential Design Standards related to "Building Orientation" and"Build to Lines." 1. Building orientation. The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street-facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.13.4 shall be exempt from this requirement. One (1) element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. HPC Review 07.09.2014 301 Lake Avenue Page l I of 14 2. Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front fagade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standard. All Residential Design Standard Variances, Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020(D)(2) must: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: The existing house and the new addition meet the Building Orientation standard relative to North Street. The north facades are parallel to that street. The existing house and new addition do not meet the standard related to Lake Avenue, unless the area of the master bedroom that is proposed to cantilever onto vacated right of way is removed. Staff recommends that the master bedroom be designed to be entirely on the private property in order to eliminate this variance request, but the applicant wishes to approach Council with the request. The existing house does not meet the Build-to-line standard because it is setback from North Street. The addition will not improve the condition, but staff would not support moving the addition towards North Street. Staff recommends HPC grant this variance under variance criterion B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC support landmark designation and negotiation for preservation incentives. Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual approval, a 500 square foot floor area bonus and the requested setback variances (pending acceptance by Council), and a variance from the Build-to-line Residential Design Standard. EXHIBITS: Resolution#_. Series of 2014 Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit C: Minutes of June 11, 2014 Exhibit D: Application HPC Review 07.09.2014 301 Lake Avenue Page 12 of 14 Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 301 Lake Avenue, Conceptual review 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. ❑ Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. ❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. ❑ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. ❑ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. ❑ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. ❑ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. HPC Review 07.09.2014 301 Lake Avenue Page 13 of 14 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. ❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. HPC Review 07.09.2014 301 Lake Avenue Page 14 of 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 LAKE AVENUE,THE EAST '/, OF LOT 5 AND ALL OF LOTS 6 AND 7,BLOCK 40, HALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND APPROVING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES RESOLUTION#_, SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-16-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, 301 Lake Avenue, LLC, represented by One Friday Design and Haas Land Planning, has requested that the property located at 301 Lake Avenue be considered for voluntary historic designation through the AspenModern process described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant also requested approval for Conceptual Major Development and Variances; 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. For review of benefits, such as a floor area bonus and setback variances, HPC must determine conformance with Section 26.415.110 of the Municipal Code. 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, Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC dated July 9, 2014, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the property should be designated a landmark as it meets the criteria for designation and the integrity score qualifies as the "best" category of historic resources. Staff also recommended in favor of the Conceptual design review and Variances, with some areas for restudy; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 9, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff recommendation and public comments, and found the project to be consistent with the review criteria, with conditions, by a vote of to_ NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby finds that the property located at 301 Lake Avenue,the east %2 of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6 and 7, Block 40, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado meets the designation criteria of Land Use Code Section 26.415.025 and 030. HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development and Variances with the following conditions: 1. HPC finds that 301 Lake Avenue meets designation criteria a through e, listed in §26.415.030.C.1 2. HPC finds that 301 Lake Avenue is a"best" example of Modern architecture. 3. HPC grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus and the following setbacks, pending approval of the entire preservation incentives package by City Council: • A west sideyard of 5' and a combined east and west sideyard setback of 6'. • A 1'4 inch setback from the alley. • 0" east setback at the master bedroom and 8" at the master bedroom terrace. Placement of the below grade lightwell as proposed. 4. HPC grants a waiver of the Build-to-line standard. HPC requires the master bedroom to be entirely on private property, and designed to meet the Building Orientation standard. 5. 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of July, 2014. Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Character Defining Features of the Bauhaus/International Style 1) Simple geometric forms, both in plan and © 8) Entry is usually marked by a void in the wall. Check box if elevation a cantilevered screen element, or other El 2) Flat roofs, usually single story architectural clue that directs one into the statement Is true. composition 1 point per box. 3) Proportions are long and low, horizontal lines . g)guildings are connected to nature through are emphasized the use of courtyards. wall elements that IN 4) Asymmetrical arrangement of elements . extend into the landscape, and areas of glazing that allow a visual connection to the natural 5) Windows are treated as slots in the wall © environment surface, either vertically or horizontally, or 10) Schemes are monochromatic, using glazing appears as a curtain wall neutral colors. Primary colors are used for 6) Detailing is reduced to the composition of © accents. elements rather than decorative effects A building must have 6 of the 10 7) Materials are generally manufactured and © character defining features, either standardized, surfaces are smooth, with minimal or present or clearly documented no detail at window jambs, grade, and roof edge through photographic of physical evidence to qualify as Y� Bauhaus/international Style. Restoration may be required as part award the of f o incentives. - If the property earned 6 or more B points, continue to the next page. j - - - If the property earned less than 6 v : points, scoring ends. ' ' Total Points, 0 10 INTEGRITY SCORING If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. The building is in its original location. 2 points The building has been shifted on the original parcel, but maintains its original 1 point alignment and/or proximity to the street. The property is located within the geographical area surrounded by Castle I 1 point Creek, the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. The property is outside of the geographical area surround by Castle Creek, the 1/2 point Rooring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. The form of the building (footprint, roof and wall planes) are unaltered from 3 points the original design. 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 2 points c.) The form of the building has been altered but the addition is less than 50% of the size of the original building, OR d.) There is a roof top addition that is less than 50% of the footprint of the roof. The original exterior materials of the building are still in place, with the exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the exterior materials have been replaced, but the replacements match the original condition. The original windows and doors of the building are still in place, with the exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the original windows and doors have been replaced, but the 2 points 1 point 2 points 1 point replacements match the original condition I I Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- mum of 10 points: HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: 1G 18 301 LAKE AVENUE CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL JULY 9TH :: 2014 woo I � a ,Y 9 .t, L ■ i.. .YI _I 1 I I I r ` I \ / I I \ I / J ' I \ I / •rF- el •I I I PROPOSED AREA SITE PLAN :: 301 LAKE � 970.309.0695 / www.lfriday.com I NORTH STREET 1 VLG1�I 6 y \ \ F I 1 1 ,p \ / Y \ �// \ \ s VIP"' \ Ia I \ / si \ I 1 � Ii �� ■ III II �_____� \ II I I I mrlrllrr.Illnn.um..rrrurnrr Ir \ n I ..,311 III r III \ jr- IT ...... =1 91 l i I L— 111-----J --- II r III II L---JL-----------� -------- I� u PROPOSED SITE PLAN - 301 LAKE AVENUE :: SCALE = Y-0" = 1/8" ■ www.Ifriday.com �.F4rilt�y JL ���ii�tl..�• -- =SS5G.�1.�`ZtiYI_1, As a==�1=LLVW.5"ii;d L&AL El..;A d Ill.i_'. :_J : .�. :r� i _=t..."� .. . _ . . . . . . t• 1 / ,°•Dom,.-\e \ uous / t0 pd0` ! / �emetec Dead I 5 O I a,p l ' MAIN LEVEL PLAN KEY � � PROPERTY LINE 1. ENTRY 2. SEATING / LUNDY FIREPLACE � 3. LIVING O 3 DINING 5. LIBRARY �- 6. BAR , 7.piece. _- 7. WINE 8. STAIRWAY 9. POWDER I EXTERIOR MATERIAI(TBD) pecduous \ ,; �p 10. ATRIUM / SCULPTURE 11. GARAGE W/ STORAGE \ 't " ametec \ 1m e` 12. MUDRO OM ACCESS• 13. BUTLE R'S PANTRY - RUNNING BOND MASONRY \ `—' I 14. KITCHEN 15. ISLAND W/ BREAKFAST 16. FAMILY I 17. MASTER OFFICE ( ' \ 18. MASTER BATH 19. MASTER BEDROOM ,r g r , �' ,' °� I -- 20. MASTER CLOSET 21. MASTER TERRACE / ROOF i I I i 2 \\ {{°' 22. OUTDOOR PATIO — I 1 \ ,8 O�c pepduoVq I I \ I 5 4 3 22 \\ \\ I I I \ I I I \ j \ 6 v I I I I I ' \ a , I I I t- AllEy 9 1nnnnnn� uuuuuu 17 19 16 � \13 0 I � \12 14 18 20 21 ER PROPTY LINE 970.309.0695 / www.lfriday.com LOWER LEVEL PLAN KEY 1. STAIRWAY 2. MEDIA / RECREATION PRIIRER,,,L,NE yG 3. EXERCISE (— — — — — — — — 4. MUDROOM / ACCESS ` 5. GAMING / RECREATION 6. POWDER ` 7. LAUNDRY 8. CHANGING / 9. STEAM / SAUNA SHOWER 10, DRY MECHANICAL \ 11. WET MECHANICAL I D POURED CONCRETE `� 12. BEDROOM 13. WALK IN CLOSET \ WOOD ACCENT/PIASTER FINISH ` 14. BATHROOM �\ 15. COURTWELL/ LIGHTWELL I \ I \ I � \ I \ I \ I � \ I 12 � 3 I \ 12 v v I \ �I rrrr-�� - i 4 111111 I \ I 12 12 12 \ 7 I v o \ I 8 5 °i � 14 r4 � I 11 10 ------ ------J I � L _ _ - - -- - - -- - PROMM UM ALLEY - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - ■ 970.309.0695 / www.lfriday.com -ice .S T. 'J .- _ y --L'. - -� :'L -r'-L 1.-I-.-. - . • - - - - ' -. V ,o) N m n A' 25 ALLOWABLE NEIOFR LFOLM IIa l tl-d Al i0.nualotl Emb.o . �ELEV II�S - I TELEV IR"f I' n 301 LAKE AVENUE - NORTH STREET / LAKE AVENUE ELEVATION (NORTH) ■ ■ 970.309.0695 / www.lfriday.com 2>—OWABLE H[-1 T , T 0 drq BlV�„fd Nil up T.0.1�1 Y I I � I i 301 LAKE AVENUE - NORTH STREET / LAKE AVENUE ELEVATION (NORTH) ■ ■ 970.309.0695 / www.lfriday.com — —_— 25 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 1 TO.Navin Masonry Wall iV -127-0'(V.LF. w r.o.a4oroau�ExlaOrg T.O.tiool Deck Reil D T.O.Pale Master eeoroom ELEV--714'2' — - I �T.O_Plate Garage Area T.O.F.F.MasterBMnwm - - i I ELEV-103'2' - -- __ - T.O.F.F.Existing Main Level I I L 301 LAKE AVENUE - LAKE AVENUE ELEVATION ( EAST ) ■ ■ 970.309.0695 / www.lfriday.com ME LOWABLE HEIGHT 1 T.O.North Masonry Wall ELEV-12Z4Y(V.I.F.) J,T.O.Raofpack Existing _ ELEV-120'-W(V.I.F.) T.O.Roof Deck Rail T)D 1 IF ELEV-118'-10'(VLF) T.O.Plale Irnarior Ceiling -- - ELEV-118'-6-(V.I.F.) --- - I — T.O.Fate Master Bedroom ELEV-114'-2' �T.O_Fate Garage Area ELEV-111'-9- -- - - � �TLELEV F.F.Master Bedmwn E -103'-2' -- -- — T.O.F.F.KftA—1 Family ELEV-101'.0- - T.O.F.F.Exissng Main Level ——— EV-100'-0' 301 LAKE AVENUE - LAKE AVENUE ELEVATION ( EAST ) ■ ■ 970.309.0695 / www.lfriday.com A f �fl ') ',S 'M iN O1 1 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT _— TO .,1YaN Fr -- ♦ism, W, Y d'NiF� vry,Fl EtEV-i,C!'N icfl� Ems. r 71 Fs, ------------------- 301 LAKE AVENUE - ALLEY ELEVATION (SOUTH) ■ ■ 970.309.0695 / www.Ifriday.com 25'&LOWA&E TO l?0.arolua E.�dc 1'E1EV.tIDa N,-F.1 0 RW Eiera Oe�q erEV.nac ry EE.� 301 LAKE AVENUE - ALLEY ELEVATION (SOUTH) ■ ■ 970.309.0695 / www.Ifriday.com 25'ALLOWABLE HEIGHT —————————— — ——————————————————— ————— — — — T.O.NoM Ma Wall ELEV-127-0-(V.I.F.) LO.Roof Exieti ELEV-127-0'(V.I.F.) T.O.Roof Deck f2dl D ELEV-118'-10'(V.I.F.) —--- \ T,O.Plate Interior Ceflkp ELEV-118'£'(V.I.F.) --- — _----�—----- _ -----. T.O.Plate Master Beomam ELEV-114'-2' BEMIRE 11 M11111 301 LAKE AVENUE - WEST ELEVATION ■ ■ 970.309.0695 / www.lfriday.com 25'ALLOWABLE HEIGHT T.O.North Mason Wall ELEV-122'4'(V.LF.) T.O.Rodoatic Extabng ELEV-120'-0-(V.1 F.) T.O.Rod Deck Rall -_ -- EIEV-11-'-10'(V.I.F.) T.O.Plate Inlerbr Ceiling ELEV-118'8'(V.I.F.) — - — — --— --- —— —— -- ------ — - T.O.Plate Master Bedroom ELEV-114'-2' — _ �T.O_Plate Garage Area ELEV-111'-9' Cr 1 -- T.O.F.F.Master Bedroom 301 LAKE AVENUE - WEST ELEVATION ■ ■ 970.309.0695 / www.lfriday.com E 0 v w 3 3 3 Ln rn O rn O M let OF O n i� • �Av 14 NO •4U, IPA .• � , i I ►• • NNI 4. tok hr - , , . 4 ►. 1 '� f rr e I, I /I / � I I I I Ic I I I a I -�C I /I V / I 1 I I-- I 1 I � I I I I I n II II II N u — _ . — . _ _ . — _ . — — - II , II I J \\BB I I I I , / dig � d�$ v� II II II / /I vdKX'� \ I D ZJ J m OII �-H III Q� I II I \I m CD / m / D / rl `D H m / m I --, \� m U) Ice c� o I ` , �� I \�\ m z n m C z O rl `D H HPC s y �1 --a h E7 \\ s ! I PROPOSED SITE PLAN 6-20-2014)- 301 LAKE AVENUE RESIDENCE :: LUNDY REMODEL I SCALE:3/16'=1'-0' PROPERTY LINE AT I plamet� / 0 I I \ \/\ g• 10°IOng \0" \\\ // n- \ \ Ong a \I \ du us U Olaena °/ duous \ Otameter \ T'Olame}er \ ! \a"&Onbllne \\ 1g' / 1 (o ----------------------------- \ 5'p),a ne N U -----___---_— CHIMNEY FLUE —_--J Q °US I SKYLIGHT 9'a°`OnP\lne \ Y Q rn 10' Ong \ \ W co Z Lu ecidu Ns IF '\ \\ 15 � II II W k= FLAT ROOF 119. all \ Q mIi \ I I f=�Im elr \ I I III `?II JI wsEro�rnEaw,re.aawn�m \ �7- =-II r— wmwaEVmco`ao Xis IL zI I I II II ��mowRecKrv�uee \ __\ \ SKI1JOM BELOW /)J III 11 Il` \ �---------L \ II W U Q III -- L I 1 =Ravcaer°�w�r N x —— ——— I� ---- _1111 itt�i�e teioott nnnt olio et Inutat tteu l� \ \ m � II II -I 71 \\ III III LL \� II III II JII \ a FLAT ROOF w/ 4, \ u < I L—— __________- ROOF DECK ACCESS \ III I OPEN FLAT ROOF _ it \ FLAT ROOF r-------� I _ ------------- III \ I� III I� II II II =11 �r__=-------1-1 nIII \ - I III II IL_=� -Udttl \ L.n I -J — __ � OPEN TO RAISED I III ,� n II _ tI tutu tt lilt iiuill ilium Innetl TERRACE \\ O IL------J -------- L_— II L-----�II _ II IL — ----- UI \ II t— _ __—_ PROPERTY LINE AL1EY = z \ o SHEET �o r 1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL (6-20-2014) - 301 LAKE AVENUE :: LUNDY RESIDENCE A C-6 SCALE:3/16"=T-0" PROPERTY UNE I ` I \ I \ J i 0 POURED CONCRETE ` ~ I \ U D WOOD ACCENTI PLASTER FINISH ° i RUNNING BOND MASONRY I 0 \ . � o --------------------� \ > U \\ J n w 7 Lu - w r+sravan�,r.�nu.nE. ui O 77 I l l l l l i I rErnvnowMmu,wEw w 111111 � o d o. „eu Al,wsmoH — w ... lz naw a \ J 11 x1t--------0 e — -® ❑ m ----- \ _ —. _ PROPERTY NE—— _ _ _ _ .—— _ —. _ _ _ _.——.—_ _ _ . _ _ — _. — _ —_ — _ ._ — _ _ _ -- C - - - � - - �- -ALLEY ' SHEET AV PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL (6-20-2014) — 301 LAKE AVENUE :: LUNDY RESIDENCE \ PC-7 SCALE:3/16"=V-0" yle ....n q \ uous — _ PROPERTY LINE N a 80 9 O'ptOdP"-O i \am��e�OoNteN s J u IL plam�a`o \ \\ p�a W' I I us / f,�..gdP6ne•!\ \ _ / \ / „Q.Oiamatec \ \\ U EXTERIOR MATERIAE(TBD) a d ///,5 mate\f\0 eI adupUS O , p Deciduo WOOD ACCENT I GATING AREAS Z U RUNNING BOND MASONRY 0 > U Q J m Q -- us �----- -----� \ �� AV Odpltn \\ I J � Y ..melerZAn+fero anon x.wrm \ \ � ——— W Q /1\10 s'rnuueax�wE�.ni=w ea'.e`e_ \ ete2 aCdu s \ W U \\�,�/ "Ex I aE�wao: 8'I \0\a m 0 1 5 p R tntaa r\De c+du/\r I P s 8 W O -FF1.Onglnl Main Leel .� IV.F)-0'SILL 7e801.'4 LLJ o co ,Fn = eE a Z T.O.F—.F Original Main Level \ suaax•oE \ / \ / p' 2 I X100'-0'(V.I.F.1 w i w l Y -�_Ewu E \\ Ro" Decduous i j o_ J srw. \ \\ �.pld�ne f / oz 27 0 I I IIIII1111111 � s r wrsrox Iii -"00t I U Ll u Ll LI LI I--� \ If o f5_ T.D.F.F.t jld7.N Famiiy - \ – ~lz �T.O�".F.Hasler ELNI-103-7(_ w \ P-1 \ L————————_j I 1 TAO.FF.Garage �wmiex i � rv•crw uM `\\ \ O IATII¢9CAEH�E➢oEOC.wEA\ I I + –®WET I PaaFO9E!O PNe `\ \ O xEwwxo,.Fax,>�E,�,Ea Emx� — \ \ PROPERTY LINE �8. Z CD ALIEY 8, _ \\ \ V n SHEET ED Al m ... .o,o..aa.,.,, 25'ALLOWABLE HEIGHT •>e_.,,.os.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ------------------------------- -- -------- I I �9tv�dN.�.1r ar mu,eowme �/4sbu I I ,I I i I! I I IIIN I N N II I II I�I IIlII N ! I IIN 111 I II III 111111 I I N I,I� I II I I . .I !I II � II III I VIII III III VIII I II II II I I I I I ��—�-,.��� III 1� I I I Q I I I � I I I i� �� � I I I I I III III I I i 1 II III II I I I I I I II IIII II I I I I I i I II I I II �I � I j II ��F'm��� v Lu ' ry ------------ ------------------ — I VIII �° F�� �. U ,, -------+ --------- --------------------- III II II- III III II II III RI tI I U I II II II III III II II III R I I I a- _ I III II N III III II II IR R I I I I I I I I III II II III III II II III RI I IC I I I j I � � I III II R III III II II III R I I I l I I I I � I III II R III III II II III ql I I I I I I � I III II R RI III II II III R I I I I I f__J I } � U u u R m m o of R I -------------------L—�Ii-----� Q -------------- ===J—I 25 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT ------------------------T---f---------T-1————— ¢Taty iadC/s.l � I I � Q I � I � I w ITI I I I I ' ! I I I II I III D -- ------------------------+� d I I F=1G I N I I I I I I II C__ICJ' II n III II I I = O I I C--I n I II I c co n 1===1� II II III II I I Q Q � Z c -- ------------------------ --1Ls=Jh_ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 28 Smuggler Grove Rd.— Conceptual Major Development Review, Setback Variances, FAR Bonus, RDS Variance, Relocation, Demolition, Parking Reduction PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 9, 2014 SUMMARY: 28 Smuggler Grove Road is a circa 1880s miner's cabin located in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood off of Midland Avenue. The applicant requests approval to relocate the building on the lot, demolish a non-historic addition and construct a new addition to the historic resource. A new single family residence is requested on the lot. Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variances, a Residential Design Standard Variance, FAR Bonus, and reduction of 1 parking space are requested for the project. BACKGROUND: The property was ' designated a historic landmark in 2008. The subject residence was moved to the Jukati Subdivision, specifically 28 f Smuggler Grove Road, in 1976. Because the subdivision was not annexed into the City until 1987, the City did not propose landmark designation during the previous historic inventory surveys. The floor i y - plan of this building is atypical to traditional miner's cabins in Aspen. Staff does not know where the home was Pr originally sited; however during the designation hearing in 2008, Staff found a similar shaped building on t he 1904 Sanborne Map (Exhibit B) that may be Figure 1: 28 Smuggler Grove current condition the subject residence in its original location. APPLICANT: Pagewood LLC, represented by Sara Upton of Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design. PARCEL ID: 2737-181-23-002. ADDRESS: 28 Smuggler Grove Rd., Jukati Subdivision, Lot 2, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 7/9/14 Page 1 of 10 ZONING: R-15A CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, RELOCATION AND DEMOLITION Staff Response: Please note that the proposed deck space for the entire project needs to be reduced because it is over the allowed FAR. Site plan: The applicant proposes 2 detached single family residences on the 7,378 sf lot. The landmark status of the property permits 2 detached residences in the R-15A zone district. Non- landmark parcels are required to have 30,000 sf of lot area for 2 detached residences. Similar to other lots located outside the original townsite, this lot is wider than it is deep, and it does not have alley access. The front porches of the residences align, and the front most wall of the historic home is closest to the street which places the historic home in a prominent location. Staff is supportive of the proposed site plan and finds that it meets the following key features of a new building on landmark property as described in the Design Guidelines, and Guidelines 11.1 and 11.2: Traditionally, a typical building had its primary entrance oriented to the street. This helped establish a `pedestrian friendly" quality. Locating the entrance of a new building in a manner that is similar to those seen traditionally is therefore preferred. 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. ❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. ❑ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. • A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. • In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. Mass/Scale/Height: Historic House: The applicant proposes a rear addition to the historic home that includes a one story connector piece and a two story addition. The connector piece is 9'6" long. Staff finds that the proposed height of the addition is appropriate and meets the guidelines below. The width of the addition is the same width of the historic home. Staff recommends that the width of the addition be reduced to further minimize the impact of the addition on the historic resource. The roof form and overall style of the addition is simple, relates to the historic home and meets the guidelines below. Staff recommends that the connector piece meet the 10' measurement listed in Guideline 10.7. Based on past experience, a 10' connector piece to a two story addition is the minimum length needed to visually separate the mass successfully. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 7/9/14 Page 2 of 10 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. ❑ A 1-story connector is preferred. ❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. ❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. ❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. ❑ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. ❑ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. New House: The applicant proposes a flat roof single family residence with a front porch and one stall parking garage. Staff is struggling to find the relationship of the new home and the historic home on the site and recommends that that applicant restudy the design of the new home to better relate to the historic resource and meet the guidelines below. Staff recommends pulling inspiration from the historic landmark to inform the design of the new house and to create a cohesive project on the property. Staff does not recommend imitation of the historic resource. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. ❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 7/9/14 Page 3 of 10 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. ❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. ❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. Demolition: 26.415.100.4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 7/9/14 Page 4 of 10 Staff Response: The applicant proposes to demolish non-historic additions at the rear of the historic resource. Staff has very limited definitive information about 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. There is a non-historic addition at the rear of the historic home. Staff is supportive of its removal and finds that review criteria(d) and the second set of review criteria(a—c) are met. Relocation: 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. Staff Response: The home is not in its original location. Staff supports the relocation of the historic home on the property and finds that it is an acceptable preservation method given the integrity of the building. Relocating the home will enable the landmark to have a more traditional relationship to grade: when the landmark was moved in 1976 and placed on a basement it was raised a few feet above grade. Further, relocation creates room on the property for a new separate single family residence that will absorb most of the development pressure from the historic resource. Staff finds that review criterion 4 is met. Staff recommends that HPC adopt a condition of approval for Final Review that a letter from a house mover demonstrating that the home can be relocated be included in the final design application. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 7/9/14 Page 5 of 10 VARIANCES: FAR BONUS, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES, PARKING WAIVER 26.415.110.F. Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e) The construction materials are of the highest quality; f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Staff Response: The applicant requests the 500 square feet FAR bonus. The proposed FAR for the historic home is about 1,883 sf; and the proposed FAR for the new residence is about 2,195 sf(these numbers do not include deck overage). Staff has very limited information about the historic resource. At present, it is not clear exactly where the house was moved from—the 1904 Sanborne Map and the 1974 historic inventory map suggests that it was moved from the corner of Monarch and Deane Streets. The Building permit file indicates that it was moved in 1976. Based on the style of the structure, and some inspection of framing back in 2003, its construction date can be placed sometime in the late 1800's. The overall form of this house seems to be preserved. A modest one story addition has been constructed along the back, affecting the integrity of the rear wall, however, the plan form is otherwise intact. During the designation hearing the property scored 63 points out of 100 for integrity. The applicant looks to HPC for direction to meet criterion (c) above. There is limited information available which makes the preservation or restoration of the historic resource challenging — especially since the floor plan is atypical of Aspen miner's cabins. The applicant is willing to replace the casement windows with traditional double hung windows in the front gable end and along the side elevations. Staff and the applicant conducted a site visit to examine the residence. The front porch appears to have been replaced when the house was moved. Many original window openings also appear to exist, although the sash have been replaced and details and 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 7/9/14 Page 6 of 10 dimensions area altered. The exterior siding is new and the eave details and shingles in the gable end are new. The applicant is also contacting the historical society and spoke with Bill Bailey (the original house mover in 1976)to gain any information about alterations to the home. There are many opportunities for restoration of this home for the applicant to pursue to earn the 500 sf FAR Bonus. The applicant looks to HPC for direction regarding restoration. 26.415.110.C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent(5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. The following variances are requested: Historic Home: Front yard setback variance: 25' required, and 7'8" proposed West sideyard setback variance: 10' required, and 5' proposed New Home: Front yard setback variance: 25' required, and 17'5"proposed East sideyard setback variance: 10' required, and 5' proposed Distance between buildings: 10' required, about 9'6" proposed. Note: This measurement is between building facades. A deck is proposed off of the second level of the historic home that extends between the new home and the historic home. Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the proposed variances which create more space between the buildings by reducing the sideyard setbacks. Staff finds that criteria 2.b is met in that creating more space between the buildings supports the historic preservation of the landmark and mitigates an adverse impact to the historic home. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 7/9/14 Page 7 of 10 26.410.020.D.2. Residential Design Standards. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Following is the requested variances, underlined area is not met in the proposal: 26.410.040.A.1 Building orientation. The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, s both street-facing facades _; i must be p arallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front { facade of all structures shall ,y be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 gip. shall be exempt from this requirement. Staff Response: Smuggler Grove Road begins to curve at the western part of the subject property. The historic home is slightly off the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. The new home and the historic home are parallel to each other and are mostly parallel to the street. Staff finds that the intent of the Design Standard is met and that both criteria listed above for a variance are met: the neighborhood in large part does not meet this standard; and the size and shape of the lot in relationship to the road created a site specific constraint. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 7/9/14 Page 8 of 10 26.415.110.D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for parking reductions. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.11, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application. A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the parking reduction for the historic home from 2 spaces to 1 space. Staff finds that the reduction of 1 parking space mitigates an adverse impact on the historic landmark that would occur if 2 spaces were required. Staff understands that the current situation for the property is on-street parking. There appears to be available street parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation to restudy the relationship of the new home to the historic home. The FAR calculations for deck space, which were based on obtaining the 500 sf FAR bonus, are incorrect in the application and need to be addressed through the redesign. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 7/9/14 Page 9 of 10 EXHIBITS' Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines Exhibit B: 1904 Sanborne Map Exhibit C: Application 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 7/9/14 Page 10 of 10 Exhibit A—Relevant Design Guidelines 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, operation and groupings of windows. ❑ Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. ❑ Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. ❑ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. ❑ Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. ❑ Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. Replacement Windows 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. ❑ Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. ❑ If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double- hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. ❑ Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. ❑ Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. ❑ Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. ❑ Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 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. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. ❑ Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may 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. ❑ If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. ❑ Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. ❑ This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. Porch Replacement 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct=it to match the original in form and detail. ❑ Use materials that appear similar to the original. ❑ While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. ❑ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. ❑ When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. • The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. • The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. ❑ The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. ❑ Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. ❑ A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. ❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. ❑ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. - ❑ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ❑ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided. ❑ The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered. ❑ In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to other historic structures in the area. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. ❑ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. ❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. ❑ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. ❑ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. ❑ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. ❑ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). ❑ The size of a lightwell should be minimized. ❑ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. ❑ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. ❑ A 1-story connector is preferred. ❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. ❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. ❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. ❑ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. ❑ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. ❑ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. ❑ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. ❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ❑ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. Building Orientation 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. ❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. ❑ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. ❑ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. ❑ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. Mass and Scale 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. ❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Building & Roof Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. ❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. ❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. ❑ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. Materials 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ❑ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. ❑ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. Architectural Details 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ❑ These include windows, doors and porches. ❑ Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. Q'I 19 X E05 e03 et-11 Ql) 411, 309 301 -:4x) -V11 366 LAWN 345 ilt, 310 31,7 310 3017 306 AW ?0? -Vo LO-' Q- t4-, cl 0 .......... f5 -1? 315-13 311-�P 307-Ir 303 301 �3,5 ?33 L19 0??- tD 3/8 316 31a 31e ......... 300 3L, 10 x'14-!a Pfd-8 cl, ET 00 0 0 C> I AA 3fY 36' "215 Jil 311 09 .305 3 (307) 015 303 .301 335 0-33 L-51 f'l;;' 315, 713 ?,7* O 10,5 ',(13 90 C/4, ;>Pl 794 V9n ;"p "'r ^1q PIP, fpfn 7f7q ^nr 23;e h:)p;. -v,-, co 81611 r t 970`14 90t`:`; rowland+broughton rL':.'.•iIt U.ZYiin :�C'.f.rl # :{-'jiiR MEMORANDUM Project: 21374.00 Jukati Subject: Substantial Amendment Description Date: 04 April 2014, Revised 13 May 2014 To: Amy Simon From: Rowland Broughton Architecture Cc: Dear Amy, Please find attached our documents required for the submittal of a Major Development/ Conceptual Review for the property.located at 28 Smuggler Grove in Aspen, CO. Our client's goal is to create two modest family homes on the lot where an existing historic home has been relocated, and condominiumize them. The historic house would be shifted to the east side of the lot. This will allow the historic resource to receive maximum exposure, because the lot to the east has a large rock outcropping that will make it an unlikely candidate for redevelopment. The proposed addition to the historic house consists of a two story mass attached to a linking element behind the existing miner's cabin. The new house would be located on the west side of the lot. We are seeking a square footage bonus for this project (26.415.110.F). The square footage will be shared between the two homes in order to more successfully provide for a three bedroom program for each house. Please review our summary of the project's compliance with the Historic Preservation Guidelines for further clarification. We are requesting front setback variances for this project (26.415.110.C). The R15-A zoning establishes a 25' front yard setback, which creates a hardship for this 76' deep lot. The front of the historic resource is located 7'-8" back from the front property line. This location serves to establish a streetscape with the two adjacent building front facades, and allows for visibility of the historic portion of the house. The new house is located 17'-Y from the front property line in order to give prominence to the historic resource. We are also requesting side setback variances for this project in order to allow as much space as possible between the historic resource and the new house. We propose to use the 5' easements on each side of the lot as setback lines and give the additional space to the cPnwn inn hPtwPPn the hni_mps In most rasps- the encroachment into the side setbacks is for light well placement. Page 1 of 4 rowland+broughton uJ-1an de=;-11)./intent)[cus';an We are requesting a parking variance for one space at the historic house (26.415.110.D). The zoning for this, lot requires that each residence be provided with two off-street parking spaces. We have provided for two spaces at the new house: one in the garage and one in the driveway. The historic house has been provided with one off-street parking space in the driveway adjacent to the house. We feel that adding a single stall garage or creating a longer driveway crowds the house too much. The current parking situation at 28 Smuggler Grove has five cars belonging to the tenants that are all parked on the street. We feel that taking three cars away from street parking not only eases parking congestion, but allows for maximum visibility of the historic resource. Compliance with Residential Design Standards (26.410.040): • Both houses are oriented with their front facades parallel to the street. • No fences are proposed for the project at this time. • The project is exempt from the secondary mass requirement. • The new house garage is accessed from Smuggler Grove, which is a private road. • The new house garage door is a single bay width. • Both homes possess street-facing front doors and principal windows. • The front door of the existing historic house is more than 10' back from the front fagade due to the unusually long mass that is at the front of the house. • Both houses are designed with front porches with a minimum of 50 square feet, and are open on two sides. • Both homes possess first story street-facing elements. • No street-facing windows span the area between nine and twelve feet above the finished first floor. •. No light wells are on the front facade of the house. • Materials have been applied in a way that represents their true characteristics on both buildings, and their application is consistent along the perimeter of the houses. • This project is exempt from inflection. Compliance with Historic Preservation Guidelines: The following is a basic summary of conceptual topics relative to the scope of the project. A more detailed description will be addressed at the Final Review. Chapter 1: Streetscape and Lot Features As this project seeks to design for two residences on one lot, the intention is to maximize the opportunity to retain any historical significant elements. While the existing fence is not likely original, any proposed fencing will be designed to be compatible with the historic resource. Chapter 2: Historic Building Materials All efforts will be made to preserve the historic resource and take the greatest care of any original material. Any repair or replacement will strive to maintain the existing historic aesthetic or upgrade the structure using similar materials that best match the original. Page 2 of 4 rowiand+broughton i 1 Chapter 3: Windows All historic windows and their corresponding placement will be preserved. Any repair or replacement will match the original design of the historic resource. Chapter 4: Doors All historic doors will be preserved and any repair or replacement will match the original design of the historic resource. Chapter 5: Porches The original porch will be preserved and upgraded to meet the historic aesthetic and for current code compliance, should it be necessary. The new residence will have a RDS compliant porch added to the front to compliment the streetscape shared by the two buildings. Chapter 6: Architectural Details Architectural details native to the historic resource will be preserved and, where necessary, repaired or replaced to maintain the original aesthetic. Chapter 7: Roofs The historic resource will be preserved and maintained, which will include the roof and eave depth. Historic roofing materials will be used during any repairs, replacement or additions. Any items that will impact the visual interest of the roofline will be minimized. The addition to the historic resource will be set back to preserve the autonomy of the original cabin and highlight the structure at the streetscape. Chapter 8: Secondary Structures There are no existing historic secondary structures on the lot. Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations The historic resource was relocated once and the current relocation will put the historic resource to the front of the lot, parallel to the road giving it better exposure to the streetscape. The greatest care will be taken when moving the historic resource and its restoration will be a priority. All lightwells will be on the side of the houses and when possible, to the rear of the property. Chapter 10: Building Additions The design intent is to restore the miner's cabin to its original size and shape, while removing the addition to the cabin that was added in the 1970's. The new addition will be set back from the cabin and be designed with shape, mass and materiality that will not detract from the character of the historic resource, including a linking element to separate the new from the original. Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties The new residence will be sited to be paranei with the street aiongside the historic resource. It will, however, be set back from the front of the cabin to allow for a greater streetscape exposure for the preserved structure. The design will incorporate a front Page 3 of 4 rowfand+broughton porch and be scaled appropriately so that it does not overwhelm the historic resource. Flat roofs will be used to minimize the overall scale of the mass. Project Objectives: • Take advantage of Snyder Park setting • Orient houses to views of Smuggler and Aspen Mountain • Locate two houses on a wide, shallow lot in order to create a streetscape • Create off-street parking solutions • Utilize two curb cuts in order to allow for maximum visibility for the historic resource • Request side setback variances to increase the distance between the two houses • Request front setback variances to allow for the existing condition of the historic resource in conjunction with a compliant linking element Site Constraints: • Unusual lot size, wide and shallow • Historic resource has a front bay that is longer than most Victorian era miners' cabins We look forward to receiving your feedback at the HPC hearing on June 25. Best regards, Sara Boulet Upton Senior Project Manager Rowland + Broughton Architecture Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: S 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: a� Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing.--O Propose& Number of bedrooms: Existing.- 4!5 Proposed.• Proposed%of demolition(Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing:�6 Allowable: T y��(a Proposed: Z„ 11-5 Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: 25' Proposed.• Co” Access. bldg. height: Existing:---vb --Allowable:. Proposed: .. On-Site parking. Existing:_. Required: Z.. Proposed: 2 % Site coverage: Existing:_____ Required:,_____ .__,, Proposed: %Open Space: Existing: Require& _Proposed: Front Setback: Existing. m _ Required: „2 5'.___Proposed: L c " Rear Setback: Existing: Required: l 9" .,, _Proposed: (o' Combined F/R.: Existing: _Required: Proposed:, Side Setback: Existing: a Required: 10 1 Proposed: �=aj Side Setback: Existing: _ Required.•__Lq� Proposed: to'f/- btd�• �e Combined Sides: -Existing: --„Required: Proposed.-_ Distance Between Existing W -Required:__Lo „__,_____Proposed:. 0! Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: - Lot Size: -Z 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_ I Propose& Number of bedrooms: Existing: � _ Proposed: a Proposed %of demolition(Historic properties only): -11*a DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing:,J.J -,5 Allowable: t,P- i, Proposed. 18 3 Principal bldg. height: Existing:�� Allowable: Z!. Proposed.Z_S'-16'/4"-t,m,,,Jfo,t - Access. bldg. height: Existing: ` Allowable: Proposed:--0- On-Site parking: Existing: Required 4 Proposed.• %Site coverage: Existing:, _ Required. Proposed: %Open Space: Existing: Required. _..__Proposed:Front Setback: Existing: � '_ l' Required:, Z�,-` Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing:_t:�-,'-•11' Required., 10' Proposed: :I Z, Combined F/R: Existing:, m. Required.-, Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: 30 10" Required.• 1!J' Proposed: lv�`f!-��i�� Side Setback: Existing:— 7 Required: ]p' Proposed. 5' Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed. Distance Between Existing K rA_,_Required: D�' Proposed.• p'_ Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: i • * Variations requested: :eMAJA' l I row Iand+broughton archdecture/whan design/Intadordeslgn 234 a hopklns a 1830 Nake st,ate 200 en,w asp 81811 denver,w 80202 I 970.544.9001 a 303.308.1373 o 970.544.3473} 303.308.13751 I LOT 2 EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION Consultants T3 Issue: EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION 01-15-201 HPC-MEETING 01-20-2014 CLIENT R EVIEW 01.21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 _ CLIENT REVIEW 02-26-2014 HPC WORKSESSION 02-28.2014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-06-2014 CLIENT REVIEW ! 03-26-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 04-04-2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW I I % SMUGGLER GROVE ROAD (40'PRIVATE ROW) EDGE OFPAVEMENT \ A A--795e_� U51- ( r S79-41,00. 1.� Oo�O UFO �� \ 91,24• PE 5�1. / !N L 1 � i1 ?rS=TBACK ! JUKATI LOT / I -- it _ ��I / RESIDENCES JUKATI SUBDIVISION 9-s^ ! —����` _ ! /// 28 SMUGGLER GROVE NEW HOUSE ! � I ! / ASPEN,CO 81611 �I I LOT L� I Ir 7,3781 S.F. HISTORIC HOUSE I ILOT 3 JUKATI SUBDIVISION _�21 I 1 I ! I I I PROJECT NO: \ I I O _ 10'SETBACK 21374! _ . DWG FILE; / I/3`-p ^' I_ I 2137420 Al-1.dwg 70-0^ � I 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHEET TITLE SCALE: 1/9—V-0^ PLAN TRUE UTILITY EASEMENT NORTH NORTH PROPOSED F'q F] SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" ) Al n 1 �� f 8t aspen 234 e hopkins ave,aspen co 81611 + t 970 544 9006 denver 1830 Make st,ste 200,denver co 8020' + t 303 308 1373 visit www.rowlandbroughton.cc-im rowland+broughton architecture,'urban design 'interior design MEMORANDUM Project: 21374.00 Jukati APB -7 2014 Subject: Substantial Amendment Description . ► Date: 04 April 2014 '� To: Amy Simon From: Rowland Broughton Architecture Cc: Dear Amy, Please find attached our documents required for the submittal of a Major Development/ Conceptual Review for the property located at 28 Smuggler Grove in Aspen, CO. Our client's goal is to create two modest family homes on the lot where an existing historic home has been relocated, and condominiumize them. The historic house would be shifted to the east side of the lot. This will allow the historic resource to receive maximum exposure, because the lot to the east has a large rock outcropping that will make it an unlikely candidate for redevelopment. The proposed addition to the historic house consists of a two story mass attached to a linking element behind the existing miner's cabin. The new house would be located on the west side of the lot. We are seeking a square footage bonus for this project. The square footage will be shared between the two homes in order to more successfully provide for a three bedroom program for each house. We are requesting front setback variances for this project. The R1 5-A zoning establishes a 25' front yard setback, which creates a hardship for this 76' deep lot. The front of the historic resource is located 7'-8" back from the front property line. This location serves to establish a streetscape with the two adjacent building front facades, and allows for visibility of the historic portion of the house. The new house is located 17'-Y from the front property line in order to give prominence to the historic resource. We are also requesting side setback variances for this project in order to allow as much space as possible between the historic resource and the new house. We propose to use the 5' easements on each side of the lot as setback lines and give the additional space to the separation between the houses. In most cases, the encroachment into the side setbacks is for light well placement. We are requesting a parking variance for one space at the historic house. The zoning for this lot requires that each residence be provided with two off-street parking spaces. We Page 1 of 3 rowland+broughton architecture/urban design/interior design have provided for two spaces at the new house: one in the garage and one in the driveway. The historic house has been provided with one off-street parking space in the driveway adjacent to the house. We feel that adding a single stall garage or creating a longer driveway crowds the house too much. The current parking situation at 28 Smuggler Grove has five cars belonging to the tenants that are all parked on the street. We feel that taking three cars away from street parking not only eases parking congestion, but allows for maximum visibility of the historic resource. Compliance with Residential Design Standards: • Both houses are oriented with their front facades parallel to the street. • No fences are proposed for the project at this time. • The project is exempt from the secondary mass requirement. • The new house garage is accessed from Smuggler Grove, which is a private road. • The new house garage door is a single bay width. • Both homes possess street-facing front doors and principal windows. • The front door of the existing historic house is more than 10' back from the front fagade due to the unusually long mass that is at the front of the house. • Both houses are designed with front porches with a minimum of 50 square feet, and are open on two sides. • Both homes possess first story street-facing elements. • No street-facing windows span the area between nine and twelve feet above the finished first floor. • No light wells are on the front fagade of the house. • Materials have been applied in a way that represents their true characteristics on both buildings, and their application is consistent along the perimeter of the houses. • This project is exempt from inflection. Objectives: • Take advantage of Snyder Park setting • Orient houses to views of Smuggler and Aspen Mountain • Locate two houses on a wide, shallow lot in order to create a streetscape • Create off-street parking solutions • Utilize two curb cuts in order to allow for maximum visibility for the historic resource • Request side setback variances to increase the distance between the two houses • Request front setback variances to allow for the existing condition of the historic resource in conjunction with a compliant linking element Page 2 of 3 rowland+broughton architecture/urban design/interior design Site Constraints: • Unusual lot size, wide and shallow • Historic resource has a front bay that is longer than most Victorian era miners' cabins We look forward to receiving your feedback at the HPC hearing on June 25. Best regards, Sara Boulet Upton Senior Project Manager Rowland + Broughton Architecture Page 3 of 3 f � 1 �y ` - ,,f� _ IL l6k, AL L IN j r IF top 1 rr M !U� N 70 ^ + '�{•�.]r ' I I^ 'R • 111 At , .4 1�� `�• - .� �• � .-.. L }Te �„• • ��� I I w I. • i - � 1. - f. 1 1!"/':�: '1' �^ _� - I .l y �:I I ' . �� J Y IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 1�a d6M 7g07 LLomLOT 2, AJUKATI SUBDIVISION , Sa �. �0 p0 V Cowin oven \-' u SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH RANGE 84�WEST OF THE 6TH P°Mx - � , `u""e �'� tm°d, i/ y • _ tiShdls H O ao CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO i r wm� .0 0 I " � ` 28 SMUGGLER " f `t. a�--m moat s `,, 311P nAtay' owo t q GROVE ROAD D o I rh ��r>• • 1 >- I ti m ..•.O.Sta„y _ REBAR /FOUND N0.5 \ 7 rL I • �,�M�/•'A•, a _,y�E il'Ir�,:3l,1,.Y°J�rSStii��..;Vl`i �+ ( 4 {/ • yh+{ �.. >— e" ��FOUx E � �i .r;. "„ •r r BAR _ VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1,000' I�FOUND ALUMINUM CAP � _ IN CONCRETE(ILIJ:GI _ _-- — LL NW CO LOT I RNER _ JUKATI SUBDIVISION Q C C SMUG LEGEND o G_Z Z ®—� w PRIVA GRAPHIC SCALE LIGHT POLE `\ OW) — ® .. -- —_ WATERLINE R j[ 4 N80°51 12" - 319°Q?(?0,2 BEARPryC,6) A - _ ®� SEWER LINE CITY OF ASPEN W 1356.771",F)-_`- __ 9E.23rP198. -- ELECTRIC ONLJNENE GPs 94 -- - 29) V 1956 (IN FEET) Of o r V ATV LINE N �:'F n E EDGE - iROn- 10 It. —_ - — WODD FENCE T � CN '/A/f/ 2 2JC \\ -- I i C �. d t--T � _ FOUND �/ I 2'4 I\�9� S79°41'OO••E 9'.�Q. SITE BENCH MARK PROPERTY DESCRIPTION r � / -- y F"LE ALUMIN M CAP — �.� I \ 21 T_OIDLE) _ LOT 2,JUKATI SUBDIVISION,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 4,196E j 'A/ • ". T Ox 795a.88 -- — IN PLAT BOOK 3,AT PAGE 310,IN THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE.} ZU CITY OF ASPEN,COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADO In K !Gc / '27 1___ aM•irr ®fD @ / - - �a=� ,i NOSES: w woe � ry / WWD FENCE I. BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF S79'41 00'E BETWEEN THE �yy �0 >0>a r ONI l I j — I (ttPICAL) NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1,A FOUND ALUMINUM CAP ILLEGIBLE IN CONCRETE AND z U m qe IHE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT°_.A FOUND ALUMINUM CAP ILLEGIBLE AS SHOWN n n I HEREON. RR ,W!!1 ('12 DATE OF ATELY' FEET OF O 2ON AT THE TIME OF THE FIELD SURVEY THERE WAS III a L I A "1x32 _ ®9 APPROXIMATELY 3 FEET OF SNOW ON THE GROUND. (g rT d I TREE CHART N I #' I - LINEAR UNITS USED TO PERFORM THIS SURVEY WERE U.S.SURVEY FEE'. �+ III N'p /.^. 33I : � 28 �. 3B/ C ,f I.30 I PORCH 1 /I, TREE TYPE SIZE DRIP [� Y 0 Q q •34 _ 4. THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE JUKATI SUBDIVISION RECORDED SEPTEMBER 4,1968 IN ® J 0 W _� r_ ( I DECIDUOUS 8" 16' PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 310 AS RECEPTION NO.132138,THE EAST MEADOW AND JUKATI �v INN // I RaCrt 35.1'--�� - DECIDUOUS g" 16• ANNEXATION PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 15,1987 IN PLAT BOOK 20 AT PACE 5 AS .y /- O 36 3:-" 7S57Ja.- I DECIDUOUS 8" lE• RECEPTION N0.292883 AN IMPROVEMENT AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY z ®Z D DECIDUOUS g' 16' ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS,INC.,BATED JUNE 4,2007,CITY OF ASPEN CPS CONTROL N W 5 DECIDUOUS 6' 12' MOYUMENTATION 2009 MAP AND CORNERS FOUND IN PLACE AS SHOWN. � •.-1 W 307/ .,, LOT I 6 DECIDUOUS e '6' THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS.RESTRICTIONS COVENANTS AND 1 1•1 i'2 STORY Ip i DECIDUOVS 12" 24' EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN IN THE TITLE 1 - a ! FRAME HOUSE 7,378_±S.F. I w' 8 DECIDUOUS 12' 24' COMMITMENT PREPARED BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY + OECIDVOUS 6 HAVING AN C yy 2" / I¢ WITH BASEMENT r y EF_CPVE DATE OF JANUARY 7,2014(COMMITMENT NUMBER 13003182), 0.969?Ac. to DEaDUOUS 4' ) 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ROAD p _ it DECIDUOUS 5' 10' 5. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 L 'c I j $O i✓ J J : 12 CECIOUOUB 4" g' (NAVD 88)REFERENCED FROM NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY(NGB)BENCHMARK STATION 4® 13 DECIDUOUS 6' 12' 0158 HAVING A PUBLISHED ELEVATION OF 7911.98. wl 2 „r',-1:.;:: 14 DECIDUOUS 6” 12' p 15 DECIDUOUS 5" 12' 7. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS I FOOT. f SERNCES (A I6 DECIDU n 39 � � OUS 4" 8' E. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN MARKED OUT BY A PRIVATE UTILITY LOCATOR AND _ 17 DECIDUOUS 4" g' THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENTS,ONLY PAINT MARKS AND U7ILITY DECIDUOUS 4" 8' FLAGS HAVE BEEN LOCATED BY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING,INC.THE ACTUAL OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES MUST BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION LOCATION 11 - 79 DECIDUOUS g" 16' _ ,2°' K 03 20 DECIDUOUS 11" 22' 9, THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE X AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE 500-YEAR 2, DECIDUOUS 6 12' FLOOD PLAIN AS DEFINED BY THE FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS COMMUNITY 4t ,� — — _ SHED zz CONIFEROUS 1s' 30' -_ —WOOD DECK_s 4 23 DECIDUOUS 9• ig' PANEL NUMBER 080287 EFFECTIVE DATE JUNE 4,1987. n -- • DECIDUOUS B 15' .42 43 - = — _ _— ®_- 47 _ - -. 25 DECIDUOUS g" _ 26 CONIFEROUS 8" 16' / 16 �'' 27 CONIFEROUS 8' 16' 65038 J • N8o 2g. — - Q'�i _ '� 2s Declouous g° 6• IMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENT > O N^Do V3 S$'E FOUND ALUMINUM DISK OI 1 IQ.QO 6 29 0 DECIDUOUS 5" 1B' .N EREERING STATE THAT HISEWIMPROVEMENT SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY HIGH COUNTRY IN FENCE POST LS16129 _ f 31 S• ,9B DECIDU 13 12 w7 OUS 8' Ifi' Li 32 DECIDUOUS 8" 16" FEBRUARY STATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS GATE, LY FEBRV ARV 4,2014,EXCEPT UTILITY CONK Z DEt,ID`VU5 5" 10' THE PARCEL,EXCEPT AS SHOWN,THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE D DESCRIBED 34 CON I FEROVS 12" 24' PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES,EXCEPT AS INDICATED,AND THAT U J 1 � DECIDUOUS 7" 14' THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY _1 a m SHED E D..`.OF - PART OF SAID PARCE NOTED.LINER ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LESS THAN 1:15,000. O(n u '- NORTHERLY OF - „ \ 36 DECIDUOUS 5" 1G' ADC L/^ \ PROPERTY LINE 37 DECIDUOUS CITY OF ASPEN - _ a" 16' 00 - 38 DECIDVOUS 8" i6 GF' V P C n. 39 uECIDUDUS 8" 16 �`1-� Iw -PS#1 c --- �1 `� �g x`.� PARK 40 DECIDUOUS 8^ 16' R �2 UL '�+� �9!:,a N v K'•A FOUND NO.5 REBAR v DECIDUOUS 8" i6 &CA LS PLASTIC " y- 43 CONIFEROUS 8" 20 Bl': _ A e — 41 DECIDUOUS ., ''T?y. L �} t 42 DECIDUOUS 10 16, RODNEY F.N'X'a� s LS Np��3$ T------- caP Lslsna �� PROPERTY ZONED S6I'a4E o.5g 'SN `N G_U n9 O MODERATE-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(R•1SA) �` L '•" ..T•: as 12' �+L A. 45 2-DECID000S 18' 36' �, PER THE CITY OF ASPEN 7, 5@ 9 c - TITLE 26: LAND USE CODE L x� oa 0 PART 700: ZONING DISTRICT CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE 0 '} d MINIMUM TBACNC THIS PLAT WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNT`: FRONT YARD: RESIDENTIAL DWELLING: 25 FEET AT—__dCLOCK___M_ON THE--__DAY OF-____---,A.O.20__,AND IS DULY RECORDED IN BCOK_ PAGE____,RECEPTION N0. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS: 30 FEET SIOE'YARD: 10 FEET ?ROJECT NO ------------------------ 21411612.00 A YARD: RESIDENTIAL DWELLING: 10 FEET CLERK AND RECORDER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS: 5 FEET NOTAS AC LIM TO Cq.ORADO uw'tW Musr COMMENCE APr 1£CK ®922 'MR W F U OV SLIC.IN T sun"ir r T 1NREE Y AC MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 25 FEET BY._-__-- __-- —__ _---_ --- o F2xr u+v ANY+cnox DEPUtt StD UWPCx M'IT(T"noes wnvoEri'BE CoxuEN MORE 1NAN rEx 5 E h OE CERnFICAIIW SHOW FAEQV. ppyy qq OF 9 BASEMENT LEVEL GARAGE AREA: LEVEL ONE LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN 338 SF GARAGE FLOOR AREA FLOOR RAN FLOOR PLAN 1A21 SF 1.102 SF 977 SIF -250 SF EXEMPTION REDUCTION A 88 SF SUBTOTAL GARAGE AREA (i �2 SF 1/2 OF THE REMAINDER 104 44 SF TOTAL GARAGE FLOOR AREA (thy ryAp� f'� PORCH rowland+brou/�l1hton PT architecture/u iban design/inle'ordesign 230 a hopkins ave 1830 hlek0 61,ele 200 eeeen,m 81fi11 tlenver,m 80202 970.544.9006 0 303 308.1373 0 II 970.544.34731 '303.308.13751 OPEN STAIR SPACE EXEMPT 76 SF a r _. Consultants Issue: r a DECK 01-15.2 I 2 I 305 8F HPC-MEEEE TING Jf111 01-20-2014 CLIENT REVIEW LIGHT WELL _ 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW O LIGHT WELL I CLIENT RE 1 CLIENT REVIEW 02-26-2014 HPC WORKSESSION 02-28-2014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-062014 CLIENT REVIEW 03.262014 CLIENT REVIEW 04-042014 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW NEW HOUSE NEW HOUSE NEW HOUSE 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 2 LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN r3 LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN A0.2 SCALE: 3132'°1'-0' A0.2 SCALE: 3132'=1'-0' t2 SCALE: 3/32'=1'-0' LEGEND GARAGE AREA LIVABLE AREA DECK AREA>30'ABOVE GRADE AREA BELOW GRADE CRAWL SPACE EXPOSED wAU Q wAUQ wAU Q _0 wAU Q wAU Q wNL Q WALL AREA w 2948E T° T A� m W135✓1F 33 AREA A� m AWRE�A b 33 9F 31'2' R fi JUKATI RESIDENCES EXPOSED 33 SF wAU Q wAU Q wAU® w,Va.Q wAU NEW HOUSE SUB-GRADE WALL SUMMARY: WALL § wALL § wALL § wALL AREA § -AREA � WALL III WALL AREA EXPOSED AREA 28 SMUGGLER GROVE AREA b ARF.11 b �� m 1229E b 374 SF WALL1 284 SF 0 SF ASPEN,CO 81611 p 9F 51 SF 63 9E WALL 2 197 SF 38 SF WALL3 33 SF 0 SF DECK 250K WALL 135 SF 0 SF 10 9'-0' 10314 1S2' 29'2' -21 T-01? WALL 5 33 SF 0 SF WALL 6 33 SF 0 SF WALL7 81 SF 0 SF WALL S 53 SF 0 SF WALL 9 81 SF 0 SF WALL 10 53 SF 0 SF WALL 11 122 SF 0 SF NEW HOUSE NEW HOUSE WALL 12 +374 SF +93 SF 4 ROOF PLAN �5� BASEMENT PERIMETER FOUNDATION WALLS TOTALS 1,479 SF 71 SF AQ-y SCALE: 3132=V-0' /{Q,2 SCALE: 3/32'=1'-0' NEW HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLATE=1.421 SF NEW HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATION PROJECT NO: 71 SF EXPOSED/1,421 SF WALL AREA=4.9%SUB GRADE 1,479 SF X 4.9%=72 SF FLOOR AREA COUNTED TOWARD FAR 21374 DWG FILE: 21374.10 A0.2_New+lOUSe.dwg SHEET TITLE f I NEW HOUSE ! CODE SUMMARY: CALCULATION SUMMARY: PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATION: FLOOR AREA REMAINING: PROPOSED DECKIPORCH AREA ALLOWABLE DECKIPORCH AREA. FLOOR AREA CITY OFASPEN LAND USE CODE SECTION 26.575.020 CALCULA77ONS AND MEASUREMENTS.MEASURING FLOORAREA. ZONING DISTRICT R-9(MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) 977 SF LEVEL TWO FLOOR AREA 3,626 SF ORIGINAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 250 SF ROOF DECK 4,126 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS F IN MEASURING FLOOR AREAS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA THE FOLLOWING APPLIES: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 1,102 SF LEVEL ONE FLOOR AREA +500 SF BONUS FLOOR AREA 305 SF LEVEL TWO DECK AREA x 15 % DECK%ALLOWED GENERAL.FLOOR AREA SHALL BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE LOT OR PARCEL UPoN WHICH R IS DEVELOPED.IN MEASURING 44 SF GARAGE FLOOR AREA 4,126 SF NEW ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA +0 SF LEVEL ONE PATIO AREA 618.9 SF ALLOWABLE DECK/PATIO AREA SCALE: 3/32='I'-W GROSS LOT AREA(A) 7,378 SF A BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA THERE SHALL BE 72 SF BASEMENT FLOOR AREA --2,195 SF TOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED 555 SF TOTAL DECK/PATIO AREA - INCLUDED ALL AREAS WITHIN THE SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE BUILDING OR POTION THEREOF.THEN NET LOT AREA(A) 7,378 SF 2,195 SF TOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED 1,931 SF FLOOR AREA REMAINING 618.9 SF ALLOWABLE DECKIPATIO AREA /� oe/'%� MEASURING FROM THE EXTERIOR WALLS,THE MEASUREMENT SHALL BE TAKEN FROM THE EXTERIOR FACE OF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 3,828 SF -555 SF TOTAL ABLE DECKI AREA //_�'\ LL FRAMING.EXTERIOR FACE OF STRUCTURAL BLOCK,EXTERIOR FACE OF STRAW BALE,OR SIMILAR EXTERIOR SURFACE BONUS FLOOR AREA *500 SF 83.9 SF TOTAL ATIO AREA REMAINING OF THE NOMINAL STRUCTURE EXCLUDING SHEATHING,VAPOR BARRIER,WEATHERPROOFING MEMBRANE, EXTERIOR-MOUNTED INSULATION SYSTEMS,AND EXCLUDING ALL EXTERIOR VENEER AND SURFACE TREATMENTS TOTAL FLOOR AREA 4,126 SF y L; SUCH AS STONE,STUCCO,BRICKS.SHINGLES,CLAPBOARDS OR OTHER SIMILAR EXTERIOR VENEER TREATMENTS. LEGEND l-- 1 GARAGE AREA _ Q i LIVABLE AREA rowland+broughton 4 atch3ectwe/urbandesig lintenwdesign BASEMENT LEVEL I PORCH - DECK AREA>301 ABOVE GRADE 2M II FLOOR PLAN 7 EXEMPT 9]0.544.9008 0 1838 303.308513]30 1.433 SF ® WHT WHL FLOOR p�LAN I - --- AREA BELOW GRADE 970.544.3473111 4 303.308.183751 WIN1.3708E I - —_ /� CRAWL SPACE V i I B , Consultants a2 � I 0 LIGHT WELL <) - 01-15-2014 - D - HPC-MEETING �. 01-20-2014 CLIENT REVIEW _..:: .. CLIENT RE CLIENT REVIEW 2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-26-2014 L----J I A 11 1 HPC WORK SESSION 02-28-2014 Q NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 1 CLIENT REVIEW 03-262014 CLIENT REVIEW 04-04-2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW HISTORIC HOUSE � HISTORIC HOUSE 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ( 2\ LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN AO.Z.1 SCALE: 3/32'=1'-0' AO.Z.1 SCALE: 3132'=V-I" EXPOSED SF —(D wAU® wAU® wIXLQ w4Ll® I a o e I I WALL AREA b WALL AREA ALL O WALL AREA O WALL MG Ii 34BSF 373 SF W 788E 1808E 1219E 3N.0 i? 28'-1 117 B'-0'3 1 12'-1 112" / EXPOSED® 17AU.Q —LID ,^ ® N p 70 EXPO8m 11wi0 ME78' —LID F I — ------------- F LVEL TWO F ) WA7I.NIEA 6 W/LLL AREA 6 WALL AREA b FLOOR PLAN I i 1808E � 140 8F � 1278E 410 SF -__ 1e-0 1s-m 1k' 1ra1/C AREA ea Ir-6 � w4r JUKATI RESIDENCES wNL p DEC( (((f STAIR EXEMPTION 111 SF�' 74 SF WALL 28 SMUGGLER GROVE AREA 4 ASPEN,CO 81611 '•i I 1W 8F b HISTORIC HOUSE SUB-GRADE WALL SUMMARY: 19-0' WALL% WALL AREA EXPOSED AREA WALL 1 348 SF 0 SF WALL 373 SF 44 SF WALL 78 SF 0 SF WALL 160 SF 0 SF WALL 5 121 SF 0 SF WALLS 160 SF WALL SF HISTORIC HOUSE HISTORIC HOUSE WALL 8 1149 SF 0 sF IS LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN 4 BASEMENT PERIMETER FOUNDATION WALLS WALL9 ea SF SF 44 SF AO.Z.1 SCALE: 3132-=1'0' AO.Z.1 SCALE: 3/32-=1'-0' WALL 10 98 BF 70 SF WALL 11 60 SF 44 SF WALL 12 +150 SF +0 SF TOTALS 1,882 SF 202 SF PROJECT NO HISTORIC HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLATE=1,433 SF 21374 DWG FILE: HISTORIC HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATION 2137420 AO-2 HistOn.Houeedwg 202 SF EXPOSED/1,882 SF WALL AREA=10%SUB GRADE 1,433 SF X 10%=143 SF FLOOR AREA COUNTED TOWARD FAR SHEET TITLE HISTORIC HOUSE 4 CODE SUMMARY: CALCULATION SUMMARY: PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATION: FLOOR AREA REMAINING: PROPOSED DECK/PORCHAREA, ALLOWABLE DECKIPORCH AREA, FLOOR AREA CrrYOFASPENLAND USE CODE SECTION 26.575.020 CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS.MEASURINGFLOORAREA. ZONING DISTRICT R-6(MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) 410 SF LEVEL TWO FLOOR AREA 3,826 SF ORIGINAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 111 SF LEVEL TWO DECK AREA 4,126 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS S IN MEASURING FLOOR AREAS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA THE FOLLOWING APPLIES: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 1,330 SF LEVEL ONE FLOOR AREA *500 SF BONUS FLOOR AREA- -0 IF LEVEL ONE PATIO AREA 115 % DECK%ALLOWED GENERAL.FLOOR AREA SHALL BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE LOT OR PARCEL UPON WHICH IT IS DEVELOPED.IN MEASURING WA SF GARAGE FLOOR AREA 4.126 SF NEW ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 111 SF TOTAL DECK/PATIO AREA 618.9 SF ALLOWABLE DECK/PATIO AREA SCALE:3/3 =1'-V GROSS LOT AREA(A) 7,378 SF 143 SF BASEMENT FLOOR AREA -2,195 SF PROPOSED NEW HOUSE FLOOR AREA A BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA,THERE SHALL BE NET LOTAREA(A) 7.378 SF 1,883 SF TOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED -1� SF PROPOSED HISTORIC HOUSE FLOOR AREA 818.9 SF ALLOWABLE DECKIPATIO AREA e INCLUDED ALL AREAS WITHIN THE SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE BUILDING OR POTION THEREOF.THEN 48 SF FLOOR AREA REMAINING -555 SF NEW HOUSE DECK/PATIO AREA w O a/�, MEASURING FROM THE EXTERIOR WALLS,THE MEASUREMENT SHALL BE TAKEN FROM THE EXTERIOR FACE OF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 3,626 SF -111 IF HISTORIC HOUSE DECK/PATO AREA H L -I _ FRAMING.EXTERIOR FACE OF STRUCTURAL BLOCK,EXTERIOR FACE OF STRAW SALE,OR SIMILAR EXTERIOR SURFACE BONUS FLOOR AREA +500 SF 47.1 SF HISTORIC O AREA REMAINING OF THE NOMINAL STRUCTURE EXCLUDING SHEATHING,VAPOR BARRIER,WEATHERPROOFING MEMBRANE. SUBTOTAL FLOOR AREA 4.126 SF +48 Sr FLOOR AREA REMAINING e EXTERIOR-MOUNTED INSULATION SYSTEMS,AND EXCLUDING ALL EXTERIOR VENEER AND SURFACE TREATMENTS NEW HOUSE FLOOR AREA -2 75 SF 0.9 SF DECK/PATIO AREA REMAINING ' SUCH AS STONE,STUCCO.BRICKS,SHINGLES,CLAPBOARDS OR OTHER SIMILAR EXTERIOR VENEER TREATMENTS. REMAINING FLOOR AREA 1.8515E sI eo�mvwn...,o 51 NEW HOUSE .3 rowland+broughton —hife""/urban deslyn/dMderier desge 81 234 a hopl eve 1830 bloke a4 ate 200 aspen,w 81811 denver.m 80202 970504006.9 a 303.308.1373 a 4r 970.5{4.34731 303.308.13751 ,4 Consuftwis Issue: 01-15-2014 HPC-MEETING 01-20.2014 CLIENT REVIEW 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-26.2014 HPC WORKSESSION 02-28-2014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-06-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 03-262014 CLIENT REVIEW D4-04-2014 -� HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW BRICK CLADDING WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING HISTORIC HOUSE k r JUKATI - A RESIDENCES 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ASPEN,CO 81611 Moir t PROJECT NO 21374 DWG FILE: 21338_A0.4.dwg --- SHEET TITLE MATERIALS PALETTE BRICRCL#xx)m WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING AND STONE PANEL EXISTING HISTORIC RESOURCE t SCALE:N.T.S _ d A0.4 fe — l/ji/ .er_orwsn.w.,s •coos—m— !7 mw ..................... .............. 1-1................ . .. ......... ............. ...............I...........- .............. ...................... ........... .. I'R ................ rowland+broughton amMeclum I ufisn design 7 intedw design 234.hopklns_ 1830 Eleka sl-200 aspen,m 81811 den."m 80202 970.544.9008 0 303 308 1373 a 970.544.34731 303.308.1375 f CansuMenh i Isaua: • \ A 01-15-2014 HPC-MEETING 01-202014 CLIENT REVIEW 01-21-2014 Qr� y CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 i 4 ` CLIENT REVIEW 1 02-2&2 HPC WOR ORKSESSION 02-2 8-2014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES .¢ n 411. 1 4c' F'�,=I�7�-�r 03-062014 - O fol��i����PG;i �����I .tl � 1➢.15 `..l', 1 1' t•{ v r 4" rte. .. •r• ^s..4 Y, .' .� w � T�M73 W3.308.1375 f 23 SMUGGLER GROVE 43 SMUGGLER GROVE 63 SMUGGLER GROVE 71 SMUGGLER GROVE CwsuRan� -low, HPC-MEETING CLIENT REVIEW CLIENT REV EW NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES CLIENT RE IEW CLIENT RE IEW HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW r ,� ? +, 8 Smuggler Grove JUKATI RESIDENCES 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ASPEN,CO 81611 321 MIDLAND AVENUE 28 SMUGGLER GROVE GROVE PROJECT NO: 213 4 DWG FILE: 21374 AO.5.dn SHEET TITLE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT MAP • vw •;•Lei ` ��y�.y/"� '1 .�\ �, -'.s l r �1 �l 1..',•t� �. '•.. �• � 1' �� {sue ,�� -r' - r i ado �s 07Z~ 1► gam' �it!� �p 411 vi It i 56 _ ,1 .• . F rrl�ti _� �_ �'• - i;ill Illiii� :0' Goo »: r�.............. �- .-� I _.: rowlend+broughton arc9Rechnelurbwe mOlsamn.a.sen 234 a twpW-eve 1830 bloke a ate 200 .'I—i m 91e11 Cenver,m 90202 970.544.9008 0 303.309.1373 0 970.$44.34731 303.309.13751 Consultants f t, / r••j �, ` � _ -, l•' r r., � loos: ! P 1 I 0 t-15-2014 I f N'a ! V+ HPC-MEETING f 41 01-20-2014 M T k1 CLIENT REVIEW 1 t ir• , CLIENT REVIEW T 02-17-2014 S l• 1 CLIENT REVIEW 02-2&2014 HPC WORK SESSION NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-06-2014 1 i CLIENT REVIEW 09-26-2014 t CLIENT REVIEW �--7 �.� 94-04-2014 / HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 4�r 55 SMUGGLER GROVE 312 MIDLAND AVENUE r' 'a r1 1 JUKATI RESIDENCES 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ASPEN,CO 81611 a PROJECT NO 21374 DWG FILE: 21374_A0.5.d g SHEET TITLE NEIGHBORHOOD 28 SMUGGLER GROVE-HISTORIC RESOURCE 28 SMUGGLER GROVE-HISTORIC RESOURCE CONTEXT SCALE N.T.S r A0.8 is rowland+broughton afandec um i w6en design/Wedo,d-W 234 a n.pldm m 1830 blake et std 200 .span,m 81811 dens,m 80202 97044008 .5 .9 0 303.308.1373 0 970.544.34731` 303.308.1375 f Consultants I.— BENCH 01-15-2014 HPC-MEETING EnCLIENT REV"'® COVERED CLIENT IEW ENTRY MUD CLIENT LIENT R REVIEW POWDER -- —. _. _. 02-1 I 7-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-262014 HPC WORK SESSION WET BAR 02-28-2014 GARAGE NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-05-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 03262014 CLIENT REVIEW ENTRY HHPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW UP ON UP r ply ® BENCH D TV L ROOM — W LAUNDRY - t� n GUEST QUI BATH L — — MECHANICAL GUEST MASTER HANGING_ F_ _ GUEST® GUEST GARAGE it W.I.C. BATH LiAi�T-1 STORAGE 0 WINDO WINDOW WELL / WELL INDOW S IND. ® WELL JUKATI T \ MASTE RESIDENCES cuesT CUES BED y BED w MASTER o I o BEDROOM - 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ----- SETBACK LINE PROJECT NO 21374 PROPERTY LINE DWG FILE: 21374.10 A2-IAw9 NEW HOUSE NEW HOUSE SHEETTITLE 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 2 LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN NEW HOUSE r A2.1 SCALE: 114'=l-T A2.1 SCALE: 114'=1'-0' Q _ BASEMENT S4 LEVEL PLAN TRUE NORTH NORTH NORTH NORTH ONE FLOOR PLANS a ®® ®® SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" A2.1 a FC rowland+broughton architectura/urban design/interior design 234 a hppldns ava 1830 blake et,eta 200 aspen,.81811 den—,.80202 970.544.9008 p 303.308.1373 0 970.544.3473 t 303.308.1375 t Cpnsubnts Issue: 01-15-2014 HPC-MEETING 01-20-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 CLIENT REVIEW ENTRY ROOF FLAT ROOF 02-26-2014 HPC SSION BELOW OVER ENTRY 02-28-2014-2014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES PANTRY POWDER ————— CLIEN T RE RE CLIENT ®: 03-26-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 04-04-2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW REF. I I III KITCHEN � DINING FIAT ROOF I I I I OVEN UP - RAISED GREEN ROOF MIN.38' _ LIVING - DECK BELOW JUKATI FIREPIT RESIDENCES I II ROOF DECK LOW FIREPLACE ON 28 SMUGGLER GROVE wITH wwoOWS ABOVE ASPEN,CO 81611 BUILT-IN SEATING WITH CUSHIONS 1 I L PROJECT NO: 21374 DWG FILE: 21374.10_A2-2.dag NEW HOUSE NEW HOUSE SHEET TITLE 1 LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN 1 ROOF PLAN NEW HOUSE p AZ.2 SCALE: 1/4'm 1'-0' A2.2 SCALE: 1/4'=1•-" TWO 3i PLAN TRUE PLAN TRUE LEVEL T N® N® N® N® &ROOF PLANS SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" A2.2 T.O 122'-0" 4 rowland+broughton T.O.RO afahUea mI urban ae4fgn I Inleffwdn(gn OF 2 721'P " 234 e,.f�rm ave 1830 Nake ai,Me 200 970.",as e1611 a.W3 m eHZez 970.514.9008 0 303.308.1373 a 870.514.3473 f 303.308.1375 f \ \ 4 METAL PANEL,TYP. BRICK VENEER - __.._... 4 CanauBenfs LEVEL TWO TO PLY lame: 01-15-2014 HPC-MEET ING 01-20-2014 CLIENT REVIEW / \ \ 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 / / 4 CLIENT REVIEW 02-26-2014 HORIZONTAL WOOD HPC WORKSESSION D2-28-2014 RAIN SCREEN \\ NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-06-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 03-26-2014 \ LEVEL ONE CLIENT REVIEW T.O.PLY T 04-04-2014 PCON 100'-0" HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW I II 4 4 i I I II I I I � I L T.O. - r 90'-0" PROPOSED 1 NORTH ELEVATION A4,1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0' METAL PANEL,TYP. 124'-0" _ T.O.ROO�PLY 121'-0-0" HORIZONTAL WOOD RAIN SCREEN METAL PANEL JUKATI s RESIDENCES -. 28 SMUGGLER GROVE LEVEL TWO ASPEN,CO 81611 Ty110'-0" \ WOOD SOFFIT HORIZONTAL WOOD RAIN SCREEN / 9 i LEVEL ONE T.O.PLY _.... 1001-W rr -- — -------�� PROJECT NO: GRATE \ 21374 \ DWG FILE: 21374.10_A4td ig 4 4 SHEET TITLE _ NEW HOUSE PROPOSED - ELEVATIONS LAB A - --------------------------------- T.O.------------------------- - 9S0,-0" � SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" PROPOSED A4.1 2 WEST ELEVATION A4.1 SCALE: 1/4'=1'-0' a; T.O.ROOF 724'-0" Y 4 rowland+broughton T.O.ROOF PLV ,� afChifeciure�ulban design7NfeNardasign 234.hopNne.. 1630 asks s(ate 200 aspen,ao 61611 fiercer,w 60202 970.544.9006 o 303.306.1373 a ——— 970.544.3473 f 303.306.1375! ;w FP VENT --- ___ i Consu6aMs El --- 4 LEVEL TWO L T.O.PLY .L laeue: 1101-0" Y 01-15-2014 HPC-ME ING 01-20-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 4,I ''i CLIENT REVIEW 02-26-2014 HPC WORKSESSION 02-28-2014 FP VENT NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES ❑ 0306-2014 CLIENT REVIEW LEVEL ONE 03.26-2014 T.O. -ENT REVIEW 04 04-04-2014 -- - - - 100'-0" ly HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW III II METAL PANEL II I of �I II I i II I, I I T.O.SLAB L y90'-0' PROPOSED 1 SOUTH ELEVATION A4.2 SCALE: 114"=1'-0' T.O.ROOF A '124'-0" Y 4 T.O.ROOF 1'-0"PLY A _ 12 Y v HoRrzoNrALwooD v RESIDENCES \ RAIN SCREEN q 28 SMUGGLER GROVE LEVEL TWO ASPEN,CO 81611 T.O.PLY 11 r METAL PANEL,TVP. \ \ I I I LEVEL ONE T.O.P'LY A PROJECT NO: �i—— i 21374 GRATE DWG FILE: 21374.10_A4-1.W.g 4 4 SHEETTITLE NEW HOUSE r PROPOSED ELEVATIONS T.O.SLAB SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" -- - — — -- -- --- -- -- -- ' rJr---—-------------------------------------------------------� � 90'-0" PROPOSED A4.2 2 EAST ELEVATION A4.2 SCALE: 114-V,0' a1 rowland+broughton —h6ea—/urban Jealgn/mWW dnig9 234 a I pW.— 1830 blake st sle 200 aspen,m 81611 dame,,m 80202 97 50.90311 o 303.308.1373 a 970.544.34731 303.308.1375 t gComm trots I luee: 01-15.2014 HPC-MEETING 01-20-2016 CLIENT REVIEW 01-21-2014 STORAGE CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 CLIENT REVIEW OFFICE 0 2 ORKSESSION WORKS NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES -————— --ON — — 03-08-2014 \ CLIENT REVIEW 03-26-2014 REVIEW 01#2014 ° HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW PORCH BATH i BENCH L) _.. LIVING INDOW NDOWI LL -.. SWELL LIVING \ BEDROOM - \ M.1 U 0 Ma p F.P_ F Ma O \ 0 --- J ~o G MECHANICAL QO S li BATH ¢ WINDOW WELL •Q POWDER WINDOW DINING PATIO OVER HEATED SLAB BELOW WELL SPACE BELOW WI / LAUNDRY —I / CLOSET Lo DI L—J JUKATI UP III ! UP RESIDENCES Y I III i ' DN — m 1 FR ® 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ' -- a m ASPEN,CO 81611 BEDROOM I BATH KITCHEN I I DECK ABOVE III P � II III I CHIMNEY ABOVE CHIMNEY ABOVE HISTORIC HOUSE HISTORIC HOUSE PROJECT NO: 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 2 LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN 21374 DWG FILE: AZ-1 SCALE: 1/4'=1'-0' A2.1 SCALE: 1/4'=1'-0' 21376.20_A2-1.Ceg �+ PL TRUE PLAN TRUE v NORTH® NORTH® v N® NORTH® SHEET TITLE r HISTORIC HOUSE BASEMENT&LEVEL 3 ONE FLOOR PLANS SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" A2.1 rowland+broughton smhftdm/u2en design/Inferior design 234 a h,pldrm eve 1830 bloke st sts 200 aspen,m 81611 denwr,m 80202 970.544.9006o 303.308.13730 970.544.3473 f 303.308.1375 f Consultants r-- ——— 1 1 r— T ----.T y..: Issue: �. HPC-MEETING - - - 01-20-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 1 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW - 02-17-2014 --� 6:12(e) 8:12(e) CLIENT REVIEW - 02-2&2014 HPC WORKSESSION LU 02-28 014 _..I a NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES ❑ C ❑ .. - _...E Ir CLIENT REVIEW 03-2 6-2014 1 CLIENT REVIEW HPC4CONCEPTUAL REVIEW N — ———— — -.. - ._—_:._ - 1 � 1 ROOF BELOW E1pS1'INO WOOD _ _- _ m SHINGLES p p y } Y N o � I FP VENT CONNECTOR LINK I FLAT ROOF MEMBRANE r L——————————- — -- 8_12 8:12 - JUKATI I O W RESIDENCES MASTER ` C METAL ROOF CLOSET MASTER - BATH o 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ASPEN,CO 81611 —— ------ MASTER DECK BEDROOM BELOW O DECK ON 1 R® 16TH 0' ———— J PROJECTNO: 21374 DWG FILE: 21374.20_A2-2.dwg HISTORIC HOUSE HISTORIC HOUSE SHEET TITLE 1 LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN 2 ROOF PLAN HISTORIC HOUSE A2,1 SCALE: 1/4'=1'-0' 5959 A2.2 SCALE: 114•=r-0• LEVEL TWO PLAN TRUE PLAN TRUE NORTH N® N® $ROOF PLANS 4= ' A2.2 _ f� T. RIO E Y rowland+broughton mhHecfum/urban design/inhu/oT design - _ T.O.PLATE A 234 s Wpid.— 1830 bloke at,ate 200 j2p•-0•Y aepen,co 81811 chow,,o0 80202 970.544.8008 0 303.308.1373 0 - 870.544.34731 303.308.1375f in '4 T.O.HISTORIC 1-2 115-]3N- 4 COneuBanta -- T.O.PLY m n 189u 01-15-2014 HPC-MEETING 01-20-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 01-21-2014 \ 4 CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 \ CLIENT 6-2014 IEW \ HPC WORKSESSION NEW 02-28-2014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES / 03-M 14 T.O.PLY CLIENT REVIEW L%SL' 03-26-2014 CLIENT REVIEW r.. E 04-042014 9 m HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW I I 4 I II I II ——————— ——— ———— ———— J PROPOSED 1 NORTH ELEVATION AQ,1 SCALE: 1/4•=1'-0" HISTORIC ADDITION T .tl ZB♦- DORMERBEYOND I 12 q SNOWFENCE �10 HORIZONTAL WOOD T.O.PLATE A SIDING 2 GUTTER AND /� DOWNSPOUT_ / BRICKVENEER \ GUARDRAIL JUKATI \ T.O.HISTORIG y RESIDENCES BUR /--FP VENT f io b SCUPPER d OVERFLOW 28 SMUGGLER GROVE -- - T.O.PLY LEVeLZ A ASPEN,CO 81611 METAL INFILL PANELS TO MATCH WINDOW CLADDING,TVP. / \ STONE VENEER H - T.O.P Y 1 T. RAGE m PROJECT NO: 21374 DWG FILE: 2137420_A41.dw9 WINDOW WELL FOUNDATION BELOW GRADE 4 SHEET TITLE HISTORIC HOUSE a PROPOSED li ELEVATIONS SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" �} L-------------------- _. _. - _ . --i� - TO PROPOSED A4.1 2 WEST ELEVATION e' A4.1 {, SCALE: 114'=1'-0• T..RO METAL ROOFING CHIMNEY VENT SNOWFENCE Y METAL PANEL GUTTER —hftedre un n Ourbann derrip/Unt—design --{ - -.. - 234 a Ilopklru aYa 1830 Elaka sL N 200 HORIZONTAL WOOD TO�� ee970.5 .90080 303.308.1373. pen,w 81811 danver,m 80202 44 SIDING 970.544.3473f W3308.1375f GUARDRAIL METAL INFILL PANEL TO MATCH WINDOW CLADDING,TYP. —T.O.HISTOR__IC 11 Bul�'�T 115'-2 3I0 Consultants V �T O.PL�Y_� ^ 111'-01I4 P \?\� Issue: 01-1- HPC-ME ME ETING 01-20-2014 CLI NT REVIEW / ` \ CLIENT REVIEW Z CLIENT REVIEW / ———— 02-26-2014 / ———— HPC WORK SESSION 02-2 8-2014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-06-2014 ` / T.O.PLY CLIENT REVIEW \ 03-26-2014 ———— too'-0• CLIENT REVIEW _!. --- ' T.O. E PC H C014 95 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW —I----- I II FOUNDATION BELOW GRADE 4 I I I I I I T.O.sLne —L L— PROPOSED 1 SOUTH ELEVATION A4.2 SCALE 114'=T-O" ADDITION HISTORIC 1251• DORMER BEYOND 12 10D SNOWFFN.E Y GUTTER T.O� 120,-0' HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING JUKATI BRICK VENEER TO.H_IS'T�O!R�IC RESIDENCES BOA METAL PANEL PANEL FP VENT fn e OVERFLOW rq 4 SCUPPER T D PLY - 28 SMUGGLER GROVE m ASPEN,CO 81611 t t ra ve• 1 /// \\\ HORIZONTAL WOOD STONE VENEER SIDING � ,L L ///J LEVELI T.O.PLY JL WINDOW WELL B5 m PROJECT NO: -r--- ----------- -------- -----------------------T1 21374 --- DWG FILE: `\ 21374.20_A4-1.dag PATIO ` FOUNDATION BELOW GRADE / q SHEET TITLE HISTORIC HOUSE PROPOSED �@ I ELEVATIONS j SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" i ------------ ---- ----- — PROPOSED A4.2 L 2 EAST ELEVATION §� A4.2 SCALE: 114'=1'-0' F{ EXHIBIT •"r r �}��9i �i I 1� I S F y AP,rHUR GHABON AP.aHITECT AJCC Parsonage - Looking from North-east street corner ,tune 25. 2014 Aspen,Colorado flat Roof Option Stone playground walls EXHIBIT Amy Simon From: William Frazer <frazer @berkeley.edu> Sent: Thursday,July 03, 2014 1:57 PM To: Amy Simon Subject: Development proposed at 301 lake Avenue Dear Ms. Simon, We are concerned about a plan,which we understand you have endorsed, to grant what we regard as outrageous variances for overdevelopment of a property at 301 Lake Avenue—in return for Aspen Modern historic status. Gaining historic status would of course be desirable, but not at such great cost to the neighborhood and adjoining houses, one of which is itself historic. As near neighbors, living two blocks away in the West End, we object especially to the placement of bulky structures in violation of zoned set-back rules. For example a 15 foot tall garage with set-back of only 18 inches! The object of historic preservation is to preserve the character of the neighborhood and the city,rather than to violate the character of the neighborhood by granting excessive variances that impinge on the surrounding houses by creating oversize structures much too close to their surroundings. I hope you will give careful reconsideration to the plan being proposed by this out-of-town LLC. Jane and Bill Frazer 433 West Gillespie i Amy Simon From: David Pines <david.pines@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,July 03, 2014 3:56 PIA To: Amy Simon Cc: Suzy Pines Subject: Plans for the Lundy property Attachments: HPC message on 3 july.docx Dear Amy, We would greatly appreciate your circulating our letter,attached and below, to the HPC membership well in advance of its planned meeting on July 9. Thank you, David and Suzy To: Amy Simon and the Historic Preservation Commission: We write as concerned West End neighbors of the Lundy house about the developer's plans for the property if they receive their sought-for designation as Aspen Modern. We have a particular interest because we are long- time [39 years}] second home owners here who spend every summer in Aspen, were good friends of both Victor and Nancy Lundy, and great admirer's of Victor's architectural skills. The designation seems a good idea,as the house designed by Victor for his wife, Nancy, is indeed a contemporary gem. It sits well on its lot and is a pleasure to view as one walks along Lake Avenue or views it from Triangle Park. But the current proposed addition to the house by the developer makes the designation a mockery. When we inquired about the planned changes from the Lundy's nearest neighbors, Martin and Beate Block, they shared with us a letter sent by their lawyer about the addition, from which we now quote, because the following paragraph summarizes our views perfectly: "Interestingly,the application was referred to an acquaintance of the Blocks who happens to be a recognized expert in land use and urban planning, and who also was, at one time, the architectural critic for the Los Angeles Times. He observes that the historic land use designation, in this case, seems to be used as a facade to actually build a Trojan horse, and he feels that the design reflects pernicious intentions that ignore the scale and character of the neighborhood. For Modernist architects, including Lundy, the concept of"Light and Air," which the proposed development does pretend to achieve, were bywords of their movement. He further i observed that the proposed addition appears to flaunt every possible zoning setback, to crowd an irregular shaped lot at the expense of its neighbors, and(ironically)therefore expresses architectural intentions diametrically opposed to those of the Modernists." We strongly urge you and the HPC to reject the current proposal, and, in considering any revision to it, to keep clearly in mind the fundamental reasons for historical,or"Modern"designation; to preserve the neighborhood and the environment; to keep the best of what is there, allowing only changes that are of a scale and appearance that are,in the view of recognized architectural historians, consistent with the dwelling whose designation is sought. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Yours sincerely, David and Suzy Pines 401 Pearl Ct.,Aspen 2 Amy Simon From: Martin Block <mblock @northwestern.edu> Sent: Saturday,July 05,2014 5:19 PM To: Amy'Simon;Steve Skadron;Adam Frisch;Art Daily;Ann Mullins; Dwayne Romero Subject: Illegality of Lundy House proposal for historic designation Attachments: final letter July 9.pdf Enclosed are arguments showing that the proposal for Historic Modern designation violates Ordinance 28, as well as the guide lines to the HPC for Historic Modern granting of variances. The Lundy proposal significantly diminishes our property values, and seriously impacts on our well-being, depriving us of light and air. We are the adjacent neighbor, 309-311 W. North, and are an Historic Modern Bauhaus, designed by Herbert Bayer. In fact,we are the ONLY Bayer Bauhaus that is essentially unmodified left in Aspen. This proposal seriously hurts us and the neighborhood. Sincerely, Martin Block, mblockCa@northwestern.edu Professor of Physics and Astronomy Northwestern University, Evanston, IL Home Phone: (970) 925-7743 Home address: 311 W. North St.,Aspen, 81611, CO i page 1 VIOLATIONS OF CITY ORDINANCE 28 IN LUNDY HOUSE APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC MODERN STATUS 1. The proposed variance of the west setback of 5 feet of the solid garage wall (instead of the required 10 feet) imposes a hardship on my property, by blocking off morning light and air, to the detriment of my property value, thus imposing a hardship upon 309-311 W.North St,which is an historically designated property. This is contrary to p.29, VARIANCES 2 b which clearly states: "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." The granting of this variance clearly creates an adverse impact on an historical property, which is illegal under the terms of this section of the ordinance. 2. The proposed garage is attached to the southern wall of the existing Lundy house, obliterating one of the key architectural features, thus obliterating an essential portion of the historical importance of the existing building. This violates the request for floor area bonus, since the ordinance states: p. 29 FLOOR AREA BONUS b The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is Incorporated In a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building. Again, Section b is violated, and no bonus should be granted. page 2 cH PiER io historic quia9iiras Illustrated on the left hand side I&S U1 04p1uminganxfditiontoobuilding of this page is the prohibition lnaAlstarhrdislrirt,presa�ehlstariralignnxnls of taking an historical that mayexWon lhestrecl. • somreroofutsatdptxthaavesonhWoric structure and slicing it buildings In the area may align at horizontally to add additional appmmrnz#elythesamehctght.Anadditbm should na be placed in a localkat where space to the historical these relationships would be altered or structure.,as illustrated in the obscured. rt�� guidelines on the left hand side M Design an addition to be compatible in of this page. QMWMhb&W1w-1-miX nm fmAWbdMtodt 31"and Scale with it*main building. nth VMWMAj"°'"Q° Maddtllondot3stmrerllunorsirmUarto it*bPight of Ilse prhoary building is The idea of attaching a garage -''��/ �`• ��� directly to the back wall is the Is( if than building.set It back logical equivalent of slicing is laU�than a hWaic 4ultdimg,set It back g � g sutnianlially from significant(wade and use a the historical structure s 'rorotator'10linl It to the historic building. Al-story touie wispreferred, vertically and adding space g The connector should be a minimum of to that way,without having a feet long hemVen the addition and the primary bulft. it TI*conflMor also should he propoUoal Guide line 10.7,and the aeeex�3am ra t�asyctath.kfoM:�r witteptlmarybuiidltg- a,�� $rugr illustration on the left hand 10.11 Place an addition at the tear of a building side of this page show this. of set It back flan the Not to minimhze the iissual impart on the historic structure and to Section 10.7 clearly states that: al low it*original ptoWIkVU and character to remain prominent. .1. A 1-story connector is Locating an addition at the front of a preferred. struciure is floor may The connector should • AddNional door arcs nosy also be located tmderthebnudlntlnabuemet,nshlhl%IR be a Minimum of 10 not alter the exteriorRMS01`aatikdIDS. feet lon • SM bark an addition from prht►ary facade / g, between the In order to a$m+•the original propontoas addition and the and character to remain prominent.A primary building. minimum settsnck of i0 feet on prtmmq strmcturrsisrrmmuntcrxlyd. 3. The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. Clearly,the proposed garage t �!- ±� "�° 'x+raicitvatd�±xn Ararae is NOT a "connector" and violates the guidelines for Historic Modern. Amy Simon From: Martin Block <mblock@northwestern.edu> Sent: Sunday,July 06,2014 6:46 PM To: Amy Simon Cc: Steve Skadron;Adam Frisch;Art Daily;Art Daily;Ann Mullins; Dwayne Romero Subject: letters to the Editor, to be given to HPC Attachments: Aspen Letter to Editor.pdf Dear Amy, Please distribute our letter to the editor of our local papers to the HPC. Martin Block,mblock6D northwestern.edu Professor of Physics and Astronomy Northwestern University, Evanston, IL Home Phone: (970)925-7743 1 We are in favor of Modern Historic Preservation. Our Herbert Bayer Bauhaus movement home at 309-311 W. North St.,purchased in 1965, was designated Historic Modern over 20 years ago. We endorse making the Lundy house, next door to us at 301.N. Lake St., Historic Modern. However,the proposal for granting Historic Modern status to the Lundy house, being presented July 9 for approval of the Historical Preservation Commission, carries a tremendously high price, both for the City of Aspen,as well as West End neighbors. The Historic City Officer and staff, have recommended the proposal for HPC approval,to increase their paper roster of Historic Modern sites. HPC approval would enrich the coffers of the developers by increasing the current site coverage,amounting to a footprint on the ground of approximately 1,400 square feet more than the standard allowance,yielding a total square footage over 7,000 square feet. That's more than double the current house. Developers are also asking for: a piece of City land to be given to them; for a height exemption from the 25 foot limit; major set back variances on all but the north side; $200, 000 to be returned to them in application fees;exemption from paying for employee housing; Transferable Development Rights that they can later sell---and much more. Worst of all,the proposal for the addition violates City Ordinance 28 on Historic Modern development. The developers want to build a 15 foot tall garage,five feet from our common north-south property line. It would run from the back of the existing Lundy home(obscuring one of its most interesting architectural features!),to the alley,effectively blocking our bedroom windows of both morning light and air. They want a variance of the required 10 foot setback, contrary to Ordinance 28,p.29,VARIANCES 2 b, which states:" 2 In granting a variance the HPC must make a finding that such a variance 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." Granting this variance clearly creates an adverse impact on our historical property,which is illegal under this ordinance. It reduces both our quality of life and the value of our Historic Modern property. The required alley setback is 10 feet; the developers request an alley setback of 8 inches! This new addition creates a 15 foot solid wall running some 140 feet along the alley,blocking the historic Victorian residence at 525 2nd St. Thus, two important West End historically declared residences will be adversely impacted by these plans. The City of Aspen should be very careful in granting variances from set backs. Setbacks are there for a purpose---to prevent overdevelopment blight. The recommended Lundy proposal sets a terrible precedent for the downgrading of our residential neighborhoods. Approval of this egregious plan encourages developers to find other Aspen residential properties they can exploit. Neighbors, HPC and Aspen City Council,please help us preserve Aspen,not destroy it. What price do we have to pay for overdevelopment disguised as Historic Modern designation? Amy Simon From: lecie resneck <lecie.resneck @gmail.com> Sent: Monday,July 07,2414 6:15 AM To: Amy Simon Subject: Lundy property I write to ask you to rethink the development restrictions being considered Wednesday for the Lundy property. I feel very strongly that the rights of other homeowners in the area should be considered also. The Block's home next door to the Lundy property is in itself an historic landmark. The preservation of this Herbert Bayer home with its access to light and air is also important and I feel sure a compromise With less intrusion on the Block property can be found. Thanks for your consideration of this. Lecie resneck EJCHIBIT� LAW OFFICES OF PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C. PAUL J.TADDUNE AFFILIATED OFFICE 323 WEST MAIN STREET,SUITE 301 FOWLER,SCHIMBERG&FLANAGAN,P.C. ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970)925-9190 1640 GRANT STREET,SUITE 300 TELEFAX (970)925-9199 DENVER,COLORADO 80203 INTERNET:taddune@compuserve.com TELEPHONE (303)298-8603 TELEFAX (303)298-8748 July 8, 2014 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Members of the Historic Preservation Committee c/o City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lundy Residence -301 Lake Avenue, Aspen Landmark Designation and "AspenModern" Negotiation Dear Ms. Simon and Members of the HPC: I am writing on behalf of Dr. Martin and Beate Block, who reside at the historic Herbert Bayer Bauhaus home located at 3 09-3 11 West North Street. This is to respond to the Memorandum distributed late Thursday, July 3, 2014, in connection with the pending application to designate the Lundy house at 301 North Lake Avenue as AspenModern, and the staff's recommendation that the HPC grant numerous concessions. The following comments and observations are submitted in opposition to the construction of an unnecessary, approximately 15 foot high box like structure, designated as a garage, that would encroach five feet into the ten foot setback along the common boundary line of the Block residence: * AspenModern Designation and Failure of Compliance with Standards for Granting Variances. Dr. and Mrs. Block are in favor of historic preservation. They were among the first to designate their property as historic over 20 years ago. They endorse making the Lundy house AspenModern. They do not endorse, however, a plan that defaces the original design of the house on three exterior facades and balloons the existing 2,201 square feet to potentially between 7,000 to 9,000 square feet, depending on the final plan. Dr. and Mrs. Block's specific concern is that the tall garage with a wall five feet from their property line will confiscate the light and air they currently enjoy on their property. The granting of a setback variance for the proposed box garage would violate the following standards set forth in subsection C.2 of Section 26.415.110 of the Ms. Amy Simon and Members of the HPC July 8, 2014 Page 2 Aspen Land Use Code: "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." (Emphasis added.) The 15 foot box garage and other proposed improvements along the alley will obscure the existing south facade of the Lundy house and, therefore, is not "similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property, nor to the district." More significantly, the box garage does not enhance, nor does it mitigate any adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the Block's historically designated house. The existing Lundy house does not currently have a garage, and given the unique triangle configuration of the Lundy house lot, any garage on this property might not be appropriate or consistent with the history of the Lundy house. If a new garage is to become a part of the Lundy house, a much better and more sensitive outcome would be to install the garage to the north, utilizing a design that would mimic and enhance the Lundy house and would not have such an adverse impact on the living spaces of the Blocks' home. We know from experience that the Aspen tradition of spending time and thought to harmonize the relationship of adjacent properties can successfully be applied in this instance. * Improper Ex Parte Contacts. While the City staff's enthusiasm to promote AspenModern properties and to engage developer/owners in pre-application work sessions with the decision makers is understandable, conducting such meetings without providing written notice as required by Section 26.415.030 of the Land Use Code or allowing observation by the public is arguably a fatally flawed violation of due process to those who might be adversely impacted. In fact, having such meetings without notice or a public hearing is contrary to the spirit of the formal public hearing requirement of the Land Use Code, violates the due process rights of neighboring property owners who might be impacted and constitutes an arguably unsalvageable ex parte contact that would render void any decision approving a variance. Aspen City Attorney, Jim True, correctly pointed out this dilemma in an article appearing in the July 7, 2014 edition of the Aspen Daily New titled "Mayor Seeks Meeting of the Minds with Developers" in which he cautioned against discussing details of land use proposals outside of the context of the application itself. He is quoted as saying: "The paramaters are pretty clear—you can discuss life in general; you can discuss certain visions an individual might have ... as long as you are not talking specifics"—such as Ms. Amy Simon and Members of the HPC July 8, 2014 Page 3 height, mass and quantifiable details that would be included in a land use application. Rathkopf s Law of Zoning and Planning (Fourth Edition) Section 32.13, which is a highly respected legal text on land use issues, describes the intrusion of due process rights that arise from such ex parte contacts. Rathkopf states that when a zoning body takes administrative action affecting a person's property rights with respect to use of a specific tract of land, procedural due process requires that the affected person be given notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. This due process right to a"fair hearing" on the issues involved prohibits any use of evidence or reports that have the effect of denying the person involved a fair opportunity to offer rebuttal testimony and evidence. Ex parte contacts and communications related to the merits of an administrative zoning decision are considered highly improper and may be held sufficient to prejudice the affected person's procedural due process rights to a"fair hearing" or a similar statutory right to a"public hearing." Some courts have extended the right to a fair opportunity to be heard to neighboring owners who object to the relief sought by an applicant. In this matter, such pre-application, ex parte discussions and providing staff and HPC input to a developer during an on-site field trip to the Lundy property, without notice and an opportunity for a hearing by adjacent property owners, may have irretrievably prejudiced the ability of the HPC to arrive at a fair and impartial decision. With regard to the pending application, it will be difficult to differentiate what ideas are the developers and what ideas may have been suggested by the HPC or directed by staff. In fact, we do not know what was discussed because no minutes were taken. We do not know what suggestions and recommendations were made or whether the impact to the Blocks' property was taken into consideration or discussed. This all could have been avoided by providing the proper notice and conducting all such discussions in public. In conclusion, I would again like to emphasize the Aspen land use tradition of fine tuning projects so that they harmonize with and do not detract from adjacent properties. Dr. and Mrs. Block, therefore, request the assistance of the HPC to encourage the applicant to either remove the garage feature altogether or relocate it to another portion of the property so as to avoid a negative impact to the living areas of their home. Very truly yours, PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C. Paul J. Taddune PJT/nwe cc: Martin and Beate Block EXHIBIT Beate Block's Letter to the HPC My name is Beate Block and I live at 309/311 West North Street . Since I was born in Germany and am a Holocaust survivor, I am well acquainted with lack of air and light. I already have lived through the horrors of being deprived of light and air---my father was imprisoned at Dachau and I was forced to leave school by the public authorities---- but never, never did I expect to be exposed to this again in Aspen! The recommended proposed garage addition by the developers,together with their designer, are depriving me of my fundamental rights to light and air, but this time in my own home. Their efforts to enlarge their coffers,at my expense, are both unlawful and cruel. Their project, under the guise of Historic Modern preservation, should be forbidden. WILLIAM A. GRUENBERG P.O. BOX 704 ASPEN, CO 81612 TEL: 5"-925-4287 FAX: 5133_920--2349 vr zl- ��:-� to 4 I� m :'' r'� �� r x ,TiSY-° .. •".� 'i�r aL. ��3'��►+`�[ T+'•),5�. �! ,µrd, R':�, 4i,t, �„� ' �,� =air ��� �• � o.>� 4w Y r F ll IIII lilll.{illlll. I11111Ulllglll)I!i.f! — pd �. I I r r 1 , ` tc- t�b v i ;; � i 1, ��; �� . s� 4 ',� ..I{� ..� �� rt � -- EXHIBIT aA� A,° jam° LEGEND AND NOTES c l �isTe'.T sss.ss +Se.e6 lssss s as A' SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED 01�1HST ❑ JTUTY Box >5.00•ROW SET A SURVEY CONTROL N / — FENCE / Y \ CITY OF ASPEN CPS MONUMENT DESCRIBED AS NOTED TITLE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY: 1-10 \ STEWART TITLE COMPANY EFFECTIVE 01330-36 DATE- FEBRUARY 13.2074 w..� 0 10 20 ^ / \ CONIFER TREE CALIPER SIZE IN INCHES AND ORIPLINE IN FEET AS NOTED worn U.S.SURVEY FOOT USED / / DECIDUOUS TREE CALIPER SIZE IN INCHES AND DRIPUNE IN FEET AS NOTED THIS BE IS SINATED IN ZONE•X(AREAS DETERMINED ONE FOOT CONTOURS TO BE OUTSIDE 5D0-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN))AS SHOWN ON FLOOD 1 INSURANCE RATE MAP PREPARED BY F.EM.A.FOR PITKIN �$ COUNTY COLORADO,COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 08097CO2D3 C. 1 \ 1 EFFECTIVE DATE ,NNE 4,198] / \ ) MI5 PROPERtt LIES ENTIRELY WISDE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN / \ MUDID.HAZARD AREA AS DEFINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN,PROJECT NUMBER 1963.FIGURE ES-15. \ J — w Oed1oi \ BEARINGS BASED ON THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST BLOCK CORNERS _ \ \ OF BLOCK 40.CITY MONUMENTS BEARING S 75'09'11'E 270.00 (Fi ` ` /� m{mse• \ T/ \ ELEVATIONS BASED ON Ctt OF ASPEN GPS MONUMENT NO.9 ELEV 79D6.09.1988 NAVD V ICINITY M P ON GROUND AT TIME OF SURVEY 3/14 REB4RP \ \\\ rrW \\ ZONING: R-6 W SETBACKS:FRONT-10 FEET !l \ SIDE-10 FEET V — \ REAR-10 FEET Z NO SLOPES GREATER THAN 30% O GRAVEL / 4] DRIVE 25g \ / \ AS PLOWED «. CERTIFICATIO N a THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON WAS FlElO SURVEYED `' DURING AND I$ACCURATE BASED ON THE FIELD EVIDENCE AS T 'Op. SHOWN,AND THAT THERE ARE NO DISCREPANCIES OF RECORD,BOUNDARY LINE CONFLICTS. 2 L ENCROACHMENTS.EASEMENT$OR RIGHTS OF WAY IN FIELD EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME - w 'O EXCEPT AS HEREON SHOWN.UNDERGROUND URURES WITFI NO ABOVEGROUND APPURTENANCES. w e��� `&,, AND DOCUMENTS OF RECORD NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ST1R�•EYOR ARE EXCEPTED.THIS SURVEY O T \ ® I 4• IS V01D UNLESS WET STAMPED WITH THE SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR BELOW.ERROR OF Y' flOSURE IS LESS THAN 1/15.000. , v �--. ; ` 'M// / D1V�yp Iiv Vl\o/Im. i (Q� a,e�•tryms.e. 01�b DATED: •�� Q 1 )." \ -`.'`"``•' a`. / \ / \\\' 1 ��v'dS' 1 9S JOHN M.HOWDRTH.P.LS.25947 L IMPROVEMENT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY `- U O OF QJ; \ Z APART OF THE NE 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 12.TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH,RANGE 85 WEST OF W 114E 6TH P.N.DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: U BEGINNING AT A POINT FROM NfiICI1 THE EAST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12 Q BEARS NORTH 65'49'50•EAST.802.99 FEET.AND FROM WHICH THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SMUGGLER AND NORTH 2ND STREET IN THE GTY OF ASPEN BEARS SOUTH 12'18'15'WEST, l�FEVV 120.13 FEET WHICH POINT OF BEGINNING IS ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF LAKE LA) AVENUE IN SAID CITYI W \ \ // THENCE NORTH 75'0911•WEST,159.6]FEET: / 1-4 —\ — THENCE NORTH 14'5049'EAST,100 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF NORTH THENCE IN SOUTH 5'09'11'EAST,ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF NORTH STREET.36.89 FEET '1' 4 I/ BRICK TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY UNE OF LAKE `W/ / 11S\1CA .. \ Dia6m r6w..o-�ew... �\ \ AVENUE: Y S / HOUSE - /I HENCE ALONG THE WES ERLY LINE OF AKE AVENUE.ON A WRVS TO HE LEFT W H A \ RADIUS OF 558.05 FEET AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 3559'30'EAST 158.35 FEET. AN ARC DISTANCE OF 158.88 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. J ALSO DESCRIBED AS: THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT 5, CD 7 \ k \ ALL OF LOTS 6 AND 7. BLOCK 40, COUNTY ADININ.TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN COUNTY OF LORA, \� —\� / STATE OF COLORADO. \ c \� ice\ CONTAINING: 9.231 SO FT t,0.212 ACRES t P]901.31 EAK () \ \ \ DECK o ff SE CITY OF ASPEN GPs MONUMENT N0.9 ELEV.7906.09 1265.74 �/ 00 3 N e4'34'057E �A V ©x 4• N 75.09.1 ��J. EYBLpCK A 3 K SOUNDING — Gtt ASPEN GPS �\ PREPARED BY MONUMENT N0.8 ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS,INC. Lo A 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 n PHONE/FAX(970) 925-3815 JOB 1 - - D3�14 0097 � °5' °a�µr�`" �1 EXISTING SITE- 301 LAKE AVENUE RESIDENCE :: LUNDY REMODEL I1 TON BASED NPDH ANr DERCT OH TITS PUT* tMREE YEMS `� AATTER rou DRSr olscocn sua oEFCC*.IN HD Ewlr MAr Nlr Acnw HPC-1 ENGINEERING SCALE:1:10 BASED U-AHr DEFECT IR 1His PuT BF C➢MwEHCfD uOHE 1HAH 1EN NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SMUGGLER T TEARS Dew n1E DATE of F meTDtunox sHDVm HOiEd+. A CITY MONUMENT i O nnuna IS VDiO IF MOT x£'f STAMPED Wnl THE SEAL DF lNf AND NORTH 2ND STREET. HORIZONTAL CONTROL U _ SHEET LEGEND AND NOTES SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED aaa woxe a ....,nle.r =m ❑ UTUtt BOX w,� �ieid+Y 559A5 ,seed ,Sau' Sv'wtc NORTH S•i.,.� ♦ SURVEY CONTROL o �.c 7$'001 R.O.W. ET A FENCE Cl OF ASPEN CPS MONUMENT DESCRIBED AS NOTED T1LI S IORMATITTO COMP EDY BY: FILE NO.:01330-36774 \ EFFECTIVE DATE:FEBRUARY 13.2014 CONIFER TREE DUPER SIZE IN INCHES AND DRIPUNE IN FEET AS NOTED DECIDUOUS TREE CAUPER SZE IN INCHES AND DRIPUNE IN FEET AS NOTED 0 10 20 / / / 1 v BE UTSIDE 900-YEAR FLIOOD PLAIN ASRSHO ONMFLOOD U.S.SURVEY FOOT USED ] / 1 I0 NSURANCE RATE MAP PREPARED BY F.�.M.A.,FOR PIM1N ONE FOOT CONTOURS �\ / 1 COUNTY COLORA00,COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 0809700203 C. EFPECTVE DATE JUNE 4.1987 THIS PROPERTY LIES ENTIRELY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN \ MUDFLOW HAZARD AREA AS DEFINED BY THE Cltt OF ASPEN MASTER J DRAINAGE PLAN,PROJECT NUMBER 1963,FIGURE ES-15. ,c9 BEARINGS RASED ON THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST BLOCK CORNERS \ OF BLOCK 40.CITY MONUMENTS BEARING S 75'09'11-E 270.00 vm \ ELEVATIONS BASED ON CITY OF ASPEN GPS MONUMENT N0.9 ELEV 7906.09,1988 NAVD SNOW ON GROUND AT TIME OF SURVEY 3/14 VICINITY MAP ` \ ZONING: R-6 W R AA \ \\ \ SETBACKS: FRONT-10 FEET P U \ \ r SIDE--10 FEET Z REAR-10 FEET NO SLOPES GREATER THAN 30% O r, a . DRIVEL 25@47 / � \\ CERTIFICATION 1 °enA"y�. AS PLOWED c.te,.o \\ THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON WAS FIELD SURVEYED AND IS ACCURATE BALD ON THE FIELD EVIDENCE AS L EHOWN..AND THAT THERE ARE NO DISCREPANCIES OF RECORD,BOUNDARY UNE CONF7JCT5. \\ S I a / \ \\ '�• '9 NCROACHMENTS.EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF WAY IN FlEIA EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME O \ SURVEY i— qOh / EXCEP 0e5 EHH�TS OOF RECORD UN07RGROULNE UoUTIES W11H NO ABVEEROE ND APPURTENANCE i—Y IS LESS TF{AN / ,000. THE SEAL Of THE SURVEYOR BELOW.ERROR OF l °Cf CL SUREUN � v LESS WET STAMPED WITH P V 1 15 / 1 B�,v�oro 4 DATED: Q ����1�1�1� IIIIII P EDT THE AIRVEYOR A", lo '�. " /, /� �•� \ tL JT r 1 JOHN M.HOWORTH.P.L.S.25947 LLJ IMPROVEMENT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY U o p CRY I OF Z k 790.8 \ 1 \ ' APART OF THE NE 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 12 TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH.RANGE 85 WEST OF � \/ rr.ae.�» THE 6TN P.N.OESCRIBEO AS kOLLOWS: v Ir SILL a" � / w wa I BEGINNING AT A POINT FROM WHICH THE EAST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12 D ]881.4 \ ° I\\ I BE NORTH 65'49'50-EAST,802.99 FEET.ANO FROM Wr9CH THE NORIHNCSTERB CORNER _ OF SMUDGIER AND NORM 2ND STREET IN THE CITY OF ASPEN BEARS SOUTH 128.15-WEST, 5 aV` — \ C / / 120.13 FEET WHICH POINT OF BEGINNING IS ON THE NESTERIY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF LANE W 120 IN SAID CITY THENCE NORTH 757)911'NEST.159.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16'5049 FAST.100 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF NORTH 3$. \ — STREET IN SAID CITY: ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF NORTH STREET.36.89 FEET "3? � "' \ — THENCE SOUTH 75'09.11'EAST, 111 TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY'UNE OF LAKE II I r\ 1"°' AVENUE: 4 BRICK u Y HENCE ALONG THE WES ERLY UN'OF LAKE AVENUE.ON A CURVE TO HE EFT W H A 'I / 1 \ RADIUS OF 558.05 FEET AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 35'59 30 EAST 158.35 FEET. J \ _ AN ARC OISTANGE OF 758.88 FEET TO 1HE P01NT OF BEGINNING. HOUSE 5 \ 1 // 1 ALSO DESCRIBED AS: CD 6 I x THE EAST 1 2 OF LOT 5, ALL OF"a \ 1\ T-~\ I \\ BLOCK LO 5 6 AND 7. 1- \ COUNTY'S ADpTION TO THE CITY AND TONNSITE OF ASPEN 5 STATE OF COLORADO. STATE OF COLORADO. CONTAINING:9,231 50 FT t.0.212 ACRES aI \ 7901.31 ID 0.5 DECIC 25947,\ \•fir n�c. \ 1, / / \ \ \ I vex. G D U W CITY OF ASPEN GPS 7882 \h N O d MONUMENT NO.9 ELEV.7906.09 4. - "�"� \ \ / 405 4 \ _1 1r°Iva \ o-..svc.^h �c48 N 83' -E 1265.7 7w, �, w e Y. � ins 8� 159.67• �J7A� 20•R. LOCK 40`\��� W SOUNDING O — \ PREPARED BY CITY ASPEN GPS \ U ^ INC- MONUMENT O EN 8 W ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, /y 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET � ASPEN. COLORADO - 81611 - q�✓ � /,/J� ` i / PHONE/FAX(970)925-3616 �y \\ JOB a�` � tf (pia, �! V 3/14 0097 1 LAKE AVENUE RESIDENCE :: LUNDY REMODEL � u on£A�uiNC io NCO�UW RTSI, T> M � �ps�� EXISTING SITE- 30 AND NORTH 2 Y CORNER OF SMUDGIER AND HWEST 2N0 STREET,A CITY MONUMENT eAsEn p1"µsv°o�Lr,:criNn is°al�,i couuFrv�o uMac m.ri�1D+°N HPC-1 ENGINEERING SCALE:1:10 HORIZONTAL CONTROL oAie of we m+nBC,.non slowN Huaa.1NE ��'"'T.aR.°'.s wlD v nor wEr suMFm Wm THE sue of iHe - S H E E T aH�Br AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 2?, S 1. j �CSh+� ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: e 5: ace , 20.E STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitldn ) L �"�O' S y'�`'"`� (name, please print) being or representing L Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the 'Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the_ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the 002937TA9 { p?erty- su'�je�t to the development application. The names and addresses of OWL19,property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they 0(lA310j0',)a pearbd:no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A catsooAaeer� , Gros a r vnsu,deaa,i&Pi?y oftbz*olvners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, surmnarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued 071 next page) eturn receipt Mineral Estate pu)ner Notice. By the certified mailing of n30 cdar nor to the requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty ( ) Y s P date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any I way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to of a de ,edw lanedn use regulation, or made by repeal of this Title and enactment otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning rior agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days p to the public hearing on such amendments. Signatur The f regomg"Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this d y of , 20k,by PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ROAD,CONCEP- ES S * l Ty HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL TUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FAR BONUS, WI TN SETBACK VARIANCES.PARKING WAIVER, DEMOLITION EION, F NON-HISTORIC IC ADDITIONS, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing M commission expires, My will be held on Wednesday July the Aspen J meeting to begin at 5:00 p. Cham- bers rCityrHalll,130 S.Ga a a'St Aspen,o con - sider an application submitted by Pagewood LLC,Suite 31 McKinney ro �o- d and Broughton Arche r l s Notary Pub 11C ure The ibGGt er .,L 99 errooRddot2 o the Jukati Subdi vision, Colorado, Parcel ID# 2737-181-23-002. The request is to remove the home historic additions to the landmark,p e KAREN REED.PATTERS to construct a basement and add an addition to the NOTARY PUBLIC existing landmark.A new single family home is STATE OF COLORADO proposed on the lot as part of this development. A FAR Bonus,Demolition parking .v non-historic additions, ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: NOTARY ID#19964002767 Relocation,a parking waiver,a Residential Design Standard Variance for building orientation,and Major Development(Conceptual)is requested. In pjJ$,LICATION - My Commission Expires February 15,2016 addition,setback variances related to the front yard of both residences(historic and new),distance (SIGN) between buildings variance,and east and west OF THE POSTED NOTICE ( sideyard setback variances are requested. For P ll 1 1Y 1 GEArCIES NOTICED further information,contact Sara Adams at the City OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL A of Aspen Community Development Deb art ent, $ 130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO,( ) ra.adams®cityof aspen.com. Aspen Historic Preservation Commission CER TIFICA TION OF MTNERA-L ES TAE O WNERS NOTICE Published in the Aspen Times on June 19,2014 (10285302) ___D BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 r AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Z u o , Aspen, CO AJ SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: J� , 20 (4- STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I ,�� ? � ��,t (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Ill Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. yPosting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the� day of �1v , 20A, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A hotograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Y/_ Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Y Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this�day of - ' , 204,by Agustin ez WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public State of Colorado My commissio xpires d Notary ID 20084043073 My Commission Expires December')%2016 Notar Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. X24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ROAD, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, FAR BONUS, SETBACK VARIANCES, PARKING WAIVER, DEMOLITION OF NON- HISTORIC ADDITIONS,RELOCATION,RDS VARIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 9, 2014, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Pagewood LLC, 1301 McKinney Suite 3175, Houston, TX 77010, represented by Rowland and Broughton Architecture. The subject property is legally described as 28 Smuggler Grove Rd., Lot 2 of the Jukati Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado, Parcel ID# 2737-181-23-002. The request is to remove non-historic additions to the landmark, pick up the home to construct a basement and add an addition to the existing landmark. A new single family home is proposed on the lot as part of this development. A FAR Bonus, Demolition of non-historic additions, Relocation, a parking waiver, a Residential Design Standard Variance for building orientation, and Major Development (Conceptual) is requested. In addition, setback variances related to the front yard of both residences (historic and new), distance between buildings variance, and east and west sideyard setback variances are requested. For further information, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2778, sara.adams@cityofaspen.com. s/Jav Maytin, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 19, 2014 City of Aspen Account Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to A�RYO 5160® i Use Avery.®Template 5160® j Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edger"" j 1207 EAST HOPKINS HOLDINGS LLC AMES MARTHA E ARNAL ALVARO JOSE 400 E MAIN ST 23 SMUGGLER GROVE RD 326 MIDLAND AVE#201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN ASSET LLC BAKKEN JOHN&LIZA N BEIDLEMAN NEAL J&AMY G 2701 MIDLAND AVE#8312 PO BOX 12064 PO BOX 4362 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816014395 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 BENNETT NEIL J BESTIC JEFFREY B BEYER ALAN R 214 PARK AV 301 MIDLAND PARK AVE 410 N MILL ST #B11 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 2267 ASPEN, CO 81611 - ASPEN, CO 81611 - - - - BIRACH KAREN BIRRFELDER BRIGITTE T BLOMQUIST JENIFER L&PERLEY PAUL S 122 MIDLAND PARK PL PO BOX 3035 PO BOX 12155 ASPEN, CO 81611-2414 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 BOLERJACK LISA BROOKS KERRI L BROWN DONALD PO BOX 811 112 MIDLAND PARK PL 412 KATHRYNS WY ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-2405 BRk,4N RUTH H BUCKLEY BETTY JEAN TRUST CALK LAURA E 410 N MILL ST#B11 364 W 3900 N WILLCOX DENNIS ASPEN, CO 81611 PROVO, UT 846044983 722 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611-2472 CANTRELL WESLEY R CARLSON ERIC& LYNNE CASTLE CREEK HOLDINGS CO 104 KATHRYNS WY 24 HIDDEN BROOK DR PO BOX 56109 ASPEN, CO 81611-2405 BARRINGTON, IL 60010 HOUSTON, TX 77256 CAVE DERYK CHAUNER RONALD M CITY OF ASPEN 1195 E COOPER#B CHAUNER JACKIE L SHEFFER 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 8782 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 COERDT CLINTON CLAUSS CONANT RICHARD H CORBIN MARCIA A 326 MIDLAND AVE#201 55 SMUGGLER GROVE PO BOX 9312 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CU�`INGHAM PAMELA M DEELGUEA ALEJANDRO ORTIZ DEJEAN FELIX A III&CAROLYNE 50: )LAND PARK PL PO BOX 9871 1368 KATHERINE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 OPELOUSAS, LA 70570 I€tiquettes faciles a peler ; Repliez i�la hachure afro de; vvww.avery:com Sens de Utilisez le aabarit AVERY®51600 ! Aw......,....,... rev6ler le rebord POD-uoTM ! 1-800-GO-AVERY ! Easy Peel®Labels A ® Bend along ine to I ® ' Use Avery®Template 51600 1 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM ' AVER® 5160® ' � 1 DEVANNY EARL H III & ELIZABETH H DODINGTON SUSAN M DOYLE JOHN F& LAURIE FRAMPTON 177 HAMBOLDT ST 221 MIDLAND PARK PL PO BOX 12236 DENVER, CO 80218 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ELA CHARLES S EPSTEN BRADFORD M QPR TRUST ERNST TERSIA V 1208 E HOPKINS 1030 W 66TH TERRACE 206 KATHRYNS WY ASPEN, CO 81611 KANSAS CITY, MO 64113 ASPEN, CO 81611-2405 FERLISI MARY SANDRA FLUG MARTIN FORNELL PETER J 326 MIDLAND AVE#307 616 E HYMAN AVE 402 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 FRANZE MARTIN JOSEPH FUENTES DAVID&KATHARINE D GARTON SARA B 520 E COOPER AVE STE 210 302 MIDLAND PARK PL 110 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 816113824 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLEASON AMY GLICK DANIEL GRIFFITHS THOMAS W EVERETTE JOHN PO BOX 9910 504 MIDLAND PARK PL 712 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GK -,Z COLLEEN A TRUST GUGLIELMO KNANSEE L GULL EVAN H REV TRUST 155 N HARBOR DR#3612 514 KATHRYNS WY GULL FLOURNOY G REV TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60601 ASPEN, CO 81611 25 ARDMORE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 HACH STEPHEN C HAGEN CATHERINE ANNE HANSEN BETH 23 SMUGGLER GROVE RD 210 MIDLAND PARK PL PO BOX 1775 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 HECK JAMES C HEMMING GREGG S& KAREN S HEYMAN BRUCE QPR TRUST 50% PO BOX 8416 311 MIDLAND AVE_ PO BOX 5000 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 MS-10 OGDENSBURG, NY 13669 HEYMAN VICKI QPR TRUST 50% HIGGINS PAUL HOUBEN CYNTHIA MICHELE 2035 N MAGNOLIA 303 MIDLAND PARK PL#C-3 PO BOX 9616 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 HT" PROPERTIES LLC HUMPHREY JESS IBARA RON % STONE BRIAR PO BOX 1775 PO BOX 776 LAS vEGAS, NV 89144 ASPEN, CO 81612 CAYUCOS, CA 93430 I:tiquettes faciles a peter i Repliez 3 la hachure afin de; www.avery.com I Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 ehse^;chant reveler le rebord Pop-ups"' ; 1-800-GO-AVERY I 'Easy Peel®Labels ♦ Bend along line to I a ANERYO 5160® ; Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM j 1 JEFFERSON GREG JOHNSON SHAEL JOHNSTON PEGGY REVOCABLE TRUST 711 MIDLAND PARK PL PO BOX 3549 111 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 K&W PROPERTIES I LLC KALTENBOCK ERNST KEARN ROBERT&ORENE FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 744 1612 WOODBINE HEIGHTS BLVD 1831 WILLOW RD BLACKSBURG, VA 24060 TORONTO ONTARIO HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010 CANADA M413 3A4, KNUTSON RODNEY D KOCH KATHRYN S&JOHN F KOLBERG JUDITH A PO BOX YY 304 MIDLAND PARK PL C-4 501 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LACROIX TIMOTHY LAFOUNTAINE ANTOINETTE LAUGHREN DAVID 113 MIDLAND PARK PL- - - - - - - 410 KATHRYNS WY #D1 PO BOX 1265 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEBBY NICHOLAS J & SARAH LEE QUINCY J LEVENTHAL ROBERT B PO BOX 1352 610 W 5TH#600 515 KATHRYNS WY ASPEN, CO 81612 AUSTIN,TX 78701 ASPEN, CO 81611-2405 LE%„,4 AMY MACCRACKEN SCOTT R& MARISA POST MCDONALD FRANCIS B 811 MIDLAND PARK PL#H11 403 MIDLAND PARK PL#D3 PO BOX 4671 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MCPHEE JAMES MICHAEL&ANNE MARIE MCPHERSON GREGORY J MEBEL GREGORY E 401 MIDLAND PARK PL PO BOX 2073 30 KUPONO ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PAIA, HI 967799723 MG DUPLEX LLC MOHWINKEL CLIFF MOONEY TIMOTHY 825 W NORTH ST PO BOX 9457 PO BOX 8931 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 NICHOLS SCOTT A OLDFIELD BARNEY F PATTEN DAVID N PO BOX 3035 2701 MIDLAND AVE#8312 810 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81612 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816014395 ASPEN, CO 81611 PHA' ' IPS ARTHUR R& HELEN B PITKIN COUNTY REDMOND JOHN B&LYNN G PC X 8245 530 E MAIN ST#302 207 KATHRYNS WY#133 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 Ittiquettes fadles a peter A Repliez a la hachure afin de www.avery:COm Utilisez le aabarit AVERY®51600 ��Sens de.,+ reveler le rebord Pop-upTM ; 1-800-GO-AVERY -Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend ' along line to j AVERY® 51600 Use Avery®Template 5160 0 feed Paper expose Pop-up Ed eTM , j REYNOLDS LORA D ROCKY MTN PROPERTY LLC RODELL TIMOTHY C&MARJORIE M 610 W 5TH#600 73 SMUGGLER GROVE RD PO BOX 8005 AUSTIN, TX 78701 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612-8005 SCARLETT ROBIN SEMPLE SASHA L SIMMONS SUSAN 413 KATHRYNS WY 601 E HYMAN AVE 101 KATHRYNS WY ASPEN, CO 81611-2405 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SMITH DONALD NELSON SMITH JACK L&DIANE M SNELL NANCY L 501 MIDLAND PARK PL 434 COTTONWOOD DR PO BOX YY ASPEN, CO 81611 EVERGREEN, CO 80439 ASPEN, CO 81612 SNYDER CONDO ASSOC SPONAR ANTON K&JUDY STEAR RONALD A& MARIA F 600 KATHRYNS WAY 222 MIDLAND PARK PL 121 MIDLAND PARK PL#A21 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-2486 ASPEN, CO 81611 STEIN DEBORAH SWIFT LAWRENCE V VICENZI HEATHER L TRUST 710 MIDLAND PARK PL DALY JACQUELINE A PO BOX 2238 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 1313 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 W, TER DAVID H WELDEN TODD E& DEBORAH C WHITE WILLIAM P PO BOX 10362 503 MIDLAND PARK PL#E3 326 MIDLAND AVE#204 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WILSON KIMBERLY WINKLER JILL C 102 KATHRYNS WAY#A2 212 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 9tiquettes faciles a peter ; Repliez a la hachure afin de; vvww.averycom Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®5160® rh Sens de n ! i nrnemo + reveler le rebord Pop-up TM 1-800-GO-AVERY, J' t. 4 r PUBLIC NOTICE Date : July 9, 2014 Time : 5pm _ Place : 130 S. Galena St., Basement level of City Hall Purpose : HPC is to consider an application for Conceptual Major Development,Re- -location,FAR Bonus,Demolition Residential Design and Setback _ Variances, & Parking Waiver to move existing building, construct addition & build a new single family home. The applicant is Pa ewood LLC, 1301 McKinney Ste. 3175, Houston, T 77010. For information contact Planning Dept. at 970-920-50 0. At; _ �► c. r ,v :95 PUBLIC NOTICE Aa" f � eC_ i r EXHIBIT,- ASPEN OFFICE GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen,Colorado 81611 Telephone(970)925-1936 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Facsimile(970)925-3008 Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com E. Michael Hoffman E-mail:mhoffman(a-Qarfeldhecht com Phone: (970) 544-3442 July 9, 2014 Historic Preservation Commission c/o Sara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application of Pagewood LLC for Conceptual Major Development Review, Setback Variances, FAR Bonus, RDS Variance, Demolition, and Parking Reduction at 28 Smuggler Road (the "Subject Property"). Zn Dear Ms. Adams and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission: We represent Stephen C. Hach and Martha E. Ames, the owners of a duplex unit located at 23 Smuggler Grove Road, and Tom and Diane Whitehead, the members of the limited liability company which owns an undivided one-half interest in 43 Smuggler Grove Road. Our clients are referred to in this letter collectively as the "Neighbors." The Neighbors' properties are located across Smuggler Grove Road from the Subject Property. The Neighbors believe the applicant's proposal to build and utilize a second single family home on the Subject Property will adversely impact the neighborhood. The impacts of a second home on the property will be magnified if the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approves the applicant's request for a reduction in required off-street parking. The neighborhood was annexed to the City of Aspen in September of 1987 and zoned R-15A.1 Although R-15A zoning permits two detached residential dwellings on a single lot, in the absence of historical designation, the minimum lot size for two single family homes in the R- 15A zone district is 30,000 square feet. With historic designation it is 6,000 square feet. The HPC has the power to permit construction and use of two single family homes on a single lot which is just 20% the size normally required only IF it finds that all of the relevant review criteria are clearly met. 1 City of Aspen Ordinances Nos.36 and 37(Series of 1987). Ms. Sara Adams and the Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2014 Page 2 This "benefit" of historic designation can place a heavy burden on surrounding parcels. This is especially true where, as here, the historic structure was moved to its current location and lacks a historic connection with the neighborhood. This structure was moved to the Subject Property from an unknown location in 1976 and not added to the Historic Inventory until 2008. The potential for a historic lot split for the property was, apparently, an important element in marketing the parcel. Strict application of the Historic Preservation Land Use Code is necessary in this case to avoid abuse of the Code and of the Neighbors. 1. Parking Impact. Smuggler Grove Road is not a public street. It exists by virtue of an easement granted to the owners of lots within the East Meadows Subdivision in a deed recorded in 1966. The deed established a 40-foot wide easement to "be of a private nature to be] be used . . . as a private way for ingress and egress" for the benefit of up to eight (8) lots. The eight lots referred to in the 1966 deed are those lots which still exist within the neighborhood. By implication, the easement for Smuggler Grove Road prohibits the creation of an additional lot within the neighborhood. The applicant appears to be sidestepping this limitation by seeking the right to build two single-family homes on a single lot. The impacts of having two homes on a single lot will be identical to building a home on a new lot established by way of a lot split. Parking has been a problem along Smuggler Grove Road. As shown in these recent photographs, cars associated with the Subject Property have abused the privilege of parking on the street. This photo was taken on May 28, 2014 of this year. �lr - t A copy of this deed is enclosed with this letter as Exhibit A. r Ms. Sara Adams and the Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2014 Page 3 Property owners in the neighborhood long ago acknowledged that there was inadequate space along the road in which to park. To remedy the situation, many of them moved their fences off the easement area to locations well within their own properties. As a result, they park off the street, on their own lots. The prior owners of the Subject Property did not react in that way. The fence between Smuggler Grove Road and the Subject Property is located on the property boundary. They left no space to park on the property along the street. Further, the prior and current owners of the Subject Property have largely prohibited their tenants from parking onsite. The consequence has been the congestion shown in the photograph shown above. To illustrate the width of Smuggler Grove Road, the neighbors on the north side of the street recently parked their cars within the easement area as do the tenants of the Subject Property. The resulting congestion is shown in the following photograph: n� This photograph clearly depicts the constriction which would occur on Smuggler Grove Road if all of the neighbors were to park within the right-of-way. The easement area would become a one-lane road. The neighbors have taken action to prevent this condition from becoming an everyday reality. The owners of the Subject Property should not be allowed to contribute to a problem which the other property owners have affirmatively sought to prevent. The Code provides benefits to owners of historically-designated properties as a means of promoting maintaining, preserving and enhancing historic properties. But those benefits cannot be imposed as burdens on the owners of neighboring lots. That principle is memorialized in the Code. Ms. Sara Adams and the Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2014 Page 4 The Code requires the HPC to impose the special review standards of Section 26.515.040 A. when evaluating an applicant's request to supply fewer than two off-street parking spaces per unit.3 Those standards are found in italics, below. Our responses to each of those standards is found in regular type following each standard. A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving of parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans,provided for residents, guests and employees. The applicant has not demonstrated that the parking requirements of the project have been met and has not taken into account the parking impacts of the project on the neighborhood . It states that "the current parking situation at 28 Smuggler Grove has five cars belonging to tenants that are all parked on the street. We feel that taking three cars away from street parking not only eases parking congestion, but allows for maximum visibility of the historic resource." This statement not only ignores the impacts of the proposed project on the neighborhood, it also demonstrates just how insensitive the current owner and its predecessor have been concerning those impacts. The applicant's conclusory statements do not address the requirements of Code Section 26.515.040 A. 1. The applicant must be required to provide proof that the parking impacts of the project will permit use of the Subject Parcel which does not impose on the rights of neighbors for adequate parking. At a minimum the applicant should be required to provide such a traffic and parking study. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. The applicant justified its request for the elimination of an off-street parking space by asserting that it "feels that adding a single stall garage or creating a longer driveway crowds the house too much." In reality, this lot is almost 100 feet wide. Understandably the applicant seeks to maximize the livable floor area of the project. However, it has not demonstrated that including four parking spaces on the property would create an undesirable development scenario or would be particularly difficult. 3 "For properties listed on the Aspen inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures,fewer spaces may be provided and/or a waiver of cash-in-lieu fees may be approved,pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and according to the review criteria set forth[in Section 26.515.040]."Code, §26.515.030. Ms. Sara Adams and the Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2014 Page 5 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking As stated above, the applicant has failed to provide information which would permit the HPC to evaluate this Code requirement. The request to eliminate an off-street parking space cannot be approved if the applicant has not demonstrated that its request meets the standards set forth in this section of the Code. 2. The Setback Variances Will Crowd the Road and the Ad'acent Parcels. Because Smuggler Grove Road is narrow, among other things, it is important that all of the structures within the neighborhood respect the standard setbacks required by R-15A zoning. The City and other property owners have acknowledged that reality over the past 15 to 20 years. All new building within the neighborhood has consistently recognized the 25 foot front-yard setback requirement. The following diagram of the neighborhood was supplied to the City in 2003 by a prior owner of the Subject Property in connection with an application to subdivide the parcel. The lots on the top portion of the diagram are part of the East Meadow Subdivision. The lots on the lower portion of the diagram, including the Subject Property, are a part of the Jukati subdivision. r r � > to 1 E crr NAD � 11fkel��t: A 1 tO T Byrnes roperty HPC Conceptual review _ a uE +xCrErt<tF - 28 Smuggler Grove Rd ' Nei�hlx7nc�x}ci . :, d tte Plan&Existing Conditions Ms. Sara Adams and the Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2014 Page 6 Since annexation to the City in 1988, development activity has occurred on each of the lots of the East Meadow Subdivision. In each case the new construction was required to conform to the dimensional parameters of the R-15A zone district. Although the Neighbors understand that the City's Historic Preservation regulations promote the placement of historical buildings in a place of prominence on the lot, they believe that the historic structure will be no less prominent if it respects the front yard setback requirement and provides room for onsite parking, among other things. Similarly, the proposed new home should also respect the 25-foot front yard setback. Alignment of the two structures with the other homes in the neighborhood will create a sense of continuity which is promoted by City regulations and harmony along the street. The Subject Property is a part of the neighborhood and should not be considered in isolation. The improvements on the Subject Property cannot violate the sense of community promoted by the R-15A setback requirements simply to highlight the historically- designated structure. For the same reason, the Neighbors object to the sideyard setback variances requested here. The applicant wishes to move the historic structure five feet within the west sideyard setback area and to construct the new building five feet within the east sideyard setback area. Given the width of the lot (approximately 100 feet), a plan for locating these structures on the site without the need for sideyard setback variances can be accomplished. Redevelopment of the adjacent lots will otherwise be impaired by the close proximity of buildings on the Subject Property. That result is unfair to the owners of those parcels and should not be approved. HPC's decision-making in regard to the setback variances requested by the applicant is governed by Code Section 26.415.110.C.2., which provides as follows, in relevant part: 26415.110.0 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. 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. In the current case, the variances are not similar to "the pattern, features and character of the" surrounding area. Because the structure was moved to the neighborhood long after the period of historical significance, there is no context with which to compare this structure and meaningfully apply this standard. The pattern, features and character of the neighborhood are consistent with the dimensional standards of the R-15A zone district and the applicant's proposed development should be required to conform to those standards. We understand that the applicant seeks to justify the setback variances by asserting that the two structures should be placed to give Ms. Sara Adams and the Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2014 Page 7 prominence to the historic structure. But again, this argument ignores the actual neighborhood context of the property and the proposed development. Redevelopment of the Subject Property should not be permitted to do violence to the fabric of the existing neighborhood. We believe that applicant's development plan, as it currently proposed, is disruptive and damaging to the existing character of the neighborhood. The Neighbors ask that you to deny the applicant's request for front and sideyard setback variances and the elimination of an offstreet parking space. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, E. Michael Hoffman C}tl?1f t Filed for record at 3:45 P,M. Rece Lion No. 124812 Jul 19 s°°.:_cDCp'°u� Pe4Z E: Coble WJ�NTY D riatIU¢-aad t/'�Q TWO BED-0ut ef�oyuy Ce�Cdo ode yn into['a�_ :"i 429 TWO MUb,Made this 19th day of � July in the year of our Load one thousand nine hundred and sixty-six between jORN J. SNYDER a., JOHN SNYDER, aka JAMES J. SNYDER of the County of Pitkin J first pa and State of Colorado,of the firt, and 'TACK HOLST, of County of Pitkin and State Of Colorado, and N. Y and OREST E. GERBAZ A. DOSSIGN Of the County of Garfield and State of Colorado,of the second part: Witnesseth,2'hat the said part y of the first part,for and in consideration of the sum of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS And Other Valuable Considerations to file said part y of the first part in hand paid by the said part ies of the second Part,the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged,ha s these presents granted,bargained,sold and conveyed, d by grant,ba:.gain, sell, convey and corJu-m and the said part ies of the second part, thei r es heirs and assigns forever,all the following described lot or parcel of laud, situate,lying and being in the County of Pitkin A tract of land lying in Section 18 and State of Colorado, and described as fob, to-wn; West of the 6th P. M., , Towns Range 84 hip 10 South, Beginning at a point from whence corner No. 2 of Riverside Placer U.S-M.S. No. 3905, bears N. 75`42'40" E. 335.69 feet; thence N. 81'30' W. 344,38 feet; thence S. 04`54' E. 120.37 feet; thence e e 41' 216.46 feet; thence N. 78`57' thence N. 78'57' E. 89.14 feet; E. E. 15.79 feet; thence N. thence S. Ob 18'E.34.69 feet; 79'41' E. 45.00 feet; thence N. 15`27' 10`19' E. 5.00 feet; thence s". beginning, containin W• 130.00 feet to the place of easements and rights of wa 10 square feet, more or less. SUBJECT to any y of record and those as are now in use. Party of the first part further agrees that the second and those claiming by, through and under them, and each of them, shall have a parties perpetual easement or right of way through, over and across the conveying described property, which adjoins the r p operty hereinabove Beginning at the SW corner of the above described tract, corner being S. 75 42'40" W. 335.69 feet and N. B1 30' S- ner b said E. 120.37 feet from corner No. [ of Riverside W''4`1'38 feel and No. 3905; thence S. 04`54' E. corn feet; then Placer thence N_ then 98.29'fe E. 107.66 feet; thence N. 79 41' E. 198.25 feet; S. 78`57' W. 89.14feet; thence N. 79`41' h 06°18' W. 34.69 feet; thence beginning. 216.46 feet to the Point of This easement or right of way s15a11 he of a private nature and shall be used by the grantees and their assigns as a private way for ingress and egress to said lands and to hat more than five sots thereof. In this connection, it is understood that there are three more ground adjoining said easement, that to grantor, which to other Parties Pieces of P than the grantees herein and their assigns and th sold' said three additional lots retained by grantor shall have the same rights and privileges of ingress and egress in said easement as the their assigns. In this connection this fort way shall be plowed and graded from snow b grantees and y (40} foot private right of assigns for a period of three 3 y the grantor herein and his snow plowing by the ( ) years and that the costs of the said_ grantor shall be paid by the respective owners of lobs - in said subdivision at the rate of $25.00 per lot per year far the five (5) lots; said sum to be paid directly to the grantor or his assigns. The said snow plowing agreement shall be reviewed three (3} years from the date of this deed and either renewed or re-negotiated and the then owzws of said by the grantor lots. Said grantor may cancel leis part of the snow plowing agreement without notice to the grantees and their assigns at the end of the three(3) year Period. M rTogether With all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging,or m janywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, Tents,issues sari Profits thereof;and all the estate,right,title,interest,claim and demand whatsoever of the said part y of the lust part,either in law or equity,of,in and to the above bargained premises,with the hereditament, and appurtenances. To Have and to Hold The said premises above bargained and described,with the appurtenances.unto the said part Y of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever. And the said John J. Snyder, aka John Snyder, aka James J. Snyder part y of the first part,for himself, his heirs,executors and administrators, do e s covenant,grant,bargain and agree to and with the said part}e s of the second part, their heirs and assigns,that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents he is aeh i seized of the premises above conveyed,as of good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance,in law,in fee simple,and he s good right,fall power and lawful authority to grant,bargaiu. isell and cormy the same,in manner and form aforesaid,and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants,bargains,sales,liens,taxes,assessments and incumbrances of whatever kind 3 and nature soever; except general taxes ani assessments for j 1966 payable in 1967; L.. eo(221 and the above bargained premises, in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said part ies of the second their Part, heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfu y k claiming or to claim the whole or any Part thereof,the said part Y of the first part shall and will Warrant and Forever Defend. 7n Witness Whereof,The said part Y of the first part has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year fast above written. Signed,Sealed and Delivered in Presence oft gig --- STATE OF COLORADO, i County of Pitkin }ss' 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 19th day of Jui . 19 06 •by* John J. Snyder, aka John Snyder,`'at—* J Snyder, being one and the same person. •': Witness my hand and official seal. . MY comn8ssiou expires - —'Notary Public. •Il.c�lnc to o&ciai ar r+anamurire awecia,uwn aema a„d . .:+o age.or e+naaio and for wham agar. 1 EXHIBIT Richard H. Conant, M.D. 55 Smuggler Grove Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 9, 2014 Re: 28 Smuggler Grove, Jukati Lot 2 Opposition to Major Development Project Please be advised that I have reviewed the Substantial Amendment Description submitted by Rowland Broughton Architecture. Considering my location next to this property, I am very concerned regarding the nature and scope of this project and the adverse consequences that the proposed set-backs and parking will have on our property and the quality of our neighborhood. I therefore strongly oppose this project, which in reality is a lot split. Thank you for your consideration. Richard H. Conant, M.D. IBFT LEVEL GARAGE AREA: LEVEL ONE EXHIBIT. FLOOR LOOR PLAN 338 SF GARAGE FLOOR AREA FLOOR PLAN 1,384 SF 1,028 SF OPEN -250 SF EXEMPTION REDUCTION SPAC ^ 86 BE SUBTOTAL GARAGE AREA 893F (i%} t 2 SF 112 OF THE REMAINDER 104 ..- 44 SF TOTAL GARAGE FLOOR AREA PORCH P rowland+broughton EXEMPT 1107 e2hifecfunq/u18en design/into design 234 a Nopkine eve 1830 Neke V,-200 I avpan,w 81611 d—,w 80202 I� I 970.544.9006 a 303.308.1373 a 970.544.34731 303.308.1375 f I Consultants ® Issue: \ 01-15-2014 HPC- 341 9F HPC-MEETING I' ® 2014 CLIENT REVIEW LIGHT WELL CLIENT REVIEW 02-1A2 CLIENT R EVIEW HPC WORKSESSION 02-28-2014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-06-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 03-26-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 06-042014 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW NEW HOUSE NEW HOUSE NEW HOUSE HPC MEMO RESPONSE 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 2 LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN 3 LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN qQ,2 SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0' AQ,2 SCALE: 3/32-=1'-0" A0.2 SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0' LEGEND GARAGE AREA LIVABLE AREA DECK AREA>30"ABOVE GRADE AREA BELOW GRADE CRAWL SPACE FLAT ROOF EXPOSED EXEMPT ,gyp Wes® 386E wALLp wAUp WALL® WWLp PLANTER -- ❑ k 8F WALL DECK ❑_ -- _ _ 4 W3�y ' to AREA 4 AREA AREA § WALL tOB SF 2g2 gF L 839E 729E 1088E 3 AREA a 32'411? _ 28'-11 3l4' fi JUKATI RESIDENCES NEW HOUSE SUB-GRADE WALL SUMMARY: 28 SMUGGLER GROVE WALL WALL AREA EXPOSED AREA WALLA�A WALL s 3748F WALL 1 292 BE a SF ASPEN,CO 81611 AREA WALL 2 346 SF 38 SF 1228E WALL 3 63 SF 0 SF WALL 4 72 SF 0 S $ 9'$ F 13' 2 WALL 5 10B SF 0 SF WALL 8 44 SF 0 SF WALL? 122 SF 0 SF WALL +374 SF +33 SF TOTALS 1,421 SF 71 SF NEW HOUSE NEW HOUSE ROOF PLAN BASEMENT PERIMETER FOUNDATION WALLS AQ,2 SCALE: 3132'=1'-0' AQ.2 SCALE: 3132'=V-l' NEW HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLATE=1,384 SF NEW HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATION 71 SF EXPOSED/1,421 SF WALL AREA=4.9%SUB GRADE PROJECT NO: 1,384 SF X 4.9%=68 SF FLOOR AREA COUNTED TOWARD FAR 21374 DWG FILE: 21374.10_A0.2_New-HauseagtB.dv9 i SHEET TITLE NEW HOUSE 's CODE SUMMARY: CALCULATION SUMMARY: PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATION: FLOOR AREA REMAINING: PROPOSED DECKIPORCH AREA: ALLOWABLE DECK/PORCH AREA FLOOR AREA CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE SECTION 28.575.020 CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS.MEASURING FLOOR AREA ZONING DISTRICT R-15A(MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) 1,107 SF LEVEL TWO FLOOR AREA 3,626 SF ORIGINAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 108 SF ROOFDECK 3,626 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS qp IN MEASURING FLOOR AREAS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA,THE FOLLOWING APPLIES: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 7,028 SF LEVEL ONE FLOOR AREA +500 IF BONUS FLOOR AREA 341 SF LEVEL TWO DECK AREA 115 % DECK%ALLOWED z GENERAL FLOOR AREA SHALL BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE LOT OR PARCEL UPON WHICH IT IS DEVELOPED.IN MEASURING 44 SF GARAGE FLOOR AREA 4,128 SF NEW ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA .0 SF LEVEL ONE PATIO AREA 543.9 SF ALLOWABLE DECK/PATIO AREA SCALE: 3132"=l'-O' GROSS LOT AREA(A) 7,378 SF 68 IF BASEMENT FLOOR AREA -2347 SF TOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED 449 SF TOTAL DECK/PATIO AREA A BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA,THERE SHALL BE NET LOT AREA(A) 7,378 SF 2,247 SF TOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED 1,879 SF FLOOR AREA REMAINING INCLUDED ALL AREAS WITHIN THE SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE BUILDING OR POTION THEREOF.THEN 513.8 SF ALLOWABLE DECK/PATIO AREA A -/^/7 OR FACE OF MEASURI G FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE NOMINAL STRUCTURE EXCLUDING WALLS,SHEATHING,VAPIOR BARRIER,WEATHERPROOFING R LNG MEMBRANE, URFACE BONUS AFLOOR AREA, -3.121 00 SF 94.9 SF DECKIPAT OKAREA REMAINING / �O•" EXTERIOR-MOUNTED INSULATION SYSTEMS,AND EXCLUDING ALL EXTERIOR VENEER AND SURFACE TREATMENTS TOTAL FLOOR AREA 4,126 SF a SUCH AS STONE,STUCCO,BRICKS,SHINGLES,CLAPBOARDS OR OTHER SIMILAR EXTERIOR VENEER TREATMENTS. 3e a LEGEND GARAGE AREA x \\ 4 LIVABLE AREA rowland+broughton DECK AREA> 91o/Idedu.].roan design Ilnleti.,design BASE ENT LEVEL 7 ---�PORCM ` 30"ABOVE GRADE 1,419 SF LEVEL ONE EXEMPT 231 a 1 eva 1830 51eke el,ate 200 LIGHT WELL FLOOR PLAN —_-____ aspen,m 81611 demur,m 80202 1,3105E AREA BELOW GRADE 544 90M 303.308.13730 970.544.3473f 303.308.13751 C 7•/ CRAWL SPACE ---' z ,fi T i Consultants LIGHT WELL -.-.- j/ Issue: 01-15-2014 �y � � / � HPC PC--MEETING — 01-20-2014 CLIENT REV IEW 01-21-2014 / CLIENT REVIEW 1 _ 02-17.2014 --__— - - '" CLIENT REVIEW 02-2r,2014 HPC WORK V 02-28-2014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES CLIENT CLIENT REVIEW 03-26-2014 CLIENT REVIEW HISTORIC HOUSE 04 042014 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN HISTORIC HOUSE HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 1 2 LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN 07-09-2014 A0.2.1 SCALE: 3/32^=1'-0' HPC MEMO RESPONSE SCALE: 3/3Y-1'-0^ - EXPOSED AL Q w�Q M SF .+� WAUQ nuQ wulQ WALL AREA 4 n 340 SF WALL AREA WALL AREA o WALL AREA Q 373 SF 78 SF 160 SF ^j WALL AREA ___----- lJr 121 SF �c ___ - 34'-0 1/2' 28-1.1Y1^ - 6'-0^313 ^ 7'-91/2'. i- ifi'-0' _- 12'-11/2' —_ — - wNi Q _. WALL© ; WALL Q `k WALL O __�44 SF OSEO wALL®�EXPOSED WALL 9 SF SED FLOOR PLAN WALL AREA 4 WALL AREA a �WA EL TWO 3 67 SF 149 SF f _ —� — WALL W 1fNI BF I R WALT 14•-10 1/2^ 1z'-61n^ AREA --� AR - I/�L 60 SF 6'-_0^ 10'-0^ 535E 6'-3^ JUKATI EA 17 * / RESIDENCES `Y, wAU DECK STAIR EXEMPTION � sasF i 74 SF WALL 28 SMUGGLER GROVE I i ASPEN,CO 81611 HISTORIC HOUSE SUB-GRADE WALL SUMMARY WALL K WALL AREA EXPOSED AREA WALL 1 340 SF 0 SF WALL 373 SF 44 SF WALL 3 78 SF 0 SF WALL4 180 SF 0 SF WALL 5 121 SF 0 SF HISTORIC HOUSE SF 3 LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT PERIMETER FOUNDATION WALLS WALL 7 14a SF o SF A0.2.1 SCALE: 3132 1'-0' 4 WALL 8 127 SF 0 SF A0.2.1 SCALE: 3132^=1'0' WALL 90 160 SF 44 SF WALL 11 53 SF 39 SF LL 12 +146 WA SF +0 SF T 0 TAILS 1,867 SF 200 SF HISTORIC HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLATE=1,419 SF PROJECT NO: 21374 HISTORIC HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATION OWG FILE: 200$f EXPOSED/1,867 SF WALL AREA=10.7%EXPOSED WALL AREA 21374.20_A0.2_HISIOHo-HOuse.dwg 1,419 SF X 10.7%-152 SF FLOOR AREA COUNTED TOWARD FAR SHEET TITLE /� CODE SUMMARY: CALCULATION SUMMARY: HISTORIC HOUSE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE SECTION 28.575.020 CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS.MEASURINGFLOORAREA. PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATION: FLOOR AREA REMAINING: PROPOSED DECK/PORCH AREA: ALLOWABLE DECK/PORCH AREA. AREA IN MEASURING FLOOR AREAS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE FLOOR AR ZONING DISTRICT R-15A ) 387 SF LEVEL TWO FLOOR AREA 3,626 SF ORIGINAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EA,THE FOLLOWING APPLIES: (MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 94 SF LEVEL TWO DECK AREA 3,826 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 1,310 SF LEVEL ONE FLOOR AREA +500 SF BONUS FLOOR AREA GENERAL.FLOOR AREA SHALL BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE LOT OR PARCEL UPON WHICH IT IS DEVELOPED.IN MEASURING N/A SF GARAGE FLOOR AREA 4,126 SF NEW ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA *0 SF LEVEL ONE PATO AREA x 15 % DECK ALL A BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA,THERE SHALL BE GROSS LOT A(A)(A) 7,378 SF 94 SF TOTAL DECK/PATIO AREA 543.9 SF ALLOWABLE DECK/PATIO AREA NET LOT AREA(A) 7378 SF 152 IF BASEMENT FLOOR AREA -2,247 $F PROPOSED NEW HOUSE FLOOR AREA SCALE: 3/32"=1'-O" INCLUDED ALL AREAS WITHIN THE SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE BUILDING OR POTION THEREOF.THEN 1,849 SF TOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED --1�9 SF PROPOSED HISTORIC HOUSE FLOOR AREA 543.9 SF ALLOWABLE DECK/PATIO AREA MEASURING FROM THE EXTERIOR WALLS,THE MEASUREMENT SHALL BE TAKEN FROM THE EXTERIOR FACE OF 30 SF FLOOR AREA REMAINING -449 SF NEW HOUSE DECK/PATIO AREA FRAMING,EXTERIOR FACE OF STRUCTURAL BLOCK,EXTERIOR FACE OF STRAW BALE,OR SIMILAR EXTERIOR SURFACE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 3,626 SF 94 IF HISTORIC HOUSE DECK/PATIO AREA A0.2. OF THE NOMINAL STRUCTURE EXCLUDING SHEATHING,VAPOR BARRIER,WEATHERPROOFING MEMBRANE, BONUS FLOOR AREA +500 SF 0.8 SF DECK/PIC AREA REMAINING EXTERIOR-MOUNTED INSULATION SYSTEMS,AND EXCLUDING ALL EXTERIOR VENEER AND SURFACE TREATMENTS SUBTOTAL FLOOR AREA 4,126 SF SUCH AS STONE,STUCCO,BRICKS,SHINGLES,CLAPBOARDS OR OTHER SIMILAR EXTERIOR VENEER TREATMENTS. NEW HOUSE FLOOR AREA -2,247 SF i REMAINING FLOOR AREA 1,879 SF rowland+broughton erdritedure Iunbm design/interior design 234 a hWIdns eve 1830 bloke sl,vs,200 aspen,m 81611 demon,w W202 970.544.9006 o 303.308.1373 o 970.544.3473 f 303.308.1375 f Cansubnts .rY 96 a r, - Issue: - 01-1&2 r fis HPC-MEEEE TING CLIENT REVIEW v id 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-2&2014 HPC WORKSESSION 02-28-2014 l]. jryxy,�f NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03 ENT REVIEW 03-26-2014 CLIENT REVIEW % HPC C zk r _1 `°,";, y „r`, ,%�s!�<P t.t# 9,r �►rer 0-0g20 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW HPC MEMO RESPONSE a _ i 4' VIEW 1-BIRDSEYE VIEW VIEW 2-VIEW FROM SMUGGLER GROVE lye IJ .,fIF L _ JUKATI RESIDENCES l ly r i 1 - 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ASPEN,CO 81611 VIEW 3-VIEW FROM SMUGGLER GROVE VIEW 4-VIEW FROM SMUGGLER GROVE PROJECT NO 21374 DWG FILE: 21374_A0.Sb.d" SHEET TITLE MASSING MODEL 1 VIEWS j SCALE: N.T.S A0.5b B �t .n�u.o�n.mm�ecv. •.�ane.mmoiom, dt rowland+broughton elohifect—/urban design/int.—dasi9n 2M a kspklns eve 1830 Wake sL ale 200 aspen,a 81811 denier,m 80202 970.544.9008 0 303.308.1373 0 970.544.3473f 303.308.1375 f s Consultants 0 r - Issue: s' e 01-15- HPC-MEETING 01-202014 �, js �¢ CLIENT REV IEW I 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-7-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-262014 _ y HPC-20 4 SSION NEW H1 i _ J �✓ 4 `- s ^�R7!/k' - -0 HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03 CLIENT REVIEW _,n • 03-26-2014 I' ' CLIENT REVIEW 04-034 HP CON CONCEPTUAL REVIEW HPC MEMO RESPONSE y ,r VIEW 1-BIRDSEYE VIEW VIEW 2-VIEW FROM SMUGGLER GROVE I Adam z - JUKATI .�X RESIDENCES 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ASPEN,CO 81611 VIEW 3-VIEW FROM SMUGGLER GROVE VIEW 4-VIEW FROM SMUGGLER GROVE PROJECT NO 21374 DWG FILE: 21374_A0.5b.dwg SHEET TITLE MASSING MODEL VIEWS SCALE: N.T.S e A0.5c i i NORTH WEST SOUTH EAST amhdo�mIdan�;ougndswn 234 a hopldns eve 1830 bleb al,ate 200 asPen,m 81611 dan—,m 80202 970.544.9008 0 303.308.1373 a 970.544.34731 303.308.1375 f ALLO."M BL'IM-6 25d'AfiV. IN. ROOF ONE THIRD POINT 1 Con.uran18 M Issue: HISTORIC .® 01-15201 4 HPC-MEETING 01-20-2014 --'- T.O CLIENT REVIEW -------------------------------- ----------------- �.a y4. CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 CLIENT REVIEW --------------------------------5 �,---------------------------'_ _____---- ti r------------------___--_.----- -SS r r ____________ _--__ ---__--__. —_. HPC W014 ESSION 02-28.20,4 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-06-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 03-26-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 0404-2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 07-09-2014 HPC MEMO RESPONSE ALLOWS BLDZ. E ASV.FIN.GRRDE T�1zz-o• I e I NEW - © ' ` o o <17 0 H I - OUSE 334• JUKATI RESIDENCES ALLDWIaLEeLDC.HT. 28 SMUGGLER GROVE . .i .-:' 25-0'ASV.-N ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW 1. , ROOF ONE THI POINT O — 1zz•a 7,6• H m OUSE -- a - - G o OPTION B ; PROJECT NO: 21374 DWG FILE: 21410 A2_Compans Sheet.d" SHEET TITLE PROPOSED PLANS ELEVATIONS COMPARISON SHEET SCALE:1/16"=1'-0" 3 A0.9 _ B �� .owarowo;n�iroemuoanam..A�na d! EDGE OFPAVEMENT ^� SMUGGLER GROVE ROAD (40'PRIVATE ROW) m I rowland+broughton architecture/urban design lintedowdes/gn 234 a hoyklne a 1830 Nake n ate 200 -- aspen,m 81811 seiner,m 80202 ' 970.544.9008 a 303.308.1373 o 579.4,DO•E 9,,24 970.544.3473( 303.308.1375( I I I 312 MIDLAND AVE ' Consultants m ^I I Issue: n I 01-15-2014 W HPC-MEETING g 01-20-2014 • °P I CLIENT REVIEW 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 CLIENT REVIEW _ I 02-2&2014 HPC WORK SESSION 02-28-2014 5'-0• I _ I I NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES m I '^ 03-06-2014 j I CLIENT REVIEW CLIENT REV I o ' 4 o CLIENT IEW m I I g 04-042014 I HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 07-09-2014 _ I HPC MEMO RESPONSE _ OPEN TO I ENTRY PORCH I _ I I I I BELOW D I I ENTRY I � ON DN I UP SET�CK I PORCH ! I !I —T-107/18•-- — I NEW HOUSE i I I I I I LOT I I I I I I 7,378±s:S . I I Q�I I I I HISTORIC HOUSE -- .. I I If JUKATI I I I I I w RESIDENCES W I' I �I II I II 28 SMUGGLER GROVE W W ASPEN,CO 81611 I � I I I III I ON UP _ _ �-�- � � I I 1 � II'II' I �• I_� ® I DECK ABOVE I It III I Cm I= I PATIO =� I To-SETA _ I _ I PROJECT NO: _ 21374 5/8• I I_ _ I I DWG FILE: 21374.20_At-1 b.dsrg 10'-0• I SHEET TITLE I 10 =UTiLtry�SEMENT_ I PROPOSED SITE PLAN _ I SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" 5 A1 .1 OPT B SNYDER PARK R'1',Oq.00' 5? ae rowland+broughton eMldedure/urban design/Inferior design 234 a bopidna me 1930 bloke at ste 200 spen,m 91911 a denier,w 90202 970.544.9009 0 303.308.1373 0 970.544.34731 303.308.13751 Consultants —————————————————— I Issue: 01-182014 HPC-MEETING 01-262014 COVERED CLIENT REVIEW I 11 1 L.I ENTRY 01-21-2014 _. _.. CLIENT REVIEW ----- - -- ---— 02-17-2014 OPEN TO CLIENT REVIEW -- OPEN TO ABOVE AN0 ---_--- 02-2 WOO — -- HPC-2014 SSION WET BAR ABOVE - —_ GARAGE BELOW 02-282014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-08-2014 UP DN UP CLIENT REVIEW 03282014 CLIENT REVIEW (� 014 HPC C lu.¢ HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ENTRY 07-09-2014 HPC MEMO RESPONSE POWDER 3 HANGING W ROOO M S III J UNDRY m LA '1 HANGING \J _ MUD ®-e LID W. BATH w - - ------ I A/Vl . - L-- MECHANICAL GUEST BENCH MASTER BENCH � � r— HANGING u - _ rBUA STORAGE W.I.C. !' \ BATH ; JUKATI MASTER RESIDENCES GUEST WINDOW INDO BATH WI DOW ELL/ y y BED WELL I WELL MASTER < ELL O \\ I / j, BEDROOM CORNER ^\ FIREPLACE m 28 SMUGGLER GROVE -' ,,- — - - -- ASPEN,CO 81611 L---- --------- ---------------------- SETBACK LINE PROJECT NO: 21374 PROPERTY LINE DWG FILE: 21374.10_A2-1optl3h g NEW HOUSE NEW HOUSE SHEET TITLE a 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 2 LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN NEW HOUSE A2.1 SCALE: 1/4•=1'-0' A2.1 SCALE: 1/4•=1'-0' I BASEMENT&LEVEL 'j PLAN TRUE PLAN TRUE N® N® N® N® ONE FLOOR PLANS A2.1 OPT_ B a' ae rowland+broughton —hftd.a/urban des9n/interior design 234 a Napkins we 1830 bloke st.ete 200 aspen,w 81811 denier,w 80202 970.544.9008 0 303.308.1373 0 970.544.34731 303.308.1375f METAL ROOF Consultants Issue: 01-15-2014 HPC-MEETING 10:12 01-20-2014 ENTRY OF FLAT ROOF CLIENT REVIEW BELOW OVER ENTRY 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW - 02-17-2014 I CLIENT REVIEW _ O TO 02-2 PFJJ WOW BEIILIIOW 02-28-2014 NEW DESIGN CHANGES PANTRY POWDER - 03-06.01 HOUSE CLIENT REVIEW DN 03.262014 ®• CLIENT REVIEW 04-04-2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 07-09-2014 HPC MEMO RESPONSE 7EF I � � - FLAT ROOF KITCHEN I DINING 'PLANTER W-W -W +' lJ I II i ROOF'OEC ON 10:12 m:1z I I OVEN 13BO I I LIVING DECK UP BELOW JUKATI RESIDENCES FIREPIT - l 28 SMUGGLER GROVE LOW FI14EPLACE ASPEN,CO 81611 WITH WINDf1WS ABOVE BUILT-IN SEATING WITH CUSHIONS PROJECT NO 21374 DWG FILE: 21374.10_A2-2optB.dw9 NEW HOUSE NEW HOUSE SHEET TITLE r 1 LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN 1 ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/4' NEW HOUSE 1. TRUE A2.z SCALE: 114•=1•-0 LEVEL TWO TRUE NORTH NORTH NORTH NORTH &ROOF PLANS A2.2 OPT B tt It T.O.RIDGE 12 �0 LINE OF PLANTER BEYOND ROOF ONE THIRD;.a _ rowland+broughton METAL GAP 122'-5 7/16" embitesmre/urban design/mrenar design 234 a hopkins a 1630 bloke st sb 200 aspen,m 61611 den—ee 80202 T.O.0970.544.90080 303.308.13751 109'-0" 970.544.3476 303.308.13751 0 �—STAIRS TO ROOF n % DECKBEYOND / -- STONE VENEER HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING / C4neu6ents STEEL CHANNEL - -. _-_- i LEVEL TWO ---.: - WOOD SIDING T.O.PLY_* 110-0 Issue: • " - - $- 01-15-2014 -- )- HPC-MEETING -- - --_- 01-20-2014 CLIENT REVIEW STONE VENEER - 01-21-2014 \ - — - CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 CLIENT REVIEW WOOD SIDED - 02-26-2014 0 GARAGE DOOR HPC WORKSESSION 02-28-2014 -- � NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES -_ - - - 03-26-2014 f= _ CLIENT REVIEW J CLIEN R 2 CLIENT - LEVEL ONE REVIEW T.O.PLY A -.--. -- � HPC HPC 014 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW r --- ---------- 07-09-2014 F---, HPC MEMO RESPONSE _---J - I I I I I I T.O. g SLAB A _ PROPOSED 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 114"o 1'-0" PLANTER METAL ROOF METAL ROOF ` T.O.ROOF PLY A 120 0" Y METAL SIDING METAL SIDING JUKATI 1 4 RESIDENCES STONE VENEER _ ( r a - 1 28 SMUGGLER GROVE LEVEL TWO ASPEN,CO 81611 `% c T.O.PLY 110'-0" I - � r) LEVEL ONE T.O.PLY A — — — — — — 100'-0" Y PROJECT NO: 21374 DWG FILE: 21374.10_A4-1 apt&dwg / 4 4 SHEET TITLE NEW HOUSE PROPOSED I I ELEVATIONS — I� T.O.p SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" 1 --J --J PROPOSED 2 A4.1 OPT B WEST ELEVATION _ A4.1 SCALE: 1 14"=V-I" e4 r� 128'-6' 12 �10 LINE OF PLANTER BEYOND METAL CAP ROOF ONE THIRD POINT w rowland+broughton -- -- -___ 122'-67/16" ard,aeau.siuman assign iinlsnar si9rr -_ 234 a Nopkin9 eve 1830 eleka st,sle 200 .Pn,w 81811 denver,w 80202 970.544.9008 0 303.308.1373 0 T.O. 970.544.34731 3021.M8.1375 f 109'-0" —. ---- STAIRS TO ROOF DECKBEYOND �- STONE VENEER HORIZONTAL WOOD -- / Consultants SIDING STEEL CHANNEL LEVEL TWO T.O. Y A Issue: PL 110,-0• - 01-15-2014 HPC-MEETING - ------ LIEN R 2 CLIENT C REVIEW -�- —-- 01-21-2014 STONE VENEER — CLIENT REVIEW -\ \ 02-17-2014 CLIENT REVIEW c HPC-220RKSESSION / _-- — 02-28-2014 -- -- — - NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES K - -:-- CLIENT(REVIEW -- — -_ 03_26_2014 LEVEL ONE CLIENT T R EV1Ew - -= T.O.PLY A 04-04-2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 100'-0"y 07-09-2014 ——— —— —— HPC MEMO RESPONSE L IF— I if II F----1 C_- I----� T.O.SLAB A PROPOSED 1 NORTH ELEVATION-ALT.WINDOW OPTION A4.1 SCALE: 111"2 T-O' T.O.RID'-6 GE A T PLANTER METAL ROOF METAL ROOF I I ` T.O.ROOF PLY A 120,0, METALSIDING - METAL SIDING ----- JUKATI RESIDENCES STONE VENEER 28 SMUGGLER GROVE - % ASPEN,CO 81611 LEVEL TWO T.O.PLY A 1r LEVEL ONE T�100'-O" PROJECT NO: 21374 DWG FILE: ILI 21374.10 A4-"PtB.d-9 SHEET TITLE NEW HOUSE POPOSED ELEVATIONS SCALE:1l4=1-0 - I PROPOSED A4.1 OPT B 2 WEST ELEVATION e AQ,1 SCALE: 1/4'=1'-0" it .auowm,on„ae". xom.ss..maum. a� T.O.RIDGE 128'-6" • PLANTER BEYOND 12 �10 :... METAL CAP ._ - .. _.. n METAL FASCIA ROOF ONE THIRD POINT A rowland+broughton 122'-5 7/16" archdadurs/urban design/interor design STAIR TO ROOF DECK 234al.81 eve 1830 en ste 20 970.54.9 87811 denver,m 80202 T.O.PLATE ,L 970.514.90064 303.308.13730 �09,-0" 970.SM.3473t 303.308.13751 STONE VENEER GLASS RAILING ElWOOD SIDING Consultants FP VENT LEVEL TWO T.O.PLY A Issue: 1101-0" T 01-1&z014 HPC-MEETING 01-20-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 01-21-2014 STONE VENEER CLIENT REVIEW CL ENT R CLIENT REVIEW 02-2&2014 HPC WORKSESSION 02-2&2014 --——- NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-0&2014 FP VENT CLIENT REVIEW LEVEL ONE 03-26-2014 T.O.PLY A CLIENT REVIEW 64-64-xola X00'-Q" Y HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 07-09-2014 _ - - - - -- - HPC MEMO RESPONSE I 4 4 f ---- ——� 90'-0. PROPOSED 1 SOUTH ELEVATION A4.2 SCALE: 1/4"=V-0" T.O.RIDGE ,L 128'-6" Y METAL ROOF METAL ROOF T.O.ROOF PLY A I 121'-p" � JUKATI METAL SIDING j METAL SIDING RESIDENCES 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ASPEN,CO 81611 LEVEL TWO T.O.PLY A 110'-0• Y COVERED ENTRY STONE VENEER — PORCH WOOD SIDING 4 LEVEL ONE -- - TT� 100'-0" PROJECT NO: —— —————— ——————————————————————————————— _———— 21374 DWG FILE: 21374.10_A4-1-4PtB.dw9 4 4 SHEET TILE NEW HOUSE P PROPOSED d ELEVATIONS ! _ T.O.SLAB A SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" ----- -- --------_----------------I 90'-0" Y PROPOSED 2 EAST ELEVATION A4.2 OPT B jq] A4.2 SCALE: 1/4—V-0" of rowland+broughton archdacf,e/urban design/int—design 234 a hopk'ns eve 1830 bloke sl,ale 200 'We'.W 81811 den w 80202 970.544.9008 o 303.308.1373 a 970.644.3473 f 303.308.1375 f vConsultants Issue: 01-15-2 HPC-MEEEE TING 01-20-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW STORAGE 02-17-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-26-2014 HPC WORKSESSION OFFICE 02-28.2014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-06-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 03-26.2014 CLIENT REVIEW ON _ _-- HPC CONCEP UAL REVIEW PORCH REBUILD PORCH TO A BATH L HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE DEPTH PER HPC FEEDBACK BENCH C 71IN/DLOW LIVINGNDOW BEDROOM LIVING LL I I U F.P. z � OMECHANICAL S 4 IIII BATH WI�DgJN •,O ` POWDER - _ WINDOW DINING PATIO OVER HEATED SLAB BELOW Vj1EL _ vWEIS SPACE BELOW I�- i/ 1 WI - LAUNDRY - - CLOSET DI I —J I JUKATI DP RESIDENCES 28 SMUGGLER GROVE R ASPEN,CO 81611 BEDROOM - - F D BATH - - KITCHEN DECK ABOVE III P L----------- L PROJECT NO: HISTORIC HOUSE HISTORIC HOUSE 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 2 LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN DWG FILE: A2.1 SCALE: 1/4•=V-0• �,1 SCALE: 1/4'=1"0" 21374.20 A2-1.tlwg PLAN TRUE PLAN TRUE NORTH NORTH NORTH NORTH ®® SHEET TITLE r ®® HISTOO RIC HOUSE BASEMENT&LEVEL 9 ONE FLOOR PLANS SCALE:114"=T-0" � A2.1 6r rowland+broughton architecture/urban design/interior design 234 a hopklns eve 1830 Blake sL ste 200 9 07.b44.900601 tle303.308,1373. 970.544.%731 303.308.1375 Consultants r 1 I___—_ -- — -- -- �. I Issue: 01-15-2014 I t. HPC-MEETING 01-20-2014 CLIENT REVIEW CLIENT REVIEW 10:12(e) (ej - - f CLIENT 14 10:12 CLIENT REVIEW 02.6-2014 - I- HPC WORKSESSION LU t NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES C7 103-06,2014 CLIENT REVIEW 'J J L 1 I CLIENT 0326-2014 REVIEW _ } 04-1 -2014 C HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW m II I I — -- -- — 6 �1 ROOF BELOW 1 _. .. .. EXISTING WOOD - SHINGLES U z � z ♦ss ❑ M.t O N i - Z — O F F ❑ G FP VENT CONNECTOR LINK FLAT ROOF MEMBRANE I- - - - - - - -- - - JUKATI I. _ - 1 :12 10:12 z RESIDENCES METAL ROOF MASTER CLOSET \ / o 28 SMUGGLER GROVE \ / MASTER — — ASPEN,CO 81611 DECK MASTER BELOW o BEDROOM BR -5/B" DECK ON 10 Q 0.: PROJECT NO: 21374 DWG FILE: 21374.20 A2-2.dwg �+ SHEET TITLE v HISTORIC HOUSE 2 ROOFF PLANOUSE HISTORIC HOUSE 1 LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN A2.2 SCALE. v4"=r-o• LEVEL TWO i A2.2 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" PLAN TRUE NORTi NORTH &ROOF PLANS NORTH NORTH® ®® SCALE:1l4'=1'-0" } A2.2 i 8� T.O.RIDGE 1 �� METAL ROOF �10 Y rowland+broughton SNOWFENCE architecture/urban design/interior design 9,sle 2M 99705"987611 183denavera D8 80202 .90060 303.3D8.1373 02 GUTTER AND 970.544.3473 f 303.308 1376 f DOWNSPOUT - -�� - DECKBEYOND METAL INFILL PANE TO --- MATCH WINDOW J CLADDING,TYP. T.O.HISTORIC BUILOING A 1— HORIZONTAL WOOD 12 ,9 N C0nau8iinb SIDING 10(.) LEV T.O.PLEL 2 1 111-0'Y T _ — ---'- REPLACE EXISTING Issue: EXISTING WOOD FASCIA,BRACKETRY SHINGLE ROOFING TO AND RAILING WITH HPC- EE REMAIN AUTHENTIC DETAILING HPC-MEETING 01-LENT 4 TO BE APPROVED BY CLIENT REVIEW HPC PROJECT MONITOR 01-21-2014 / CLIENT REVIEW CLIENT REVIEW \ 02-26-2014 \ REPLACE EXISTING HPC WORKSESSION REPLACE EXISTING _\_ ENTRY DOOR WITH 02-28-2014 CASEMENT WINDOWS - HISTORICALLY NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES WITH WOOD DOUBLE I� APPROPRIATE DESIGN 03-052014 HUNG WINDOWS,TYP. / TO BE APPROVED BY T O PLY CLIENT REVI EW / HPC PROJECT MONITOR L L t 03-26-2014 / 100•-0- CLIENT REVIEW _._ __. ___ -_--.. 04042014 --- --- --- - -_- -- --- _- ---- - -- T.O.GRADE 1 = HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 07-0&2014 HPC MEMO RESPONSE I 4 - I ; III TD.SLAB 1 — � I '- PROPOSED 1 NORTH ELEVATION A4.1 SCALE: 1/4'=V-0" HISTORIC ADDITION — — T.O.RIDGE 1 y� DORMER BEYOND 12 �10 Y SNOWFENCE _ — — RWFONE HORIZONTAL WOOD _--_ _-- T.O.PuTE 1 SIDING GUTTERAND� -- DOWNSPOUT JUKATI iO BRICK VENEER \ GUARDRAIL RESIDENCES BUILDIN HII ODLN G A 115' /—FP VENT �1D(el OVERFLOW 9 m 4 28 SMUGGLER GROVE SCUPPER T.O.PLY N _ LZ ,k ASPEN,CO 81611 METAL INFILL PANELS EVEL W III TO MATCH WINDOW CLADDING,TYP. I / / \ STONE VENEER T.O.PLY LEVE 1 �� 7 Q— _._...t.k T.O.GRADE A _ 99'a vb• m PROJECT N DWG DWG FILE: 21374.20_A4-1.dwg FOUNDATION BELOW WINDOW WELL GRADE SHEET TITLE 4 HISTORIC HOUSE PROPOSED + ELEVATIONS SCALE:1/4"=V-0" -� -- -- _..---- --- -. -- __ __.. - _ _- — - -- --- ---- �- ' PROPOSED 2 WEST ELEVATION A4.1 SCALE: 114"= 9] F� ae T.O.RIDGE A 128'J' METAL ROOFING SNOWFENCE m rowland+broughton GUTTER artdlAedure/uf0sn design/inferior Assign METAL PANEL TO.P 231 a b0PMn4 eve 1830 bloke s4 aspen, 9 81811 tle303.08 80202 970.544.90080 303.308.13730 --- --- - - - - HORIZONTAL WOOD - - - �- 970.544.3473, 303.308.1375 1 SIDING iz GUARDRAIL l FP VENT METAL INFILL PANEL TO — (1 MATCH WINDOW T.0.HISTORIC + — CLADDING,TYP._ euaolNC 1 ConsullaMe R T��.�EOyy�EPL�LY��'_� 01-15-014 16SU0: \�\ HPC-MEETING - CLIENT REV CLIENT IEW \ \l 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW D2-17-2014 / \� ----- CLIENT REVIEW / \ / / ----- - 02-2&2014 / / ----- HPCWORKSESSION \ / / - - - 02-2&2014 \ ---__ NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES \ _ _ 03-0 6-2014 \ ----- TO.PLY CLIENT REVIEW 03-20-2014 \ - 1 CLIENT REVIEW -- ---� 04-04-2014 T.o.c E � HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 96'3314. m -_. _. ---- - -- - 07-09-2014 -- -- HPC MEMO RESPONSE FOUNDATION BELOW I GRADE 4 I - T.O.SL49 A. -! PROPOSED i SOUTH ELEVATION �,2 SCALE: 114•=1`1" ADDITION HISTORIC / - - — — — — r.o.RIDGE.� DORMER BEYOND ,D 12 p _ SNOWFENCE ROOF ONE THIRD POINT 1 122'-21118• T.O.PLATE S RIZONTAL WOOD a JUKATI BRICK VENEER RESIDENCES TO.HISTORIC -.. WIN _->* _ -- METAL PANEL FP VENT ~ 12 4 28 SMUGGLER GROVE OVERFLOW 10(e))p To PLY SCUPPER _ + -\ ASPEN,CO 81611 LEVELE --- - - - _ REPLACE EXISTING CASEMENT WINDOWS WITH WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS,TYP. / \ u HORIZONTAL WOOD STONE VENEER _ / \ r T r SIDING u 1 Lu� O.PLY IL PROJECT NO: WINDOW WELL _- 21374 DWG FILE: 21374.20_A4-1.d" \ FOUNDATION BELOW PATIO GRADE ,4 SHEET TITLE HISTORIC HOUSE PROPOSE r ELEVATIONS - _ --- SCALE:1/4"=1'-0 r.o.sue - - _ s A4. PROPOSED " 2 EAST ELEVATION A4.2 SCALE: 114•=1•-0• R' �f f� ae v! �"dumium banM/u9ham 234 a lwpkns eve 1830 EIeke s4 ste 200 w ✓�/��. \ / N� 970.544.9008801 303r .1373 08 0 970.5M.3473 f 300.008.1375 t Lj sl Consultants r1j Issue: li ^AEI 01-15-2014 HPC-MEETING NEW HOUSE 012 MIDLAND AVENUE 01-20-2014 55 SMUGGLER GROVE HISTORIC HOUSE / 1 CLIENT REVIEW 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 02-17-2014 CLIENT REVIE W I / / 02-26-2014 HPC WOR WOW KSESSION / 02-28-2014 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES SNYDER PARK / CLIENT REVIEW CONDOMINIUMS - — --� — — — — — CLIE-2014 SNVDER PARK / 03-28-T R / CLIENT REVIEW HP-C CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 07-09-2014 I HPC MEMO RESPONSE 10'UTILITY EASEMENT 10'SETBACK 1 I� F r i I LOTS ' 1'1 _ __ ------ 'I LOT 1 JUKATI SUBDIVISION Ln - -— I I JUKATI SUBDIVISION G 1 i -- o- ETBACK I I I i I 1 � i 55 SMUGGLER GROVE b..-. _ ._: - r_______ 5.-0._______� I h I 312 MIDLAND AVENUE soP - - ^ — � — � JUKATI 1 — — — - — — RESIDENCES EDGE OF PAVEMENT ` 28 SMUGGLER GROVE / SMUGGLER ASPEN,CO 81611 / (40'PRIVATE ATE ROW)ROW) �f / LOT 3 LOT 2 PROJECT NO: EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION 21374 LOTS \ DWG FILE: EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION 21374 A4-1_SVeai-view.4wg SHEET TITLE LOT \ NEW HOUSE / EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION 71 SMUGGLER GROVE / PROPOSE f 14p5118. / ELEVATIONS SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" m V21 GLER GROVE A4.1 s y5y� 83 SMUGGLER GROVE 43 SMUGGLER GROVE {f 1 1 to , rowland+broughton smhd d../lb-d..ign7mreno.dsgn ti y f 234 a w 81 eve 1630 bloke sl,ale 200 �� eapen,m 61611 d"Z0310813730 er ce 80202 1 - '^ f�J y 670.544.90060 ,3 ,137 67osu.3473r 363ao6.13751 L Q4 Consultwts Iss- �i�, 01-15-2014 ') EE HISTORIC HOUSE NEW HOUSE 312 MIDLAND AVENUE HPC-MEETING 01-20-2014 55 SMUGGLER GROVE CLIENT REVIEW 01-21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW i 02-17-2014 CLIEN T REVIEW 1 / 02-26-2014 HPC WORKSESSION 02-26-2074 NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES SNVDER PARK 03-06-2014 CLIENT REVIEW CONDOMINIUMS SNYDER PARK 03-26-2014 / CLIENT REVIEW 04-04-2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 07-09-2014 HPC MEMO RESPONSE 10'UTILITY EASEMENT 10'SETBACK _ 1 1` ______ _______ -- } I I L 1 _-- -- LOT 3 OT JUKATI SUBDIVISION j —-.- I JUKATI SUBDIVISION 1 I 1 1 I 4.. r- 312 MIDLAND AVENUE 55 SMUGGLER GROVE JUKATI RESIDENCES EDGE OF PAVEMENT I-.� __ L, - 28 SMUGGLER GROVE / SMUGGLER GROVE ROAD ASPEN,CO 81611 / (40'PRIVATE ROW) LOT 3 LOT 2 PROJECT NO: LOT 5 \ EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION T 21374 DWG FILE: EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISI N / l 21374 A41 St—t-vie pt-B.d.9 3 1 SHEET TITLE LOT PROPOSED 71 SMUGGLER GROVE / EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION , STREET 23 SMUGGLER GROVE ELEVATIONS 1A,-0r�16' / 1 SCALE:3132"=1'-O" j N� —k 11 �: \ 43 SMUGGLER GROVE A4.1sOPTB 63 SMUGGLER GROVE c 1 z�