Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20141022 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2014 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St. 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS - NONE SCHEDULED II. (5:00) INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes - none C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued - none I. Submit public notice for agenda items III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. (5:10) 101 E. Hallam Street - Minor Development and Temporary On -site Relocation, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING B. (5:30) 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second - Conceptual Major Development, On -Site Relocation and Variances, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING C. (6:15) 417/421 W. Hallam - Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING D. (6:45) 28 Smuggler Grove Road - Conceptual Major Development, Floor Area bonus, Setback variances, Parking waiver, Demolition of non-historic additions, Relocation, Residential Design Standards variance, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING IV. WORK SESSIONS V. (7:30) ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 30 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 101 E. Hallam- Minor Development and Temporary On-site Relocation, Continued Public Hearing DATE: October 22, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 101 E. Hallam is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The site contains a Victorian era house and shed. Both buildings are constructed of brick, which is a small subset of the 19 th century residential structures remaining in Aspen. The applicant is requesting Minor Development review to expand an existing non-historic addition to the house and to excavate a new basement. Setback variances are requested to legalize existing and proposed new conditions. The amount of new square footage involved in the project qualifies this as Minor Development, The Victorian house will not be lifted to construct the new basement; rather it will be left in place and underpinned. Nonetheless, this work is reviewed as Temporary Relocation. HPC reviewed this project on September 24 th and continued it for restudy. The applicant was asked to unify the architecture of all existing and proposed alterations to the house. Staff finds that the restudy addresses HPC’s direction. APPLICANT: Hallam LLC, represented by Forum Phi Architecture, applying with the consent of the current property owner, Patricia Gorman. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-37-001. ADDRESS: 101 E. Hallam, Lot A and the west 4.86’ of Lot B, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review 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 P1 III.A. 2 the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: In 1982, the original hipped roof on the subject house was demolished and replaced with a new gable roof with multiple dormers. The original front porch was also demolished and replaced in a different configuration. The work was not under HPC’s authority at the time. The photos below compare the west side of 101 E. Hallam in 1980 (left photo) to a more recent photo of the west side of the house (right photo). 101 E. Hallam and 105 E. Hallam, the site directly to the east, were built by the Brown/Cowenhoven family, in 1885. The houses were originally mirror images of each other, and a brick shed along the alley spans across the property line between the two neighbors. The photos below compare the historic front of 105 E. Hallam to the current front of 101 E. Hallam. P2 III.A. 3 Before the HPC application was submitted, staff encouraged the potential new buyer of this site to restore the original roof form, which is an action that would likely earn the 500 square foot floor area bonus. That is exactly the sort of purpose for which HPC has authority to allow this incentive. Restoration of the roof is a significant cost undertaking and would displace some of the living area that exists in the gable on the home today. The applicant chose not to request the bonus and not to disturb the historic area of the home. The north and south limits of the historic structure lie between the gridlines labeled “D” and “F” on the applicant’s plans and elevations. South of gridline “D,” (towards the alley) the applicant proposes to retain some of the existing non-historic addition, but add a garage on the ground floor, and lengthen and widen the upper floor living space. There is currently no parking area provided on this site. The applicant is not required to add a garage, but doing so decreases demand on street parking. The previous proposal included a contemporary roof form and materials that were viewed by staff and HPC as too much of a departure from the existing. That proposal is depicted below. The revised proposal is a gable roofed form, sided with wood shingles, seen below. P3 III.A. 4 The applicant plans to change the siding on the non-historic roof dormers from fishscale shingles to cut shingles, matching the addition and helping to distinguish the original house from the later phases. The applicant is removing numerous encroachments into the right-of-way along Garmisch, and moving the existing fence to the property lines. This will help to define the original size of the property. The historic shed, which has been covered partially with wood siding and stucco, will be restored. Staff finds that the revised project meets the design guidelines. SETBACK VARIANCES The applicant requests setback variances on the east, west, rear and combined yards for existing and new construction. 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: The historic house encroaches by about 6” into the west sideyard setback, and the existing rear addition encroaches about 6” into the east sideyard. The applicant proposes that the new basement follow the existing foundations, therefore sideyard and combined sideyard variances are needed. The shed has previously received variances, but to clarify the allowances, HPC should grant a 0’ east sideyard and 0’ rear yard setback requirement for this structure. RELOCATION The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.C of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties P4 III.A. 5 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 non-contributing 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; and 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 existing house will remain where it is during this project. The historic house will gradually be underpinned with a new foundation and the full basement excavation will be completed. Although the house will not be lifted and moved during excavation, the standard assurances that the structure will be protected are required. A memo from a structural engineer addressing the preservation concerns must be submitted with the building permit. ______________________________________________________________________________ DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: 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 that Minor Development and Temporary Relocation approval be granted for 101 E. Hallam with the following conditions: P5 III.A. 6 1. HPC hereby reduces the east sideyard requirement by 6”, the west sideyard requirement by 6” and the combined sideyard requirement by 1.” The sideyard and rear yard setback requirements for the historic shed are waived. 2. A report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structure can be moved must be submitted with the building permit application in addition to a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 to ensure the safe relocation. 3. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 101 E. Hallam, Lot A and the west 4.86’ of Lot B, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Exhibits: Resolution #___, Series of 2014 A. Design Guidelines B. September 24 th minutes C. Application P6 III.A. 7 “Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines, 101 E. Hallam” 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 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. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. 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. P7 III.A. 8 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. 10.11 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. P8 III.A. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND TEMPORARY RELOCATION FOR 101 E. HALLAM, LOT A AND THE WEST 4.86’ OF LOT B, BLOCK 65, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-37-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Hallam LLC, represented by Forum Phi Architecture, and applying with the consent of the current property owner, Patricia Gorman. submitted an application requesting Minor Development and Temporary Relocation review for the property located at 101 E. Hallam, Lot A and the west 4.86’ of Lot B, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of Minor Development and Temporary Relocation with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on October 22, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission approves the application with conditions; by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grants Minor Development and Temporary Relocation approval for the property located at 101 E. Hallam, with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby reduces the east sideyard requirement by 6”, the west sideyard requirement by 6” and the combined sideyard requirement by 1.” The sideyard and rear yard setback requirements for the historic shed are waived. 2. A report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structure can be moved must be submitted with the building permit application in addition to a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 to ensure the safe relocation. 3. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise P9 III.A. exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 101 E. Hallam, Lot A and the west 4.86’ of Lot B, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of October, 2014. ______________________ Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P10 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 1 101 E. Hallam St. – Minor Development and Temporary On-site Relocation, Public Hearing. Public Notice – Exhibit I Amy said this is a corner lot in the West End right next to the Yellow Brick School. It is a little bigger than 3,000 square feet. It is zoned R-6 and it has a 19 th century home on it and a shed on the back. This is one of a pair of houses that was built by the Cowenhoven/Brown family in 1885. In the 1980’s the original hipped roof was pulled off the house and a gabled roof put on which is a totally different shape and changed the character of the house and caused the removal of the front porch and a new porch was added. The base of the house which is brick is the original and there aren’t many brick miner’s homes in town. The dormers are new construction. The proposal is to re-work an addition that already exists on the back and it will expand the size of the addition somewhat and they want to add a single stall garage. A basement will be excavated under the existing Victorian and there will be underpinning. Staff struggled with the addition because we are not starting from scratch. We want this project to do whatever is possible to make the historic building have more integrity than it does now. The plan is to remodel the addition particularly on the upper floor where the master bedroom is and the bedroom will be expanded. We suggested that this is an opportunity to make some kind of break or connector to define where the historic building ends and the new construction begins. We were concerned to not see that in the design. This is a corner lot and everything that is done here is visibly exposed. Staff recommends a restudy. There are a number of things that have been constructed on the public property particularly on the side of the house that are represented as staying and they cannot stay. The Engineering Dept. will not issue an encroachment license. There is fencing, a patio and a parking space in the right-of-way that has to go away. In digging the basement some setback violations have occurred and staff recommends that all new work complies with the setbacks. Steev Wilson Steev said the first floor and the front door are probably the only historic elements. The roof in its entirety has been replaced. We did look at putting the roof back on but there would be loss of room on the second floor. The trellis and parking space have been removed. The intent is to add a mudroom, pantry and garage on the lower level. We aren’t asking for P11 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 2 variances on this level. On the upper level the proposal is to add a larger master bedroom. We are not touching the actual historic house just the 1982 addition. The changes will make the house more livable. We are sliding the basement under the entire structure matching the foundation wall all the way down. There will be minimum size light wells and they will be grated. The existing addition has a matching ridge height and is in character with the 1982 addition. We are telling the story as the building evolves with the additions. Steev said we are proposing three different roof options. On the first option we are taking a saw tooth series of gables turning them into one single shed form and distinguishing them from the 1982 addition. We have been successful before with modern additions to historic homes. We are looking at horizontal wood for the addition. On the second roof option we tried to get separation from the historic structure moving the gable forward. On the third option it is very simple. We are proposing a shallow gable. Steev clarified that option one is the inverted shed. Option two is a small shed intersecting gable and option three is a simple low sloped roof. Amy clarified that the new addition is 250 square feet. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Wendelyn Whitman said she is a mediary between the owner and new buyer. I am speaking on behalf of the current owners. The project across the alley got a massive contemporary structure that blocked their views. They said this is a very conservative plan and project relative to what got approved behind them. Steev pointed out that the shed out building will be restored to its original brick. Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public hearing. Jay identified the issues: Significantly altered historic resource Lack of a connector Roof form P12 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 3 Patrick said the un-historic roof form was put on in 1982 and now they want to continue the un-historic pattern of the gable rather than a shed roof. There is also concern about the connected garage. Amy said of the options given option #2 has a better form. There is no real answer but maybe it should be simple. There is a guideline that says detached garages are preferred and that is something HPC can discuss. They alley building and garage might conflict with each other. Maybe the garage should be more internal on the lot and let the alley building stand out. John said option #2 is the most applicable for our guidelines. Willis said this a difficult problem because there is little opportunity to do anything. It needs to be subservient. The introduction of new materials is alien to the existing building. The addition is becoming piece number 3 and you end up with a trifecta which ends up being a hodge podge. You need dialogue between the 80’s and the historic structure. Maybe the use of materials from the 80’s would be appropriate. Nora thanked the applicant for solving the problems of the variance, light well and garage. You already have a disruptive resource and it is being disrupted further and it is on a corner that you see all the time. I would like to see the real roof come back but if it doesn’t happen you need something that at least speaks to it instead of confusing it more. Willis said the spatial organization is fine. It shouldn’t look like there are three episodes of construction. Jay said he is also struggling because there is so little left of the historic house. It is difficult to read because the porch is new and everything above the first floor is new. We need to try and clean up the second floor and not introduce more confusion. Option #2 tries to fit the guidelines and the roof forms seem to work the best. We appreciate the non-conformity being cleaned up and retaining the shed but the new construction should speak with the 1982 addition more so than it does right now. We should also see the materials and lighting. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 101 E. Hallam St to October 22 nd ; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. P13 III.A. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER:Amy Simon, (970) 429-2758 DATE: 5.20.14 PROJECT: 101 E. Hallam REPRESENTATIVE:Steev Wilson, Forum Phi DESCRIPTION: 101 E. Hallam is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The lot is approximately 3,486 square feet in size and is zoned R-6. The maximum allowable floor area is approximately 2,536 square feet. A possible new purchaser would like to maximize floor area on the site, excavating a basement and constructing a new addition at the rear of the original house. Due to site constraints, a request to demolish a historic shed along the alley might be made. The shed straddles a property line, so work on this structure might affect the adjacent property owner. The project is likely to include requests for setback variances, a floor area bonus, and a possible reduction of on- site parking requirements to one space rather than two. HPC has the authority to consider variances if they allow for better placement of the new construction relative to the historic building. A floor area bonus of up to 500 square feet can be granted for an outstanding preservation effort. A preliminary worksession is required prior to any hearing for any bonus request. Using historic maps and some older photographs, it has become apparent that the roof of the original building has been demolished in the past and replaced with a gable form and dormers that are not original. The original front porch has also been removed and replaced. HPC would likely seek full restoration of the design of the building in order to grant the bonus. The house to the east appears to be a mirror image of the original design at 101 E. Hallam. Demolition of the shed along the alley may be in conflict with the award of bonus floor area, however it may be an acceptable trade-off considering other restoration potential. HPC will conduct a Temporary Relocation review if needed to ensure that the excavation technique for a basement below the Victorian is carefully planned. Design review for any proposed new construction or restoration work will be according to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Residential Design Standards. The review is a two-step process, with a Conceptual application (mass, site plan, etc.) and a Final application (materials, landscape, lighting.) The purchaser may have unused floor area available to be converted into Transferable Development Rights. Creation of TDRs is reviewed by City Council. The property currently has some features that encroach onto the public right of way along Garmisch Street; a fence and a gazebo. These features must be removed or can be granted temporary encroachment licenses if deemed appropriate by the City of Aspen Engineering Department. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.415.070.D Certificate of appropriateness for Major development 26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district 1 P14 III.A. 26.415.090 Relocation of designated historic properties. 26.415.110 Benefits 26.535 Transferrable Development Rights 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710 R-6 Zone District Land Use Code (including all code sections cited above): http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use- Code/ HPC Design Guidelines: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Historic-Preservation/Historic-Properties/ HPC application: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%20Historic%20Land %20Use%20App%20Form.pdf Land Use application: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20use %20app%20form.pdf Review by: Staff for complete application HPC for major development and bonuses City Council for TDRs Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC and Council Second Reading Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours (additional or less billable hours are at $325 per hour) at Conceptual application $1,950 for 6 billable hours (additional or less billable hours are at $325 per hour) at Final application $1,300 for 4 billable hours (additional or less billable hours are at $325 per hour) at TDR application Referral Agency Fees:$0 Total Deposit:$1,950 at Conceptual $1,950 at Final $1,300 at TDR application Total Number of Application Copies: 12 at Conceptual and Final, 12 for Council To apply, please submit 1 copy at each submission of: Signed fee agreement with payment. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur Disclosure of ownership, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing. P15 III.A. Pre-application Conference Summary. Prior approvals. And 12 copies at Conceptual and Final of: Completed HPC Land Use application. An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. At Final review, provide a lighting plan and landscape plan. Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs at Conceptual. Final material selections to be provided at Final review. Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development, and any requested variances or bonuses, complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. A signed permission letter from the current property owner of 105 E. Hallam regarding potential alterations to the portion of the shed on the applicant’s property. And 12 copies at TDR application of: Completed Land Use Application. An 8 1/2” x 11” vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. A site improvement survey of the sending site depicting existing natural and man-made features and all legal easements and restrictions Existing and proposed elevations and site plan. Existing and proposed floor area calculations. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. A notarized affidavit from the sending site property owner signifying acknowledgment of the following: o A deed restriction will permanently encumber the sending site and restrict that property's development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of historic TDR certificates established from that sending site. o For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular sending site, that property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of floor area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended. o The sending site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the historic TDR certificate. Proposed TDR deed restriction for the sending site. Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses these building-related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920-5090 for additional information. P16 III.A. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P17 III.A. P18 III.A. ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_____________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:______________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 P19 III.A. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Proposed % of demolition:__________ DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: ____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P21 III.A. P22 III.A. City of Aspen Review Standards Compliance 26.410.040. Residential Design Standards A. Site Design. 1. Building orientation. The lot is a corner lot and the existing street-facing facades are parallel to the intersection streets (Hallam Street and Garmisch Street). 2. Build-to lines. The lot is a corner lot and more than 60% of the facade is within five feet of the minimum setback. 3. Fences. An existing wrought iron fence within the right-of-way will be relocated to the west and north property line. This fence is less than 42 inches. B. Building form. 1. Secondary mass. The lot contains an existing historic structure to remain that predates the residential design standards. C. Parking, garages and carports. 1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the [listed] standards shall apply: The proposed garage door is a single stall door and is visible and accessed from the alley. 2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the [listed] standards shall apply: The garage door is a single stall door and is accessed from an alley, therefore this section does not apply. D. Building elements. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. The existing historic house has a street-oriented entrance and a street-facing principal window to remain. a) The existing entry door to remain is no more than ten (10) feet back from the front- most wall of the building and is not taller than eight (8) feet. b) The existing front porch to remain is greater than 50 square feet with a minimum depth of six feet. The entry porch is one story in height. c) The existing street-facing facades contain significant groups of windows. 2. First story element. The lot contains an existing historic structure to remain that predates the residential design standards. 3. Windows. a) The existing and proposed street-facing windows do not span between nine and twelve feet above the finished floor. P23 III.A. b) The existing portion of the house contains three non-orthogonal windows on the west facade and one on the north facade, all existing to remain. The south facade contains two existing non-orthogonal windows to be removed and replaced with on non- orthogonal window in the gable end. 4. Lightwells. The proposed lightwells are recessed behind the front-most wall of the building and are not located on the street-facing facade. E. Context. 1. Materials. a) The quality of the existing and proposed exterior materials and their application is consistent on all sides of the building. b) The use of materials are true to their characteristics. Proposed materials will be approved at the HPC Minor Review, Continued for Restudy. c) There are no proposed highly reflective materials. Proposed materials will be approved at the HPC Final Review, Continued for Restudy. 2. Inflection. a) This parcel is less than six thousand (6,000) square feet therefore this section does not apply. P24 III.A. City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Introduction The property at 101 E Hallam Street is listed in the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. As required for submittal, this letter of compliance is for HPC Minor Review, continued for restudy after a hearing on September 24, 2014. Streetscape and Lot Features This project is located on Lot A, on the corner of Hallam Street and Garmisch Street. The lot encroaches 4.86 feet to the west into Lot B. The property received a variance in 1998 for “a four foot rear yard and a five foot side yard setback variance”. The property has a grass planting strip from a fence at the property line to the street. A single brick sidewalk extends from Hallam Street to the front porch and jogs ninety-degrees to align with the front door. Two large conifer trees are located on either side of this walk. There is no public sidewalk to separate the planting strip from the property line. Another private walk extends from Garmisch Street to the west side of the house. A row of four Aspen trees line the fence along the property line on the Garmisch Street side. All existing trees on site will remain and any affected plantings will be reestablished. A three-foot wrought-iron fence currently in the right-of-way will be removed and relocated to border the property line along both the Hallam (west) and Garmisch Street (north) sides. The west and rear (southwest) portion of the lot has an existing six-foot non-historic wood fence surrounding a pergola and patio area, currently in the right-of-way. This pergola area and wood fence will be removed. The site does not have any historic retaining walls, and no new retaining walls are proposed at this time. There are ceiling-mounted sconces located under both the historic front porch and the side porch. A street lamp post is located at the corner of the Hallam and Garmisch Streets. All other proposed site lighting will be shielded. All streetscape features will be returned to existing conditions. Historic Building Materials The primary historic building material is brick, with a non-historic upper level addition of round sawn cedar shingle siding. The brick has been well-maintained and any areas requiring repair will be done in place. A portion of the non-historic 1982 addition will be replaced with new materials, primarily painted cedar shingle siding to match the proposed siding. The existing roof was remodeled as part of the non-historic addition. The proposed roof will be cedar shingle to match the 1982 addition. Any demolition to occur will be primarily interior and to non-historic portions of the exterior. Windows All historic windows on the existing structure are located on the lower level; the 1982 upper level addition is not historic. All historic windows maintain the original character, although it appears several have been previously replaced. The existing historic windows at the main level will remain unchanged and will receive proper maintenance where required. These windows are double hung type with brick arch tops and brick sills. All historic windows will receive repairs where required, with no changes to character-defining features. Replacement windows are not anticipated for the historic portions of the project. If P25 III.A. required, any replacements will preserve the historic character of openings, design, materials, size and proportion, and profile. Storm windows may be installed to enhance energy performance of the historic structure, but have not been proposed at this time. Doors The historic structure has two remaining historic glass paneled doors. The first is the primary entry facing Hallam Street; the second entry is on the west facade facing Garmisch Street. These doors will be maintained in order to preserve integrity, function, size, appearance, design and color. The historic doors will not be replaced and storm doors are not proposed at this time. A third historic entry is located on the east facade, but the historic door is no longer intact. This opening leads to a crawlspace access area. Porches The primary porch on the front facade was demolished and replaced in 1982. It will be maintained in its existing condition. A second covered entry on the west facade was added in 1982, is not historic, and will be maintained in its existing condition. The 1982 remodel also included the addition of a pergola structure and at-grade patio on the southwest portion of the property, within the city right-of-way. The pergola and patio area is surrounded by a six-foot non-historic wood fence. This pergola area and fence will be removed. Architectural Details Distinct architectural details exist on the historic structure, specifically the brick arches over historic windows and doors. These details represent those typical of the late 1800s and will be maintained and repaired only where required. Any repairs and/or replacements to historic features will be documented prior to submission of a building permit and construction. Roofs The existing roof structure was previously demolished and replaced in 1982 and is not historic. It appears no portion of the original historic roof remains intact. The existing roof structure will be maintained in its current condition, with repairs where required. Secondary Structures The property contains a secondary common building which abuts the alleyway and is shared between both properties at 101 Hallam and 105 Hallam. This structure appears to be historic, as it is shown on a Sanborn Insurance Map of Aspen from 1890. The structure is a one-story brick building that has been covered by clapboard siding on the north and west facades, and covered by concrete in other areas. The shake shingle roof has been previously replaced and will be maintained where required. The structure will be returned to its original brick condition and remodeled on the interior. Building Relocation & Foundations The proposed design includes the addition of a basement/lower level directly underneath the existing structure, following the footprint of the existing foundation. The location of the original structure will remain and will be shored in place while a basement with new foundation walls are constructed below. The new foundation will be similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. Two proposed lightwells will be added to the east side of the building, recessed behind the front facade. P26 III.A. Building Additions In the early 1980s, a second-level and addition was constructed on the historic structure. During this remodel, the historic roof was demolished and a full upper level with a new roof form was constructed, as well as an addition appended to the south. This previous addition will remain and be remodeled, with a small extension added. This proposed addition has been designed such that the character of the historic structure is maintained. The proposed addition is designed to be an extension of and compatible in style with the previous 1982 remodel. It is distinguishable from the historic structure with painted cedar shingle siding and a cedar shingle roof. The 1982 siding will also be replaced with this new cedar shingle siding. The roof of the proposed addition is also designed as an extension of the existing roof, with simple gable forms. All portions of this addition will be located to the rear of the historic structure and behind the primary street-facing facade. A garage is proposed to be added on the alley (south) side, as a direct extension of the 1982 addition. The garage maintains a five foot separation from the historic shed and is set back approximately ten feet from the alley. The garage door is designed as a wood-clad hinged door. Most of the new floor area will be located subgrade. The proposed floor area is approximately 2,526 square feet. This is below the maximum allowable FAR for the parcel (2,536 square feet). This project is not within the Main Street Historic District nor the Commercial Core Historic District, and does not involve a new primary structure on a historic parcel. General Guidelines The historic structure is constructed of brick with painted dark brown and dark tan accents of the porch and non-historic second story addition. The original accent colors will be researched and all attempts will be made to return the historic portion to its original. Any new color schemes chosen for the historic structure will be simple, coordinated, and consistent with the character of a Victorian built in the late 1800s. The proposed addition will also be coordinated with the historic scheme, while remaining distinguishable in color and material. Exterior lighting will be simple in form and detail. Existing lights on the historic structure will remain. Any proposed site lighting will be shielded and/or low intensity. Visual impacts from interior lighting will be subdued. The surface of the historic structure will be maintained, repaired, and cleaned where necessary. The methods used will be low impact and follow the recommendations of the preservation design guidelines. Any repainting methods will be planned carefully. Mechanical and service areas will be located within the proposed addition. All service areas will be visually blocked from the primary street facade. All facades of the historic structure will remain free of mechanical and service equipment. The proposed garage will be accessed from the existing alleyway via a paved driveway. A small parking area will be located on the driveway. The driveway will be screened by landscaping from the primary building facade. The project is a single-family residence and will not utilize any signage. P27 III.A. P28 III.A. P29 III.A. Mark Freidman, manager Hallam LLC P30 III.A. P31 III.A. Aspen Historic Preservation La n d U s e A p p l i c a t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s , U p d a t e d : M a y 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 Ma t r i x o f T h e C i t y o f A s p e n ' s H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n L a n d U s e A p p l i c a t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s To r e v i e w f u l l p r o c e d u r e s f o r a l l a p p l i c a ti o n s , r e f e r e n c e 2 6 . 4 1 5 o f T h e C i t y o f A s p e n B u i l d i n g C o d e , H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n O r d i na n c e . W h e n s u b m i t t i n g m u l t i p l e s t e p ap p l i c a t i o n s , d o n o t r e p l i c a t e s u b m i s s i o n m a t e r i a l s . T w o c o p i e s o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a r e r e q u i r e d f o r a Ce r t i f i c a t e o f N o E f f e c t , 1 5 c o p i e s a r e r e q u i r e d f o r e a c h m e e t i n g a l l ot h e r r e v i e w . A l s o n o t e t h a t a n e l e c t r o n i c v e r s i o n o f a l l t e x t d o c u m e n t s i s r e q u i r e d i n a . t x t , . d o c , . w p d , o r . r t f f o r m a t . Ty p e o f R e v i e w Ap p l i c a t i o n Re q u i r e m e n t s Fe e s De p o s i t F e e No t i c e R e q u i r e m e n t s De s i g n a t i o n 1- 9 , 1 1 , 1 2 $0 Pu b l i c a t i o n , P o s t i n g a n d M a iling Pursuant to Sections 26 . 3 0 4 . 0 6 0 ( E ) ( 3 ) ( a ) ( b ) ( c . ) a t H P C a n d C o u n c i l Ex e m p t D e v e l o p m e n t Co n s u l t w i t h H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n Of f i c e r t o c o n f i r m e x e m p t s t a t u s $0 None Ce r t i f i c a t e o f N o N e g a t i v e E f f e c t 1- 9 , 1 5 , 1 7 $2 4 5 None Mi n o r D e v e l o p m e n t 1- 1 0 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 3 6 $7 3 5 Po s t i n g P u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n s 2 6 . 3 0 4 . 0 6 0 ( E ) ( 3 ) ( b ) Ma j o r D e v e l o p m e n t / C o n c e p t u a l 1- 1 0 , 1 4 , 1 7 , 1 8 , 1 9 , 2 0 De v e l o p m e n t u n d e r 1 , 0 0 0 s . f . , $ 1 , 4 7 0 / D e v e l o p m e n t o v e r 1 , 0 0 0 s . f . , $ 2 , 9 4 0 Pu b l i c a t i o n , P o s t i n g a n d M a iling Pursuant to Sections 26 . 3 0 4 . 0 6 0 ( E ) ( 3 ) ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) Ma j o r D e v e l o p m e n t / F i n a l 1- 1 0 , 1 6 , 2 1 , 2 2 , 3 6 Pa i d a t t i m e o f c o n c e p t u a l Pu b l i c a t i o n , P o s t i n g a n d M a iling Pursuant to Sections 26 . 3 0 4 . 0 6 0 ( E ) ( 3 ) ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) Su b s t a n t i a l A m e n d m e n t 1- 1 0 , 1 6 , 2 3 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 3 6 $7 3 5 Pu b l i c a t i o n , P o s t i n g a n d M a iling Pursuant to Sections 26 . 3 0 4 . 0 6 0 ( E ) ( 3 ) ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) De m o l i t i o n 1- 9 , 2 6 $2 , 9 4 0 Pu b l i c a t i o n , P o s t i n g a n d M a iling Pursuant to Sections 26 . 3 0 4 . 0 6 0 ( E ) ( 3 ) ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) Re l o c a t i o n 1- 9 , 2 7 - 3 4 $2 , 9 4 0 Pu b l i c a t i o n , P o s t i n g a n d M a iling Pursuant to Sections 26 . 3 0 4 . 0 6 0 ( E ) ( 3 ) ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) Hi s t o r i c L a n d m a r k L o t S p l i t 1- 1 0 $1 , 4 7 0 Pu b l i c a t i o n , P o s t i n g a n d M a iling Pursuant to Sections 26 . 3 0 4 . 0 6 0 ( E ) ( 3 ) ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) a t H P C a n d C o u n c i l Re s c i n d i n g D e s i g n a t i o n 1- 9 , 3 5 $1 , 4 7 0 Pu b l i c a t i o n , P o s t i n g a n d M a iling Pursuant to Sections 26 . 3 0 4 . 0 6 0 ( E ) ( 3 ) ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) a t H P C a n d C o u n c i l P32 III.A. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 KEY 1. Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant's name, address and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2. The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate from a Title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project’s physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. 6. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Director if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 7. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review criteria and The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines relevant to the development application. 8. Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 9. Completed Land Use Application Form, Signed Fee Agreement, and Fee. 10. Dimensional Requirement Form. 11. Site or historic district boundary map. 12. Property or district description including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. 13. Identification of the character-defining features that distinguish the entity which should be preserved. 14. Verification that the proposal complies with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. 15. Photographs, building material samples and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of the proposed work. 16. An accurate representation of all major building materials and finishes to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. 17. Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the designated historic buildings, structures, sites and features in its context. 18. Scaled drawings of the proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations in the neighborhood context. 19. Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, 3-D model (digital or physical) or streetscape elevations. 20. Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. 21. A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the Final Development Plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. 22. Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at ¼” = 1.0’ scale 23. A revised site plan 24. Revised scaled elevations and drawings 25. Photographs and other exhibits to illustrate the proposed changes. 26. Written documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an imminent hazard, or narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance. 27. A written description and/or graphic illustrations of the building, structure or object proposed for relocation. 28. A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on-site or off-site) and justification for the need for relocation. 29. A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. 30. A conceptual plan for the receiving site providing preliminary information on the property boundaries, existing improvements and site characteristics and the associated planned improvements. 31. Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate. 32. Supplementary materials to provide an understanding of the larger context for the relocated property and its impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood or streetscape. 33. If the applicant does not own the receiving site, proof from the site’s property owner of the willingness to accept the relocated building, structure or object. 34. Evidence that the applicant has or is seeking the necessary approvals to place the building on the identified receiving site. If the site is outside of the city limits, verification that the building will be preserved on its new site through a formal action of the other jurisdiction or a preservation easement. 35. A written description of how the property does not meet these criteria for designation. 36. A lighting plan indicating the location of all exterior light fixtures and site lighting, and cut sheets for each type of fixture proposed. Light fixtures must comply with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and meet the City Lighting Code. P33 III.A. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 ATTACHMENT 4 General Summary of Historic Preservation Review Process (Please see Section 26.415 of the Aspen Municipal Code for more detailed information.) 1. An application is first transmitted to the Community Development Director to determine if it is complete. A complete application for a Certificate of No Negative Effect may be approved by the Community Development Director with no further review if it meets the requirements set forth for that type of work in the Aspen Municipal Code. 2. For all other types of reviews, the applicant shall be notified in writing whether the information is complete or if additional materials are required. 3. A date for a public hearing on a complete application will be scheduled before the HPC. Notice of the hearing shall be provided as required in the Aspen Municipal Code. 4. City Community Development Staff will review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. 5. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The order of proceedings at the HPC meeting are as follows: 1. Applicant and public are sworn in 2. Staff presentation 3. Commission member questions 4. Public comment 5. Commission member comments 6. Applicant response/clarification 7. Commission motion and vote 6. The HPC will approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is a one-step review, and it is approved, the HPC will issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director will issue a Development Order. If the application requires submittal for a final review, materials must be prepared and submitted according to the processes described above. A project that receives final approval will be issued a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director will issue a Development Order. 7. HPC decisions are final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as provided in the Aspen Municipal Code. For Major Development, Demolition, or Relocation, a resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council to allow them an opportunity to “call up” the decision if they feel there has been an abuse of discretion or denial of due process. No building permit can be issued for construction of the project until the thirty (30) day “call up” period has expired. P34 III.A. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 8. For Historic Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split, the two types of historic preservation reviews in which City Council makes the final determination, staff will prepare a report including the recommendation of the HPC, and a hearing will be scheduled before Council. Council will evaluate the application to determine if the review criteria are met. The Council may approve, disapprove or continue the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 9. HPC assigns a member of the Commission to be the “project monitor” for each project they approve. The monitor (and Staff) may periodically visit the site as work is under construction. If the applicant requests a change to any aspects of the project change after the HPC approval, the applicant, Staff, and the project monitor will attempt to address them without returning to the full HPC. 10. Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. 11. Once a Development Order has been received, a building permit application may be submitted. At this time the proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and zoning regulations. Fees for water, sewer, park dedication fees, and employee housing will be collected if due. Any document, such as a plat, deed restriction, or other agreement which is required to be filed, must be recorded before the building permit will be issued. P35 III.A. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 ATTACHMENT 5 - Public Hearing Notice Requirements Three forms of notice are required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations: publication in the newspaper, posting of the property, and mailing to surrounding landowners. You can determine whether your application requires notice, and the type of notice it requires, from the matrix found in this application packet. Following is a summary of the notice requirements, including identification of who is responsible for completing the notice. 1. Publication - Publication of notice in a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen is to be done at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The legal notice will be written by the Community Development Department and we will place the notice in the paper by the appropriate deadline. 2. Posting - Posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the property is to be done fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the sign from the Community Development Department, to fill it in correctly and to provide an affidavit at the hearing that posting took place. 3. Mailing - Mailing of notice is to be made to all owners of property within 300 feet of the subject development parcel by the applicant fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department, to mail it, and to provide an affidavit at the hearing that posting took place. The names and addresses of property owners who will receive notice by mail 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 public hearing. Subdivision applications also require notice by registered mail to all surface owners, mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners of the subject property. Proof of notice must be provided at the public hearing. P36 III.A. 111 WEST FRANCIS LLC 28 ROCK RIDGE AVE GREENWICH, CT 06831 120 EAST MAIN PARTNERS LLC 120 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BRADY WILLIAM JB III 14671 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 BROCKWAY LEXIE 7714 FISHER ISLAND DR FISHER ISLAND, FL 33109-0966 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 COLLINS CINDA REV TRUST 42 PARK LN MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 CRAWFORD RANDALL & ABIGAIL 124 N GARMISCH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DOMINGUE FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 2293 WINTER PARK, FL 32790 DTJ LEGACY PROPERTIES LLC 202 W 19TH ST EL DORADO, AR 71730 ERWIN GREGORY D PO BOX 4470 BASALT, CO 81621 GARCIA STEVEN J 120 N GARMISCH ASPEN, CO 81611 GARMISCH LODGING LLC 110 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 GSW FAMILY INV LP 1320 HUNSICKER RD LANCASTER, PA 17601 HENRY FREDERICK B TRUST 100 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HOGUET CONSTANCE M 333 E 68TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10065 JAMMB LLC 500 S DIXIE HWY STE 201 CORAL GABLES, FL 33146 JOHNSON RICHARD & MONTAE IMBT 6820 BRADBURY DALLAS, TX 75230 KRUMM DONALD PAUL REV TRUST PO BOX 874 ASPEN, CO 81612 LANDIS CAROLYN 128 N GARMISCH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MOUNTAIN STATE PROPERTIES LLC 715 10TH ST SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34102 PARDUBA JIRI 116 N GARMISCH ST ASPEN, CO 81612 PENN PAUL E & SUSAN W 3830 E 79TH ST INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260-3457 RODNEY JOHN W 8536 N GOLF DR PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 ROSE BRANDON 625 MT HOPE RD WHARTON, NJ 07885 SARDY HOUSE NEW LLC 240 CRANDON BLVD #167 KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 SPEARS NANCY M PO BOX 2630 ASPEN, CO 81612 WOLKENMUTH EDWARD F JR & STEELE JULIANNE BELL REV TRUST 121 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ZATS JULIE 118 N GARMISCH ASPEN, CO 81611 P37 III.A. P38 III.A. P39 III.A. 101 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611, 101 E HALLAM HPC MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SCOPE OF WORK The remodel of the main and upper non-historic levels of a landmarked historic residence and addition of a subgrade/basement level and garage with roof deck. Z-CVR Z-001 Z-002 Z-003 Z-004 Z-005 Z-006 COVER LAND USE APPROVALS LAND USE APPROVALS LAND USE APPROVALS SURVEY ZONING SUMMARY RDS COMPLIANCE SITE PLAN FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS SHEET INDEX Z-101 Z-102 Z-103 Z-104 Z-201 Z-202 FLOOR PLANS FLOOR PLANS FLOOR PLANS ROOF PLAN ELEVATIONS HPC ELEVATIONS HPC Z-301 Z-302 STREETSCAPE MATERIALS STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-CVR COVER HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 4 0 I I I . A . Resolution No. 16 of 2001 Resolution No. 16 of 2001 Resolution No. 16 of 2001 Resolution No. 16 of 2001 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION LAND USE APPROVALS HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 4 1 I I I . A . Resolution No. 2 of 1998 Resolution No. 2 of 1998 Resolution No. 2 of 1998 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION LAND USE APPROVALS HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 4 2 I I I . A . Resolution No. 17 of 2001 Resolution No. 17 of 2001 Resolution No. 45 of 2001 Resolution No. 45 of 2001Resolution No. 45 of 2001 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION LAND USE APPROVALS HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 4 3 I I I . A . P 4 4 I I I . A . Allowable Floor Area Allowable Floor Area Reference Per R-6 26.710.060 Unique Approvals Reference Variances Reference Exemptions Reference Garage Exemption 26.575.020.D.7 Z-005 Deck Exemption Floor Area Summary Existing Gross (Sq Ft) Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft) Proposed Gross (Sq Ft) Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft) Reference Lower Level 1,640.25 42.00 Z-004 Garage (located on Main Level)275.25 12.63 Z-005 Main Level 1,184.75 1,184.75 1,200.50 1,200.50 Z-005 Common Building 108.00 108.00 108.00 108.00 Z-005 Deck Area 460.25 0.00 400.00 0.00 Z-005 & Z-006 Upper Level 963.75 963.75 1,163.00 1,163.00 Z-006 TOTAL 2,716.75 2,256.50 4,787.00 2,526.13 101 E Hallam St 2,536.08 square feet (2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in Net Lot Area, up to a maximum of 3,240 square feet) First 250 sq ft exempt; Next 250 sq ft to exclude 50% of area; Areas above 375 sq ft have no exclusions. 15% of gross = 380.4 exempt Front Porch Exempt = 52.50 square feet 26.575.020.D.5 Z-005 & Z-006 Net Lot Area 101 E Hallam St Zone District Requirements Reference Min. Gross Lot Area (per R-6)6,000 Sq Ft ; 3,000 Sq Ft for Historic Landmark Properties 26.710.040.D.1 Min. Net Lot Area (per R-6)26.710.040.D.2 Lot Size Per Survey Reference N/A N/A N/A Total Area Reductions 0 Net Lot Area 3,486 Sq Ft Survey 4,500 Sq Ft; 3,000 Sq Ft for Historic Landmark Propoerties Reductions for area with slopes 0%-20% (100% of parcel area to be included in Net Lot Area) Survey 26.575.020-1 Reductions for area with slopes 20%-30% (50% of parcel area to be included in Net Lot Area) Survey 26.575.020-1 Reductions for area with slopes greater than 30% (0% of parcel area to be included in Net Lot Area) Survey 26.575.020-1 Zoning Allowance & Project Summary 101 E Hallam St Proposed Development Single Family | Remodel/Addition Parcel #27351247001 Zone District R-6 Setbacks Existing Reference Front 10 10 10 26.710.040.D.2. Rear – Principal 10 10 10 26.710.040.D.3. Rear – Accessory 5 26.710.040.D.3. Side 5 5 5 26.710.040.D.4. Distance between Buildings 5 5 5 26.710.040.D.9. Corner Lot yes yes yes Survey Supplemental Breakdown Info Existing Required Proposed Reference Net Leasable/Comm SQ FT N/A N/A N/A Open Space %N/A Not Required for R-6 N/A 26.710.040.D.10. Site Coverage N/A N/A 26.710.040.D.7. On-Site Parking 1 2 1 Land Value Summary Actual Value Reference Land $2,362,500 Pitkin County Assessor Improvements $340,000 Pitkin County Assessor Total $2,702,500 Pitkin County Assessor Allowed (Principal) Proposed (Principal) 4 (Setback Variance Res No. 2 1998) 4 (Setback Variance Res No. 2 1998) Not Required for R-6 <6,000 sq ft STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-001 ZONING SUMMARY HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 4 5 I I I . A . Residential Design Standards Compliance RDS Section Code Description Compliance Description Referenced Z Sheets A. Site Design 1. Building orientation.Survey 2. Build-to lines. This lot is a corner lot and more than 60% of the facade is within 5' of the minimum setback. Z-003 3. Fences.The existing 3 ft wrought-iron fence is to be relocated to the west property line. Z-003 B. Building Form 1. Secondary mass.This lot contains an existing historic structure to remain that predates the RDS. Survey a) Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road. The proposed garage is accessed from the alley. Z-003 The proposed garage door is a single stall door. Z-202 The proposed garage door is a single stall door. Z-202 The garage is accessed via an alley therefore this section does not apply. Z-003 The garage is accessed via an alley therefore this section does not apply. Z-003 The garage is accessed via an alley therefore this section does not apply. Z-003 The garage is accessed via an alley therefore this section does not apply. Z-003 The garage is accessed via an alley therefore this section does not apply. Z-003 The garage is accessed via an alley therefore this section does not apply. Z-003 D. Building Elements Z-201 Z-102 The existing historic front porch is greater than 50 square feet with a minimum depth of 6 feet. Z-003 & Z-102 The existing street-facing facades contain significant groups of windows. Z-201 & Z-202 2. First story element.This lot contains an existing historic structure to remain that predates the RDS. Z-003 3. Windows.Z-201 & Z-202 Z-201 & Z-202 Z-003 E. Context 1. Materials.Z-201 & Z-202 Z-201 & Z-202 c) Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials.Z-201 & Z-202 2. Inflection.This parcel is less than six thousand (6,000) square feet therefore this section does not apply. Survey This parcel is less than six thousand (6,000) square feet therefore this section does not apply. Survey This parcel is less than six thousand (6,000) square feet therefore this section does not apply. Survey 101 E Hallam Street 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.B.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. This lot is a corner lot and the existing street facing facades are parallel to the intersecting streets. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front façade 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. Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate linking element. This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, not more than ten (10) feet in width, and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. C. Parking, Garages and Carports 1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: b) If the garage doors are visible from a street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. c) If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley, the garage doors may be either single-stall or normal double-stall garage doors. 2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall be apply: a) On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. b) The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house. c) On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size, the garage or carport may be forward of the front facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). d) When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade. e) The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four (24) feet. f) If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: The existing historic house has a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window to remain. a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front- most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. The existing entry door to remain is no more than ten (10) feet back from the front most wall of the building and is not taller than eight (8) feet. b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. c) A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face street. All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. a) Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. The existing and proposed street-facing windows do not span through nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished first floor. b) No more than one (1) non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) non-orthogonal window. The requirement shall only apply to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. The existing portion of the house contains thee non-orthogonal windows on the west facade and one on the north facade all existing to remain. The south facade contains two existing non-orthogonal windows to be removed and replaced with one non-orthogonal window in the gable end. 4. Lightwells.All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. The proposed lightwells are recessed behind the front-most wall of the building and are not located on the street-facing facade. a) The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building. The quality of the existing and proposed exterior materials and their application is consistent on all sides of the building. b) Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or non-bearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. The use of materials is true to their characteristics. Proposed materials will be approved at HPC Minor Review, Continued for Restudy. There are no proposed highly reflective materials. Proposed materials will be approved at HPC Minor Review, Continued for Restudy. The following standard must be met for parcels which are six thousand (6,000) square feet or over and as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.2: a) If a one-story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one-story in height along their common lot line. If there are one-story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose the side toward which to Inflect. A one-story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure or portion of a structure, where there is only one (1) floor of fully usable living space, at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one (1) story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent building is one (1) story. Residential Design Standards Unique Approvals & Variances See Land Use Approvals for complete list of approved resolutions and/or admin approvals. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-002 RDS COMPLIANCE HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 4 6 I I I . A . 5'-0"5'-0" 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " EXISTING FENCE TO BE RELOCATED LINE OF EXTERIOR WALL LI N E OF S E T B A C K RE A R YA R D FR O N T YA R D SIDE YARD SIDE YARD ALLEY N G A R M I S C H S T R E E T E HALLAM STREET P R O P E R T Y LI N E PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 5'-0" 5'-0" 10 ' - 0 " 4'-6" 1'-2" 4' - 1 " 10 ' - 0 " LINE OF EXTERIOR WALL EXISTING 3FT WROUGHT-IRON FENCE TO BE RELOCATED TO PROPERTY LINE PER Z-003 RDS A.3. EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN PER Z-003 RDS A.3. NORTH OF LINE EXTERIOR HISTORIC WALLS TO REMAIN SEE ELEVATIONS SHEETS Z-201 & Z-202 GARAGE ACCESS PER Z-003 RDS C.1. EGRESS LIGHTWELL PER Z-003 RDS D.4 EGRESS LIGHTWELL PER Z-003 RDS D.4 LI N E OF S E T B A C K FR O N T YA R D SIDE YARD SIDE YARD ALLEY N G A R M I S C H S T R E E T E HALLAM STREET P R O P E R T Y LI N E PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE RE A R Y A R D N 1X EXISTING SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 4 8 16 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-003 SITE PLAN HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 4 7 I I I . A . 012 002 001 010 011 016 018 015 014 013 017 F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 21'-4" 36 '-11 1 /2 " 2 9 '-7 1 /2 " 8' - 8 " 8 " 3' - 0 " 8" 11 '-0 1 /2 " 8" 3 ' - 0 " 8" 1 ' - 3 " 68 ' - 5 " 22'-9" 1'-61/2" 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 1,639.50 sq ft UP 21'-4"36'-111/2"1'-61/2" 28'-91/2"22'-9" 68'-5" 9' - 6 " 8'-8"3'-0"12'-101/2"3'-0"1'-3" 9' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 216.25 sq ft 273.50 sq ft 351.00 sq ft202.75 sq ft 650.00 sq ft 14.75 sq ft 21.00 sq ft 21.00 sq ft 6. 5.4. 3.2.1. Existing Floor Area Calculations 101 E Hallam St Existing Lower Level Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Existing Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1292.75 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)963.75 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,256.50 Proposed Floor Area Calculations Proposed Lower Level Exposed Wall Calculations Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 202.75 0.00 2 351.00 0.00 3 14.75 0.00 4 273.50 42.00 5 216.25 0.00 6 650.00 0.00 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1,640.25 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)42.00 % of Exposed Wall (Sq Ft) (Exposed / Total)2.56% Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft) 1,640.25 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 42.00 1,640.25 X 2.56% Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft) 42.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft) 1321.13 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft) 1163.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft) 0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft) 2,526.13 101 E Hallam St COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA EXEMPT FRONT PORCH EXEMPT DECK 50% EXEMPT - GARAGE FAR PLAN LEGEND 100% EXEMPT - GARAGE SUBGRADE WALL AREA EXPOSED WALL AREA SUBGRADE CALC LEGEND N NO EXISTING LOWER LEVELPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 4 8 16 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-004 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 4 8 I I I . A . 64.75 sq ft F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 190.00 sq ft 101.00 sq ft EXEMPT FRONT PORCH PER RDS 26.575.020.D.5 EXEMPT FRONT PORCH PER RDS 26.575.020.D.5 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EXISTING DECK TO BE REMOVED 1,184.75 sq ft 108.00 sq ft 64.75 sq ft F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 90.50 sq ft EXEMPT FRONT PORCH PER RDS 226.575.020.D.5 EXEMPT FRONT PORCH PER RDS 26.575.020.D.5 50% EXEMPT PER 26.575.020.D.7 100% EXEMPT PER 26.575.020.D.7 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 108.00 sq ft 113101 101 101 100 112 111 115 110 102 102 114 1,200.50 sq ft 25.25 sq ft 250.00 sq ft UP DN DN Existing Floor Area Calculations 101 E Hallam St Existing Main Level Floor Area Calculations Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1184.75 Common Building Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)108.00 Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1292.75 Existing Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)165.00 Deck Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Main & Upper Levels)351.25 15% of gross = 380.4 exempt Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Existing Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1292.75 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)963.75 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,256.50 Exempt per RDS 26.575.020.D.5 Proposed Floor Area Calculations 101 E Hallam St Proposed Main Level Floor Area Calculations Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft) 1200.50 Common Building Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft) 108.00 Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 1308.50 Proposed Garage Floor Area Calculations Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft) 275.25 Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 12.63 26.757.020.D.7 Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 12.63 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft) 165.75 Deck Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Main & Upper Levels) 261.50 15% of gross = 380.4 exempt Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft) 42.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft) 1321.13 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft) 1163.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft) 0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft) 2,526.13 Exempt per RDS 26.575.020.D.5 COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA EXEMPT FRONT PORCH EXEMPT DECK 50% EXEMPT - GARAGE FAR PLAN LEGEND 100% EXEMPT - GARAGE N EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FAR 3/16" = 1'-0"PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 4 8 16 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-005 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 4 9 I I I . A . F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 AREA EXEMPT PER 26.575.050.D.3 FLOOR AREA <30" AREA EXEMPT PER 26.575.050.D.3 FLOOR AREA <30" PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 963.75 sq ft 161.25 sq ft 212 210211 216 215 214 217 201 213 218 219 200 200 F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 11.50 sq ft AREA EXEMPT PER 26.575.050.D.3 FLOOR AREA <30" AREA EXEMPT PER 26.575.050.D.3 FLOOR AREA <30" PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 250.00 sq ft 200 1,163.00 sq ft DN Existing Floor Area Calculations 101 E Hallam St Existing Upper Level Floor Area Calculations Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)963.75 Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)963.75 Existing Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)165.00 Deck Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)351.25 15% of gross = 380.4 exempt Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Existing Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1292.75 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)963.75 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,256.50 Exempt per RDS 26.575.020.D.5 Proposed Floor Area Calculations 101 E Hallam St Proposed Main Level Floor Area Calculations Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft) 1163.00 Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 1163.00 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft) 155.25 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) 261.50 15% of gross = 380.4 exempt Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft) 42.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft) 1321.13 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft) 1163.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft) 0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft) 2,526.13 Exempt per RDS 26.575.020.D.5 COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA EXEMPT FRONT PORCH EXEMPT DECK 50% EXEMPT - GARAGE FAR PLAN LEGEND 100% EXEMPT - GARAGE N EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FAR 3/16" = 1'-0"PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 4 8 16 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-006 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 5 0 I I I . A . 012 002 001 010 011 016 018 015 014 013 017 F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 9 '-10 1 /2 " 11 ' - 6 " 9' - 1 1 " 1 0 '-9 1 /2 " 28 ' - 2 " 70 ' - 3 " 25'-41/2" 12'-71/2"91/4"10'-01/4"1'-111/2" T.O. CONC 88'-9" PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE REC ROOM 001 MECH 010 STORAGE 009 PWDR 002 BEDROOM 006 CLOSET 008 BEDROOM 003 CLOSET 005 BATH 004 BATH 007 1 Z-201 2 Z-201 3 Z-202 4 Z-202 RADON VENT PIPE UP EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE RE-SIDED NEW WALL WALL LEGEND WALL TO DEMO N NO EXISTING LOWER LEVELPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 4 8 16 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-101 FLOOR PLANS HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 5 1 I I I . A . RGF F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1X Z-203 2X Z-203 3X Z-204 4X Z-204 DEMO DEMO DEMO PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE COMMON BUILDING RG F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 70 ' - 3 " 9 '-10 1 /2 " 11 ' - 6 " 9' - 1 1 " 1 0 '-9 1 /2 " 28 ' - 2 " 25'-41/2" 12'-71/2"91/4"10'-01/4"1'-111/2" 1 Z-201 2 Z-201 3 Z-202 4 Z-202 EXTERIOR WALLS NORTH OF LINE ARE EXISTING TO REMAIN SEE ELEVATIONS Z-201 & Z- 202 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE COMMON BUILDING GARAGE 106 KITCHEN 103 PWDR 101 DINING 102 LIVING 100 PANTRY 104 F 113101 101 101 100 112 111 115 110 102 102 114 W CD 5'-0" RADON VENT PIPE UP DN DN LAUNDRY/MUDROOM 105 EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE RE-SIDED NEW WALL WALL LEGEND WALL TO DEMO N EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 4 8 16 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-102 FLOOR PLANS HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 5 2 I I I . A . F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1X Z-203 2X Z-203 3X Z-204 4X Z-204 DEMO DEMO DEMO PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 212 210211 216 215 214 217 201 213 218 219 200 200 F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 W CD 1 Z-201 2 Z-201 3 Z-202 4 Z-202 25'-41/2" 12'-71/2"91/4"10'-01/4"1'-111/2" 70 ' - 3 " 9 '-10 1 /2 " 11 ' - 6 " 9' - 1 1 " 1 0 '-9 1 /2 " 28 ' - 2 " EXTERIOR WALLS NORTH OF LINE ARE EXISTING TO REMAIN SEE ELEVATIONS Z-201 & Z-202 LINE OF ROOF ABOVE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE ROOF DECKROOF DECK MASTER BEDROOM 204 CLOSET 207 CLOSET 206MASTER BATH 205 SHOWER WC SHOWER BATH 202 BEDROOM 201 CLOSET 203 200 DN EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE RE-SIDED NEW WALL WALL LEGEND WALL TO DEMO N EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 4 8 16 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-103 FLOOR PLANS HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 5 3 I I I . A . F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1X Z-203 2X Z-203 3X Z-204 4X Z-204 DEMO LINE OF UPPER LEVEL DEMO DEMO DEMO PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 11.5:12 11.5:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:1212:12 12:12 12:12 11.5:12 12:12 F F E E C C B B A A D D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 Z-201 2 Z-201 3 Z-202 4 Z-202 EXTERIOR WALLS NORTH OF LINE ARE EXISTING TO REMAIN SEE ELEVATIONS Z-201 & Z- 202 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 11.5:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 11.5:12 12:12 EXISTING FLAT ROOF SLOPED FOR DRAINAGE NEW ROOF DECK SLOPED FOR DRAINAGE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 10:12 10:12 5.5:12 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN NEW METAL ROOF ROOF LEGEND ROOF TO DEMO NEW ROOF DECK N EXISTING ROOF PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 4 8 16 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-104 ROOF PLAN HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 5 4 I I I . A . FLAT ROOF SLOPED FOR DRAINAGE EXISTING BRICK FACADE EXISTING ROUND SAWN CEDAR SHINGLE; TO BE PAINTED EXISTING CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF LINE OF PREVIOUS ADDITION EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 109'-4" VIF EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"=7892'-71/2" LOWER LEVEL 88'-9" EXISTING RIDGE HEIGHT 123'-8" VIF 100 200 FLAT ROOF SLOPED FOR DRAINAGE EXISTING BRICK FACADE EXISTING CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING; TO BE PAINTED PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF; TO MATCH EXISTING LINE OF PREVIOUS ADDITION RESIDE EXISTING UPPER LEVEL WALLS WITH CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 109'-4" VIF EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"=7892'-71/2" LOWER LEVEL 88'-9" EXISTING RIDGE HEIGHT 123'-8" VIF LINE OF PREVIOUS ADDITION LINE OF PREVIOUS ADDITION 1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" 1X EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2X EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-201 ELEVATIONS HPC HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 5 5 I I I . A . 102 200200 PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING EXISTING SHAKE SHINGLE ROOF PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING EXISTING BRICK FACADEPROPOSED RAILING; WOOD POSTS WITH METAL RAIL EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 109'-4" VIF EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"=7892'-71/2" LOWER LEVEL 88'-9" EXISTING RIDGE HEIGHT 123'-8" VIF PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING; TO BE PAINTED 102 101 201 101 EXISTING BRICK FACADE EXISTING CEDAR SHINGLE LINE OF PREVIOUS ADDITION RESIDE EXISTING UPPER LEVEL WALLS WITH CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 109'-4" VIF EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"=7892'-71/2" LOWER LEVEL 88'-9" EXISTING RIDGE HEIGHT 123'-8" VIF PREVIOUS ADDITION LINE OF PREVIOUS ADDITION 3 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" 3X EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"4X EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-202 ELEVATIONS HPC HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 5 6 I I I . A . 103 E HALLAM STREET105 E HALLAM STREET 101 E HALLAM STREET (PROJECT SITE) 101 E HALLAM STREET (PROJECT SITE) INTERSECTION OF HALLAM & N GARMISH STREET 101 E HALLAM STREET (PROJECT SITE)101 E HALLAM STREET (PROJECT SITE)101 E HALLAM STREET (PROJECT SITE) ALLEY BEHIND PROJECT SITE 100 E BLEAKER STREET 100 E BLEAKER STREET 100 E BLEAKER STREET HISTORIC HOUSE WITH NEW ADDITIONHISTORIC HOUSE WITH NEW ADDITIONHISTORIC HOUSE WITH NEW ADDITION HISTORIC HOUSE - MIRROR OF HISTORIC PORTION OF PROJECT SITE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-301 STREETSCAPE HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 5 7 I I I . A . EXISTING HISTORIC BRICK CEDAR SHAKE EXISTING ROUND SAWN SHINGLE TO BE PAINTED WHITE PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING ALLEY VIEW OF SIDING AND CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF PROPOSED PAINTED ALUMINUM WINDOWS TO BE PAINTED DARK GREY PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE TO BE PAINTED LIGHT GREY STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/14/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1411 FORUM PHI, LLC 9/23/14SD HPC MINOR REVIEW Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3816 aspensurveyors@gmail.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-302 MATERIALS HALLAM LLC 101 E Hallam St Aspen, Colorado 81611 101 E HALLAM 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 HPC MINOR REV CONT10/22/14SD P 5 8 I I I . A . HPC Review 10.22.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 1 of 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 229 W. Smugger/426 N. Second –Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 22, 2014 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. Second is a duplex on a historic landmark lot. 229 W. Smuggler is a Victorian era home, built in 1888 and 426 N. Second was added in the 1970s Both units are in the same ownership. In August, HPC reviewed a proposal to physically separate the homes and add a shared garage along the alley. The project also involved a forward relocation of the Victorian and a request for setback variances. The application was continued for restudy in order to re-visit and refine the relocation plan and placement of the addition to the Victorian. A proposed new dormer on the rear of the historic resource was called out as too significant an alteration to the original roof form. Since that meeting, the applicant determined that total demolition of the 1970s era unit is desirable and has added CCY Architects to their team for this aspect of the design. A freestanding replacement structure is now proposed. The new garage has been re- designed. The dormer on the back of the Victorian has been reduced. Staff finds the new work to be appropriate in size and form. We maintain the same concerns expressed in August about the addition to the Victorian. This aspect of the project has not been amended since the previous review. Staff recommends the hearing be continued. P59 III.B. HPC Review 10.22.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 2 of 10 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: 229 W. Smuggler LLC and 426 N. Second LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, Ruggles, Mabe, Terrell Architecture, and CCY Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-17-031 and -032. ADDRESS: 229 W. Smuggler and 426 N. Second Street, Units A and B, Second and Smuggler Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. 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.” There are several older photographs of the site available at the Aspen Historical Society, such as the 1963 photo on the following page. The historic building is currently relatively intact in form and materials. Changes that have occurred include construction of a cold roof, addition of a small dormer on the west, replacement of original windows and modification of the front porch railing. The applicant proposes to reverse all of these alterations, which is very commendable. Specifics will be reviewed at Final. The reduced new dormer on the rear of the house is now subordinate and meets guideline 7.7. P60 III.B. HPC Review 10.22.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 3 of 10 At the August meeting, Staff expressed a number of concerns with the project as it affects the historic residence. The applicant proposes to move the building forward 5’ and west 5’. Relocation criteria are cited below. It is generally HPC’s goal to leave historic buildings in their original location, unless the relocation has a clear benefit to the resource, such as greater separation from new development. Staff can support the move forward, towards Smuggler to gain that separation. We do not support the move westward as it appears to be a change that could be avoided. Staff does not support the construction of a new addition that latches onto the east side of the Victorian, destroying original fabric that is currently intact. We do not support the positioning of an addition on the side of the house at all, since the design guidelines direct new construction to occur at the rear of the site. The side addition affects the perception of the original width of the home and seems to create a new entry that competes with the original front porch. Staff supports placing new construction at the rear of the house where alterations to the Victorian have already occurred. In Aspen’s unique development environment, it is Staff’s opinion that for some time the underlying historic preservation strategy has been to attempt to greatly minimize and properly locate changes made directly to the historic structure, since demolishing any features of historic resource is a permanent loss, whereas additions will come and go, as illustrated by this proposal. P61 III.B. HPC Review 10.22.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 4 of 10 Staff believes that locating an addition at the rear of the resource has been the standard policy of HPC for many years. The application points out examples of side additions, however in each of these cases the lots were less than the typical depth, did not have alley access, or had a historic outbuilding along the alley that needed to be avoided. The proposed location of this addition removes two historic windows on the east façade, a wall that is, in staff’s opinion, a primary façade more easily viewable from the street than the rear of the house. An addition on the rear of the house could perhaps have a shed form, making it lower profile than the proposed gable, or even an area of flat roof that could allow for access to an upper floor deck space where the new master bedroom dormer is occurring. The roof plan of the previous and current proposals are illustrated below. Staff finds that the proposed new unit and the shared garage meet the Conceptual guidelines. We recommend continuation of the project to relocate the addition to the rear façade of the Victorian, finding that guidelines 10.8 and 10.10 are not met. We recommend the Victorian be allowed to move forward, but not to the west of its current location. August 2014 October 2014 P62 III.B. HPC Review 10.22.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 5 of 10 ON-SITE 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: Staff finds that the forward relocation of the house meets Criterion 4 above, in that the move helps to distance the historic resource from the new construction. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit the standard assurances that relocation will proceed with care. The house appears to be moving further into the dripline of some large historic cottonwoods at the front of the site. This will require the approval of the City Forester. This is a fundamental issue that must be addressed in order to pursue the relocation and excavation plans. P63 III.B. HPC Review 10.22.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 6 of 10 SETBACK VARIANCES RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The applicant requests a sideyard setback reduction of 5’ for the new garage 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. Staff finds that the requested setback variances may help to place the new construction appropriately, however we find that the site plan requires restudy relative to the historic house. The historic structure should not be modified to meet the Residential Design Standards, and existing, non-compliant conditions are permitted to be maintained. It appears that the project may not meet the Build-to-line standard, which directs more of the construction to be close to the front setback line. The proposed new unit does not appear to meet the Street oriented entrance standards because the door and porch face Second Street, as they always have, rather than Smuggler, as today’s guidelines suggest. Staff supports a waiver of the Build-to-line standard because preserving open yard on the sides of this larger scaled Victorian is preferable to sliding the new unit into that space. The entry door and porch on the new unit could be shifted northwards in order to meet the “street-facing” criteria. The path to the door could still originate from Second Street. Staff recommends that revision so that a variance is not needed. In order to grant variances, HPC must find that the proposal will: 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, P64 III.B. HPC Review 10.22.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 7 of 10 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 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the project in order to re-visit and refine the relocation plan and placement of the addition to the Victorian. EXHIBITS : Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: August 6 th minutes Exhibit C: Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 229 W. Smuggler, Conceptual review 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. 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. 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. 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. P65 III.B. HPC Review 10.22.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 8 of 10 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. 9.3 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. 9.6 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. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. 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. P66 III.B. HPC Review 10.22.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 9 of 10 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. 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. 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. 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. P67 III.B. HPC Review 10.22.2014 229 W. Smuggler Page 10 of 10 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. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. P68 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 Willis said the garage fascia should be left alone and cleaned up as it is more in character with the 60's. Patrick agreed with Willis. MOTION: Jim moved to approve Resolution #23 for final approval for 120 Red Mountain Red with the conditions delineated in the staff recommendation and an additional condition of preserving the balcony pendant and retention of the garage fascia. We approve the link roof height and that the roof fabric appear to be tar and gravel like EPTM. Motion second by John. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; John, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-0. 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second — Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing Debbie Quinn said the posting is in order and Melissa Mabe attested that the posting is still up. Debbie said with that confirmation the applicant can proceed. Amy said this is a duplex on a corner site next to Triangle Park. The lot is 9,000 square feet. There is a large Victorian home on the property built 1888 and in the 1980's an addition was made that is accessed facing Second Street. The new property owner would like to make modifications and detach the homes so that there are two free standing homes. On the non- historic home they would like to remove the connection to the historic house and clean up the hole left behind and create a one story link to a new garage on the alley. They are supposed to have four parking spots and they are providing two which is acceptable. There is a setback variance requested on the east side of the garage where it comes too close to the property line but it is otherwise conforming. With regard to the Victorian staff is appreciative of the idea of detaching the two homes from each other but there is concern that the new proposal to the Victorian house is in a location that has never been touched before. The Victorian is to be picked up and moved forward five feet and westward five feet. We don't have a problem with the forward movement because it does create separation and that could be beneficial. Staff is not supporting moving the house westward. The reason to do that is to slide an addition alongside the house that we do not support. The little one story piece alongside the Victorian is the proposed new construction and it is touching a side of the house that is currently pristine. We would prefer 4P69 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014 that they continue to work with the hole behind the house. The front porch has been changed slightly and we have some historic photos that can be used for the restoration. There is a dormer on the west side of the roof that will go away. They would also like to do a better rendition of the historic windows. There is a cold roof on the house that will be removed and a thin roof profile would be a great improvement to the building. On the other hand there is a proposed new gable end on the back side of the house that doesn't exist there now and a skylight that doesn't balance out with the restoration they are proposing. We think it is not a net gain. Staff recommends a restudy and continuation: We feel the new construction should probably go in the back of the house even if all the homes touch each other. Don Ruggles, architect and Melissa Mabe presented. Don said the owner Mr. and Mrs. Dahler have a commitment to restore the historic asset to the absolute very best quality they can. They own both properties. They need to add a little bit of square footage to make this work for them. We are trying to make the addition of its time but still have a sense that it respects the main body of the historical asset. It will have a zinc roof. The owner would like a dormer on the back side to replace the skylight. We can certainly work with staff and find a different shape for the dormer. We feel the dormer is an important ad to make the square footage work for us and getting rid of the 1960's sky light. Melissa said there is a basement in both houses. The basement in the Victorian will be a little larger and a better basement. Willis asked what the drive is to separate the two houses. Don said where the two houses join is in need of cleaning up etc. There is a porch that doesn't fit, ice buildup etc. If it is separated we can clean it up and get better sun and we are letting the yard come into the rear. It will create a cleaner expression to the historical asset. There might be an ownership issue down the road having separate owners. Mr. Dahler said the addition was done in 1972 and it was classified as a duplex. In 1979 it was converted to a two unit condominium. 5P70 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Patrick asked if the addition was looked at being placed behind the house. Don said we looked at a number of options. We are willing to work with staff on that matter and find the right balance. Mr. Dahler said this plan gives us a private yard in the back as part of the scheme. I'm surprised people don't live in their Victorians. The gable allows for a master suite on the second floor. Don said they are supportive of all the guidelines. Melissa said there are many precedence in Aspen that have a much greater impact on the Victorians that have passed through this board. We have really pared down the addition as minimal as we could. John asked about the siding on the addition. Melissa said the addition is designed to be very clean and succinct and the form is respectful of the asset but it feels different and of its time. John said staff brings up some valid points and you have more land to play with. Melissa said we are trying to preserve the openness on the corner by not proposing an addition on that side so the link to Triangle Park is as strong as ever. With the dormer we were trying to let the two buildings communicate and provide David with an upstairs that he can use. I feel we have been very sympathetic to the historic asset. We can try to make it a little smaller. Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: On-site relocation Setback variances Residential design standards are off the table Mass and scale of the addition 6P71 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014 Willis said the strategy is sound for this project and it meets the intent but not the letter of the guidelines. I understand staff's concern about the amount of disturbance to the original fabric on the historic building. The addition is very small. If the Victorian is movable so is that linkage and volume. For us to pass this tonight we would have to believe this is the best ultimate solution to this problem and you have some latitude to work with that would get staff on board. The section in the guidelines on linkages say ten feet long and no wider than 6 feet. That serves the purpose of minimizing the intrusion into the original fabric. Relocation, demolition, setback variances are all manageable for this commission. Jim said the fundamental approach is very sound and attractive. I particularly like the fact that they are not trying to do a lot of stuff below grade and it keeps the historic structure quite distinctive. There is probably room for a little refinement. Patrick said he agrees with Willis and Jim. It is a good start and the design is coming close. I would recommend getting together with staff and flush out the details. Amy pointed out that we want to see some other concepts as to where the office can go. What is your tolerance to moving the house a little further or perhaps putting a little more construction on top of the garage. John said he likes the delicateness of the addition in the back and subordinate to the front. Adding more square footage doesn't seem like that is necessarily the program the applicant wants to achieve because you are going to be living in the historic resource. There is a lot of good in this project and a restudy is always beneficial. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second public hearing and conceptual development to September 10, 2014. Staff and applicant to re-visit and refine the placement of the addition to the Victorian and review the new position of the Victorian; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. John said the consensus of the addition of the dormer on the back is possibly altering the historic fabric a little bit too much and maybe there is a way to achieve a less dramatic transformation of the roof line. 7P72 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6. 2014 Willis said the more minimal alteration to the historic property the better. 28 Smuggler Grove Road - Conceptual Major Development, Floor area bonus, Setback variances, parking waiver, demolition of non-historic additions, relocation, residential design standards variances. Continued public hearing. Sara said there are some requested setback variance; 500 square foot FAR bonus; a technical residential design standard variance; relocation of the historic resource; partial demolition of the non-historic addition and a variance from the required width of a parking space. On July 9th, the last meeting UPC requested a restudy of the new single family home that is proposed for the site. This property has a landmark that was moved at some point to this location in 1976. In 1987 the entire area was annexed into the city and the property was added to the inventory in 2008. The proposal is to pick up the historic home and move it on the site and to construct a new single family home that is detached on the site. There were concerns voiced by the neighbors regarding the parking situation. There was a request for a waiver of one parking space and they are required to have four on-site parking spaces and they were proposing three. The applicant has looked at the plan and has moved some things round and now they are proposing four parking spaces on-site and one space is four inches off the required width. Because of the four inches they would need a parking waiver from that standard but they do have four on-site parking spaces. Staff confirmed with Engineering that they are approved for two curb cuts for this property. On July 9th it was suggested that the applicant look at reducing the width of the addition behind the historic resource a little more to be a little more subservient to the width of the historic resource. They could research this and bring it back for final. Staff raised concerns with the second story deck that is located between the historic home and the new residence. We are recommending that be removed for final review. There is space at the rear of the historic resource and to have the deck extended back there. We are supportive of the re-design and they are pulling architectural features from the historic resource and they are not imitating the landmark. They have gable roofs and forms reminiscent of what you see on the historic resource. Staff is concerned with the roof top planter box that seems to add un- necessary mass to the front fagade and we recommend that be relocated for final review. Staff is supportive of the demolition and relocation. Staff 8P73 III.B. COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancie s are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT PROJECT INFORMATION:The use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method,in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans re mains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contact with these plans shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the in formation contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N 10/6/2014 2:47:29 PMHPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 10/22/2014 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T HI S T O R I C H O M E R E S T O R A T I O N & A D D I T I O N , A N D RE M O D E L O F N O N H I S T O R I C R E S I D E N C E H. P . C . C O N C E P T U A L P L A N S U B M I T T A L AS P E N , C O L O R A D O SHEET INDEX A0.0 COVER A0.1 PLAN OF EXISTING CONDITION A0.2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING CONDITION A0.3 SITE PLAN A1.0 LOWER LEVEL PLAN A1.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A1.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A1.3 ROOF PLAN A3.0 UNIT 'B' ELEVATIONS A3.1 UNIT 'B' ELEVATIONS A3.2 GARAGE ELEVATIONS A3.3 UNIT 'A' ELEVATIONS A3.4 PERSPECTIVES P74 III.B. L O T A L O T B L O T C L O T D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 25 24 26 UN I T A UN I T B TO T A L AR E A 9, 0 0 0 ± S. F . 7 8 8 3 7 8 8 3 7 8 8 3 7883 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 5 78 8 5 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 3 78 84 CO 7 .9 ' 9 . 2 ' 6 .0 ' 2 4 . 0 ' 2 8 .0 ' 3 7 . 2 ' 8 .0 ' 8 .2 ' 7 . 6 ' 1 7 .9 ' 4 1 . 3 ' 8 .2 ' 1 6 . 3 ' 1 4 .3 ' 8 . 0 ' 1 8 .1 ' 2 . 0 ' 6 . 0 ' 8 .3 ' 2 . 0 ' TH R E S H O L D 78 8 7 . 3 4 TH R E S H O L D 78 8 7 . 5 5 2 . 5 ' 1 . 7 ' 2 . 0 ' 2 . 5 ' RID G E 79 1 0 . 3 RID G E 79 0 7 . 8 P A T I O 7 8 8 2 . 8 C H I M N E Y (B A SI S O F B E A R I N G S ) S 7 5 °0 8 '1 1 "E 9 0 .0 0 ' S 1 4 ° 5 0 ' 4 9 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' N 7 5 °0 8 '11 "W 9 0 .0 0 ' N 1 4 ° 5 0 ' 4 9 " E 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' SM U G G L E R S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T A L L E Y - B L O C K 4 8 2 0 .6 '(T I E ) 6 . 4 ' ( T I E ) 1 5 . 1 ' ( T I E ) G G I R R COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancie s are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/8" = 1'-0"PLAN OF EXISTING CONDITION A0.1229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SU R V E Y 0' 16 ' 32 ' 8' P75 III.B. COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancie s are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/2" = 1'-0"PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING CONDITION A0.2229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 SO U T H E A S T P E R S P E C T I V E 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 NO R T H W E S T P E R S P E C T I V E 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 NO R T H P E R S P E C T I V E 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 NO R T H E A S T P E R S P E C T I V E P76 III.B. L O T A L O T B L O T C L O T D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 1920 21 22 23 25 24 26 TO T A L AR E A 9, 0 0 0 ± S. F . 7 8 8 3 7 8 8 3 7 8 8 3 7883 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 5 78 8 5 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 3 78 84 CO 6 .0 ' 2 8 .0 ' 3 7 . 2 ' 8 .0 ' 8 .2 ' 7 . 6 ' 8 .2 ' 1 8 .1 ' 2 . 0 ' 6 . 0 ' 2 . 0 ' 2 . 5 ' 2 . 0 ' 2 . 5 ' P A T I O 7 8 8 2 . 8 C H I M N E Y (B A SI S O F B E A R I N G S ) S 7 5 °0 8 '1 1 "E 9 0 .0 0 ' S 1 4 ° 5 0 ' 4 9 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' N 7 5 °0 8 '11 "W 9 0 .0 0 ' N 1 4 ° 5 0 ' 4 9 " E 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' SM U G G L E R S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T A L L E Y - B L O C K 4 8 2 0 .6 '(T I E ) 6 . 4 ' ( T I E ) G G LI N E O F O R I G I N A L UN I T ' B ' L O C A T I O N 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " LI N E O F O R I G I N A L HO U S E L O C A T I O N RE L O C A T E D HI S T O R I C H O U S E UN I T ' B ' AL L P A T C H W O R K T O U N I T ' A ' A T HO U S E S E P A R A T I O N L O C A T I O N TO M A T C H E X I S T I N G D E T A I L I N G NE W U N I T ' B ' ON E S T O R Y AD D I T I O N NE W T W O - CA R G A R A G E NE W UN I T ' A ' NE W S H E D D O R M E R 3 6 ' - 4 1 /2 " 5 ' - 0 " NE W ST A I R NE W S T A I R 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " F R O N T S E T B A C K R E A R S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K R E A R G A R A G E S E T B A C K 5 ' - 0 " 2 7 ' - 1 " UN I T ' A ' BA Y UN I T ' B ' BA Y 5 ' - 0 " COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancies are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/8" = 1'-0"SITE PLAN A0.3229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 0' 16 ' 32 ' 8' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SI T E P L A N P77 III.B. 90 ' - 0 " 87 ' - 5 " 1 1 ' - 1 0 " BE D R O O M # 1 10 0 BA T H R O O M # 1 10 1 W.I . C . # 1 10 2 ST A I R H A L L 10 3 BE D R O O M # 2 10 4 BA T H R O O M # 2 10 5 ME D I A R O O M 10 6 LA U N D R Y R O O M 10 7 ME C H A N I C A L RO O M 10 9 6 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 1 9 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 14 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 9 " 6' - 9 " 12 ' - 5 " 3 ' - 0 " 4' - 9 " PR O P E R T Y LI N E GA R A G E A B O V E 3 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 90 ' - 0 " HA L L 5' - 8 " 4 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 7 ' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 1 4 ' - 6 " ST O R A G E CL O S E T 4' - 6 " 5' - 7 " 2' - 2 " 14 ' - 0 1 / 2 " BR O O M CL O S E T 3 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 1 / 2 " ST A I R A B O V E 16 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 2 1 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 5 0 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 21 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 5' - 8 " 5' - 2 " 10 ' - 8 1 / 2 " 43 ' - 5 " 3 ' - 1 1 " 4 0 ' - 1 1 " AR E A W E L L AR E A W E L L 8' - 4 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 0 " FI N I S H E D B A S E M E N T FR O N T S E T B A C K RE A R S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K RE A R G A R A G E S E T B A C K 3 ' - 0 " AR E A W E L L COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancies are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/4" = 1'-0"LOWER LEVEL PLAN A1.0229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 LO W E R L E V E L P L A N P78 III.B. UP 1 3 ' - 1 1 / 2 " ST U D Y 20 0 EN T R Y 20 1 CL O S E T 20 2 LI V I N G R O O M 20 3 PO W D E R R O O M 20 4 ST A I R 20 5 DIN I N G R O O M 20 6 KI T C H E N 20 7 13 ' - 7 " 12 ' - 1 1 " 1 6 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 1 1 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 3 " 7' - 3 " 4' - 6 " HA L L 2 1 ' - 5 " 5 ' - 6 " 2 4 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 6 " 2 5 ' - 3 " 5 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 1 3 ' - 0 " BR E A K F A S T RO O M ME T A L A N D G L A S S EN T R Y E N C L O S U R E GR A Y G R A N I T E ST E P S ME T A L R A I L NO N - H I S T O R I C G U A R D R A I L T O B E RE P L A C E D W I T H P E R I O D C O R R E C T TU R N E D S P I N D L E S , N E W E L L S A N D R A I L S 12 ' - 0 " UN I T ' B ' GA R A G E 4' - 6 " 11 ' - 3 " 15 ' - 9 " 9 ' - 6 " OF F I C E 5 1 / 2 " 32 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 0 " NE W W I N D O W W E L L W/ M E T A L G R A T E C O V E R NE W W I N D O W W E L L W/ M E T A L G R A T E C O V E R GR A Y G R A N I T E ST E P S ME T A L R A I L ME T A L A N D G L A S S EN T R Y E N C L O S U R E 5' - 0 " PROPERTY LINE 2 4 ' - 0 " RE A R S E T B A C K RE A R G A R A G E S E T B A C K 8 ' - 6 " 12 ' - 0 " UN I T ' A ' GA R A G E 6' - 3 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 9 " 23 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 25 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 2 8 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 6'- 0 " T A L L F E N C E 9 ' - 0 " 2 2 ' - 8 " 8' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " 26 ' - 0 " 3 1 ' - 8 " CO U R T Y A R D KI T C H E N DI N I N G A R E A LI V I N G R O O M FR O N T S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancies are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/4" = 1'-0"FIRST FLOOR PLAN A1.1229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL0'8'16'4' 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 FI R S T F L O O R P L A N P79 III.B. 5' - 0 " P L . H T . 5' - 0 " P L . H T . 6' - 7 " P L . H T . 7'- 0 " P L . H T . 5'- 8 " P L . H T . 12 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 5' - 0 " P L . H T . BE N C H MA S T E R BE D R O O M 30 0 ST A I R H A L L 30 1 MA S T E R BA T H R O O M 30 2 MA S T E R W . I . C . 30 3 SH O W E R H A L L 30 4 W/C 30 6 MA S T E R SH O W E R 30 5 4' - 1 1 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 1 " 3' - 6 " 3' - 1 " 4' - 8 1 / 2 " 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 2 " 1 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 1 1 " 6 ' - 0 " ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F , TY P I C A L O N A L L N E W ST R U C T U R E S U . N . O . 12 : 1 2 12 : 1 2 9 : 1 2 9 : 1 2 12 : 1 2 12 : 1 2 MA T E R B E D R O O M MA S T E R BA T H R O O M MA S T E R CL O S E T LO W S L O P E RO O F LO W S L O P E RO O F RE A R S E T B A C K RE A R G A R A G E S E T B A C K FR O N T S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancies are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/4" = 1'-0"SECOND FLOOR PLAN A1.2229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N P80 III.B. RO O F T O B E R E M O V E D A N D R E B U I L T W I T H EX I S T I N G D E P T H , O V E R H A N G S , E A V E D E T A I L S B U T WIT H M O D E R N F R A M I N G M A T E R I A L S A N D IN S U L A T I O N RE S T O R E E X I S T I N G BR I C K C H I M N E Y 12 : 1 2 12 : 1 2 9 : 1 2 9 : 1 2 NE W S H E D D O R M E R RE M O V E E X I S T I N G SK Y L I G H T ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F , TY P I C A L O N A L L N E W ST R U C T U R E S U . N . O . 12 : 1 2 12 : 1 2 LO W S L O P E RO O F 11 : 1 2 11 : 1 2 LO W S L O P E RO O F LO W S L O P E RO O F RE A R S E T B A C K RE A R G A R A G E S E T B A C K FR O N T S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K 4 : 1 2 COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancies are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/4" = 1'-0"ROOF PLAN A1.3229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 RO O F P L A N P81 III.B. FI R S T F L O O R 78 8 7 ' - 4 3 / 3 2 " LO W E R L E V E L 90 ' - 0 " EX I S T I N G W I N D O W S T O B E RE P L A C E D W / N E W W O O D W I N D O W TO M A T C H E X I S T I N G ( T Y P . ) RE S T O R E E X I S T I N G BR I C K C H I M N E Y RO O F T O B E R E M O V E D A N D R E B U I L T W I T H E X I S T I N G DE P T H , O V E R H A N G S & E A V E D E T A I L S B U T W I T H MO D E R N F R A M I N G M A T E R I A L S A N D I N S U L A T I O N EX I S T I N G 4 . 5 " E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G , C O R N E R B O A R D S A N D B A S E TR I M T O R E M A I N A N D B E R E S T O R E D NE W C O N C R E T E F O U N D A T I O N T O M A T C H E X I S T I N G AP P E A R A N C E : E X I S T I N G F O U N D A T I O N S T O N E S T O B E CU T D O W N T O V E N E E R T H I C K N E S S A N D A P P L I E D T O NE W C O N C R E T E F O U N D A T I O N W A L L S NO N - H I S T O R I C G U A R D R A I L T O B E RE P L A C E D W I T H P E R I O D C O R R E C T TU R N E D S P I N D L E S , N E W E L L S A N D R A I L S . OT H E R V I C T O R I A N D E T A I L S T O R E M A I N NE W S E C O N D FL O O R 11 0 ' - 2 " RE M O V E S H A K E S H I N G L E S I D I N G A T GA B L E - E N D S A N D R E P L A C E W I T H HO R I Z O N T A L C L A P B O A R D S I D I N G T O MA T C H ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F CO U R S E D A S H L A R G R A Y GR A N I T E B A S E & S T E P S WO O D C A S E M E N T WIN D O W 3" E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G , C O R N E R B O A R D S , FA S C I A , & S K I R T B O A R D D E T A I L TO C O M P L E M E N T H I S T O R I C HO U S E A N D T O B E P A I N T E D A SH A D E D A R K E R T H A N T H E HI S T O R I C H O U S E C O L O R ME T A L A N D G L A S S LI N K I N G E N C L O S U R E ME T A L R A I L 12 12 12 12 1 4 ' - 7 1 / 2 " GA R A G E B E Y O N D FI R S T F L O O R 78 8 7 ' - 4 3 / 3 2 " LO W E R L E V E L 90 ' - 0 " NE W S H E D D O R M E R RE S T O R E E X I S T I N G BR I C K C H I M N E Y NE W S E C O N D FL O O R 11 0 ' - 2 " NE W W I N D O W W E L L AN D W I N D O W S RE M O V E S H A K E S H I N G L E S I D I N G AT G A B L E - E N D S A N D R E P L A C E WIT H H O R I Z O N T A L C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G T O M A T C H WO O D A W N I N G WIN D O W , T Y P . CO U R S E D A S H L A R GR A Y G R A N I T E B A S E & S T E P S ME T A L R A I L 3" E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G , C O R N E R B O A R D S , FA S C I A , & S K I R T B O A R D D E T A I L TO C O M P L E M E N T H I S T O R I C HO U S E A N D T O B E P A I N T E D A SH A D E D A R K E R T H A N T H E HI S T O R I C H O U S E C O L O R EX I S T I N G 4 . 5 " E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G , C O R N E R B O A R D S A N D B A S E TR I M T O R E M A I N A N D B E R E S T O R E D NO N - H I S T O R I C G U A R D R A I L T O B E RE P L A C E D W I T H P E R I O D C O R R E C T TU R N E D S P I N D L E S , N E W E L L S A N D R A I L S . OT H E R V I C T O R I A N D E T A I L S T O R E M A I N ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F RO O F T O B E R E M O V E D A N D R E B U I L T WI T H E X I S T I N G D E P T H , O V E R H A N G S & EA V E D E T A I L S B U T W I T H M O D E R N FR A M I N G M A T E R I A L S A N D I N S U L A T I O N EX I S T I N G W I N D O W T O B E R E P L A C E D W/ N E W W O O D W I N D O W TO M A T C H E X I S T I N G ( T Y P . ) 12 4 COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancie s are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/4" = 1'-0"UNIT 'B' ELEVATIONS A3.0229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 UN I T ' B ' - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 UN I T ' B ' - E A S T E L E V A T I O N P82 III.B. FI R S T F L O O R 78 8 7 ' - 4 3 / 3 2 " LO W E R L E V E L 90 ' - 0 " RE S T O R E E X I S T I N G BR I C K C H I M N E Y NE W S H E D D O R M E R FA S C I A , S I D I N G A N D T R I M T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G NE W W O O D W I N D O W & TR I M T O M A T C H EX I S T I N G NE W S E C O N D FL O O R 11 0 ' - 2 " NE W W I N D O W W E L L AN D W I N D O W S WO O D C A S E M E N T WIN D O W 3" E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D S I D I N G , CO R N E R B O A R D S , F A S C I A , & S K I R T BO A R D D E T A I L T O C O M P L E M E N T HI S T O R I C H O U S E A N D T O B E PA I N T E D A S H A D E D A R K E R T H A N TH E H I S T O R I C H O U S E C O L O R ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F ME T A L A N D G L A S S EN T R Y E N C L O S U R E ME T A L R A I L CO U R S E D A S H L A R GR A Y G R A N I T E B A S E & S T E P S NE W W O O D FR E N C H D O O R S RE M O V E M O D I F I E D H I S T O R I C WIN D O W & D O O R 12 12 RE L O C A T E E X I S T I N G W I N D O W A N D RE P L A C E W / N E W W O O D W I N D O W EX I S T I N G 4 . 5 " E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G , C O R N E R B O A R D S A N D B A S E TR I M T O R E M A I N A N D B E R E S T O R E D RE M O V E S K Y L I G H T FI R S T F L O O R 78 8 7 ' - 4 3 / 3 2 " LO W E R L E V E L 90 ' - 0 " RE S T O R E E X I S T I N G BR I C K C H I M N E Y NO N - H I S T O R I C D O R M E R TO B E R E M O V E D NE W S E C O N D FL O O R 11 0 ' - 2 " RE M O V E S H A K E S H I N G L E S I D I N G A T G A B L E - EN D S A N D R E P L A C E W I T H H O R I Z O N T A L CL A P B O A R D S I D I N G T O M A T C H NE W S H E D D O R M E R ST A N D I N G S E A M R H E I N Z I N K R O O F 3" E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D S I D I N G , CO R N E R B O A R D S , F A S C I A , & S K I R T B O A R D DE T A I L T O C O M P L E M E N T H I S T O R I C H O U S E AN D T O B E P A I N T E D A S H A D E D A R K E R TH A N T H E H I S T O R I C H O U S E C O L O R NE W C O N C R E T E F O U N D A T I O N T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G A P P E A R A N C E : EX I S T I N G F O U N D A T I O N S T O N E S T O B E CU T D O W N T O V E N E E R T H I C K N E S S AN D A P P L I E D T O N E W C O N C R E T E FO U N D A T I O N W A L L S ME T A L R A I L WO O D C A S E M E N T W I N D O W EX I S T I N G W I N D O W S T O B E RE P L A C E D W / N E W W O O D WI N D O W S T O M A T C H E X I S T I N G ( T Y P . ) CO U R S E D A S H L A R G R A Y GR A N I T E B A S E & S T E P S EX I S T I N G 4 . 5 " E X P O S U R E CL A P B O A R D S I D I N G , C O R N E R BO A R D S A N D B A S E T R I M T O RE M A I N A N D B E R E S T O R E D 12 4 COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancie s are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/4" = 1'-0"UNIT 'B' ELEVATIONS A3.1229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 UN I T ' B ' - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 UN I T ' B ' - W E S T E L E V A T I O N P83 III.B. CO U R S E D A S H L A R GR A Y G R A N I T E B A S E 3" E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D S I D I N G , C O R N E R B O A R D S , FA S C I A , & S K I R T B O A R D D E T A I L T O C O M P L I M E N T HI S T O R I C H O U S E A N D T O B E P A I N T E D A S H A D E DA R K E R T H A N T H E H I S T O R I C H O U S E C O L O R UN I T ' B ' B E Y O N D 6'- 0 " T A L L F E N C E ME T A L D E T A I L T O MA T C H U N I T ' A ' MA T C H R I D G E H E I G H T TO U N I T ' B ' A D D I T I O N 12 12 1 8 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 1 0 " 3" E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D S I D I N G , CO R N E R B O A R D S , F A S C I A , & S K I R T B O A R D DE T A I L T O C O M P L I M E N T H I S T O R I C H O U S E AN D T O B E P A I N T E D A S H A D E D A R K E R TH A N T H E H I S T O R I C H O U S E C O L O R CO U R S E D A S H L A R GR A Y G R A N I T E B A S E ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F CO U R S E D A S H L A R GR A Y G R A N I T E B A S E 3" E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D S I D I N G , C O R N E R B O A R D S , FA S C I A , & S K I R T B O A R D D E T A I L T O C O M P L E M E N T HI S T O R I C H O U S E A N D T O B E P A I N T E D A S H A D E DA R K E R T H A N T H E H I S T O R I C H O U S E C O L O R 12 12 COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancie s are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/4" = 1'-0"GARAGE ELEVATIONS A3.2229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 NE W G A R A G E & U N I T ' A ' LI N K S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 GA R A G E E A S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 UN I T ' A ' L I N K S E C T I O N / G A R A G E W E S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 GA R A G E & U N I T ' A ' N O R T H E L E V A T I O N P84 III.B. UN I T ' A ' F I R S T FL O O R 98 ' - 0 " UN I T ' A ' S E C O N D FL O O R 10 8 ' - 0 " UN I T ' A ' F I R S T FL O O R 98 ' - 0 " UN I T ' A ' S E C O N D FL O O R 10 8 ' - 0 " 12 11 UN I T ' A ' F I R S T FL O O R 98 ' - 0 " UN I T ' A ' S E C O N D FL O O R 10 8 ' - 0 " UN I T ' A ' F I R S T FL O O R 98 ' - 0 " UN I T ' A ' S E C O N D FL O O R 10 8 ' - 0 " 12 11 COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancie s are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/4" = 1'-0"UNIT 'A' ELEVATIONS A3.3229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 UN I T ' A ' - E A S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 UN I T ' A ' - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 UN I T ' A ' - W E S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 UN I T ' A ' - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N P85 III.B. COPYRIGHT ©The architect and his consultants do not warr ant or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product herein beyond a reasonable diligence. If any mistakes, omissions, and/or discrepancie s are found to exist within the work product, the Archite ct shall be promptly notified. Failure to promptly notify the Architect of such conditions shall absolve the Architect from any responsibi lity for the consequences of such failure. Actions taken without the knowledge and consent of the Architect, or in contradiction to the Arc hitect's work product or recommendations shall become the responsibility not of the Architect, but of the parties taking said action.LIMITATION OF WARRANTY OF ARCHITECT'S WORK PRODUCT ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO.:ISSUE DESCRIPTION:NO.DATE:PROJECT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:1 2 3 4 5SCALE:P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T FO R C O N S T R U C T I O NThe use of all information be it drawn or written appearing herein shall be restricted to the original project site for which s aid information was prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reus e, reproduction, or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the written consent of Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture, PC. Title to the plans remains with Ruggles Mabe Terrell Architecture Architecture, PC without prejudice. Visual contac t with these plans shall const itute prima facie evidence of the acc eptance of said restrictions as they apply to the entirety of the information contained herein.2014 RUGGLES MABE TERRELL ARCHITECTURE, PC 6 7 8 9 1/2" = 1'-0"PERSPECTIVES A3.4229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET & 426 NORTH SECOND STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 2012.003.827 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10.22.2014 HPC CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 2 PE R S P E C T I V E - N O R T H W E S T C O R N E R 4 PE R S P E C T I V E - N O R T H E A S T C O R N E R 3 PE R S P E C T I V E - S O U T H E A S T C O R N E R 1 PE R S P E C T I V E - S O U T H W E S T C O R N E R P86 III.B. P 8 7 I I I . B . P88 III.B. P89 III.B. P90 III.B. P91 III.B. EXH19 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CO ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 22 C Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: C2Ck_S (6W P, .5"Wig rYJ ,20 f lam, STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ;einn�'C't , sc�n (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: , 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 •�- - -prgpa.i&U-&-mail to all owners of property within three hundred (3 00) feet of the �10251I7 TAy += ���y=si i 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 I 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 snap 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. s Signature The fore ing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowled ed before me this oP,day of Q , 201 J+,by PUBLIC NOTICE RE:229 NCEpTUAL WEST SMUGGLE R1426 N.SECOND- MAjOR WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL SITE RELOCATION,DEMOLITION AND DEVELOPMENT, M ANCES �-- ` NOTICE IS n Wednesday,GIVEN that a public hearing My commission expires: ?I l`�'L►'4 will be held on Wednesday,October 22,2014,at a _"t meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,in Council Chambers,City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen. HPC will consider an application submitted by 229 W.Smuggler LLC and 426 N.Second LLC,3509 L6k, 40=!nk Crescent Avenue,Dallas,TX,75205,represented Notary by Ruggles,Mahe,Terrel Architecture and Haas ub11C Land Planning,and affecting the property located at 229 W.Smuggler/426 N.Second,Units A and B, Second and Smuggler subdivision,City and Town- site of Aspen, Colorado, Parcel lD KAREN REED PATTERSON #2735-124-17-031 and-032. The applicant is re- NOTARY ARY PUBLIC questing approval to demolish the non-historic unit of this duplex structure,to move the existing Victo- rian house towards the northwest and make minor S yr modifications to it,and to build a new unit and ga- NOTARY�D#�9 • •2767 rage on the site. The applicant requests an east TACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE• I'W� sideyard setback reduction and a waiver of two !� i4� F 15,2016 on-site parking spaces. Variances from the Res`)LILATION m� denial Design Standards are also requested. For/ further information,contact Amy Simon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 130 S 1 amysimonl�c ryofasPen com. O,(970)429-2758, TERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED ChMa Chair,Asp n Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on October 2,2014 (10594x62) IFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 r p � i i r a I OA AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY/!•' 4/e, Zlla Al. 2t'd ,Aspen, CO SCHE LED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: t�G120- 22-1 , 20 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin // I, A7_C#-' —� �S r Ial)41 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: 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 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. 41AJ 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) ,411A 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, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments 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 fo e ��o��ing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this-'$ay of � 20 , by Flu i- 4Q--s WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL KAREN REED PATTERSON My commission expires: Tg NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID#19964002767 My Commission Expires February 15,2016 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 229 WEST SMUGGLER/426 N. SECOND- CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, ON-SITE RELOCATION,DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 22, 2014, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, in Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. HPC will consider an application submitted by 229 W. Smuggler LLC and 426 N. Second LLC, 3509 Crescent Avenue, Dallas, TX, 75205, represented by Ruggles, Mabe, Terrel Architecture and Haas Land Planning, and affecting the property located at 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. Second, Units A and B, Second and Smuggler Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, Parcel ID 42735-124-17-031 and -032. The applicant is requesting approval to demolish the non-historic unit of this duplex structure, to move the existing Victorian house towards the northwest and make minor modifications to it, and to build a new unit and garage on the site. The applicant requests an east sideyard setback reduction and a waiver of two on-site parking spaces. Variances from the Residential Design Standards are also requested. For further information, contact Amy Simon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2758, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. s/Jay.Maytin Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on October 2,2014 City of Aspen Account 212 WEST FRANCIS LLC 301 LAKE AVENUE LLC 310 WEST FRANCIS LLC 255 13TH AVE SOUTH#202 2385 NW EXECUTIVE CENTER DR#440 310 W FRANCIS ST NAPLES, FL 34102 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 ASPEN, CO 81611 322 SMUGGLER LLC ALLEN ASPEN RESIDENCE TRUST ARGON LLC 6120 SO YALE AVE#813 4545 POST OAK PL#101 533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL TULSA, OK 74136 HOUSTON,TX 77027 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS LLC ASPEN VALENTINE LLC BARNHART PAUL F JR 186 VAIL LN C/O GERSCHEL&CO 2121 SAGE RD#333 NORTH SALEM, NY 10560 600 MADISON AVE SUITE#1601 HOUSTON,TX 77056 NEW YORK, NY 10022 BRUNDIGE CHELSEA C CITY OF ASPEN CMML PROPERTIES LLC 1755 SNOWMASS CREEK RD 130 S GALENA ST 120 E 56TH ST#320 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10022 CONOVER CATHRINE M COTSEN 1985 TRUST FRANCIS AND SECOND ST LLC 1010 WISCONSIN AVE NW STE#550 12100 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 905 4545 POST OAK PLACE DR#144 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 HOUSTON,TX 77026 FULLERTON TRUST GREENBERG ASPEN LP 50% GREENBERG RONALD K TRUSTEE 50% 306 W FRANCIS ST #3 BRENTMOOR 230 S BEMISTON AVE#101 ASPEN, CO 81611 ST LOUIS, MO 63105 ST LOUIS, MO 631051907 HANSON LUCY C KINNEY FAMILY LP LAKE 206 LLC 1775 FIR ST 307 W. FRANCIS PO BOX 3337 PORT TOWNSEND,WA 98368 ASPEN, CO 81611 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 LAND TRUST LEWIS JONATHAN D REV TRUST MCMAHAN FAMILY TRUST 1650 TYSONS BLVD#900 414 N FIRST ST 201 OCEAN AVE 1606P MCLEAN,VA 22102 ASPEN, CO 81611 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 MCMANUS JAMES R MOORE DIANE PEARLSTONE ESTHER S 430 GRAND BAY DR#301 303 W FRANCIS PO BOX 8750 KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PHILLIPPE THOMAS E JR &SUSAN MARIE SAX JOEL SCHERMER LLOYD G& BETTY A 225 W SMUGGLER ST 303 W FRANCIS ST 210 LAKE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-1356 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1347 SCHIFF DAVID T SIERRA ADVISORS LP SMUGGLER 326 LLC 1177 AVE OF THE AMERICAS 42ND FL 333 LITTLE JOHN LN 10671 CHALON RD NEW YORK, NY 10036 HOUSTON,TX 77024 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 VICENZI GEORGE A TRUST PO BOX 2238 ASPEN, CO 81612 417/421 W. Hallam – Final Review Staff Memo 10/22/14 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 417/421 W. Hallam Street- Final Major Development, public hearing DATE: October 22, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The subject property is a duplex – half of which is designated a historic landmark. When the property was designated in 1992, there was a clerical error that listed the wrong half of the duplex as historic. In addition, almost all designated properties affect an entire site, not just a single unit. This applicant seeks to correct the error. In addition the applicant is interested in converting the duplex into a single family residence and requests approval to demolish non- historic additions, pick up the house to dig a basement, and to construct a large addition. Variances including setback variances, the 500 square feet FAR Bonus and Residential Design Standard variances are requested. On October 23, 2013 HPC conducted a worksession regarding this property. Conceptual approval was granted on July 23, 2014. City Council amended the landmark designation to include the entire parcel on September 22, 2014 (via Ordinance 27, Series of 2014). The final land use review for this project is Final Major Development. Staff recommends approval of Final Major Development with conditions. APPLICANT: David and Marcia Kaplan, represented by Derek Skalko of 1Friday Design Collaborative and Jake Bittner of Thomas Pheasant. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-33-007 and 2735-124-33-008. ADDRESS: 417 and 421 W. Hallam Avenue, Units A and B of the Hallam Street Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. ZONING: R-6 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) Major Development review 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 P92 III.C. 417/421 W. Hallam – Final Review Staff Memo 10/22/14 2 development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Conditions from Conceptual Review: The Resolution granting conceptual approval included a few conditions to be addressed in the Final Major Development application: 1.a. Continue to refine the restoration plan for the Victorian, specifically the details of the front porch. Staff Response: The applicant has provided more information on the front porch restoration. Staff is supportive of the simple design and finds that it is consistent with Design Guideline 6.5: 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts.  Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings.  Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate.  It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. Staff finds that condition of approval 1.a is met. 1.b Specify the foundation profile, material, and style for the historic home for review at Final Review. Staff Response: A brick foundation is proposed for the historic home. The profile and style is proposed to be specified during excavation in case there is evidence of the original material/profile. Staff finds that condition 1.b is met. Landscape: The application includes a detailed landscape plan on sheets L100, L700 and L801. The landscape plan includes a front walkway to the historic home and extensive planting in the front yard. The majority of the front yard has a perennial/ground cover mix. In addition, rows of bushes and plants are proposed. A low stone wall is proposed that defines a corner of the lot. Staff finds that the proposed walkway meets Guideline 1.9 and recommends that Staff and Monitor review and approve the proposed material for the proposed walkways and hardscape. Staff finds that the proposed stone wall is out of context with the landmark and recommends a restudy to meet Guidelines 1.3 and 1.4. A retaining wall does not seem necessary as there is no retaining wall currently onsite. P93 III.C. 417/421 W. Hallam – Final Review Staff Memo 10/22/14 3 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a “transparent” quality allowing views into the yard from the street.  A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature.  On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".)  A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building.  Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach.  Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally.  Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site.  Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth.  Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.  Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. Materials: A mix of wood, stone and glass are proposed materials for the new addition. The roof of the historic home is proposed to have wood shingles and the new addition is proposed to have lock seamed non-reflective grey metal. The front porch roof is flat and is proposed to have a copper roof. Generally Staff does not recommend copper roof material for historic landmarks, especially a modest landmark such as 417 W. Hallam. The flat roof will be virtually invisible from the right of way. Staff recommends that HPC decide whether copper material in this location is appropriate and if the copper should be treated to have a matte finish and meet Guidelin 11.7 and 11.8. Staff is supportive of the application and the style of the proposed materials and finds that they are consistent with the following Guidelines: 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally.  Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings.  If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish.  Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.  If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. P94 III.C. 417/421 W. Hallam – Final Review Staff Memo 10/22/14 4 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. Windows: Historic wood windows with interior storm windows are proposed for the historic landmark. Aluminum frame windows are proposed for the new addition. During the construction process Staff and Monitor shall work with the applicant to determine original openings in the landmark if possible. Staff is supportive of the different window materials as that further differentiate the old from new construction. Staff finds that the Guidelines below are met. 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. 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. Details: Simple architectural details are proposed for the new addition which compliments and highlights the historic resource. A site lighting plan was proposed as part of the landscape. Staff recommends that staff and monitor review and approve light fixtures and locations on the landmark and addition as part of building permit review. Staff also recommends that Staff and Monitor review and approve a front door for the historic landmark during building permit review. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.  Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. P95 III.C. 417/421 W. Hallam – Final Review Staff Memo 10/22/14 5 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally.  The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC.  All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.  Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted.  Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.  Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.  Do not wash an entire building facade in light.  Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings.  Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building.  Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged.  Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of-way. 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 variance, underlined area is not met in the proposal: P96 III.C. 417/421 W. Hallam – Final Review Staff Memo 10/22/14 6 3. Windows. a) Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. Staff Response: The purpose of this Standard is to prevent tall vertical windows that span between floors creating the illusion of a tall building and departing from the traditional residential development found in Aspen with a clear first and second floor. A glazed curtain wall is proposed behind the historic resource that includes windows in the “no window zone.” The glazing creates a very clean and simple backdrop for the historic resource. Staff recommends that HPC consider the “relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures” including the historic landmark when considering the variance request. _____________________________________________________________________________ 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 Final Major Development approval for the project proposed at 417/421 West Hallam Street with the following conditions: 1. Items for Staff and Monitor review and approval: a. A material mock up shall be provided on site prior to purchase and installation of materials: brick foundation and landscape pavers. b. The copper metal roof for the front porch shall be pre-treated to a matte finish. c. The window locations and sizes in the historic landmark shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor. d. Light fixtures and locations for the historic home and new addition shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor. e. Front door of the historic home shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor. f. The profile and style of the foundation shall be review and approved by Staff and monitor. 2. The landscape wall proposed at the front of the house is not approved. "No window zone" P97 III.C. 417/421 W. Hallam – Final Review Staff Memo 10/22/14 7 3. A Residential Design Standard variance is granted for Standard 26.410.040.D.3- windows between 9’ and 12’. 4. The project is required to meet all requirements for a single family home unless varied by the Historic Preservation Commission. The project is only allowed have one kitchen for a single family home. 5. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 417 and 421 West Hallam Street, Units A and B of the Hallam Street Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Exhibits: A. Relevant HPC Guidelines B. Application P98 III.C. 417/421 W. Hallam Street HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2014 Page 1 of 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL), FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 417 AND 421 WEST HALLAM STREET, UNITS A AND B OF THE HALLAM STREET CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-33-007 AND 2735-124-33-008 WHEREAS, the applicant, David and Marcia Kaplan, represented by 1 Friday Design Collaborative and Thomas Pheasant, requested HPC Major Development (Final) approval for the property located at 417 and 421 West Hallam Street, Units A and B of the Hallam Street Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2014 City Council approved Ordinance 27, Series of 2014 amending a clerical error regarding the landmark designation boundaries to include the entire parcel located at 417 and 421 West Hallam Street; and, WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, the HPC may grant a variance from the Residential Design Standards upon a find that: 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. P99 III.C. 417/421 W. Hallam Street HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2014 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated October 22, 2014, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval of the project with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 22, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and approved the project by a vote of _____________. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Final Major Development approval with the following conditions: 1. Items for Staff and Monitor review and approval: a. A material mock up shall be provided on site prior to purchase and installation of materials: brick foundation and landscape pavers. b. The copper metal roof for the front porch shall be pre-treated to a matte finish. c. The window locations and sizes in the historic landmark shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor. d. Light fixtures and locations for the historic home and new addition shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor. e. Front door of the historic home shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor. f. The profile and style of the foundation shall be review and approved by Staff and monitor. 2. The landscape wall proposed at the front of the house is not approved. 3. A Residential Design Standard variance is granted for Standard 26.410.040.D.3- windows between 9’ and 12’. 4. The project is required to meet all requirements for a single family home unless varied by the Historic Preservation Commission. The project is only allowed have one kitchen for a single family home. 5. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific P100 III.C. 417/421 W. Hallam Street HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2014 Page 3 of 3 development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 417 and 421 West Hallam Street, Units A and B of the Hallam Street Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of October, 2014. ______________________ Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit A: Approved site plan and elevations. P101 III.C. 417/421 W. Hallam – Final Design Review 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original.  Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered.  A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered.  Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a “transparent” quality allowing views into the yard from the street.  A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature.  On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".)  A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building.  Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach.  Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally.  Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context.  A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less transparent. A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six feet), but should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts.  Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on.  Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. P102 III.C.  This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond.  Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.  Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. Private Yard 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures.  The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs.  Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.  If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.  Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site.  Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth.  Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.  Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate.  Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size.  Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building.  It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. P103 III.C.  Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 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. P104 III.C. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance.  For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door.  Match the frame design and color of the primary door.  If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house.  A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.  A historic door from a similar building also may be considered.  Simple paneled doors were typical.  Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 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. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts.  Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings.  Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate.  It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. P105 III.C.  Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings.  If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish.  Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.  If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non- reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building.  A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish.  A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative.  Seams should be of a low profile.  A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 7.11 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof.  Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed creates a false impression of the building's original appearance, and is inappropriate. 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. 10.11 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. 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. P106 III.C. 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. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally.  The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC.  All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.  Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted.  Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.  Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.  Do not wash an entire building facade in light.  Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings.  Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building.  Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged.  Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of-way. _____________________________________________ P107 III.C.   DATE:13OCTOBER2014  POBox7928 Aspen,CO81612 T/970.309.0695 E/mail:derek@1friday.com  TO: Ms.SaraAdams,AICP;CityofAspenSeniorPlanner 130SouthGalenaStreet,ThirdFloor Aspen,Colorado81611 T/1.970.429.2778 E/sara.adams@cityofaspen.com  CC:File REF: 417 P108 III.C. setback. Should a variance for this situation be formally necessary, we will bring this to the attention of the HPC at the final hearing. 26.410.040 B. Building Form Per our conceptual approval, the building and mass is in accordance with the dimensions, massing, and heights consistent of the HPC approval. The topic of secondary mass does not apply to our historically designated property and proposed construction.  26.410.040 C. Parking, Garages & Carports The project as proposed has alley access and proposes all usage for vehicular elements via this aspect of the property. We have a one stall garage door being proposed for the project.  26.410.040 D. Building Elements 1. Street Oriented Entrance & Principle Window: Per the conceptual approval, the primary entrance of the home is proposed directly off of the front façade of the existing mining cottage. Distance offsets and door heights are in accordance with the RDS per the drawing submission provided. Although our front porch as proposed dimensionally varies from the set requisites of the RDS, we are re-creating the porch per the understood dimensions of the Sanborn Mapping Information and HPC Conceptual Approval. If a variance is required for this topic, we will make notation of this at the Final Hearing. We understand the principle window for the building as the west side proposed double hung window as existing on the historical mining cottage. 2. First Story Element: Being the historical mining cottage is a single story element situated as the primary mass along Hallam Street, we believe we are in compliance from this RDS. 3. A. We are requesting a Residential Design Standard Variance for proposed Street Facing Windows designed as a glazed curtainwall element/ area in the “No Window Zone” as defined per the RDS. The new proposed construction calls for a glazed wall that does contain windows between the 9’-12’ height area, and we are requesting a variance from RDS 26.410.040 D-3A accordingly. No exiting non orthogonal windows are existing on the mining cottage, nor are any non- orthogonal windows being proposed on the new construction along Hallam. We are in compliance with the lightwells as proposed and approved with our HPC Conceptual hearing. 26.410.40 E. Context 1. Materials A,B & C: Per the proposed design solution, the quality of the materials and detailing as proposed is consistent on all sides of the proposed construction. Materials are accurately represented as they would structurally indicate for visual consistency. Highly Reflective Materials are not proposed for the exterior material palette. 2. Inflection: Per the existing historical conditions of the site and HPC Conceptual Approval, we have maintained a single story massing elements for the initial 46’ of the proposed 417-421 West Hallam property. We believe we are in compliance with the inflection RDS requisite, but will request a formal variance from this if necessary at HPC Final.  417/421 W. Hallam – Aspen Historical Preservation Design Guideline Responses 1.1 – 1.17 Sections HPDG Section have been addressed by Ms. Christine Shine of Bluegreen, and the project responses can be found accordingly within Bluegreen’s letterhead to the HPC dated October 10th, 2014. Thank you. P109 III.C. 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. RE: Per Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (HPDG) Sections 3.4 -3.7, we are proposing the maintenance of the existing wood double hung window as indicated on the North Elevation of the home (West Hallam Orientation). For all new proposed windows not currently existing on the West and East facades, we are proposing to match the comparative rough opening size of the West Hallam window in a vertically oriented, painted wood, double-hung configuration. The exact locations of the windows to be determined upon a full demolition process to determine if any indication of historic locates are still definable. Determination of the specific window rough opening locations to be agreed upon per the staff and monitor process. We understand the importance of the historic window detailing, and agree to work with the window manufacturer, once selected, to represent, as closely as possible, the existing sash profiles and components comparative to the original window. In the case of the 417-421 Hallam residence, the existing window detailing is rather basic, and this can be achieved quite readily. Phoenix Windows and Loewen are of consideration as possible manufactures to ensure a consistent detail. Please Refer to Proposed Elevations sheets 8-9 of the 11x17 Issuance and the enlarged Elevations Sheets A3.01 & A3.02 for graphical information responding to HPDC Sections 3.4-3.7. 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. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. ‰ For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door. ‰ Match the frame design and color of the primary door. ‰ If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. ‰ A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. ‰ A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. ‰ Simple paneled doors were typical. ‰ Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. RE: Per Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (HPDG) Sections 4.1-4.5, we will be required to restore and physically- re-interpret the believed location and sizing of the front door per the Proposed Elevations sheets 8-9 of the 11x17 Issuance and the enlarged Elevations Sheets A3.01 & A3.02 responding to HPDC Sections 4.1-4.5. We have determined the size and location of the door in accordance with the known existing Sanborn mapping information available to us. Additionally, on page 13 of the 11 x 17 PDF packet, P110 III.C. a plan and elevation blown up detail of the proposed new front entry door and porch has been provided. Material callouts and finish are compatible with what would have occurred on the residence historically. 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. RE: Per Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (HPDG) Section 5.5, we will be required to restore and physically- re-interpret the believed location and sizing of the front porch and door conditions per the Proposed Elevations sheets 8-9 of the 11x17 Issuance and the enlarged Elevations Sheets A3.01 & A3.02 responding to HPDC Section 5.5. We have determined the size and location of the door in accordance with the known existing Sanborn mapping information available to us. Additionally, on page 13 of the 11 x 17 PDF packet, a plan and elevation blown up detail of the proposed new front entry door and porch has been provided. Material callouts and finish are compatible with what would have occurred on the residence historically per requirements of HPDG Section 5.5. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. ‰ Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. ‰ Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. ‰ It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. RE: Per Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (HPDG) Section 6.5, we will be required to restore and physically- re-interpret the believed location and sizing of the front porch and door conditions per the Proposed Elevations sheets 8-9 of the 11x17 Issuance and the enlarged Elevations Sheets A3.01 & A3.02 responding to HPDC Section 6.5. We are maintaining simplicity of the detailing as we believe is compatible with the original design intent of the property. For reference, on page 13 of the 11 x 17 PDF packet, a plan and elevation blown up detail of the proposed new front entry door and porch has been provided. Material callouts and finish are compatible with what would have occurred on the residence historically per requirements of HPDG Section 5.5. Although it is deemed acceptable to utilize salvaged parts, we intend to rebuild the porch as a new construction in this condition. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. ‰ Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. ‰ If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. ‰ Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. ‰ If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. ‰ A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. ‰ A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. ‰ Seams should be of a low profile. ‰ A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 7.11 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. ‰ Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed creates a false impression of the building's original appearance, and is inappropriate. RE: Per Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (HPDG) Sections 7.9-7.11, we are proposing to remove the existing standing seam metal roof condition of the historical mining cottage and replace with a more historically consistent stained cedar shingle of natural or earth tone colour. No reflectivity will be created via use of the proposed cedar shingle roofing in conjunction with a paint locked non-reflective metal flashing also of natural and earth tone basis. The roof as it is proposed to be constructed is shown per the P111 III.C. Proposed Elevations sheets 8-9 of the 11x17 Issuance and the enlarged Elevations Sheets A3.01 & A3.02 for graphical information responding to HPDC Sections 7.9-7.11. We are maintaining simplicity of the detailing regarding flashing and profiles as we believe is compatible with the original design intent of the property. Material callouts and finish are compatible with what would have occurred on the residence historically per requirements of HPDG Sections 7.9-7.11. 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. 10.11 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. RE: Per Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (HPDG) Sections 10.4-10.11, the addition has been proposed to clearly be recognized as a product of its own time period. Although the building does propose a departure from the mining cottage in the use of a 4” high random length stone as an accent material to the setback front façade of the new construction, we believe the use of the stone helps to assist in “anchoring” the extensive use of a proposed glazed curtain wall system across the predominant north and south facades as depicted on sheets 8-9 of the 11x17 Issuance and the enlarged Elevations Sheets A3.01 & A3.02 responding to HPDC Sections 10.4 – 10.11. We are maintaining simplicity in the detailing of the roof overhangs and painted wood siding found on the majority of the proposed addition. The sizing of the proposed rain screen detail is a direct response to the 4” traditional lapped siding that will be utilized upon the historical mining cottage, which, although being clear not to replicate the historical structure, is compatible with what would have occurred on the residence historically per requirements of HPDG Sections 10.4-10.11 when tying the mass and scale of the old and new together. For the roof material, the new proposed construction is to utilize a paint locked standing seam metal roofing condition that is intended to be of a natural and earth tone colour palette. The proposed metal roof will be finished in a non-reflective finish per the HPDG requisites. 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. 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. RE: Per Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (HPDG) Sections 11.7-11.10, the addition has been proposed to clearly be recognized as a product of its own time period while addressing comparative elements of the vernacular existing conditions via the form and scale of the volumes as approved via the conceptual approval process. In the new proposed construction, we believe proposing the north and south glazing facades as depicted on sheets 8-9 of the 11x17 Issuance and the enlarged Elevations Sheets A3.01 & A3.02 helps to further enhance the dialogue between the old and new constructions, as we are not mimicking or re-creating the visual language found within the mining cottage. We are maintaining a consistent simplicity through the new proposed construction in the detailing of the roof overhangs, the application and laying of the proposed stacked stone accent areas, and within the painted wood siding found on the majority of the proposed new construction. For example, the sizing of the proposed rain screen detail is a direct response to the 4” traditional lapped siding that will be utilized upon the historical mining cottage, which, although being clear not to replicate the historical structure, is compatible with what would have occurred on the residence historically per requirements of HPDG Sections 10.4-10.11. We believe this further ties the mass and scale of the old and new together while also providing a detailing P112 III.C. condition compatible to the human scale and consistent with the architectural traditions of Aspen’s West end vernacular, both old and new. For the roof material, the new proposed construction is to utilize a paint locked standing seam metal roofing condition intended to be of a natural and earth tone colour palette. The proposed metal roof will be finished in a non-reflective finish per the HPDG requisites. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. ‰ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. ‰ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. RE: Per Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (HPDG) Section 14.6, exterior light sources have been called out as proposed on pages 23-25 of the 11 x 17 packet issuance per Bluegreen. Wattage and lumen capacities are provided to show compliancy with the City of Aspen standards and guidelines. Architecturally, down lighting as required per code near all points of entry and egress will comply with the City of Aspen Exterior Lighting Code. No up lighting is called out for usage on the 417-421 West Hallam project. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. ‰ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. ‰ Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. ‰ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. ‰ Do not wash an entire building facade in light. ‰ Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. ‰ Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. RE: Per Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (HPDG) Section 14.7, exterior light sources have been called out as proposed on pages 23-25 of the 11 x 17 packet issuance per Bluegreen. Wattage and lumen capacities are provided to show compliancy with the City of Aspen standards and guidelines. Architecturally, down lighting as required per code near all points of entry and egress will comply with the City of Aspen Exterior Lighting Code. No up-lighting is called out for usage on the 417-421 West Hallam project. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. ‰ Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. ‰ Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of- way. RE: Per Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (HPDG) Section 14.8, we realize we are proposing a large amount of glazing to the north and south elevations of the project. In order to appropriately respond to the potential concerns of visual impact of light spill onto adjacent properties, we will be utilizing a combination of strategies to reduce the impact on the neighborhood. First, roll down opaque shading devices are anticipated to be incorporated into the design solution and utilized along the interior north and south facades in their entirety. We are proposing a 60%opacity at the present time. Additionally, the standard lighting parameters typical to the layout of a residence will be quantified via modeling numerically to ensure there are no great and unnecessary overages within the layout developments themselves. We internally desire a home that is comparatively 20% to 30% less than what is typically the standard recommendation of lumen output capacity. Lastly, all code requisites set forth by the Residential Design Standards and Land Use Code for the City of Aspen will be adhered to in accordance. We greatly appreciate your working through this process with us regarding 417-421 West Hallam, and we look forward to presenting and discussing all provided information to you in greater depth on October 22nd. We thank you for your consideration towards our proposal. Respectfully, Derek Skalko Local Representative, 417-421 West Hallam P113 III.C. p. 1 of 3 www.bluegreenaspen.com to Sara Adams—Historic Preservation Staff from Christine Poirier Shine date 10 October 2014 project name 417 + 421 W Hallam subject HPC Final Guidelines and Responses copy to project files The following memo responds to the Historic Preservation Guidelines Preservation Principles: x Respect the historic design character of the building x Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character of the building x Protect and maintain significant features and stylistic features and stylistic elements x Preserve and existing original site features and original building materials and features x Repair deteriorated historic features, and replace only those elements that cannot be repaired Streetscape and Lot Features: Fences 1.1 Preserve original fences x no existing fence exists on this site 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original x no record or evidence of original fence 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a “transparent” quality allowing views into the yard from the street x no record or evidence of original fence 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally x no fence/wall is located forward of historic resource x a low 30” freestanding wall is proposed and less than the HPC suggested 42” height x this stone wall is low to the ground and helps define the private yard x this wall allows views into the yard from the street and transitions from public to semi-private space x this contemporary interpretation of traditional fence is compatible of the historic context in both height (30”) and material (stone) memorandum P114 III.C. p. 2 of 3 www.bluegreenaspen.com x this 30” freestanding wall is consistent in scale and is consistent with traditional fences in that it is further complemented with plantings 1.5 A side yard fence which extends between two homes should be set back from the street facing façade x a 6’ privacy fence along the west side of the property and along the alley is proposed x the privacy fence is not located forward of the front façade of the mining cabin and provides a sense of open space between homes 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along alley should be compatible with historic context x The 6’ side yard and alley privacy fence incorporate details of interest/transparency, such as open vines and open slats Retaining walls 1.7 Preserve original retaining walls x no existing retaining walls on this site 1.8 Maintain the historical height of a retaining wall x not applicable Walkways 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project x public>semi-public>semi private>private transition is emphasized through the use of the low retaining wall and complementary planting; the planting is a layered approach, providing a variety of height transitions x the entry walkway is perpendicular from the street to the front entry x paving materials for pathways to be natural stone paving which is consistent with historic building style Private Yard 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures x the front yard will be maintained in a traditional manner with planting material and paving only for circulation; lighting is limited to safety 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs x all healthy trees on site will be preserved when possible, cottonwood street trees as well as a double stem willow are preserved o tree protection during construction will be implemented o replacement of damaged and unhealthy trees will be approved by the parks department o approved replacement trees will be large enough in scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs x no historically significant planting were observed on site x mature trees are preserved, where possible, in coordination with the Parks Department x historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways are limited on site, but will be preserved where possible P115 III.C. p. 3 of 3 www.bluegreenaspen.com 1.13 revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site x plant and tree material will be selected according to its mature size, to allow for long-term growth o use of non-native, hardy plants will be limited to small areas as accent plants o grassy areas will not be replaced with paving 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate x clear views to the mining cabin are maintained with the proposed planting x Views to the historic mining cabin are framed through thoughtful placement of vegetation Site Lighting 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting x all site lighting will be shielded and down directed and limited to walks and entries Streetscape 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features x low groundcover and perennials will be maintained along the planting strip x street trees are maintained where healthy and new street trees are added to reinforce the rhythm of the block as well as shade for pedestrians which is integral to the historic landscape features 1.17 Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an integral component of the streetscape x not applicable on this site P116 III.C. P 1 1 7 I I I . C . P 1 1 8 I I I . C . PROPOSED PLANS P 1 1 9 I I I . C . 6 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 9 3 4 " 2 ' - 2 3 4 " 1 9 ' - 0 3 4 " 4 6 ' - 8 1 2 " U P D O U B L E H E I G H T 4 7 ' - 0 1 4 " 1 7 ' - 9 1 2 " 2 4 ' - 1 1 2 " 1 0 ' - 1 1 2 " 1 L O W E R L E V E L P L A N S C A L E : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 12 3 S T A I R 00 1 F A M I L Y R O O M 00 2 BA T H 2 00 3 E X E R C I S E 0 0 4 O F F I C E 00 5 B E D R O O M 2 00 6 M E C H A N I C A L 00 5 B E D R O O M 2 00 5 B E D R O O M 2 00 5 B E D R O O M 2 00 2 BA T H 2 0 0 2 BA T H 2 1 9 ' - 0 1 4 " 1 ' - 6 " 2 2 ' - 0 " 2 3 ' - 6 1 4 " 2 ' - 5 1 2 " 1 4 ' - 4 " 1 ' - 0 " 2 8 ' - 1 1 " 4 ' - 2 1 4 " 1 1 ' - 2 3 4 " 5 ' - 7 1 4 " 3 6 ' - 3 " W E S T H A L L A M S T R E E T 4 ' - 9 1 2 " 4 ' - 7 1 2 " 3 ' - 9 1 4 " 1 9 ' - 1 1 3 4 " 1 0 ' - 9 1 2 " D A T E : S C A L E : C L I E N T : T I T L E : P L O T T E D : 1 0 - 0 9 - 2 0 1 4 P L A N 0 0 J T B 1 0 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 4 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN P 1 2 0 I I I . C . U P D N 2 ' - 0 " 1 8 ' - 1 0 " 4 7 ' - 3 " 2 3 ' - 8 " 3 3 ' - 1 1 " 7 ' - 3 3 4 " 4 7 ' - 2 " 8 ' - 9 1 4 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 3 6 ' - 6 " 2 0 ' - 2 3 4 " 5 ' - 5 " 1 0 ' - 8 1 2 " 1 2 ' - 1 1 1 4 " 1 8 ' - 0 1 4 " 1 4 ' - 9 1 2 " 10 1 E N T R Y G A L L E R Y 10 2 D I N I N G R O O M 10 3 L I N K 10 4 K I T C H E N 12 3 S T A I R 10 9 M U D / L A U N D R Y 10 7 M A S T E R B A T H 10 6 M A S T E R C L O S E T 1 0 5 M A S T E R B E D 1 1 0 G A R A G E 10 8 PO W D R 00 0 RO O M 00 0 R O O M 10 0 PO R C H 1 1 1 P A T I O 1 G R O U N D F L O O R P L A N S C A L E : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " U P U P 1 9 ' - 0 1 4 " 4 ' - 1 1 " 4 ' - 7 1 2 " 2 ' - 1 0 1 4 " 1 ' - 6 " 2 2 ' - 1 0 1 4 " 2 3 ' - 9 " 2 3 ' - 6 " 1 6 ' - 1 0 " 2 ' - 5 1 2 " 4 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 1 1 1 2 " 4 ' - 6 1 4 " 7 ' - 3 1 2 " 1 1 ' - 8 1 4 " D A T E : S C A L E : C L I E N T : T I T L E : P L O T T E D : 1 0 - 0 9 - 2 0 1 4 P L A N 0 1 J T B 1 0 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 4 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN P 1 2 1 I I I . C . D N 2 3 ' - 9 " 4 7 ' - 2 " 1 4 ' - 9 1 2 " 1 6 ' - 1 0 " 1 U P P E R F L O O R P L A N S C A L E : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 0 1 L I V I N G R O O M 20 2 K I T C H E N E T T E 20 3 S I T T I N G 2 0 5 PO W D R 20 4 C L O S E T 20 6 P A T I O 1 2 3 S T A I R W E S T H A L L A M S T R E E T D A T E : S C A L E : C L I E N T : T I T L E : P L O T T E D : 1 0 - 0 9 - 2 0 1 4 P L A N 0 2 J T B 1 0 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 4 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN P 1 2 2 I I I . C . PROPOSED ELEVATIONS P 1 2 3 I I I . C . (V.I.F.) 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" THIS ELEVATION IS ALL FIXED GLAZING T.O. F.F. Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.8 TOPO : V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 108'-8" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 118'-4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Upper Finish Floor Proposed Addition ELEV - 111'-4.75" T.O. Plate of Proposed Addition ELEV - 119'-11.25" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Proposed Addition ELEV - 126'-6" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 101'-4" T.O. F.F. Proposed Addition T.O. Plate Proposed Addition ELEV - 110'-0.5" T.O. Balcony Rail ELEV - 114'-6.25" METAL ROOFING; GREY FINISH TO MATCH STONE COLOR 4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3.5" w/ 1 2" REVEAL); WHITE 4" HIGH RANDOM LENGTH STONE WHITE PAINTED TRIM GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM CHANNEL REBUTTED RESQUARED CEDAR ROOF SHINGLE w/ 6" EXPOSURE PAINTED WOOD TRIM; WHITE WHITE PAINTED CLABOARD TO MATCH HISTORIC (+/-4") 4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING 4" HIGH RANDOM LENGTH STONE GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM CHANNEL WOOD WINDOW w/ INTERIOR STORM PANEL TO MATCH HISTORIC EXSTG UNIT PAINTED WOOD DOOR WITH GLASS LIGHT (V.I.F.) WINDOW LOCATIONS TBD PENDING DEMOLTION AND COORDINATION w/ HPC STAFF 4 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" T.O. F.F. Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.8 TOPO : V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 108'-8" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 118'-4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Upper Finish Floor Proposed Addition ELEV - 111'-4.75" T.O. Plate of Proposed Addition ELEV - 119'-11.25" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Proposed Addition ELEV - 126'-6" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 101'-4" T.O. F.F. Proposed Addition T.O. Plate Proposed Addition ELEV - 110'-0.5" T.O. Balcony Rail ELEV - 114'-6.25" 4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING; WHITE 4" HIGH RANDOM LENGTH STONE WHITE PAINTED TRIM GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM FRAME REBUTTED RESQUARED CEDAR ROOF SHINGLE w/ 6" EXPOSURE PAINTED WOOD TRIM; WHITE WHITE PAINTED CLABOARD TO MATCH HISTORIC (+/-4") GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM FRAME WOOD WINDOW w/ INTERIOR STORM PANEL TO MATCH HISTORIC EXSTG UNIT WEST HALLAM ALLEY DATE: SCALE:CLIENT: TITLE: PLOTTED:10-10-2014 NORTH+WEST ELEVATIONS JTB 10-10-2014 1/8"=1'-0" P 1 2 4 I I I . C . 417 W. HALLAM - HISTORIC MINERS COTTAGE (V.I.F.) 2 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" T.O. F.F. Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.8 TOPO : V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 108'-8" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 118'-4" (V.I.F.) T.O. Upper Finish Floor Proposed Addition ELEV - 111'-4.75" T.O. Plate of Proposed Addition ELEV - 119'-11.25" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Proposed Addition ELEV - 126'-6" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 101'-4" T.O. F.F. Proposed Addition T.O. Plate Proposed Addition ELEV - 110'-0.5" T.O. Balcony Rail ELEV - 114'-6.25" 4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING; WHITE 4" HIGH RANDOM LENGTH STONE WHITE PAINTED TRIM 2" WOOD SLAT RAIL: WHITE 4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING; WHITE REBUTTED RESQUARED CEDAR ROOF SHINGLE w/ 6" EXPOSURE PAINTED WOOD TRIM; WHITE WHITE PAINTED CLABOARD TO MATCH HISTORIC (+/-4") WOOD WINDOW w/ INTERIOR STORM PANEL TO MATCH HISTORIC EXSTG UNIT PAINTED WOOD DOOR WITH GLASS LIGHT GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM CHANNEL 4" HIGH RANDOM LENGTH STONE T.O. F.F. Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 100'-0" (V.I.F.) (ARCH -100'-0" = 7907.8 TOPO : V.I.F.) T.O. Plate Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 108'-8" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Historic Miners Cottage ELEV - 118'-4" (V.I.F.) 3 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" THIS PANEL SLIDES OPEN THIS PANEL SLIDES OPEN THIS PANEL SLIDES OPEN THIS PANEL SLIDES OPEN THIS PANEL SLIDES OPEN THIS PANEL SLIDES OPEN T.O. Upper Finish Floor Proposed Addition ELEV - 111'-4.75" T.O. Plate of Proposed Addition ELEV - 119'-11.25" (V.I.F.) T.O. Ridge Proposed Addition ELEV - 126'-6" (V.I.F.) ELEV - 101'-4" T.O. F.F. Proposed Addition T.O. Plate Proposed Addition ELEV - 110'-0.5" T.O. Balcony Rail ELEV - 114'-6.25" METAL ROOFING; GREY FINISH TO MATCH STONE COLOR 4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING; WHITE WHITE PAINTED TRIM GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM CHANNEL 4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING; WHITE 2" WOOD SLAT RAIL: WHITE GARAGE DOOR CLAD TO MATCH SIDING DETAIL WEST HALLAM ALLEY DATE: SCALE:CLIENT: TITLE: PLOTTED:10-09-2014 SOUTH+EAST ELEVATIONS JTB 10-10-2014 1/8"=1'-0" P 1 2 5 I I I . C . MATERIALS AND DETAILS P 1 2 6 I I I . C . PROPOSED MATERIAL PALLETTE DOORS FACING ALLEY TO HAVE GREY ANODIZED FRAMES AND MINIMAL SIGHTLINES. HISTORIC CABIN TO HAVE 4" PAINTED CLAPBOARD GLAZING ON PROPOSED ADDITION FACADE FACING W. HALLAM , AS WELL AS LINK ELEMENT, AND FRONT MASS BEHIND FEATURE WALL TO BE MINIMAL ALUMINUM FRAMES ANODIZED DARK GREY w/ MINIMAL SIGHTLINES FEATURE WALLS TO BE CLAD IN CONSITENT GREY TONED STONE IN 4" HIGH COURSES CONSITING OF RANDOM LENGTH "PLANKS" REAR PROPOSED ADDITION END WALLS TO BE CLAD IN PAINTED WOOD RAIN SCREEN WITH 4" COURSES ROOF OF HISTORIC CABIN TO HAVE REBUTTED RESQUARED CEDAR SHINGLES WITH 6" EXPOSURE ROOF OF PROPOSED REAR ADDITION TO HAVE LOCK SEAMED METAL ROOF IN DARK GREY COLOR P 1 2 7 I I I . C . GARAGE DOOR DETAIL SKETCH ILLUSTRATING GARAGE DOOR DETAIL TO MATCH WOOD SIDING IMAGE OF PROPOSED WOOD SIDING DETAIL AT PROPOSED REAR ADDITION; TO BE PAINTED WHITE P 1 2 8 I I I . C . P 1 2 9 I I I . C . ILLUSTRATIONS P 1 3 0 I I I . C . P 1 3 1 I I I . C . P 1 3 2 I I I . C . P 1 3 3 I I I . C . P 1 3 4 I I I . C . P 1 3 5 I I I . C . P 1 3 6 I I I . C . LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING P 1 3 7 I I I . C . P 1 3 8 I I I . C . P 1 3 9 I I I . C . P 1 4 0 I I I . C . P 1 4 1 I I I . C . P 1 4 2 I I I . C . P 1 4 3 I I I . C . EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE COD ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: !{I'1 -g— 4 2-i VJ • 4-bt vv-, S`' , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: tad Dc- 22 Q. 5:00 20j14L STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, 2 - (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: ✓ 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 ail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the LA02i377 '.q C) eilj ct to the development application. The names and addresses of t)(ltiStC�.ao::> props own s shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appebYb&ho r iore than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A r1t(ti.xt ri.i�td8�gg�4r i ��Y'�" iers and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. 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) i 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. Sign ure The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this .Z day of , 204,by 5=&44 PUBLIC NOTICE RE:417 AND 421 W.HALLAM STREET- FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing WITNESS W HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL will be held on Wednesday,October 22,2014,at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen . Historic Preservation Commission,in Council Chambers,City Hall, S.Galena St.,Aspen,to �' consider an application n s My by David&Mar- commission expires: �1 cia Kaplan,P.O.Box 7928,Aspen,CO 81612, y p owners of the property located at 417 and 421 ///��� West Hallam,Parcels &B of the Hallam Street �<�� Condominiums,City and Townsite of Aspen,PIO 11 A#2735-124-33-007 and-008. The applicant,repre- sented by Thomas Pheasant and 1 Friday Design, a �—�- requests a Final Major Development approval for a Not Public redevelopment of the site which includes Demoli- tion of non-historic construction,restoration of the original miner's cottage,and construction of a new addition. For further information,contact Sara Ad- ams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(970) Y PUBLIC 429-2778,sara.adams®cityofaspen.com. STATE NOTARY Chair,Asppn Historic Preservation Commission FTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: NOTARY ID#19964002767 Published in the Aspen Times on October 2,2014 1 My CommiSS'0n Expires Febwa 15,2016 (1059`29) BLICATION ry A t .rirn 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. §24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE Date: weu. Oct 22.2014 Time: 500 P m Place:ceunerf c.^.ambnrs City HaRIJU S Galena.Aspen Purpose: HPC s asked to conduct Fnal Akbm - qn Review for a redevelop— the Pad eny:nduding restoration of the hnnonc lw&vlark.pamal ' demntdaon,and new - --- ,vDmmetf. P O.Flax owners d this fudpagy For- Wormabon coruact__ t --Wn Dept,970-429-27 j :f r - t r lir+iv 417-421 West Hallam Notification Posting - Dated 10-7-2014 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1-117 — 1421 l,vEfr HA(.CAM ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: W ` Y , CXTcr33Ei2 ;-2ND ,20a STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, fiaR (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: 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—IN day of OCTC 3eF'2 , 2011 y, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. XMailing 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. 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) 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, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments 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 fore om' "Affidavit of Notice"was ac owled ed for this y t7 of , 20 ,by �?i e RCl (,C�c PS a, ANDREA PIA MOROTE WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC n,, STATE OF COLORADO My commission expires: �'I1 be(- Q�� a NOTARY ID 20134055079 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 06,2017 of b is ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • 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. §24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 417 AND 421 W.HALLAM STREET—FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 22, 2014, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, in Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena. St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by David & Marcia Kaplan, P.O. Box 7928, Aspen, CO 81612, owners of the property located at 417 and 421 West Hallam, Parcels A&B of the Hallam Street Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID #2735-124-33-007 and -008. The applicant, represented by Thomas Pheasant and 1 Friday Design, requests a Final Major Development approval for a redevelopment of the site which includes Demolition of non-historic construction, restoration of the original miner's cottage, and construction of a new addition. 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/Jay Maytin Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on October 2,2014 City of Aspen Account '318 FOURTH STREET LTD 323 W HALLAM LLC 330 WEST BLEEKER STREET LLC C/O GULF&BASCO 101 S MILL ST#200 PO BOX 2028 PO BOX 445 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 HOUSTON,TX 77001 501 WEST HALLAM LLC ASPEN DRAGONFLY PTNRS LLC ASPEN RETINA SURGEONS LLC PO BOX 3389 405 PARK AVE 6TH FLR 5014 WOODHURST LN VAIL, CO 81658 NEW YORK, NY 10022 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 BAILEY RYAN TANNER MCKENZIE TRST BLAICH ROBERT I TRUST BLANK JEFFREY C TRST 2 FBO 50% 319 N FOURTH ST 101 S MILL ST#200 BAKER&HOSTETLER LLP ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 303 E 17TH AVE#1100 DENVER, CO 80203 BLOCKER LAURA G CITY OF ASPEN COLLETT JOHN&VIRGINIA C PO BOX 9213 ATTN FINANCE DEPT 1111 METROPOLITAN AVE#700 ASPEN, CO 81612 130 S GALENA ST CHARLOTTE, NC 28204 ASPEN, CO 81611 DAHL W ROBERT&LESLIE A DH HALLAM LLC DOUBLE D CONDO ASSOC 83 PECKSLAND RD 2711 CENTERVILLE RD#400 300 W BLEEKER ST GREENWICH,CT 06831 WILMINGTON, DE 19808 ASPEN, CO 81611 DRATCH KATE TYCHER 2012 TRUST EGGLESTON ROBERT H JR&TRACY H FISCHER SISTIE ROSELAND PROPERTY CO/BARBARA 434 W HALLAM 442 W BLEEKER MASCERA ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 233 CANOE BROOK RD SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078 GALLANT MARILYN J REV TRUST GLENN SALLY RAE HENRY KRISTEN 309 N THIRD ST 504 W HALLAM AVE 525 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1246 HILLMAN TATNALL L REV TRUST HUDGENS ROBYN JANSS MARY TRUST 504 W BLEEKER ST PO BOX 570 403 W HALLAM ASPEN, CO 81611 RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 920670570 ASPEN, CO 81611 JOSEPH RUSSELL C&ELISE E KEEFE PATRICIA A&DAVID B III KEY R BRILL&ELIZABETH R 3257 INWOOD DR 3435 BELLCARO DR 715 W MAIN#304 HOUSTON,TX 77019 DENVER, CO 80209 ASPEN, CO 81611 KOUTSOUBOS TED A LEVINE THEODORE A TRUST MACDONALD BETTE S TRUST 430 E HYMAN AVE#PH 425 E 58TH ST#25H 15 BLACKMER RD ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10022 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 MAGGOS LAURA P MARION BRANDON&ANGELA NAMADA PARTNERS GP 317 NORTH 4TH ST PO BOX 8837 780 THIRD AVE, 22ND FL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10017 NEISSER JUDITH E QPRT POTVIN FAMILY TRUST SEAL MARK 132 E DELWARE PL#6201 320 W BLEEKER ST PO BOX 9213 CHICAGO, IL 606111428 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SIRKIN ALICIA STILWELL REED&CLAIRE SWANSON LUCIA TRUST 3500 N BAY HOMES DR 191 UNIVERSITY BLVD#714 425 E 58TH ST#25H MIAMI, FL 331336814 DENVER, CO 80206 NEVI/YORK, NY 10022 TEAGUE LEWIS TRUST TYCHER DANA 2012 TRUST WEST HALLAM LLC 862 N BEVERLY GLEN BLVD ROSELAND PROPERTY CO/BARBARA 2901 SW 149 AVE STE 400 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 MASCERA MIRAMAR, FL 33027 233 CANOE BROOK RD SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 10/22/14 Page 1 of 10 The memo below is from 9/10/14. The updated application includes different roof form studies for the new home as a response to Patrick’s comments. Staff supports the flat roof proposal that was discussed on September 10th. Minutes from the 9/10 meeting are attached. Staff recommends approval with conditions. 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 continued from July 9, 2014. DATE: October 22, 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, and FAR Bonus, are requested for the project. C Continuation from July 9th to August 6th: The project was continued on July 9, 2014 for a redesign of the new single family home to better relate to the historic home. Neighbors attended the meeting and voiced concerns about the parking situation and the front yard setback. A revised design for the new home was presented on the July 9th meeting and is included in the revised application for review on August 6th. The applicant has addressed the parking concerns by m eeting the parking requirement onsite. Staff has confirmed with the Engineering Department that 2 curb cuts are permitted for the property. Continuation from August 6th to September 10th: The project was continued on August 6, 2014 with direction to shift the two homes to the rear yard setback, to restudy the side deck on Figure 1: 28 Smuggler Grove current condition P144 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 10/22/14 Page 2 of 10 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, RELOCATION AND DEMOLITION the second story addition to the historic home, to possibly adjust the site plan, and to reduce the width of the second story addition to the historic home. Following are the applicant’s responses to HPC and neighbor concerns voiced on 8/6/14: 1. Setbacks: a. Historic home - the applicant has increased the front yard setback of the historic home by pushing the mass to the rear yard setback as requested by HPC and the neighbors. b. Requested setbacks are as follows: Historic Home: Front yard setback – 9’10” provided and 25’ required East sideyard setback – 9’ provided and 10’ required New Home: Front yard setback – 19’2 ½” provided and 25’ required West sideyard setback – 5’ provided and 10’ required 2. Historic home addition width: a. Further reduced to be 1’3” setback on the west and 6” setback from the east side of the historic home. 3. Side deck on addition to historic home is relocated to the rear of the addition. 4. Parking variance is no longer needed for the parking space width. 5. FAR Bonus request reduced from 500 sf to 276 sf requested bonus. BACKGROUND: The property was designated a historic landmark in 2008. The subject residence was moved to the Jukati Subdivision, specifically 28 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 plan of this building is atypical to traditional miner’s cabins in Aspen. Staff does not know where the home was originally sited; however during the designation hearing in 2008, Staff found a similar shaped building on the 1904 Sanborne Map that may be the subject residence in its original location. APPLICANT: Pagewood LLC, represented by Sara Upton and Brian Rubenstein 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. ZONING: R-15A Staff Response: 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- P145 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 10/22/14 Page 3 of 10 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 10’ long, which meets Guideline 10.7. Staff finds that the proposed height of the addition is appropriate and meets the guidelines below. The width of the addition is reduced from the original submittal with the addition and the historic home at the same width. Staff finds that the proposed width is appropriate and subservient to the historic home. Staff appreciates that the applicant relocated the second story deck to the rear yard to better meet the design guidelines. The roof form and overall style of the addition are simple, relate to the historic home and meet the guidelines below. P146 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 10/22/14 Page 4 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 has redesigned the new house to better relate to the historic home. The gable roof form (Guideline 11.6), front porch (Guideline 11.4), and the proposed setbacks for two story elements (Guideline 11.3) reference and compliment the historic home and meet the Design Guidelines. Staff finds that the proposed style does not imitate the historic home and is clearly a product of its own time. Staff voiced concerns on August 6th that the rooftop planter box adds unnecessary mass to the front façade and recommended that the applicant relocate the rooftop planter box for discussion during Final Review. The applicant has included renderings in the application showing that the planter box is barely visible from street level. Staff no longer has a concern about the planter box due to the large setback of the feature and its visibility from the street. P147 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 10/22/14 Page 5 of 10 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. 11.10 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: P148 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 10/22/14 Page 6 of 10 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. 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 P149 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 10/22/14 Page 7 of 10 VARIANCES: FAR BONUS, SETBACK VARIANCES, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES, PARKING WAIVER 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. 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 276 sf of the FAR bonus. The proposed FAR for the historic home is about 1,800 sf; and the proposed FAR for the new residence is about 2,102 sf. 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. P150 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 10/22/14 Page 8 of 10 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 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. The applicant proposes to replace the siding, windows, front porch, and store a historic relationship to grade. Staff finds that the review criteria a –f are met and recommends that HPC grant the 276 sf FAR bonus. 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 – 9’10” provided and 25’ required East sideyard setback – 9’ provided and 10’ required New Home: Front yard setback – 19’2 ½” provided and 25’ required West sideyard setback – 5’ provided and 10’ required P151 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 10/22/14 Page 9 of 10 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. 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, 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.B.4 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. P152 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. 10/22/14 Page 10 of 10 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. ____________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of non-historic additions is approved. 2. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following conditions: a. A letter demonstrating that the home can be relocated is in the Final Review application. b. A bond or letter of credit, or other form approved by the City Attorney, shall be submitted for $30,000 prior to issuance of a building permit for the relocation of the home. 3. The 276 sf FAR Bonus is granted. 4. The following variances are granted as shown on Exhibit A: Historic Home: Front yard setback – 9’10” provided and 25’ required East sideyard setback – 9’ provided and 10’ required New Home: Front yard setback – 19’2 ½” provided and 25’ required West sideyard setback – 5’ provided and 10’ required 5. A Residential Design Standard Variance is granted for building orientation, Section 26.410.040.A.1, as shown on Exhibit A. 6. 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. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines Exhibit B: 1904 Sanborne Map (provided on 7/9/14) Exhibit C: Minutes from 7/9/14 HPC meeting (provided on 8/6/14) Exhibit D: Application – revised for 10/22/14 Exhibit E: Minutes from 8/6/14 HPC meeting (provided on 9/10/14) Exhibit F: Minutes from 9/10/14 HPC meeting P153 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2014 Page 1 of 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION, DEMOLITION, FAR BONUS, AND VARIANCE APPROVALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 SMUGGLER GROVE RD., JUKATI SUBDIVISION, LOT 2, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2737-181-23-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Pagewood LLC, represented by Sara Upton and Brian Rubenstein of Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design, requested HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, FAR Bonus, and Variances approval for the property located at 28 Smuggler Grove Rd., Jukati Subdivision, Lot 2, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and WHEREAS, 28 Smuggler Grove Road is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to approve Relocation, according to Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property, it must be determined that: 1. It is considered a non-contributing 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 P154 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2014 Page 2 of 4 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; and 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; and WHEREAS, in order to approve Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080.A.4, Demolition of Designated Historic Properties, it must be determined that: 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; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.1.a, 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; and WHEREAS, in selected circumstances, pursuant to Section 26.415.110.F, 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: P155 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2014 Page 3 of 4 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. WHEREAS, the HPC may grant a variance from the Residential Design Standards upon a finding that: 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; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated September 10, 2014, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval of the project with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a meeting on October 22, 2014 continued from September 10, 2014, August 6, 2014 and July 9, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and approved the project by a vote of _______. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development approval, Variances, and a 276 square feet FAR Bonus with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of non-historic additions is approved. 2. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following conditions: a. A letter demonstrating that the home can be relocated is in the Final Review application. b. A bond or letter of credit, or other form approved by the City Attorney, shall be submitted for $30,000 prior to issuance of a building permit for the relocation of the home. 3. The 276 sf FAR Bonus is granted. 4. The following variances are granted as shown on Exhibit A: P156 III.D. 28 Smuggler Grove Rd. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2014 Page 4 of 4 Historic Home: Front yard setback – 9’10” provided and 25’ required East sideyard setback – 9’ provided and 10’ required New Home: Front yard setback – 19’2 ½” provided and 25’ required West sideyard setback – 5’ provided and 10’ required 5. A Residential Design Standard Variance is granted for building orientation, Section 26.410.040.A.1, as shown on Exhibit A. 6. 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 22nd day of October, 2014. ______________________ Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit A: Conceptually approved site plan and elevations. P157 III.D. 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. P158 III.D.  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. P159 III.D. 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. P160 III.D.  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. P161 III.D. 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. P162 III.D.  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. P163 III.D. 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. P164 III.D. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 1 Chairperson, Jay Maytin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Willis Pember, Patrick Sagal and Sallie Golden. John Whipple, Jim DeFrancia and Nora Berko were absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Patrick reminded the board that the intent of the historic preservation commission is to ensure the preservation of Aspen’s character as an historic mining town and early ski resort and cultural center. The guidelines should be applied as intended when we look at different applications. MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of August 27, 2014; second by Sallie. All in favor, motion carried. 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second (continue the public hearing to October 22nd MOTION: Jay moved to continue the public hearing until October 22nd; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. 28 Smuggler Grove Road Sallie recused herself. Debbie explained to the applicant that they need a 3-0 vote for approval. Sara said the biggest concern at the last hearing had to do with setbacks. There are new setbacks. The applicant has pushed as much mass as they can up against the ten foot utility easement at the back. They are providing 9 feet on the east and ten feet is required. For the new home the front yard setback is at 19’ 2 ½” and 25 feet is required. On the west five is being provided and ten required. In staff’s opinion we find that the review criteria for granting setback variances are met. This is a site that is wider than deep and there is a 25 foot setback requirement for this zone district. When this area was annexed with it came some funky zoning and it is zoned R-15A which has a generous front yard setback. Having the rear addition is more in line with the design guidelines than having a side addition. The site plan is P165 III.D. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 2 appropriate and does deserve the setback variances that they are requesting. The side deck has been eliminated from the historic home and relocated to the rear of the addition. They no longer need a parking variance and can accommodate all their parking onsite. They far bonus has been reduced from 500 to 276 square feet. The width of the addition to the historic home has been reduced slightly. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Exhibit I – one letter and one e-mail. Letter from Tom Whitehead and John Redmond. John Rowland, Sara Upton and Brian Rubenstein represented the owners. John Rowland asked Sara when this house was designated. Sara said this is a designated landmark and was designated in 2008. This house is not in its current location. John said there is talk that this lot is 20% smaller than the neighbors lots and how can you develop this. Sara said FAR is based on the percentage of your lot size. It is proportionate. John said we have a smaller lot and are building a smaller building. Sara said each case is looked at separately. Sara Upton said it was brought up to move the house back to the setback line or encroach and request a variance. There is a utility easement that exists in the back of this lot and it is impossible to build back there. The houses are placed approximately 11 feet back from the property line. The Engineering Department would not grant a permit for these structures if we could not either micropile and stabilize the excavation or lay the soil back. The houses are placed to the rear as far as is physically practical. The Engineering Department also said we could not get a permit for any construction in a utility easement. There was comment by staff that the front porches of these two houses should align within reason. The historic house has a porch that is set at 6.7 feet deep and the new porch is within four inches of each other. The planter on the balcony is set back 16 feet from the front façade of the house and is 39 feet back from the property line. The only place to see it is P166 III.D. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 3 from a neighbors second story window. There are 3 bedrooms in the historic home and four in the new home. The overall square footage that is above grade for these houses is 4,064. We feel our application is consistent in terms of the density that is being proposed onsite. John pointed out that they are surrounded on three sides with utility easements. Jay pointed out that because of the easement the footprint is smaller. Sara said the utility easement is not deducted from the lot area for determining floor area. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Lynn Carlson said she lives across the street at 63 Smuggler Road. I am very concerned about the setback. The current location of the home seems very close to our narrow street. They are proposing a 9’ 10” setback which is basically on top of the road. David Lockren, resident at Snyder Park. We share a common property line with this particular lot. We have been there 14 years and have experienced over the years with the people that live there when they have a party we get to share every conversation and music that comes out of that house. The neighborhood is very dense. Putting two houses on a lot that now has one both of which will have outdoor decks and have moved back to the property line is a concern. I’m most concerned with the roof top deck and loud parties making it really difficult for those of us who live less than 50 feet away to enjoy the quiet of our neighborhood. Maybe you can eliminate the roof top deck or put restrictions on what can occur on the roof top deck. The roof top decks are right across from our bedrooms. I understand that they are well in their rights to build these two buildings and all the things that have been worked out to make them fit better into the neighborhood is appreciated but the density is going to become a problem especially with outside decks elevated off ground. Greg McPherson said he owns half the duplex at 21 Smuggler Grove which is right from the proposed development. I live in a 1,025 square foot house. I see very little to do with preservation and a lot of maximizing of this lot and within that I see destruction of our neighborhood where we have people P167 III.D. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 4 living there full time. I see in this project the same thing that is happening in the West End where no one lives there anymore and there is no sense of family and community. By allowing this will effect everyone living on this street. I would like to see it smaller. Marty Ames said she lives at 23 Smuggler Grove. Marty said she likes the house and wants to see it preserved. Marty said it has been the setbacks that are an issue. Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public hearing. Jay asked what is the amount of square footage above ground for each home? Sara Upton said 2,335 for the new home and 1,762 for the historic home. On the historic home you could not raise up the mass until you get back to the addition and that is 60 feet back from the property line already. The mass is as big as it can possibly get. John said we are proposing two small homes that are in character with this neighborhood and in character with Aspen. Jay said the option of one home would have a side addition because of the setback constraints. John said it is 9’10” setback to the historic structure, however from that front yard setback all the way back to two story addition it is about 40 feet with is significant and respective to the historic resource. With regard to noise and party decks that is a lot of speculation and our city noise ordinance policies would take care of that. I see a lot of my colleagues moving back into the West End. The West End did go through a period of time when it was quite and that is changing. This town would benefit seeing more houses like these. Sara said you can review the deck at final regarding the size and if it is appropriate but HPC cannot review the use of the deck. Willis said HOA’s can address the use etc. It is not our charge. This street is small and funky. There are large homes on this street and the applicant P168 III.D. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 5 has done as best possible and has been here three times. They have nailed in securing the setbacks and are as compliant as they can be. Patrick thanked the applicant for the re-designing and thanked the neighbors for appearing at the meeting. The purpose and intent is to preserve Aspen’s character as an historic mining town and early skiing resort and cultural center. The applicant is close on mass and scale but the flat roof garage is more massive than it should be. I looked at guidelines11.5, 11.6 and 10.9 speaking to roof forms that should be gabled, hipped or shed. I would suggest strongly that the applicant slightly re-design it to a gabled or shed roof over the garage and I won’t vote for the flat roof. I also have a concern about the four foot variance for the stairs going into the side setback. Willis said 80% of the new structure has roof forms that are identical to the historic. Willis pointed out that the flat roof is isolated and we need to address the entire composition. Willis asked Patrick to reconsider. Patrick said if the flat roof was in the back or behind where it isn’t seen rather than out in front he would reconsider. Jay said 2/3rds of the flat roof is in the front of the building. If the roof was hipped you would then lose the planter. The flat roof is on the subservient side of the property from the historic resource. With a shed roof it would increase the mass. You have a hardship created by the utility easement. It is appropriate to bring the building forward because the mass coming forward is small, a one car garage. This part of town has no uniformity. At the last meeting it was clear that no one wanted cars parked on the street and the applicant has addressed that. It seems to me that the applicant has done everything to address the concerns that were brought up at the last two meetings. The envelope has gotten smaller and the buildings have moved back. I am completely sympathetic as to what could happen. Jay said he would support the application. Sara said guideline 11.6 says flat roofs should only be used in areas where it is appropriate to the context. Flat roofs are allowed in certain situations and we have found that the flat roof here is appropriate. It is also important to point out how the land use measures height for roofs. Flat roofs are measured to the top. If you have any sloping roof you are measuring to a 1/3 point or ½ point of that slope. You would need to understand changing the P169 III.D. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 6 roof form and what that does to the mass and how it would make it possibly look bigger. Patrick said he finds that gabled roofs even if the top is higher than a flat roof the appearance of mass and scale is less. Jay said with the flat roof some of the neighbors views would be protected. If you put a gable on you are taking away more views of Aspen Mountain from across the street. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #26 for 28 Smuggler Grove Road, second by Jay. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, no. Motion failed 2-1. John Rowland requested a continuation. John said he wished this topic would have come up at one of the first hearings. At the first hearing we had a flat roof. MOTION: Jay moved to continue the public hearing on 28 Smuggler Grove Road until October 22nd, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. 206 Lake Avenue – Special Review for Mechanical Units in Street Facing Yard, Public Hearing Sallie was seated. Don Carpenter represented the owner. Debbie reviewed the affidavit of publication and that portion of the public notice has been property provided. Debbie said Don Carpenter did not bring his public notice to the meeting. Debbie asked that the original be submitted to staff within 24 hours. Don said the affidavit asks whether or not the notices were sent. The notice posting was posted onsite on the 25th of August. The mailing occurred and there is a picture of the notice and a copy of the noticing addresses. Don said he will provide the original the next day. Sara said this review is for mechanical equipment in the front yard. HPC saw this project about a year ago and is currently under construction. They are picking up the two story house, digging a basement and putting it back P170 III.D. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 7 where it originally was located. They are doing some minor changes to additions that were made to the house. The property is also listed on the National Register. The application tonight is technical in nature. The applicant has some sight constraints on the property. They have a Hallam Bluff review area where they cannot develop into. The lot is a triangular shape. They are trying to figure out where to put their air conditioning units. They are proposing to put them under the wrap around front porch in the front yard. This is a technical variance that needs to happen in order to have the mechanical placed under the front porch. Staff is recommending approval because you cannot see the units and they do not impact the historic resource. We are also recommending that the lattice work that is beneath the wrap around porch match the historic photograph that has been provided to the board in the packet. In the application it is wood lattice work with brick columns between and staff feels strongly that the brick columns should not be there because they are a little too fancy as to what was historically there. Jay opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Don said the three condensing units would be under the wrap around deck and below grade. The units would be accessed through the stairs of the carriage house side of the property Don asked for consideration as his design team would prefer the brick columns because it is a continuation of the brick wainscoting that is going back in place and to tie into what is existing. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #26 with the two conditions; the units are approved in the location as shown on exhibit A. Reconstruct the lattice work to match the photograph. The brick columns are not approved. Motion second by Sallie. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 434 E. Cooper Ave. – Amendment to Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review and View plan Review, Public Hearing Jay said his wife has done business in the past with the applicant but not with this property. P171 III.D. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 8 Debbie asked Jay if he could be fair and impartial. Jay said he can be fair and objection. Debbie said the affidavit is in order and the applicant can proceed. Sara said this is an amendment to the conceptual approval that was granted in 2012 by HPC. The entire project is up for review. The applicant has added a two story element closest to the Red Onion building. A chamfered corner has been introduced which staff is supportive of and is consistent with what is happening in the historic district. In 2012 staff recommended bringing the second floor closer to the street so that it would be more consistent with what is downtown. This development is similar to 204 S. Galena. The applicant has pulled the two story element to the street façade but in the proposed location it will obscure the Red Onion as you are coming down Cooper Street. We appreciate that they added a two story element but in staff’s opinion it is in the wrong location. The building was in the view plane with the previous approval. This development will not further infringe on the view plane. Sara said there is the two story volume with the poster shop in between and the Red Onion. Before it was a one story with a setback. Charles Cunniffe, architect Council upheld the approval from HPC. There is a cutout in the alley for a transformer that has to be open to the sky. There is also a provision for a second means of egress and elevator to the second floor and basement that was not showed in the previous scheme. The trash and recycling also have to conform with the guidelines. The stair elevator is on the south west corner. The Red Onion addition is significantly set back and is visible. You wouldn’t be able to see the sign because of the trees etc. unless you get up close. There was public outcry to not have the corner obstructed and have it stepping back on the second floor. We are keeping the building low on the corner to protect the public space. The Guido and Paradise building are set back. The Independence building has a chamfered corner. The proposed chamfered corner interacts with the other existing buildings. On the materials we think it will be a redish sandstone approach. Sara has a concern that downtown will look a little too homogenized as this building is similar to the 204 S. Galena building. P172 III.D. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 9 Sallie asked Charles to explain how this building is different from the Gap building. Charles said this building will be in stone and the retail storefronts would be different. The building also steps down four feet along the sidewalk on Galena. The building has a different movement than at 204 S. Galena. The materials will be completely different and we would possibly use a linear brick. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Jay identified the issues: Two story element possibly blocking the Red Onion sign The Wedding Cake design of the building itself Chamfered Corner Willis commented that the Gap building is a perfectly fine structure and it looks great and is well done. I concur with staff’s comments about replicating the proposed building with a buffed stone version. The massing is a little “Pueblo” style. When walking down the mall your sights are blocked by the vegetation until you get right up to the building. I support the two story mass where it is proposed. Jay said when we approved this the setback second floor seemed very important to the public. It is inviting you into the mall and creating what I call the mouth of the river and it opens the mall up. The chamfered corner also opens the building up and helps people walk into the mall. The two story structure is helping to meet the center or middle of the block. This design is opening the view up to the Red Onion. Patrick said he likes the design. The “wedding cake design is appropriate because it does let more light in on the mall. The owner has done a great job to make the downtown as friendly to the public and fit the purpose and intent of our guidelines. Two stories to the street would not work. The open chamfered corner is appropriate. That corner is the center of life in Aspen. P173 III.D. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 10 Sallie pointed out that she likes the Gap building and the owner did a great job. On this building it needs to be unique so we don’t have similar buildings downtown. Willis pointed out that the mass and scale is the same as the Gap building. Charles said we are trying not to wonder to far from what was previously approved and at final we will handle the details. Mark Hunt, owner said the continuance is important to keep the conceptual moving forward. This design was done long ago and we understand the boards concerns. Sallie said it needs more a more contemporary take on the design. Jay said on the southeast corner it is appropriate to have the mass off the street. Patrick said he disagrees with Sallie and Willis. The majority of the people in Aspen want Aspen to remain an historic town. I would approve this design as presented. Mark Hunt said the Gap building would be a different building if there were three or four more feet on the top but the 28 foot height limit comes into play. Willis pointed out that the existing building represents a mark of diversity designed by Fritz Benedict with regard to historic development downtown with the wood framing. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 434 E. Cooper Avenue to January 28th, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sallie. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P174 III.D. Page 1 of 7 MEMORANDUM Project: 21374.00 Jukati Subject: Continuance Hearing – Description of changes Date: 13 October 2014 To: Sara Adams From: Rowland Broughton Architecture, Sara Upton Cc: Dear Sara, Please find attached our documents required for the submittal of a Major Development/ Conceptual Review, Continued Public Hearing, for the property located at 28 Smuggler Grove in Aspen, CO. Below is a brief chronology of this project’s involvement with HPC:  February 26, 2014: Worksession with HPC showing massing of two separate structures, one is the historic resource with a two story addition behind a linking element, and the other is a more modern new house with a gable roof facing the street. The proposal was generally well-received, and we received guidance to de- mass the new house to increase visibility of the historic resource.  April 4, 2014: Conceptual Review package submitted to HPC.  July 9, 2014: Conceptual Review hearing, with a recommendation to continue based on the lack of common elements between the two houses. The flat roof of the new house does not share any relationship with the historic resource. Much public concern was voiced regarding the parking waiver and the setback variance requests. The design requests a 500SF bonus for floor area. R+B submitted an alternate design for the new house based on feedback contained within the staff memo, but because the drawings were not submitted prior to the hearing, the board voted to continue.  August 6, 2014: Continued Conceptual Review hearing. The houses have been shifted back on the site, but the setback variances are still being requested. A fourth parking space has been added to the site, but a technical variance is still requested because the parking space does not meet the minimum width dimension. The bonus floor area is still being requested. Public comment is primarily focused on the setback variance requests, and the board votes to continue.  September 10, 2014: Continued Conceptual Review hearing. Four board members are present, and Sallie Golden must recuse. The board must vote unanimously to approve the project. The houses have moved further back on the site, and P175 III.D. Page 2 of 7 information is presented regarding the utility easement at the back of the site, and the decision to lay back the excavation as the solution that will push the houses as far back on the site as would be approved by the Engineering Department. The request for bonus floor area has been reduced by 274SF. Jay and Willis approve, but Patrick votes against the project because he does not feel that the flat roof over the garage of the new house is in keeping with the design guidelines. The public comment has diminished over time as the houses get pushed back further on the site. Unfortunately, the vote was 2-1.  October 22, 2014: Continued Conceptual Review hearing. In response to Patrick’s request to study different roof massing options, we are including a sheet of model views showing three different roof forms, but we are still in support of the design that was submitted for the September 10 hearing. The remainder of this memo is consistent with the information submitted for the September 10 hearing. As stated in our conceptual description, dated May 13, 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. Based on the staff memo and comments made during the public hearing on August 6, the following changes have been made to the design of the historic house and addition:  The historic house is being moved back on the lot in order to minimize the requested front setback variance. (Front setback variance requested from 25’ to 9’- 10”. The front of the house has been pushed back 2’-9” from what was presented at the continuation hearing on August 6.)  Staff has requested that the front porches of the two homes align, or are within 4” of each other. The front porch of the historic home is not original, and will be rebuilt to a precedented depth of 6’-7”, and using more historically accurate detailing than what exists today. The front faces of the two porches have been located 4” from each other.  The addition to the rear of the historic home has been further reduced in width to minimize the impact of the massing in relation to the historic resource. The west side of the addition is 1’-3” set back from the side of the historic home, and the east side of the addition is set 6” back from the east side of the historic home.  The second story deck on the west side of the house has been moved around to the rear of the home. The 10’-0” required separation between all elements of the historic building and the new home is being maintained along the entire length of the houses.  The connector separating the historic house from the addition is 10’-0”.  The house has been shifted as far as possible to the rear of the lot in order to accommodate a full 8’-6” wide parking space. This will eliminate the need for a technical parking space variance.  Both houses are pushed back on the lot as far as the Engineering Department will allow. The rear of the lot is bounded by a 10’ easement that cannot be developed P176 III.D. Page 3 of 7 below grade. This leaves us without the opportunity to micropile, because we are not able to leave the micropile rods in the ground once excavation is complete. The best method to excavate this area is to lay back the dig. If we are excavating 11’ down, we must place the houses at least 11’ back from the property line. Our site plan demonstrates that we are 11’-4 ½” from the property line, which will allow for any unforeseen existing conditions to be accounted for during the construction phase.  Between the two houses, the FAR has been reduced by more than 200SF since the last presentation. Based on the staff memo and comments made during the public hearing, the following changes have been made to the design of the new house:  We intend to stabilize the excavation along the west side of the lot through the use of micropiles. The micropile rods will be located along the line of the easement. The concrete cap that will hold the rods together will be removed from the utility easement upon completion of backfill. There is a requirement of 3’-4” of separation between the rods and the foundation of the house, so the house shrunk in the east- west dimension by 12” to allow for this relationship. This results in a reduced side setback variance request of 1’-4 5/8”.  The new house also shrunk in length in response to comments regarding encroachment into the front setback. The stair volume shrunk by 6”, and the back of the home shrunk by more than 12”. Overall, the front face of the house has moved back 1’-10 ½” to the south.  The roof deck has been retained, based on our exhibit that demonstrates the planter will not be visible from the street level, and therefore does not add to the overall bulk and mass of the front elevation. We are seeking a reduced square footage bonus of 276SF 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. 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 9’-10” 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 19’-2 1/2” from the front property line in order to give prominence to the historic resource. We are also requesting reduced 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. Our team spoke with concerned neighbors on August 28 regarding changes to the design, and explaining the major site constraints, in particular the rear easement that prevents P177 III.D. Page 4 of 7 development within it. In general the neighbors seemed to feel that the new design was an improvement, but stated that they would feel more comfortable with the homes being an additional 6’ back from the front property line, and that the overall proposal was still too dense for both the neighborhood and the lot. Please refer to comments from the applicant below, addressing some of the public concerns stated at the August 10 hearing: This is to address many of the objections to development made by the owner of 23 Smuggler Grove. Similar objections were raised by Mr. Michael Hoffman, the attorney for the owner of 23 Smuggler Grove as well as the owner of 43 Smuggler Grove. In response to such objections, the Applicant points out the following: The Applicant proposes redevelopment of the subject property consistent with properties in the area. Modest and reasonable variances are needed to accomplish this. The property is a Historic Landmark designated by the city of Aspen in 2008. That designation is not subject to debate or diminishment. The Applicant seeks to use the property in a manner that complies with all HPC guidelines while being respectful of neighborhood context. This is the only historic resource on Smuggler Grove. Its development and preservation is part of a citywide program that provides residents and visitors with insights into a significant period in Aspen’s history. Two detached residential structures are permitted as a matter of right for historic properties in R-15A Zone district (see 26.710.060 (B3) and (D2a)) with a minimum of 6,000 square feet (SF) of lot area. The property at 28 Smuggler Grove contains 7,378 SF of area, considerably larger than the minimum and thus amenable to a condominiumization which would still yield two acceptable and proportionate homes. This is the vision that led the Applicant to purchase the property. The Applicant does not envision any satisfactory single-family option for this property because it would require a side addition to the required connector that would visually compete with the historic house and be architecturally unappealing. As a consequence, the Applicant is requesting variances that will allow both the preservation of the resource and the simultaneous redevelopment of the property with two appropriate-scale single-family dwellings. P178 III.D. Page 5 of 7 Historic Homes line Park Avenue, 300 feet to the west of the subject property. THE VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR THIS PROJECT ARE REASONABLE AND ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED. The variances requested are very modest and consistent with existing setbacks and variances previously granted in the area, and would result in homes having a footprint that is not unlike those of existing homes in the neighborhood. Smuggler Grove was annexed to the city in1987.  In 2002, the non-historic property located 200 feet to the east of the subject at 73 Smuggler Grove was granted variances allowing for a 10 foot front yard setback (25’ required) and a 5 foot side yard setback (10’ required) for the principal dwelling and a 10 foot front yard setback (30’required) for an adjacent garage and accessory dwelling unit. The motivating factor for these variances was the combination of a shallow lot and the existence of an easement that ran through property.  In August of 2014, a variance was granted to Lot 1 East Meadow to accommodate a design request to move the new home to be built further back on the lot than would be allowed by zoning.  The immediate neighbor to the west (Lot 1 Jukati), has an address of 312 Midland, but has its long property dimension on Smuggler Grove. The two-story house is located only 10 feet off the lot line facing Smuggler Grove. Per design guidelines, this house should front Smuggler Grove and sit 25 feet back. The neighborhood of the subject property encompasses the messy vitality of Park and Midland Avenues as well as the immediate homes of Smuggler Grove. Characteristic of the area are the narrow road widths similar to those of Smuggler Grove. They all share a varying and often conflicting potpourri of development zoning. Since much of the area was annexed to the original town with homes already in place, much of that development, if built today, would not comply with current setback requirements. Eight lots exist on Smuggler Grove. Three of the lots, with parcel sizes ranging from 6,212 to 9,090 square feet, already have two residences per lot. One such lot is 23 Smuggler Grove. The other two are found at 43 and 73 Smuggler Grove. HARDSHIPS Seen below is a rendering of the footprint of the historic home, plus the mandatory 10-foot connector, that would fit inside the setbacks. Without any variances, the configuration of the existing single family historic structure plus the 10 foot connector needed to highlight the resource, which in this case leads to nowhere, would allow a single-level, one-story home with only 810 feet of FAR on the ground level (above grade). A second story is not permitted on the resource or the connector. P179 III.D. Page 6 of 7 If this parcel did not have an irregular-shaped one-story resource to preserve, these variances would not be needed. They are, however, necessary for reasonable development and use of the property. The lot size is not particularly deep (76 feet), and the fact that a very large part of the lot is occupied by the one story historic home leaves very little wiggle room when it comes to preserving the home and developing the property. The initial goal was, and remains, to create a relatively modest and livable space. The proposed design is the product of numerous discussions and meetings with HPC staff, meetings before the HPC board, and discussions with the public. Neither home could in any way be called a ‘McMansion’. The below rectangular area in orange is that area that is devoted to the resource and the 10 foot connector. It has a footprint of approximately 35 feet by 40 feet = 1,400 square feet. That same footprint without the resource, if relocated within the setbacks, would allow for 2,800 square feet of living space on two levels. Due to the resources’ irregular shape, and the requirement that it be only one story, it contains only 810 square feet of living space. This is less than one-third the amount of living space that an unencumbered property area would have. In essence the preservation of the historic resource directly affects or compromises 70% or about 2,000 square feet of the above grade development on site. These hardships make the variances sought reasonable and justifiable. It should also be noted that prior to redevelopment, the existing historic home already sits within the front setback by nine feet. The existing house, however, has a non-historic addition and no connector separating the addition from the historic home. The Applicant’s development plan will properly highlight the historic home, re-establishing the back wall of the original structure and using a 10’ connector to separate the addition. P180 III.D. Page 7 of 7 FRONT SETBACKS After development the new house (on the west side of the lot) will be further back from the street than the existing house. The historic home on the east side of the lot will be about 6 feet further forward than it is today. The entertainment areas of both homes are oriented to the back, so as not to disturb neighbors. One of the neighbors has argued that Smuggler Grove Road is a driveway and not a public street. We would point out that it also is a dead-end cul-de-sac with minimal traffic, so the logic for setbacks on streets with significant vehicular traffic does not apply here. Lot sizes on the street and adjacent areas to the west have more similarities with R-6 zoning than R-15A. R-6 zoning utilizes front yard setbacks of 10 feet rather than the R-15A overlay of the neighborhood with the large 25-foot setbacks. The lot adjacent to 28 Smuggler Grove borders R-6 zoning even though the lot sizes are about the same. To the immediate west of the subject is 312 Midland with a visually imposing streetscape dominated by a long, two- story wall only 10 feet back from Smuggler Grove. The proposal for the subject Historic Landmark at 28 Smuggler Grove has the mass broken into two detached homes with the following front setback characteristics:  The new house, setback 19 feet from the property line, is 9 feet further from Smuggler Grove Rd. than neighboring house at 312 Midland, and has only 140SF of its footprint (including portions of porch and garage) within the front setback  The closest point of the historic house is just less than 10 feet from the front lot line, which is the same as the house at 312 Midland, but the historic home has only a single story mass until the addition is reached at 49 feet back from the front lot line  The historic resource has only 190SF of front living area, plus 83SF of porch, within the setback  The main front entrance walls of both houses are behind the 25-foot setback line The Applicants believe that their prior proposal struck the best balance for all concerned, but have made a sincere effort to further reduce the already modest mass and push the homes as far back as possible. Beyond these changes, the livability and appeal of the homes are being compromised. As previously mentioned, there is no acceptable single-family option available using the historic house as the space and shape is too irregular. We believe what we have presented is not only modest but appropriate. We respectfully ask for approval to allow us to move forward with restoration and development of this historic property. We look forward to receiving your feedback at the HPC hearing on October 22. Best regards, Sara Boulet Upton Senior Project Manager Rowland + Broughton Architecture P181 III.D. P182 I I I . D . P183 I I I . D . P184 I I I . D . P185 I I I . D . P186 I I I . D . P187 I I I . D . P188 I I I . D . P189 I I I . D . P190 I I I . D . S C A L E : P R O P O S E D N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 A 4 . 1 L E V E L O N E T . O . P L Y 1 0 0 ' - 0 " L E V E L T W O T . O . P L Y 1 1 0 ' - 0 " 10'-0"9'-0" 28'-5 7/8" 9'-5 7/8" T . O . S L A B 9 0 ' - 0 " 10'-0" 10'-0" HORIZ O N T A L W O O D SIDINGSTONE V E N E E R STEEL C H A N N E L S C A L E : P R O P O S E D W E S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 A 4 . 1 10'-0"10'-0" 28'-5 7/8" 8'-5 7/8" T . O . S L A B 9 0 ' - 0 " STONE VENEER 10'-0" 10'-0" L E V E L O N E T . O . P L Y 1 0 0 ' - 0 " L E V E L T W O T . O . P L Y 1 1 0 ' - 0 " T . O . R O O F P L Y 1 2 0 ' - 0 " METAL SIDING METAL ROOF PLANTER A 4 . 1 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " N E W H O U S E P R O P O S E D E L E V A T I O N S File Path: P:\Proj-2013\21374.00_Jukati\Drawings\21374.10_New House\21374.10_A4-1.dwgPlot Date/Time: August 29, 2014 - 11:09 am C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 4 R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N . R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . C o n s u l t a n t s I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : S C A L E : 2 1 3 7 4 . 1 0 _ A 4 - 1 . d w g 2 8 S M U G G L E R G R O V E A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 7 4 1 8 3 0 b l a k e s t , s t e 2 0 0 d e n v e r , c o 8 0 2 0 2 3 0 3 . 3 0 8 . 1 3 7 3 o 3 0 3 . 3 0 8 . 1 3 7 5 f 2 3 4 e h o p k i n s a v e a s p e n , c o 8 1 6 1 1 9 7 0 . 5 4 4 . 9 0 0 6 o 9 7 0 . 5 4 4 . 3 4 7 3 f r o w l a n d + b r o u g h t o n a r c h i t e c t u r e / u r b a n d e s i g n / i n t e r i o r d e s i g n 0 1 - 1 5 - 2 0 1 4 H P C - M E E T I N G 0 1 - 2 0 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 1 - 2 1 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 2 - 1 7 - 2 0 1 4 H P C W O R K S E S S I O N 0 2 - 2 6 - 2 0 1 4 N E W H O U S E D E S I G N C H A N G E S 0 2 - 2 8 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 3 - 0 6 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 3 - 2 6 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 4 - 0 4 - 2 0 1 4 H P C M E M O R E S P O N S E 0 7 - 0 9 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N T . C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 8 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 8 - 2 1 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N T . C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 9 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 4 P191 I I I . D . 10'-0"9'-0" S C A L E : P R O P O S E D S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 A 4 . 2 28'-5 7/8" 9'-5 7/8" T . O . S L A B 9 0 ' - 0 " 10'-0" 10'-0" L E V E L O N E T . O . P L Y 1 0 0 ' - 0 " L E V E L T W O T . O . P L Y 1 1 0 ' - 0 " G L A S S R A I L I N G S T O N E V E N E E R M E T A L C A P T . O . P L A T E 1 1 9 ' - 0 " P L A N T E R B E Y O N D S T A I R T O R O O F D E C K 10'-0"11'-0" S C A L E : P R O P O S E D E A S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 A 4 . 2 28'-5 7/8" 7'-5 7/8" T . O . S L A B 9 0 ' - 0 " 10'-0" 10'-0" L E V E L O N E T . O . P L Y 1 0 0 ' - 0 " L E V E L T W O T . O . P L Y 1 1 0 ' - 0 " T . O . R O O F P L Y 1 2 1 ' - 0 " S T O N E V E N E E R M E T A L S I D I N G M E T A L R O O F A 4 . 2 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " N E W H O U S E P R O P O S E D E L E V A T I O N S File Path: P:\Proj-2013\21374.00_Jukati\Drawings\21374.10_New House\21374.10_A4-1.dwgPlot Date/Time: August 29, 2014 - 11:09 am C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 4 R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N . R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . C o n s u l t a n t s I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : S C A L E : 2 1 3 7 4 . 1 0 _ A 4 - 1 . d w g 2 8 S M U G G L E R G R O V E A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 7 4 1 8 3 0 b l a k e s t , s t e 2 0 0 d e n v e r , c o 8 0 2 0 2 3 0 3 . 3 0 8 . 1 3 7 3 o 3 0 3 . 3 0 8 . 1 3 7 5 f 2 3 4 e h o p k i n s a v e a s p e n , c o 8 1 6 1 1 9 7 0 . 5 4 4 . 9 0 0 6 o 9 7 0 . 5 4 4 . 3 4 7 3 f r o w l a n d + b r o u g h t o n a r c h i t e c t u r e / u r b a n d e s i g n / i n t e r i o r d e s i g n 0 1 - 1 5 - 2 0 1 4 H P C - M E E T I N G 0 1 - 2 0 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 1 - 2 1 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 2 - 1 7 - 2 0 1 4 H P C W O R K S E S S I O N 0 2 - 2 6 - 2 0 1 4 N E W H O U S E D E S I G N C H A N G E S 0 2 - 2 8 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 3 - 0 6 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 3 - 2 6 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 4 - 0 4 - 2 0 1 4 H P C M E M O R E S P O N S E 0 7 - 0 9 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N T . C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 8 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 8 - 2 1 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N T . C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 9 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 4 P192 I I I . D . P193 I I I . D . P194 I I I . D . P195 I I I . D . S C A L E : P R O P O S E D N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 A 4 . 1 T . O . P L Y L E V E L 1 1 0 0 ' - 0 " T . O . P L Y L E V E L 2 1 1 1 ' - 8 1 / 4 " 11'-0"3'-6 9/16" 28'-1 1/2" 10'-0" T . O . P L A T E 1 2 0 ' - 8 1 / 4 " 7'-5 1/4" T . O . H I S T O R I C B U I L D I N G 1 1 5 ' - 2 3 / 4 " 5'-5 7/16" T . O . S L A B 9 0 ' - 0 " T . O . G R A D E 9 9 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 8 1/4" R E P L A C E E X I S T I N G F A S C I A , B R A C K E T R Y A N D R A I L I N G W I T H A U T H E N T I C D E T A I L I N G T O B E A P P R O V E D B Y H P C P R O J E C T M O N I T O R R E P L A C E E X I S T I N G E N T R Y D O O R W I T H H I S T O R I C A L L Y A P P R O P R I A T E D E S I G N T O B E A P P R O V E D B Y H P C P R O J E C T M O N I T O R M E T A L R O O F S N O W F E N C E T . O . R I D G E 1 2 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " S C A L E : P R O P O S E D W E S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 A 4 . 1 10'-2 1/4"3'-6 9/16" 28'-1 1/2" 7'-5 1/4"5'-5 7/16" T . O . S L A B 9 0 ' - 0 " T . O . P L Y L E V E L 1 1 0 0 ' - 0 " T . O . H I S T O R I C B U I L D I N G 1 1 5 ' - 2 3 / 4 " T . O . P L Y L E V E L 2 1 1 1 ' - 8 1 / 4 " T . O . P L A T E 1 2 0 ' - 8 1 / 4 " T . O . G R A D E 9 9 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 8 1/4" F O U N D A T I O N B E L O W G R A D E W I N D O W W E L L S T O N E V E N E E R G U A R D R A I L D O R M E R B E Y O N D B R I C K V E N E E R H I S T O R I C A D D I T I O N S N O W F E N C E 10'-0" R O O F O N E T H I R D P O I N T 1 2 3 ' - 0 3 / 1 6 " S T E E L C H A N N E L W I N D O W W E L L T . O . R I D G E 1 2 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " A 4 . 1 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " H I S T O R I C H O U S E P R O P O S E D E L E V A T I O N S File Path: P:\Proj-2013\21374.00_Jukati\Drawings\21374.20_Historic House\21374.20_A4-1.dwgPlot Date/Time: August 29, 2014 - 11:57 am C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 4 R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N . R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . C o n s u l t a n t s I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : S C A L E : 2 1 3 7 4 . 2 0 _ A 4 - 1 . d w g 2 8 S M U G G L E R G R O V E A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 7 4 1 8 3 0 b l a k e s t , s t e 2 0 0 d e n v e r , c o 8 0 2 0 2 3 0 3 . 3 0 8 . 1 3 7 3 o 3 0 3 . 3 0 8 . 1 3 7 5 f 2 3 4 e h o p k i n s a v e a s p e n , c o 8 1 6 1 1 9 7 0 . 5 4 4 . 9 0 0 6 o 9 7 0 . 5 4 4 . 3 4 7 3 f r o w l a n d + b r o u g h t o n a r c h i t e c t u r e / u r b a n d e s i g n / i n t e r i o r d e s i g n 0 1 - 1 5 - 2 0 1 4 H P C - M E E T I N G 0 1 - 2 0 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 1 - 2 1 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 2 - 1 7 - 2 0 1 4 H P C W O R K S E S S I O N 0 2 - 2 6 - 2 0 1 4 N E W H O U S E D E S I G N C H A N G E S 0 2 - 2 8 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 3 - 0 6 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 3 - 2 6 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 4 - 0 4 - 2 0 1 4 H P C M E M O R E S P O N S E 0 7 - 0 9 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N T . C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 8 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 8 - 2 1 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N T . C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 9 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 4 P196 I I I . D . S C A L E : P R O P O S E D S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 A 4 . 2 11'-8 1/4"3'-6 9/16" 28'-1 1/2" 7'-5 1/4"5'-5 7/16"10'-0" T . O . S L A B 9 0 ' - 0 " T . O . P L A T E 1 2 0 ' - 8 1 / 4 " T . O . P L Y L E V E L 1 1 0 0 ' - 0 " T . O . P L Y L E V E L 2 1 1 1 ' - 8 1 / 4 " T . O . H I S T O R I C B U I L D I N G 1 1 5 ' - 2 3 / 4 " T . O . G R A D E 9 9 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 8 1/4" H O R I Z O N T A L W O O D S I D I N G G U A R D R A I L M E T A L I N F I L L P A N E L T O M A T C H W I N D O W C L A D D I N G , T Y P . F O U N D A T I O N B E L O W G R A D E M E T A L R O O F I N G S N O W F E N C E G U T T E R S T E E L C H A N N E L T . O . R I D G E 1 2 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " S T E E L C H A N N E L S C A L E : P R O P O S E D E A S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 A 4 . 2 7'-5 1/4" T . O . R I D G E 1 2 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 11'-8 1/4"3'-6 9/16" 28'-1 1/2" T . O . S L A B 9 0 ' - 0 " 5'-5 7/16"10'-0" T . O . P L A T E 1 2 0 ' - 8 1 / 4 " T . O . P L Y L E V E L 1 1 0 0 ' - 0 " T . O . P L Y L E V E L 2 1 1 1 ' - 8 1 / 4 " T . O . H I S T O R I C B U I L D I N G 1 1 5 ' - 2 3 / 4 " T . O . G R A D E 9 9 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 8 1/4" F O U N D A T I O N B E L O W G R A D E H O R I Z O N T A L W O O D S I D I N G B R I C K V E N E E R P A T I O H I S T O R I C A D D I T I O N F P V E N T G U T T E R S N O W F E N C E D O R M E R B E Y O N D HORIZONTA L W O O D SIDING O V E R F L O W S C U P P E R STONE VEN E E R R E P L A C E E X I S T I N G C A S E M E N T W I N D O W S W I T H W O O D D O U B L E H U N G W I N D O W S , T Y P . METAL INFI L L P A N E L T O MATCH WIN D O W CLADDING, T Y P . M E T A L I N F I L L P A N E L T O M A T C H W I N D O W C L A D D I N G , T Y P . STEEL CHA N N E L R O O F O N E T H I R D P O I N T 1 2 3 ' - 0 3 / 1 6 " A 4 . 2 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " H I S T O R I C H O U S E P R O P O S E D E L E V A T I O N S File Path: P:\Proj-2013\21374.00_Jukati\Drawings\21374.20_Historic House\21374.20_A4-1.dwgPlot Date/Time: August 29, 2014 - 11:57 am C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 4 R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N . R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . C o n s u l t a n t s I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : S C A L E : 2 1 3 7 4 . 2 0 _ A 4 - 1 . d w g 2 8 S M U G G L E R G R O V E A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 7 4 1 8 3 0 b l a k e s t , s t e 2 0 0 d e n v e r , c o 8 0 2 0 2 3 0 3 . 3 0 8 . 1 3 7 3 o 3 0 3 . 3 0 8 . 1 3 7 5 f 2 3 4 e h o p k i n s a v e a s p e n , c o 8 1 6 1 1 9 7 0 . 5 4 4 . 9 0 0 6 o 9 7 0 . 5 4 4 . 3 4 7 3 f r o w l a n d + b r o u g h t o n a r c h i t e c t u r e / u r b a n d e s i g n / i n t e r i o r d e s i g n 0 1 - 1 5 - 2 0 1 4 H P C - M E E T I N G 0 1 - 2 0 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 1 - 2 1 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 2 - 1 7 - 2 0 1 4 H P C W O R K S E S S I O N 0 2 - 2 6 - 2 0 1 4 N E W H O U S E D E S I G N C H A N G E S 0 2 - 2 8 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 3 - 0 6 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 3 - 2 6 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 4 - 0 4 - 2 0 1 4 H P C M E M O R E S P O N S E 0 7 - 0 9 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N T . C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 8 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 4 C L I E N T R E V I E W 0 8 - 2 1 - 2 0 1 4 H P C C O N T . C O N C E P T U A L R E V I E W 0 9 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 4 P197 I I I . D . EXHIBIT rowland+broughton e.hfc /when d—gn/infeiiar Oeslgn 234 a hopkkie eve 1830 Eleke It sb 200 Q open,m 81611 de—,-80202 544.9008 Q 970. 0 303.308.13730 970.544.3473 f 303.308.1375 f b b I Cgnsuhents -- HPC-2 — U/J HPC-2014 MEETING 01-20.2014 101- 4 21 REVIEW a CLIENT REVIEW I i a CLIENT REVIEW HPC W20RKSESSION 02-2&2014 - -- NEW HOUSE DESIGN CHANGES 03-06-2014 HISTORIC HOUSE NEW HOUSE HISTORIC HOUSE NEW HOUSE CLIENT REVIEW 03-2&2014 CLIENT REVIEW ROOF OPTION 1 0404-2914 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 07-032014 HPC MEMO RESPONSE 0&-05-2014 HPC CONT.CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 0&21-2014 CLIENT REVIEW 09-10.2014 HPC CONT.CONCEPTUAL REVIEW a a d 4b Fe& a o — a o JUKATI ' • ~� + o f� RESIDENCES a • `_- -- - - •W 28 SMUGGLER GROVE E .0 -- -- —"—" ASPEN, 0 81611 ��� a - -- � W 74 O 0 HISTORIC HOUSE NEW HOUSE HISTORIC HOUSE NEW HOUSE ROOF OPTION 2 ROOF OPTION 3 PROJECT NO: 21374 DWG FILE: 21374_A4-0.Cwg SHEET TITLE NEW HOUSE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SCALE:1/8"=1'-0" A4.0 of