Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20150114 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 14, 2015 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St. 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes 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 I. Submit public notice for agenda items III. OLD BUSINESS A. A. 232 East Bleeker, 5:10 Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Demolition of Existing Garage and Variances, PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 10TH IV. NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation ( 5 minutes ) Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes ) Applicant presentation ( 20 minutes ) Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes ) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) ( 5 minutes ) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes ) HPC discussion ( 15 minutes ) Motion ( 5 minutes ) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 1 of 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 232 E. Bleeker –Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Demolition of Existing Garage and Variances, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 14, 2015 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 232 E. Bleeker is a landmark designated 6,000 square foot corner lot with a Victorian era home and a more recently constructed garage on the site. The house appears to have originally been built as a one story log cabin, but by 1904, according to Sanborne Maps, it was a two story structure, close in form to the existing building. Planning office files indicate that at some point the original porch was removed. The existing porch, dormers, skylights, some of the decorative trim, and shutters were all added in the 1980s. The top right photo shows the house in 1980, the lower photo is from 2000. A new owner would like to add a second unit to the property. HPC is asked to review relocation of the Victorian, demolition of the garage, and Conceptual design for the dwelling to be added. Setback variances, a floor area bonus, and Residential Design Standards variances are requested. HPC reviewed this project on October 15 th and continued it for restudy of the design and variance requests. The project was reviewed again on Dec. 10 th and continued with a request that the applicant further develop the proposed materials and fenestration on the addition so that the board could better assess whether the floor area bonus criteria are adequately met. P1 III.A. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 2 of 12 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: 232 Bleeker LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-006. ADDRESS: 232 E. Bleeker Street, Lots R and S, Block 72, 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.” The existing Victorian has a footprint of approximately 1,200 square feet. There is a 300 square foot single stall garage along the alley. The 1904 Sanborn map is shown at the right. The garage, which the applicant represents was built in approximately the 1950s, does not appear on this Victorian era diagram. Instead there is an alley structure, now gone, in the northwest corner of the lot. When this project was submitted for review, there were two large cottonwoods in place along Bleeker which would need to be preserved as part of this project. The trees have since been determined to be hazardous and were removed. There is one P2 III.A. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 3 of 12 remaining cluster of cottonwoods along the Monarch property line which must be protected. The architect has designed the eastern side of the project to address the direction of the Parks Department. The applicant wishes to add a second unit on the site, creating a duplex. This is an option that is available to historic properties at least 6,000 square feet in size. Non-landmarked properties need a lot of at least 9,000 square feet to create a duplex. Duplexes have a larger allowed floor area than single family homes. In this case, developing a duplex allows 360 square feet more floor area than single family (3,600 square feet of floor area, vs. 3,240.) Duplex units must share a common unpierced wall of at least 10 feet in length. For landmarks, the abutting area is allowed to be above grade, or below grade. In addition to the increased floor area allowed for a duplex, the applicant requests a floor area bonus. Originally the request was for 500 square feet, but the request has been reduced to 448 square feet. Duplexes require four on-site parking spaces, where a single family home requires two. The project includes one garage parking space per home. Initially the applicant requested a waiver of the other two spaces, but the updated site plan fits two uncovered spaces along the alley. The existing driveway from Monarch Street to the garage will be removed. At the October meeting, the applicant proposed to move the Victorian house forward about 6’. The minimum front yard setback was provided, but the rear yard required a variance. In response to neighbor concerns, the proposal was revised so that the house moves forward a total of 10’, requiring a front setback variance, but with the rear yard setback met. This forward shift allowed the additional on-site parking mentioned above and may decrease some impacts on the alley. The east-west placement of the historic resource will remain approximately as it is. A one story, 10 foot long connector is proposed to link the Victorian to the new addition. The historic resource will continue to be accessed from Bleeker Street. The new unit accesses from Monarch. The project will meet the minimum setback of 5’ on each side, but will not meet the required combined sideyard setback of 15’. The floor area bonus and setback variance requests will be addressed according to their specific criteria below. In terms of Conceptual design review, staff has expressed concerns with the architectural relationship between the old and new construction, and has suggested that the units be detached, or that they be better related in form. However the board has indicated general support for the design and did not request any massing restudy at the last meeting. To the extent that the form (particularly the roof form) of the addition is a departure from the Victorian, staff would recommend a dialogue between the two eras of construction on this site be built with materials and fenestration. While this will be the focus of Final design review, some HPC members requested a “preview” of this aspect of the design in order to make a finding on P3 III.A. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 4 of 12 ON-SITE RELOCATION the required floor area bonus (addressed below). Staff’s guidance to the architect was that the materials and fenestration should maintain a contemporary approach, but perhaps include some “punched openings” surrounded by cladding (like the Victorian) particularly on the Monarch façade, and that windows and doors in general should be divided into components that are related to the proportions of windows and doors on the Victorian. Staff is not providing an assessment of the project’s compliance with the Final design review standards at this time since they are not applicable to Conceptual review. Our opinion is that the proposed materials and fenestration before HPC do not achieve the relationship that will be appropriate for Final review. A rain screen is proposed on the east façade. While this could be viewed as having a tie to the coursing created by clapboard siding, when it has been approved for other projects they have been gable roofed buildings that strongly tied to the historic resource in form. In this case, staff’s recommendation is that a somewhat more literal connection is needed and that in this case the new construction be primarily horizontal or vertical wood siding. The siding might be stained rather than painted. Aside from the rear addition, some modifications are proposed to the historic structure, particularly constructing a deck on a non-historic lean to addition at the northwest corner of the house. A dormer is also proposed in this area. These changes are acceptable since they are somewhat screened from the street. The applicant proposes restoration efforts, including removing non-historic trim and shutters, possibly reconstructing an ornate cap that originally topped the chimney stack, and reconfiguring the front porch to a more original design. Staff supports these actions. 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 P4 III.A. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 5 of 12 DEMOLITION 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. Before relocation is undertaken, the applicant will be required to provide a $30,000 letter of credit, cashier’s check, or other form acceptable to the City Attorney to insure the safe relocation of the house. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application, and the applicant shall include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit application. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage, which faces Monarch Street. It is the intent of the historic preservation ordinance to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. 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 P5 III.A. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 6 of 12 FLOOR AREA BONUS 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. Staff Response: Staff agrees that the garage is not original to the property. Staff finds that no documentation exists to demonstrate that the garage has historic significance, and that demolition will result in a loss of integrity to this building or adjacent buildings. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Staff Response: The applicant is requesting a 448 square foot floor area bonus. There are restoration plans indicated on the drawings for the historic resource. The HPC typically holds the floor area bonus to a high standard. On numerous occasions applicants have been required to go to great lengths to restore the historic home in order to grant the 500 sf FAR Bonus. For example, 202 N. Monarch completely restored the front porch, siding, and architectural details; 135 W. Hopkins Ave. rebuilt the front porch, restored siding, and restored windows; and 320 W. Hallam Ave. removed a dormer in the front facing gable end and restored the front porch. P6 III.A. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 7 of 12 SETBACK VARIANCES PARKING VARIANCE To earn a bonus, staff has recommended that porch reconstruction should be undertaken since the existing porch does not match the wraparound porch design shown on the Sanborn map. The applicant has included this work in their revised proposal. The applicant does not propose to remove two non-historic dormers on the east, street facing façade. Staff recommends this issue be looked at more carefully if the bonus will be granted. This is an important opportunity for HPC to accomplish restoration work to the greatest extent possible, particularly on street facing facades. Staff has previously stated concerns with the proposed design, though HPC has been in support of the massing and site plan. Staff has suggested award of a smaller bonus, but the applicant was not asked to restudy the size of the project. We believe that the materials and fenestration can be re-visited to meet the appropriate guidelines at Final. If HPC is comfortable proceeding with Conceptual approval, staff recommends the applicant be required to remove the non-historic dormers in order to best meet the floor area bonus criteria warranted by this size of bonus. 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: In many instances, a historic preservation project in Aspen includes the repositioning of a historic structure on a lot in order to physically distance it from new construction. The applicant proposes to move the historic house into the front yard, providing a 6’ setback rather than 10 feet. The proposed new addition meets the minimum side yards, but not the combined sideyard, providing a combined sideyard of 10’, rather than 15’. The project meets the rear yard setback requirement. Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures may provide fewer on-site parking spaces than required if the standards below are met. P7 III.A. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 8 of 12 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. And HPC must also find that: 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: This particular area has very high demand for on street parking. The applicant has adjusted the proposal to include four on-site spaces, so a variance is no longer needed. The project does not comply with the Secondary Mass design standard, which says: Secondary mass. 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. P8 III.A. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 9 of 12 A modification to the dimensions of the one story linking element could eliminate the need for a variance, or HPC could grant the variance, depending on the board’s position on the duplex units being attached above grade. The link is 23’9 wide. The maximum is 10.’ The project does not comply with the Building Element standards, which says: 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. First story element. 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. The feature that does not comply, the front porch, is a historic feature that should not be altered from the original design. Staff would recommend a variance. =============================================================== STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommended conditions of approval are: 1. HPC hereby allows demolition of the non-historic garage on the property. 2. HPC hereby grants a 448 square foot floor area bonus. 3. The applicant must accomplish the restoration work represented in the Conceptual application and must remove the two small non-historic dormers on the east side of the Victorian roof. 4. HPC hereby allows a front setback of 6’ rather than 10 feet and a combined sideyard of 10’, rather than 15’. 5. HPC hereby grants a waiver from the Residential Design Standards related to Secondary Mass and Building Elements. 6. For the temporary relocation of the Victorian house during basement excavation, the owner must provide a $30,000 letter of credit, cashier’s check, or other form acceptable to the City Attorney to insure the safe relocation of the house. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application, and the applicant shall include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit application. P9 III.A. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 10 of 12 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of January 14, 2015, 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 : Resolution #__, Series of 2015 Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Minutes from Oct. 14, 2014 and Draft minutes from Dec. 10, 2014 Exhibit C: Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 232 E. Bleeker Street, Conceptual review 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. The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. P10 III.A. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 11 of 12 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. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 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. 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. P11 III.A. HPC Review 1.14.15 232 E. Bleeker Page 12 of 12 The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. P12 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015 Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, ON-SITE RELOCATION, DEMOLITION AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 232 E. BLEEKER STREET, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 72, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2015 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-006 WHEREAS, the applicant, 232 Bleeker LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Demolition and Variances for the property located at 232 E. Bleeker Street, Lots R and S, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, for approval of Demolition, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.080.A, Demolition of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for a floor area bonus, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.1.a, Variances; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances to the Residential Design Standards according to Section 26.410.020.D; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on October 15th and December 10 th , 2014, and January 14, 2015. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the P13 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015 Page 2 of 2 proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Demolition and Variance approval for 232 E. Bleeker Street, Lots R and S, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby allows demolition of the non-historic garage on the property. 2. HPC hereby grants a 448 square foot floor area bonus. 3. The applicant must accomplish the restoration work represented in the Conceptual application and must remove the two small non-historic dormers on the east side of the Victorian roof. 4. HPC hereby allows a front setback of 6’ rather than 10 feet and a combined sideyard of 10’, rather than 15’. 5. HPC hereby grants a waiver from the Residential Design Standards related to Secondary Mass and Building Elements. 6. For the temporary relocation of the Victorian house during basement excavation, the owner must provide a $30,000 letter of credit, cashier’s check, or other form acceptable to the City Attorney to insure the safe relocation of the house. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application, and the applicant shall include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit application. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of January 14, 2015, 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 14th day of January, 2015. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ___________________________________ _____________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P14 III.A. Historical Preservation Commission October 15 2014 Roll Call: Nora,Jim, Willis,Jay present Motion to approve September 10' and 24th meeting—Jay—seconded Jim—All approved October 8th meeting cancelled) No Public Comment Commissioners Comments: Jay tendered his resignation. The 22"d of October will be his last meeting. He has moved outside of the City limits. Nora reported a conflict of interest on the 232 E. Bleeker conceptual application. She recused herself from the review. Old Business: A. Rubey Park—Detailed Planned Development Review, Final Major Development and Commercial Design Review Staff recommendations: Justin Barker recommended approval with conditions set out in his staff memo. see page 22 of packet) Applicant: John Krueger, COA, Sheri Sanzone, Bluegreen Gilbert Sanchez, Studio B Commissioner's comments: Willis questioned the roof drainage/snowmelt and color scheme. He wondered if the building was energy efficient. Norma asked whether the building would produce all its own energy. She questioned whether the maples were native trees. Jay asked about the vegetation on the roof and suggested aspen leaves for a pattern in the glass. He received clarification about the elimination of parking by Wagner Park. Public Comment: Bill Sterling commented about the impressive new building. He was questioning if this was the best location for the volume. He was concerned with the carbon footprint. A letter was submitted by the McDonald's regarding displeasure with the removal of the parking spaces. Jim moved to approve Resolution#29 with conditions to change the language in condition 3 from native species to "locally applicable species. Jay seconded the motion. The roll was called and there was a unanimous vote of yes. B. 301 Lake Ave- Final Major Development, Public Hearing, Staff recommendations: Amy Simon recommended approval with conditions as summarized on page 141 of the packet. Amy submitted a revised resolution and commented adding a condition to clarify waivers of Residential Design Standards. Applicant: Bill Boehringer represented the ownership. Derek Skalko of 1Friday Design and Sheri Sanzone of Bluegreen presented the project. P15 III.A. Public Comment: None The board asked for clarifications about the landscape plan,the proposed materials and the roof deck. Sheri Sanzone showed pictures of the existing landscape and explained that it is generally overgrown. She described the plan to retain a meadow character in the right-of-way area, with decks and hard surface elements low to the ground and close to the base of the house. Sheri explained the lighting plan and the proposal to install some up-lights around the base of the historic house. Derek described the proposed cold rolled steel that will be used as the siding on the addition, and the color that is intended. Willis Pember suggested that staff and monitor must review a sample of this material. Willis applauded the improvements to the project since Conceptual review. The board discussed the Residential Design Standards and agreed that a single garage door, as designed, is appropriate in this case. The board agreed that the windows on the addition ware appropriate. The board discussed the windows on the historic house. Derek Skalko described their current condition and suggested that the exsiting window frames may not be able to carry the weight of new insulated glass.The board will allow staff and monitor to decide the appropriate solution for windows and skylights on the historic building. Commissioners Comments: Jay moved to approve a revised Resolution#30 with additional conditions. 1)Staff and monitor to approve any replacement of existing mullions and frames for the windows and doors and skylights of original house. 2) Staff and monitor to approve rolled steel material for the addition. 3) Ground mounted up-lighting is more appropriate than attaching fixtures to the historic building in this case. The board supports approval of ground mounted fixtures.. Jim seconded motion. Roll Call: Nora-Y Jim-Y Willis-Y Jay-Y C. 232 East Bleeker—Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Demolition of Existing Garage and Variances. Staff recommendations: Amy Simon recommended a continuance as summarized on page 198. Staff has concernswith the size of the addition and the addition being connected to the historic house. The parking variance and floor area bonus should be restudied. Applicant: Bill Boehringer represented ownership. Kim Raymond is the architect. Kim described the project and the carious options the applicant has looked at regarding location for the historic house and roof shape for the addition. Kim showed a new site plan that fit a total of four parking spaces on the site, so that a parking variance would not be needed. Kim showed a number of examples of other projects in town, making comparisons to the 232 E. Bleeker Street proposal. P16 III.A. Public Comment: Howie Mallory stated the proposal was too large and the applicant should alter the design or withdraw the application. Linda Bump—See letter enclosed in packet on page 226. Linda reiterated Howie's displeasure with the design. Mirta Mallory was concerned about the alley variances and setbacks. She has concerns about snow in the alleyway and the location of the utilities. Phyllis Bronson was unhappy with the commission in general. Jim suggested a continuance. Willis also asked for a continuance and a request to remove the request for a setback variance for the alley. Jay stated the project needed more work and suggested a setback variance in the front not back. Jim moved to continue the meeting until the 19th of November 2014. Willis seconded and all approved the continuance. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P17 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 1 Vice-chair, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, John Whipple and Jim DeFrancia. Absent were Nora Berko and Sallie Golden. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistanst City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Jim moved to approve the minutes of November 19, 2014; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. 232 East Bleeker – Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Demolition of Existing Garage and Variances, Public Hearing, Cont’d from Oct. 15 th Amy said there was a review of this project in October. This is a 6,000 square foot lot with a Victorian Era home on it and a non-historic garage building. The application is to demolish the garage which staff supports. The applicant whiches to add onto the Victorian and move the building forward and putting a basement under the site. The project is converting the single family to a duplex and setback variances are being requested and a FAR bonus and RDS’s variances. The major change since October is that the house is being moved forward more so than the last presentation and the benefit is that the project now meets the rear yard setback requirements. The applicant can now provide the four parking spaces on the site. There had been large cottonwood in the front of the site and those have been taken down. A single family is allowed 3240 square feet and a duplex is allowed 3600 square feet. This is an additional 500 square feet because of doing a duplex on the site. On the corner sites everything is exposed to view and it really becomes a challenge to be sensitive and adding on appropriately in scale and architecturally and not to overwhelm the historic structure. Staff has suggested that the applicant detach the two units which allows more flexibility in the design of the new construction. If total detachment is not a good development model for them possibly the addition is linked to the house with a gabled roof form to speak more directly to the Victorian. Staff is in support of the reloction and demolition of the garage. The meet the side and rear setback requirements and do not meet the combined P18 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 2 requirement or the front requirement. In terms of the RDS’s they need two variances. The front porch does not meet the minimum requirement today and that should be waived because we do not want them to change the porch to meet today standards. They don’t meet the secondary mass requirement. They meet the connector in terms of length but it is too wide for the standard. The next issue is the FAR bonus and they already get 500 square feet because they are doing a duplex and with the requested 500 that puts it at 1,000 larger than the typical development for this site. Staff doesn’t feel this is the best use of the FAR bonus. The front porch is not original so there are opportunities to make improvemets and there is some detailing that can be removed. The applicant is considering constructing a unique flue vent that was on top of the chimney. There are definite ways that this Victorian could be highlighted. Putting so much square footage behind it makes it feel like it is taking away from the Victorian and it is not achieving the level of integrity that we look for in many other projects. Staff is recommending a restudy again and continuation of the project. Patrick asked about the duplex. Amy said the duplex is fine but adding more square footage and other things could be a problem. Kim Raymond, architect presented Kim said the porch is the only thing in the setback and it is four feet into the setback and the porch will be restored. After the discussion at the last meeting we chose the flat roof option because the gable is would be much larger. The gable roof would be 7 feet taller and it dwarfs the Victorian and the neighbors had a concern with it. The Victorian is the center of the property. We are asking that the link be wider. The link is 23 feet wide and 20 feet long. On the restoration the building has a lot of ginger bread in the gables and on the front porch which was added in the mid 80’d. That will be removed including the railing and we will leave the trim. Bill Boehringer, owner said the two letters of support have appreciated the elimination of the rear yard setback and the inclusing of the four onsite parking spaces. We were very sensitive how we developed around the historic resource. Kim said the porch roof will be brought back to its historic look and appearance. The secondary story elements between both the buidlings are roughly 19 feet apart. We have reduced the size and are asking for a 448 P19 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 3 square foot bonus. We did not pursue a detached duplex because we wanted the Victorian to stand out and there are issues with the cottonwood trees. Bill said when we bought this property the zoning allowed for a duplex as long as there is an historic asset on the property. We intend to restore the historic house to its integrity so that we could take advantage of the bonus. Our site coverage now is 48.9 and we are not exceeding the 50%. Amy said the combined setback is 10 feet and 15 is required. Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Exhibit I – two letters of support Willis identified the issues: Setback variances Floor Area bonuses RDS’s variances Changes to the porch Willis applauded the applicant for addressing the alley and the neighbors concerns. The variance in the front yard is warranted to achieve that goal. No one will be overwhelmed when walking down the sidewalk. The east and west variance is a modest request. Willis said he can support the variances as proposed. The RDS’s are also fine. The FAR is not progressively being pursued on this site. There is a significant setback at the eave height of the historic resource. The design standards 10.3,4,6 state that there should be distinction between the histories on the site and this buiding is a product of its own time. The applicant isn’t asking for a height variance. The windows are not similar enough and there is not enough information in the proposal about the materials other than to read it as a large mass. The windows and materials need restudied. Jim said he agrees about the set back bonuses and they are warranted. Jim said the flat roof is the way to go and it applies to the principle of not having the addition overwhelming the historic structure. Jim said he is not troubled by the proportions. P20 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 4 John said the setbacks make good sense and there is a healthy green belt in front. The RDS standards are in align with the project. When you look at Floor Area Bonus the new construction should be reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic buildings’s form, materials or openings. We don’t want two to look the same. I have some reserves about the patterning of the windows and the proportions. Since the neighbors like the flat roof form that seems to be the direction but it is hard to achieve the bonus. Fenestration is dealt with at final and the windows should be addressed at that time. Patrick agreed that the setbacks are adequate if we can require a separated sidewalk for public safety. The project is close and if things are moved around a little the bonus could be warranted. Since the two trees are gone possibly the historic resource could be moved to the center of the lot so that it is in front of the rear addition and the glass areas in the back won’t be visible from Monarch which would hide the second part of the duplex. Willis said the flat roof is the way to go in terms of mass. We need to know what materials are where and what colors. John said we are in charge of mass and scale and the bonus is on the table and part of the bonus criteria is that the new construction is reflective of the patterns, openings etc. The problem is championing the historic resource to the point that the bonus is 100% justified. Willis said new construction should be reflective of patterns found in historic materials nad openings. You can’t talk about mass without understanding the materials at the same time. Materials reflect the readings of the mass and scale. The FAR bonus has to come first before they go to final. The project doesn’t seem close enough the way the mass reads right now. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 232 E. Bleeker to January 14 th ; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. P21 III.A. Scale: ISSUE H I S T O R I C   M O D E R N   D U P L E X 2 3 2 E A S T B L E E K E R A V E N U E A S P E N , C O /Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/232 BLEEKER/ PLNS/232 BLEEKER 1.4.15.pln HPC 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. AS NOTED DATE 7/23/14 A 1.0 1/5/15 S I T E P L A N w w w . K i m R a y m o n d A r c h i t e c t s . c o m t e l   9 7 0 - ­ ‐ 9 2 5 - ­ ‐ 2 2 5 2     e m a i l   k i m @ k r a i . u s HPC FAR PARKING12/3/14 HPC MATERIALS1/6/15 W 2 6 W 2 5 W 3 7 W 3 6 W 3 5 W 3 3 W 3 2 W 3 1 W 3 0 W 3 4 W2 8 W2 7 08 W 2 2 W 2 3 W1 3 W1 0 05 0 7 W 2 4 07 07 W2 9 07 0 7 05 03 07 07 06 0 6 0 3 0 3 04 04 0 6 W 3 8 0 5 A A B B 2 2 1 1 4 4 1 . 7 1. 7 A A C C 3 1 / 2 " 4' - 7 " 15 ' - 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 2' - 2 " 1 6 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 5' - 3 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 1' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 1 8 ' - 1 " 8 ' - 6 " 5 9 ' - 1 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 9 " 1 0 ' - 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 9 " 1' - 3 " 4 ' - 0 " 4 1 / 2 " 1 ' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 7 1 / 2 " 6' - 5 " 5 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 7 1 / 4 " 3 1 / 2 " 6' - 8 1 / 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 12 ' - 1 1 " 5 1 / 2 " C O T T O N W O O D 11 " D I A . 11 ' D I A . D . L . V I C T O R I A N G A R A G E M O D E R N G A R A G E PO W D E R M A S T E R B E D R O O M E N T R Y EN T R Y E N T R Y P O R C H P A T I O K I T C H E N L I V I N G R O O M MA S T E R BA T H ST E A M SH O W E R TU B F P A N D T V DO W N 2 S T E P S CU B B I E S BE N C H EN T R Y P O R C H B L O C K 7 2 A L L E Y CO T T O N W O O D 27 " D I A . 25 ' D I A . D . L . CO T T O N W O O D 46 " D I A . 28 ' D I A . D . L . CO T T O N W O O D 38 " D I A . 22 ' D I A . D . L . B L E E K E R S T R E E T M O N A R C H S T R E E T 10 ' F R O N T Y A R D S E T B A C K 5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K P R O P E R T Y L I N E C L O S E T S K Y L I G H T F O R R O O M B E L O W GL A S S R A I L I N G MA S T E R P A T I O CO A T S E N T R Y W A L K BU F F E T OP E N T R E A D S AN D R I S E R S EX I S T I N G C O N C R E T E D R I V E W A Y T O B E R E M O V E D S I N G L E S T O R Y L I N K MA I N L E V E L 1 0 0 ' - 0 " = SI T E 7 8 9 7 . 7 T. O . P L Y E N T R Y L E V E L 10 1 ' - 0 " D O W N U P PI V O T D O O R UP T. O . P L Y M A I N L E V E L 10 0 ' - 0 " DO W N W O O D P A N E L C L O S E T W I T H ' H I D D E N ' D O O R S OP E N R I S E R S LA N D I N G PO W D E R CU B B I E S op e n to ab o v e M A I N L E V E L 1 0 0 ' - 0 " = SI T E 7 8 9 7 . 7 MA S T E R C L O S E T F P A N D T V P A R K I N G SP A C E 1 8 . 5 ' X 1 8 ' P A R K I N G SP A C E 4 8 . 5 ' X 1 8 ' PA R K I N G S P A C E 3 P A R K I N G S P A C E 2 5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 5' R E A R Y A R D S E T B A C K CU B B I E S PA N T R Y B R O O M W E L L W / CU R B EN T R Y L E V E L 10 1 ' - 0 " = SH R U B S 2 5 5 s q f t 3 3 1 3 1 3 P 2 2 I I I . A . Scale: ISSUE H I S T O R I C   M O D E R N   D U P L E X 2 3 2 E A S T B L E E K E R A V E N U E A S P E N , C O /Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/232 BLEEKER/ PLNS/232 BLEEKER 1.4.15.pln HPC 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. AS NOTED DATE 7/23/14 A 2.1 1/5/15 L O W E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N w w w . K i m R a y m o n d A r c h i t e c t s . c o m t e l   9 7 0 - ­ ‐ 9 2 5 - ­ ‐ 2 2 5 2     e m a i l   k i m @ k r a i . u s HPC FAR PARKING12/3/14 HPC MATERIALS1/6/15 1 1 11 12 13 14 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 W 5 W 4 W 6 W 7 W 8 11 11 11 11 09 10 1 2 12 13 12 1 0 10 12 1 1 W1 W 2 W 3 11 A A B B 2 2 1 1 4 4 W D W D 1 . 7 1. 7 A A C C 4 ' - 9 " 8 " 3 4 ' - 1 / 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 3 0 ' - 1 0 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 2 3 / 4 " 9 1 / 2 " 9 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 1 " 5 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 1 " 3 1 / 2 " 2' - 4 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 7 ' - 6 " 9 1 / 2 " 1' - 7 " 4 ' - 9 " 4 ' - 9 " 3 ' - 1 0 " 5 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 9 " 5' - 5 " 3 1 / 2 " 1' - 8 1 / 4 " 9 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 3 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 4 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 4 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 7 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 1 0 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 2 3 / 4 " 9 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 1 1 " 8" 4' - 9 " 8" 9 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 4' - 3 3 / 4 " 3 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 3 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 4 " 3 ' - 1 0 " 5 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 1 " 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 8 " 3 1 / 2 " 4 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 7 1 / 2 " L A U N D R Y F A M I L Y R O O M M E C H . G U E S T S U I T E B E D R O O M 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 1 B E D R O O M 2 G U E S T S U I T E FA M I L Y R O O M LA U N D R Y S T O R A G E M E C H . C L O S . CL G H E I G H T 9 ' - 7 1 / 2 " CL O S . C L O S . C L O S . C L O S . F I R E P L A C E A N D T V FI R E P L A C E A N D T V B A R B A R T . O . S L A B L O W E R L E V E L 90 ' - 0 " UP DO W N LA N D I N G LI N E O F E X T E R I O R W A L L A B O V E L I N E O F E X T E R I O R W A L L A B O V E B A T H 1 B A T H 2 B A T H G S B A T H G S FA M I L Y B A T H B A T H 1 BA T H 2 P O W D E R 3 3 P 2 3 I I I . A . Scale: ISSUE H I S T O R I C   M O D E R N   D U P L E X 2 3 2 E A S T B L E E K E R A V E N U E A S P E N , C O /Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/232 BLEEKER/ PLNS/232 BLEEKER 1.4.15.pln HPC 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. AS NOTED DATE 7/23/14 A 2.2 1/5/15 M A I N L E V E L F L O O R P L A N w w w . K i m R a y m o n d A r c h i t e c t s . c o m t e l   9 7 0 - ­ ‐ 9 2 5 - ­ ‐ 2 2 5 2     e m a i l   k i m @ k r a i . u s HPC FAR PARKING12/3/14 HPC MATERIALS1/6/15 W 2 6 W 2 5 W 3 7 W 3 6 W 3 5 W 3 3 W 3 2 W 3 1 W 3 0 W 3 4 W2 8 W2 7 08 W 2 2 W 2 3 W1 3 W1 0 05 0 7 W 2 4 07 07 W2 9 07 0 7 05 03 07 07 06 0 6 0 3 0 3 04 04 0 6 W 3 8 0 5 A A B B 2 2 1 1 4 4 1 . 7 1. 7 F A A C C 5 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 4 3 / 4 " 7 1 / 2 " 13 ' - 7 " 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 9 " 5 1 / 2 " 2 0 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 1 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 2 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 2 " 3 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 0 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 2 ' - 2 " 1 6 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 5 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 4 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 9 " 1 ' - 3 " 4 ' - 0 " 4 1 / 2 " 1 ' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 7 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 5 " 5 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 7 1 / 4 " 3 1 / 2 " 6' - 8 1 / 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 12 ' - 1 1 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 ' - 0 " V I C T O R I A N G A R A G E M O D E R N G A R A G E P O W D E R M A S T E R B E D R O O M E N T R Y E N T R Y E N T R Y P O R C H P A T I O K I T C H E N LI V I N G R O O M M A S T E R B A T H S T E A M S H O W E R TU B F P A N D T V DO W N 2 S T E P S CU B B I E S BE N C H E N T R Y P O R C H C L O S E T S K Y L I G H T F O R R O O M B E L O W GL A S S R A I L I N G M A S T E R P A T I O C O A T S E N T R Y W A L K BU F F E T O P E N T R E A D S A N D R I S E R S E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E D R I V E W A Y T O B E R E M O V E D S I N G L E S T O R Y L I N K MA I N L E V E L 1 0 0 ' - 0 " = SI T E 7 8 9 7 . 7 D O W N U P PI V O T D O O R UP T. O . P L Y M A I N L E V E L 1 0 0 ' - 0 " D O W N W O O D P A N E L C L O S E T W I T H ' H I D D E N ' D O O R S O P E N R I S E R S LA N D I N G P O W D E R CU B B I E S op e n to ab o v e M A I N L E V E L 1 0 0 ' - 0 " = SI T E 7 8 9 7 . 7 M A S T E R C L O S E T F P A N D T V P A R K I N G S P A C E 1 8 . 5 ' X 1 8 ' P A R K I N G S P A C E 4 8 . 5 ' X 1 8 ' P A R K I N G S P A C E 3 P A R K I N G S P A C E 2 CU B B I E S PA N T R Y BR O O M W E L L W / C U R B EN T R Y L E V E L 10 1 ' - 0 " = S H R U B S 3 3 1 3 1 3 P 2 4 I I I . A . Scale: ISSUE H I S T O R I C   M O D E R N   D U P L E X 2 3 2 E A S T B L E E K E R A V E N U E A S P E N , C O /Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/232 BLEEKER/ PLNS/232 BLEEKER 1.4.15.pln HPC 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. AS NOTED DATE 7/23/14 A 2.3 1/5/15 U P P E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N w w w . K i m R a y m o n d A r c h i t e c t s . c o m t e l   9 7 0 - ­ ‐ 9 2 5 - ­ ‐ 2 2 5 2     e m a i l   k i m @ k r a i . u s HPC FAR PARKING12/3/14 HPC MATERIALS1/6/15 W 7 3 W 7 2 0 8 W 6 9 W 6 6 W6 7 1 1 09 W 7 0 W 6 8 1 4 09 09 W 4 2 W 7 4 W 7 5 W 7 9 W 7 7 W 6 5 08 W 6 0 W 5 7 W 5 9 W 5 7 W5 0 W4 9 W4 9 W 4 3 W4 4 W 4 6 W 6 3 W6 3 W 5 6 W 5 1 W 5 5 W 5 1 W 5 5 W 5 5 W 6 3 W 6 3 W6 1 W6 3 W6 2 07 A A B B 2 2 1 1 4 4 1. 7 1 . 7 A A C C F F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I n v a l i d p a r a m e t e r s ! 3 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 6 ' - 8 1 / 2 " 2 0 ' - 8 1 / 2 " 1 2 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 1 1 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 9 ' - 9 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 0 " 3 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 5' - 0 " 1/ 2 " 4' - 7 1 / 4 " 1 2 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 1 0 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 3 / 4 " 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 5 3 / 4 " 4' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 4 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 27 ' - 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 13 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 21 ' - 9 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 6' - 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 2 ' - 1 " 1 3 ' - 8 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 1 0 " 12 ' - 8 1 / 4 " 5' - 1 0 " 6' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 6 ' - 1 / 2 " F P T V F P M A S T E R B E D R O O M M A S T E R C L O S E T K I T C H E N LI V I N G R O O M D I N I N G D E C K D E C K PR O P O S E D S H E D D O R M E R AC I D E T C H E D G L A S S W A L L AN D B A R N D O O R LI N E N D E N G L A S S W I N E C A B I N E T O P E N T O EN T R Y B E L O W O P E N TO B E L O W 18 R @ 7 . 5 " D O W N D O W N G L A S S R A I L D E C K R O O F E N T R Y R O O F B E L O W M A S T E R B A T H ST E A M SH O W E R BE N C H TU B D E C K VO I D U N D E R LO W R O O F VO I D U N D E R LO W R O O F T. O . P L Y U P P E R L E V E L 11 1 ' - 0 " T. O . P L Y U P P E R L E V E L 1 1 0 ' - 0 " VO I D U N D E R LO W R O O F VO I D U N D E R LO W R O O F V O I D U N D E R L O W R O O F R O O F O V E R G A R A G E B E L O W R O O F O V E R H A N G @ G A R A G E B E L O W T. O . P L Y @ B A T H 1 0 9 ' - 6 " 3 3 P 2 5 I I I . A . Scale: ISSUE H I S T O R I C   M O D E R N   D U P L E X 2 3 2 E A S T B L E E K E R A V E N U E A S P E N , C O /Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/232 BLEEKER/ PLNS/232 BLEEKER 1.4.15.pln HPC 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. AS NOTED DATE 7/23/14 A 2.4 1/5/15 R O O F P L A N w w w . K i m R a y m o n d A r c h i t e c t s . c o m t e l   9 7 0 - ­ ‐ 9 2 5 - ­ ‐ 2 2 5 2     e m a i l   k i m @ k r a i . u s HPC FAR PARKING12/3/14 HPC MATERIALS1/6/15 A A B B 2 2 1 1 4 4 1. 7 1 . 7 A A C C P R O P O S E D 3 / 4 " / 1 2 " RO O F . P I T C H T O D R A I N EX I S T I N G 1 2 : 1 2 EX I S T I N G 1 2 : 1 2 E X I S T I N G 1 2 : 1 2 EX I S T I N G 1 2 : 1 2 EX I S T I N G 1 2 : 1 2 EX I S T I N G 1 2 : 1 2 EX I S T I N G 1 2 : 1 2 EX I S T I N G 1 2 : 1 2 P R O P O S E D S H E D D O R M E R 2 . 5 : 1 2 EX I S T I N G 1 2 : 1 2 EX I S T I N G 1 2 : 1 2 EX I S T I N G P O R C H EX I S T I N G PO R C H P R O P O S E D 1 : 1 2 P R O P O S E D "F L A T " R O O F . P I T C H T O D R A I N E P D M R O O F W I T H M E T A L FA S C I A , T Y P . @ P R O P O S E D M O D E R N , FL A T R O O F S PR O P O S E D "F L A T " R O O F . PI T C H T O DR A I N 3 3 P 2 6 I I I . A . Scale: ISSUE H I S T O R I C   M O D E R N   D U P L E X 2 3 2 E A S T B L E E K E R A V E N U E A S P E N , C O /Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/232 BLEEKER/ PLNS/232 BLEEKER 1.4.15.pln HPC 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. AS NOTED DATE 7/23/14 A 4.1 1/5/15 E L E V A T I O N S - W E S T A N D N O R T H w w w . K i m R a y m o n d A r c h i t e c t s . c o m t e l   9 7 0 - ­ ‐ 9 2 5 - ­ ‐ 2 2 5 2     e m a i l   k i m @ k r a i . u s HPC FAR PARKING12/3/14 HPC MATERIALS1/6/15 C B AA 2 4 ' - 9 3 / 4 " 2 4 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " FROSTED GLASS AND METAL GARAGE DOORS CERAMIC TILE PANELS BUTT-JOINTED WOOD HORIZONTAL SIDING 1 1.7 2 3 4 24 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " REPAIR OR REPLACE EXISTING COLUMNS TO MATCH HISTORIC REMOVE EXISTING REPLICA "GINGERBREAD" TRIM REPAIR OR REPLACE EXISTING WOOD SIDING TO MATCH HISTORIC CONFIRM EXTENSION TO EXISTING HISTORIC CHIMNEY RESEARCH AND REPLACE THE METAL CHIMNEY POT SHOWN IN HISTORIC PHOTOS (NOT SHOWN HERE DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION) RECESS LINK BEHIND EXISTING HISTORIC CORNER CERAMIC TILE PANELSCERAMIC TILE PANELS BUTT-JOINTED WHITE HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING EXISTING CORNERBOARDS TO REMAIN VISIBLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION P 2 7 I I I . A . Scale: ISSUE H I S T O R I C   M O D E R N   D U P L E X 2 3 2 E A S T B L E E K E R A V E N U E A S P E N , C O /Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/232 BLEEKER/ PLNS/232 BLEEKER 1.4.15.pln HPC 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. AS NOTED DATE 7/23/14 A 4.2 1/5/15 E L E V A T I O N S - E A S T A N D S O U T H w w w . K i m R a y m o n d A r c h i t e c t s . c o m t e l   9 7 0 - ­ ‐ 9 2 5 - ­ ‐ 2 2 5 2     e m a i l   k i m @ k r a i . u s HPC FAR PARKING12/3/14 HPC MATERIALS1/6/15 4 1 2 " 2 3 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2 ' - 0 " EXISTING HISTORIC DORMERS TO REMAIN ASSURE EXISTING HISTORIC CHIMNEY IS CODE COMPLIANT EXISTING HISTORIC CORNERBOARDS TO REMAIN VISIBLE FLOATING LOUVER SCREEN OVER BUTT-JOINTED WHITE WOOD HORIZONTAL SIDING CERAMIC TILE PANELS CERAMIC TILE PANELS 1/3 DISTANCE FROM EAVE TO RIDGE LINE A B CA RETAIN AND REFINISH EXISTING HISTORIC DOORS EXISTING ANGLED HISTORIC WINDOW HEAD TO REMAIN CERAMIC TILE PANELS FLOATING LOUVERS BEYOND METAL LOUVERS OVER BUTT- JOINTED WOOD HORIZONTAL SIDING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION P 2 8 I I I . A . Scale: ISSUE H I S T O R I C   M O D E R N   D U P L E X 2 3 2 E A S T B L E E K E R A V E N U E A S P E N , C O /Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/232 BLEEKER/ PLNS/232 BLEEKER 1.4.15.pln HPC 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. AS NOTED DATE 7/23/14 P1 1/5/15 b a c k c o r n e r w w w . K i m R a y m o n d A r c h i t e c t s . c o m t e l   9 7 0 - ­ ‐ 9 2 5 - ­ ‐ 2 2 5 2     e m a i l   k i m @ k r a i . u s HPC FAR PARKING12/3/14 HPC MATERIALS1/6/15 P 2 9 I I I . A . Scale: ISSUE H I S T O R I C   M O D E R N   D U P L E X 2 3 2 E A S T B L E E K E R A V E N U E A S P E N , C O /Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/232 BLEEKER/ PLNS/232 BLEEKER 1.4.15.pln HPC 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. AS NOTED DATE 7/23/14 p1 1/5/15 s t r e e t c o r n e r w w w . K i m R a y m o n d A r c h i t e c t s . c o m t e l   9 7 0 - ­ ‐ 9 2 5 - ­ ‐ 2 2 5 2     e m a i l   k i m @ k r a i . u s HPC FAR PARKING12/3/14 HPC MATERIALS1/6/15 P 3 0 I I I . A .