HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20151111
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 11, 2015
5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISITS
II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.)
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
October 28, 2015 minutes
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
206 Lake Ave.
G. Staff comments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
J. Call-up reports
K. HPC typical proceedings
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. 134 W. Hopkins Ave. - Remand of HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2015
B. 209 E. Bleeker St. - Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation,
Floor Area Bonus, Residential Design Standards, and Variations review, PUBLIC
HEARING CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 23RD
IV. NEW BUSINESS
V. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: Resolution #30, 2015
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.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2015
1
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancia called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Sallie Golden, Gretchen
Greenwood and Michael Brown. Patrick Sagal, Willis Pember, John
Whipple and Robert Blaich were absent.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Sara Adams, Senior Planner
MOTION: Nora moved to approve Oct. 14th minutes as amended by
Michael; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried.
Nora will recuse herself on 200 E. Bleeker
533 E. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development, Growth
Management, Special Review and View plane Review
MOTION: Michael moved to continue 533 E. Main to January 27th, 2016;
second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried.
200 E. Bleeker Street – Minor Review and Variations, Public Hearing
Nora recused herself.
Debbie Quinn said the public notice is in order – Exhibit I
Amy said the Aspen Community Church is a very beautiful Victoria era
building in the West End of town and it sits on a property that is zoned for
residential development. The applicant has asked to re-work some of their
mechanical and service areas at the back of the building. On the rear façade
there is an entry that appears to be historic although we don’t have any
documentation. The steps that lead to the door are nice big pieces of
sandstone like the rest of the building and it appears to be part of the original
construction. The applicant would like to reconstruct a non-historic roof that
shelters the area. In doing so it will be longer than it is now and closer to the
alley and both those issues affect the setbacks. They will also reconstruct
the steps that approach the door and reorganize the mechanical equipment
P1
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2015
2
and clean up the space and make it more functional. We suspects that the
door leading to the interior mechanical room are historic but we are not sure.
We aren’t going to insist that they be restored. We recommend that HPC
approve the application as designed including the waiver of the rear-yard
setback. The rear yard setback is ten feet. The church and the entry canopy
already sit in the setback.
Jim Curtis, represented the Church
Dave Ellis, Trustee of the Church
Jim said the back of the church is in shambles. In 2013, 2014 we did major
work to the roof. We want to make it a nice appearance and safe and
functional.
Amy said they are matching the existing materials and there will be a
retaining wall that is a colored concrete. All the materials are compatible.
You are also asked to make a finding that the variation standards are met.
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public comment section of the hearing was closed.
Sallie said the back of the church has always been a little messy and this is a
great improvement.
Jim DeFrancia said the motion should read to approve 200 E. Bleeker, minor
review and variations including a finding that the variation standards are
met.
MOTION: Gretchen moved to approve 200 E. Bleeker, second by Sallie.
Roll call vote: Michael, Sallie, Jim and Gretchen. Motion carried 4-0.
Draft revisions of HPC guidelines
Sallie recused herself.
Nora was seated.
Chapter I – Site Planning & Landscape Design
Site planning - Amy said we wanted applicants to think about the character
of the site carefully. How buildings sit on the lots; try to create useful street
P2
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2015
3
facing spaces; traditional gardens in residential neighborhoods instead of
setback to setback consuming the lot and leaving nothing.
We talk at more length about planting design and landscape lighting.
A lot of landscapes are installed without permits and we tried to make it
clear that the guidelines apply whether you are in the HPC review process or
not. We will try to make it easier to find maps and identify where they can
be found.
Gretchen suggested adding a section on properties being on the National
Register and what that means or entails.
Michael said it would be helpful having a red line version. We need to see
where we are coming from and where we are going.
Jim suggested highlighting the meaningful changes in the new version.
Ask people to organize their open space and usable space. Provide more
information and consider the impacts of a design decision.
1.1 Amy said we want to preserve the system and character of historic
streets and alleys. In general HPC believes that alleys in some places should
not be paved. There should not be curb cuts off the street. No pull in
parking on the side streets unless it is historic.
1.4 Amy said there are some carriage houses that face the side street and
come off the street. We want that to be maintained but maybe the driveway
can be downplayed with gravel or tracks or use something that is not hard in
character. Design a new or existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its
visual impact.
Walkways and Patios
Amy said we see over scaled pathways and non-native materials. We have
provided examples of appropriate walkways and the appropriate materials.
Aspen modern properties are on a case by case basis.
Hot tubs and fire pits need to be screened.
Sara said the way plants are arranged can be more contemporary and that is
not what we are looking for. Use of a cone area in front. Simplicity and
modesty should be used in the front for landscaping.
P3
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2015
4
Landscape lighting
Amy said Aspen Modern might have low lighting but not so much on
Victorians. The only exception is if there is a safety issue. An example
would be if the front door is a long distance from the street.
Fences
Amy said where there are historic fences we want to see them preserved.
Where fences are added we want to see something designed close to that
period of time. A wood picket fence is appropriate. A wrought iron fence
would need discussion because that is a fancy fence for most of the buildings
we have in town.
1.17 Amy said we do support a twisted wire fence. It is a type of fence that
showed up in the 1900 in the rural parts of Colorado. There are lots of
examples of it in Aspen.
1.19 Amy said this deals with privacy fences. A low fence in the front and a
privacy fence in the back. Fences should avoid blocking public views.
There are a few guidelines regarding walls.
Amy said there are a few guidelines about unique landscapes. We have
basically stressed to leave them alone and don’t alter them.
Amy said we would also like add a guideline about storm water. Retention
ponds etc. should be placed away from the building.
Sara said we could request a conceptual landscape plan or something that
shows the direction they intend to go.
Gretchen said we need a conceptual drawing of the entire property. Nora
agreed.
Chapter 12 is the catch all chapter.
Exterior lighting should be simple. Most historic buildings did not have
outside lighting.
Original light fixtures must be maintained.
P4
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2015
5
Amy said there is also a guideline that states minimizing the visual impact of
lights and we might want to eliminate that.
Michael and Gretchen felt that the guideline should remain but should be
discouraged.
Gretchen said light pollution needs to be balanced if it is on a Victorian
property.
Nora said light spills from one property to another is a concern.
Jim suggested that the guideline be softened.
Amy said the mechanical equipment should be neat and not visible if
possible, make it go away.
Amy said awnings should only be used on doors and windows.
Amy said signs should not obscure or damage the historic building fabric.
MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 6:20
Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P5
II.B.
C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\7955.doc
11/4/2015
HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction
Nora Berko 332 W. Main
1102 Waters
1006 E. Cooper
100 E. Main
417/421 W. Hallam
602 E. Hyman
61 Meadows Road
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision
232 E. Bleeker
609 W. Smuggler
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC
420 E. Cooper
420 E. Hyman
407 E. Hyman
Rubey Park
Sallie Golden 206 Lake
114 Neale
212 Lake
400 E. Hyman
517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s)
Hotel Aspen
Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove
135 E. Cooper
1280 Ute
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Willis Pember 204 S. Galena
Aspen Core
120 Red Mountain
233 W. Hallam
101 E. Hallam
229 W. Smuggler
407 E. Hyman
Patrick Segal 204 S. Galena
701 N. Third
612 W. Main
212 Lake
Holden Marolt derrick
333 W. Bleeker
John Whipple Aspen Core
201 E. Hyman
549 Race
208 E. Main
420 E. Cooper
602 E. Hyman
Hotel Aspen
610 E. Hyman
301 Lake
Michael Brown 223 E. Hallam
Need: 530 W. Hallam
P6
II.F.
206 Lake Ave.
Project Monitoring
11/11/2015
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: 206 Lake Ave. – Request for HPC Review of project monitor determination
DATE: November 11, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
Summary: 206 Lake Avenue, aka the Newberry House or the Shaw House, is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places and is a locally designated landmark. It is located at the
corner of Lake Avenue and Smuggler Street, across from Triangle Park and above Hallam Lake.
The property was constructed circa 1886. It is one of the more significant residential structures
in Aspen not just for its architectural style, but also for its association with a number of important
people including Judge Robert Shaw, and T.G. Lyster who helped organize the First National
Bank of Aspen.
206 Lake Avenue has been altered over time. In particular, it appears from historic photographs
that the front porch was originally open and shortly thereafter enclosed with screens. The historic
inventory form indicates that the screens were removed round 1991 and new posts, frieze and
balustrade were added.
Staff and Monitor and the applicant have been unable to come to an agreement regarding the
addition of a railing across the front porch along Lake Avenue that is inconsistent with the
original front porch and the addition of handrails on both sides (rather than 1 side) of the front
entry steps.
Background and Discussion: HPC granted Major Development and Hallam Lake Bluff
approval in October of 2013. The approval included picking up the house to dig a basement,
replace the foundation, non-historic window replacements and the conversion of interior space to
a garage with a driveway. The applicant represented that the front porch (other than the decking)
was not going to be altered during the lifting of the house. As such, Staff and HPC could not
require the applicant to restore the front porch to the original design, since it was not part of the
scope of the project and the FAR Bonus was not requested (the building is well over its
allowable floor area). The building permit clearly indicated that the porch columns were to be
secured in place during the lifting of the home.
During a site visit, it was discovered that the front porch columns and the balustrade were
removed and replicated to match the 1991 version without HPC input. Staff and Monitor
examined historic photographs worked closely with the contractor and owner who agreed to
remove the non-historic posts and replicate the historically accurate square porch posts. The
square posts are in place.
P7
II.F.
206 Lake Ave.
Project Monitoring
11/11/2015
2
The outstanding question for HPC relates to the balustrade. The Building Code requires a
handrail for porches 30” or more above grade. The deck of the west facing side of the
wraparound porch is more than 30” above grade and has a handrail that was approved by Staff
and Monitor. The front of the porch, facing Lake Avenue, does not currently have a handrail
because it is not required by Building Code and it is not historically accurate. The owner prefers
a handrail for safety reasons (see attached email). The stairs leading up to the front porch and the
side of the front porch to the right of the front door have handrails to meet Building Code.
Request: Staff and Monitor (Sallie Golden) look to the HPC to provide guidance on
whether the front porch is required to have a balustrade across the front and/or railings
are required on both sides of the entry stairs.
Photographs are provided below (in chronological order):
Figure 1: Historic photograph showing open front porch with squared posts and no railing.
P8
II.F.
206 Lake Ave.
Project Monitoring
11/11/2015
3
Figure 2: Photograph of the screened front porch prior to the 1991 remodel.
Figure 3: Image of screened front porch prior to 1991 changes.
P9
II.F.
206 Lake Ave.
Project Monitoring
11/11/2015
4
Figure 5: Image of current project without balustrade at the front as approved by Staff and Monitor.
Figure 4: Image of property prior to current project showing added details and
balustrade on the front porch.
P10
II.F.
206 Lake Ave.
Project Monitoring
11/11/2015
5
Figure 6: Image of current project with the balustrade at the front as requested by property owner.
Figure 7: Image of hand rail approved for the rear porch. The same detail is proposed for the front entry
steps.
P11
II.F.
From:Don Carpenter
To:Sara Adams
Subject:RE: 206 lake
Date:Thursday, November 05, 2015 9:56:29 AM
Sara – here’s what Andrew would like for you to include in the HPC memo… thanks.
In regards to the front porch and stairs, the owner believes that it is necessary for safety and liability
reasons to include the guardrail wrapping the entirety of the porch and the handrail on both sides of
the stairs. The guardrail wrapping the entirety of the porch and the handrail on the stairs are
shown on the approved plans. While we recognize that the approved plans do not contemplate
demolition and replacement of the guardrail and handrail, the removal and replacement of the
guardrail and handrail became necessary in connection with lifting the house for the purpose of
constructing the new foundation. At the time the house was lifted and the guardrail and handrail
were removed, it did not occur to us that it would be a problem to replace them because they were
shown on the approved plans, and we did not know that City staff should have been contacted.
With the benefit of hindsight, we now recognize that City staff should have been contacted, and we
regret the oversight. Notwithstanding the procedural error, we are extremely concerned about the
safety of our family and guests, and are further concerned about potential liability issues. The
distance from the ground to the front porch is just under 30”. If it was 30” or more, code would
require a guardrail. We believe that the risk of a fall from the porch is essentially the same risk as a
fall from 30”, so we believe it is necessary to have a guardrail for safety reasons. Furthermore, in
regards to the front stairs, they are open to the elements. There is no overhang, nor was there any
opportunity to modify the historic façade to provide cover. We believe a handrail on both sides of
the stairs is also necessary for safety reasons. Therefore, we believe It is critically important for
safety reasons to be able to replace the guardrail at the porch and the handrail on the stairs. After
replacement, he house will appear as it is shown on the approved plans. We did not know that
temporarily removing these elements in connection with lifting the house would create an issue
concerning their replacement. We respectfully ask the City to take into consideration the safety of
our family and guests and approve our application to replace the inadvertently removed guardrail
and handrail.
From: Sara Adams [mailto:sara.adams@cityofaspen.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 12:29 PM
To: Don Carpenter <don@projectresourceco.com>
Subject: 206 lake
Hey don- does the owner want to include anything in the memo to HPC for next week? Just let me
know. Thanks, Sara
Sara Adams, AICP
Senior Planner | City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd floor
Aspen CO 81611
P12
II.F.
970/429-2778
www.aspenpitkin.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential
and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have
received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only
and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning,
which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and
information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
P13
II.F.
TYPICAL PROCEEDING
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation (5 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Applicant presentation (20 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes)
Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes)
Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes)
HPC discussion (15 minutes)
Motion (5 minutes)
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least
four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present
shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All
actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than
three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting.
Procedure for amending motions:
A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner
who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion.
If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting
commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she
previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is
no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion
and voting on the Motion may then proceed.
If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be
voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the
amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and
voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails,
discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed.
P14
II.K.
134 W. Hopkins Ave.
Staff Memo - HPC Remand for Deck atop Connector
11/11/2015
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: 134 W. Hopkins Avenue – Remand from City Council for deck atop the
connector, Public Hearing
DATE: November 11, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 134 W. Hopkins is located on the corner of Hopkins Avenue and First Street in a
mostly residential neighborhood. On March 11, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC) approved Conceptual Major Development, onsite Relocation, partial Demolition of non-
historic additions, and setback variations for the property by a vote of 4 -2. Overall HPC was
supportive of the proposed mass and scale of the project and found that the Design Guidelines
were met to grant the requested approvals. A copy of the approved site plan and elevations is
attached as Exhibit A. The HPC Resolution and Minutes are attached.
CALL UP PROCESS: The Land Use Code requires notification of conceptual approvals to City
Council during a call up period at which time Council may discuss the project. City Council
exercised their call up authority and discussed the conceptual approvals granted for 134 W.
Hopkins on April 27th. Council voted to remand the application back to HPC with direction to
further discuss the appropriateness of a deck atop the one story connector. Council was
concerned about the visual impacts of the deck on this corner lot. Minutes from the Council
meeting are attached as Exhibit C.
26.415.120.E Additional Actions. The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by the
HPC shall be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E Public Notice and shall be limited to
the topics listed in the direction from Council. The HPC decision is final and concludes the call
up review. Substantive changes, as defined in Section 26.415.070.E.2 Substantial Amendments,
made to the application during the call up review and outside the topics listed in the remand from
Council shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.415.070.E and shall require a new call up
notice to City Council. The call up review shall be limited only to the changes approved in the
Substantial Amendment application.
APPLICANT: West Hopkins LLC, P.O. Box 61510, Potomac, MD 20859 represented by CCY
Architects
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-19-001
ADDRESS: 134 West Hopkins Avenue, Lot 1 of the 134 and 134 ½ West Hopkins Landmark
Lot Split.
P15
III.A.
134 W. Hopkins Ave.
Staff Memo - HPC Remand for Deck atop Connector
11/11/2015
Page 2 of 3
ZONING: R- 6
DISCUSSION:
A two story flat roof addition and a one story connector piece are proposed behind the Victorian.
The height of the Victorian is 22’2” and the height of the proposed second story addition is 23’6”
(a total of 25’ as measured to the top of the proposed rooftop railing).
The applicants propose traditional materials on the addition and subtle architectural details, such
as a porch column beneath the second story overhang, that relate to the form and style of the
Victorian. Traditional materials (natural wood tones on the addition to complement the natural
wood tones of the Victorian’s roof) and traditionally sized window openings balance the
proposed flat roof and the simplified modern form of the addition. A rooftop deck is proposed
atop the second story addition. A self-supported glass rail system without any visible hardware is
proposed around the deck. The railing is within the 25’ height limit of the R-6 zone district and
is setback significantly from the landmark. The clean form proposed for the addition and the
subtle references to the landmark meet Guidelines 10.4, 10.8.
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.
10.8 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.
Another deck (the one in question) is proposed atop the one story connector with the same glass
rail system as the rooftop deck. The distance from the railing to the base of the roof slope of the
Victorian is 5’6”. According to Guideline 10.7 the connector is supposed to be one story and at
least 10’ in length to separate new and old construction. While shorter connectors may be
appropriate for interior lots, staff finds that a corner lot with two street facing facades needs to
P16
III.A.
134 W. Hopkins Ave.
Staff Memo - HPC Remand for Deck atop Connector
11/11/2015
Page 3 of 3
abide by the height and length requirements. During the HPC review, Staff recommended that
the deck atop the connector be removed as a condition of approval. HPC discussed the deck in
detail during the conceptual meeting and felt that a glass railing with low iron glass with no
seams was appropriate, had minimal effect on the historic resource, and met the Guidelines.
Minutes from the HPC meeting and from the City Council call up meeting are attached. Staff is
supportive of the HPC process and the Commission’s decision to approve the deck on top of the
connector.
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.
HPC is asked either to reconsider the deck on top of the connector or to uphold condition 1.a of
Resolution No 10 which allowed the deck atop the connector:
1. The site plan, mass and scale are approved as shown in Exhibit A with the following
condition:
a. The deck on top of the connecting element is approved. The glass railing on the
connector needs to be low iron glass with no seams.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is supportive of the HPC process and the Commission’s decision to
approve the deck on top of the connector. Staff recommends that HPC uphold Resolution No. 10
as written.
The HPC may:
• Uphold Resolution #10, Series of 2015 as written
• Amend Condition 1.a of Resolution #10, Series of 2015
• Request additional information
______________________________________________________________________________
Recommendation: Staff recommends that HPC uphold Resolution 10, Series of 2015 as
written.
Resolution #10, Series of 2015
Exhibits:
A. HPC Meeting Minutes.
B. City Council Meeting Minutes from call up process.
C. Application.
P17
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancia called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Patrick Sagal, John
Whipple, Nora Berko, Sallie Golden and Gretchen Greenwood. Willis
Pember was absent.
Staff present:
Jim True, City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Gretchen will recuse herself on 134 W. Hopkins
Jim said he has a business relationship with CCY which is totally
independent of this project and nothing inhibits me from making good ,
judgement.
HPC congratulated Willis ori'his award for the Carbondale Library!
134 W. Hopkins Ave. — Conceptual Major Development, On-Site
Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing
Jim True said the affidavits are in order and the applicant can proceed—
Exhibit I
Sara said the property is a 3,000 square foot lot zoned R-6 and was created
from a landmark lot split. The landmark is in its current location. The
request is for relocation of the historic home, demolition of non-historic
additions, construction of a rear addition and extensive restoration to the
historic landmark, setback variances and a portion of the FAR bonus. The
proposal includes a roof deck on the new addition on the back. There is a
one story connector piece between the old construction and new
construction. Staff has some concerns about the proposed railing on top of
the connector which shortens the distance that the connector is a one-story.
The guidelines are clear that a one-story connector piece should be ten feet.
We are recommending that the deck on top of the connector be removed.
There is still a deck on top of the second story new addition which find to be
appropriate. A glass railing is being proposed so it is minimal as far as the
massing.
1
P18
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
Relocation: There is a proposal to move the historic home off-site down the
street a few blocks to a vacant lot that is across from the Boomerang lodge.
Putting houses off-site has challenges but leaving it on-site when you are
doing a big excavation has more consequences and we are supportive of the
move. We have required a $30,000 letter of credit. HPC might want to
discuss whether this amount is appropriate or not. The applicant is
requesting the remaining 116.4 square feet of the FAR bonus. We find that
warranted with the restoration they are proposing. The space between the
two homes will be increased. We are also supportive of the variances
outlined and staff is recommending approval with conditions.
Chris Touchette, CCY architects
Chris said the owner is prepared to bring the house back to its historic form.
We are moving the house 2.6 to the west and 6.10 inches to the south. It
will be closer to the corner in a more prominent location. The other idea is
to get it away from the neighboring building. We focused on a
contemporary addition that is compatible with the historic resource. The
patio skylight is west of the connector in-between the addition and resource.
We have proposed a non-reflective skylight that is broken up with
interspersed beams. It will not be viewable from 1 st or Hopkins. We have
been working with staff and have eliminated a roof skylight, eliminated a
non-historic window in the gable end of the resource. We are supportive of
staff's recommendations except for the condition of denial of the small roof
deck over the connector. There is precedence for the use of decks over
connectors.
Exhibit II - elevation of roof deck
Chris said the roof deck is 8 x 6 wide facing 1 st Street and 72 square feet in
area. The connector is 17.6 long. There is a fascia. The small roof deck in
no way encumbers the character of the connector and we would appreciate if
you would discuss the roof deck.
Vice-chair Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing.
Exhibit III— Sara said the e-mail came from David Melton who lives at 135
Hopkins. He requests that the bonus not be granted because the lot is already
developed with two homes. Use the FAR that is allowed by code. Traffic
and noise on the street constructing the second level basement will be
2
P19
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
significant and unwarranted. There are no two level basements in.this
neighborhood.
Vice-chair Jim DeFrancia said there were no public comments. The public
hearing was closed.
Jim said we should focus on the condition and add or delete them.
Patrick said he agreed with Mr. Melton that the second level basement is not
necessary in that neighborhood. It can cause more people, more traffic etc.
in that area.
Sallie said.the double basement has nothing to do with what we look at.
Jim said lets discuss the conditions and then come back to the double
basement.
Nora said regarding La. we have had lengthy discussions about the activity
on top of connectors. Nora said she would support staff on the connector.
Sallie said we have approved two story connectors recently with glass filled
in. This seems a lot more in keeping with the project. Sallie said she has no
issue with the connector.
Bob said he agrees with Sallie that the connector is not obtrusive and you
won't see it and it has a glass protector.
John said the connector separates the two homes and it should be a low iron
with no reflectivity to it.
Patrick said he agrees with staff and there are already two decks.
Jim said he has no issue with the connector and would approve it.
Sara said there will probably be stuff on top of the deck and that adds mass.
Railings on top of connector are not the most successful approaches to
having a connector piece. The purpose of the linking element is to separate
the mass and we are trying to learn from some of the mistakes that we have
made about allowing the space on top of the connector to be usable space.
3
P20
III.A.
i
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
Nora said this is on a corner lot and is more visible.
Sallie said she has seen a lot of decks that aren't successful but this isn't in
that category.
Chris said the deck it is 8x6 wide facing First Street and 72 square feet in
area.
Jim said we have the majority that would favor the connector.
Jim said condition #2 was to provide details of the fence along First Street;
provide details of the grade skylight and Hopkins St. shall be the primary
entrance.
Chris said they are fine with everything but there needs to be discussion on
the double basement.
Jim brought up the double basement and said it is permitted.
Sallie said it was allowable by code at the time the applicant applied. It
doesn't affect anything that we are supposed to use judgement on regarding
the historic resource.
Nora said there are impacts of noise and stability going down 40 feet etc.
and the number of dump trucks every day and the impacts on the pedestrian
right-of-way. Is it going to increase the number of cars for a two car garage?
Sara said the issues were impacts constructing a double basement and how
long it takes to build up the soil.
John said one property probably didn't use the best method of soil
stabilization and that upset numerous individuals. The Bldg. Dept. and
construction management have guidelines in place to achieve stability.
Bob said for us to go back and revisit this when it has already been dealt
with we would have a whole new process.
Patrick said he feels the construction management is half of it and it impacts
the neighborhood. The volume will affect the neighborhood.
4
P21
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancis opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Chris said what is inside the envelope isn't necessarily part of your purview.
There is one bedroom above the addition and three bedrooms in the
basement and the second basement is dedicated to uses such as a spa and
theatre, wine cave and mechanical room. The density is limited to the first
level of the basement.
Jim said the construction and digging can often be unpleasant but it is also
temporary. There is not a majority to add a condition.
Chris said we would like to have 1 a deleted.
MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #10 for 134 W. Hopkins in
accordance with the staff recommendation and striking in 1 a, (the not) .
The character of the connector should be low iron and no reflectivity.
Motion second by Bob.
Patrick said the continued repetition of flat roof additions is destroying the
historic character of residential Aspen and is contrary to the intent of the
guidelines.
Chris said there will not be visible connections.
Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, no; Bob, yes; John, yes, Patrick, no; Jim,
yes. Motion carried 4-2.
110 E. Bleeker Street— Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and
Variances, Public Hearing cont'd from February 11, 2015
Gretchen was seated.
Exhibit I—Updated elevations.
Amy said this is a 6,000 square foot lot close to the yellow brick. It is an
1887 brick Victorian. The brick has been painted which isn't healthy for the
building. The front porch was enclosed and a door obliterated. The front
bay window has been removed. There is a small addition on the back of the
house and a large structure along the alley that sits in the alley and on the
5
P22
III.A.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015
9
construction costs are in today’s terms. It is important to not modify the in lieu charge rate until
knowing the true fee.
3. Marcia Goshorn asked what is considered a remodel. A minor is considered carpet, paint and
light fixture and scared they are something that would be looked at. A remodel without sq ft
change should not be something that is triggered. ADU program doesn’t work because it never
required anyone to live in it. There is a place for the ADU program.
4. Jodi Edwards suggested a rough proportionality credit for the RETT.
5. Peter Fornell said today to mitigate for 3000 sq ft at category 4 is 300,000 dollars. The net result
is a saving to the developer. Both efforts need to occur simultaneously. There are unintended
consequence. The community has backed off the 60 percent rule. Backing off to 45 percent
would be more equitable. The ADU program was very great. People who want one will still
build one. It should be eliminated as mitigation. The cash in lieu number still needs to exists. It
is currently being used as selling a certificate from one category to another. Good way to look at
if we have enough housing is to look at what happens when we have a lottery. How much does it
cost to create an FTE. Some of the estimations are very aggressive. Need to look at it from the
standpoint of what would I approve.
6. Sam Barney questioned the RRC survey and said the numbers seemed a little low. He said cash
in lieu doesn’t create housing and housing is what is needed.
7. Mike Maple said the goal is to get it right and the study is a step in the right direction. What
generates a fair number. Should the City provide a credit for the RETT. He is on board with the
property paying their fair share. Should the City assess the full impact fee. What did we do
before and should we change. Should the City continue a payment deferral program, absolutely.
The problem is you have to look at the terms of the deferral program. Fees make the program
worse in some ways.
8. Bill said the deferral program is a great program to continue.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Frisch thanked everyone who spoke. The greater goal is how do we make a livable
community. How do we come up with a fair way to recognize people live in free market and figure out
how to balance. Does it require grandfathering some applications. In the rare case there might be a
decrease.
Councilman Daily said he agrees with Mr. Maple’s point about taking into account residence occupancy
in payment of deferred payment to a nonresident occupant.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is worthwhile to look further into self mitigating. She would not support
rebates. She would like to reconsider remodels. She takes back her comments on ADUs.
Councilman Daily moved to continue to June 22, 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
ACTION ITEMS
134 W. Hopkins Ave – Call Up of HPC Conceptual approval, Demolition, Relocation , Variance and
FAR Bonus approval
Mr. True said Councilwoman Mullins is not here though she did participate in the last discussion. She
lives within 300 feet of the project. The applicant waived any issues of the last discussion and have no
prejudice in continuing with the call up. She has not recused herself. Councilman Romero is out of town.
P23
III.A.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015
10
Sara Adams, community development, said this is a call up of an HPC approval of conceptual, partial
demolition and some variances. The review process is to accept HPC decision or to remand the
application back to HPC with clear direction for HPC to make a final decision or to continue the meeting
for more information. HPC vote was 4 to 2. They had thoughtful discussion and followed established
procedures. Nora voted no. She was not in favor of the deck. Patrick voted no. He was not in favor of
the flat roof or the deck on the addition. For the front yard setback ten foot is required. The historic
home meets the set back. It needs a variance for ten inches for the bay window. The second and third
issues are the deck and the connector and the compatibility with the additions. Staff is supportive of the
project. There is simple architecture on the addition. The front porch column mimics the landmark. The
gable forms creates a relationship. The connector is asked for in the design guideline and is longer than
required. The glass deck on top of the connector was approved with specific conditions. Staff is
supportive of the HPC process and their decision. The fourth issue was more information of the FAR
bonus of 116.4 sq ft provided by the historic assessment of the house that analyzed materials and the
restoration. It meets the guidelines. Staff recommends upholding Resolution 10, Series of 2015.
The applicant is in agreement with Staff’s presentation.
Councilman Frisch asked if the connector is a transfer from one to the other or an outdoor space. Ms.
Adams said it is a ten foot separator. In the past they have allowed decks on top of connectors. It is more
visible when supported in the past but has not always been successful.
Councilman Daily said he wondered about the compatibility when he first looked at the design. He is
reasonably comfortable with what is proposed here. It is a simple design and secondary to the
architecture of the Victorian.
Councilman Frisch said the setback variance is an issue here. It increases the FAR. That is an issue. The
houses on the block have consistent set backs from the curb. Ms. Adams said they are in a range but the
requirement is ten feet.
Ms. Adams said when Staff looks at relocation of a building we look at a lot of different factors. This site
has a lot of funky lines. In this case relocation was the best option.
Councilman Frisch asked for a comment on development pressures. Ms. Adams replied it is what is
allowed on the property. She can’t imagine it would be approved for demolition by HPC. Moving it
forward frees up space for the addition in the rear.
He asked about the connector. Ms. Adams said it is a guideline and up to HPC on a case by case basis.
Councilman Frisch said he is happy for it to go back to HPC. Not sure what it is supposed to be used for.
Councilman Daily said to have HPC take one more look at the connector. Staff was not supportive.
Jody Edwards asked for the connector and deck are you asking HPC to hold us to a different standard
than others.
Mr. True said they are not asking HPC to modify the policy.
Mayor Skadron said the FAR bonus because the project is exemplary is questionable.
Councilman Frisch said he is solely focused on the connector.
P24
III.A.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015
11
Councilman Frisch moved to remand back to HPC; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion
carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to continue to 4-28-2015 at 4:00pm; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in
favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P25
III.A.
11.11.2015 CONNECTOR DECK
04.17.2015 CALL-UP
02.25.2015 REVISIONS
11.25.2014 SUBMISSION DATE
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
SITE PLAN - 1/4” = 1’-0”
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE
PROPERTY LINE
SET BACK LINE
5
'
-
0
"
5'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
10'-0"
5
'
-
0
"
PROPOSED PATIO W/
SKYLIGHTS TO BELOW
PROPOSED HISTORIC
RESOURCE LOCATIONPROPOSED 2-CAR GARAGE
PROPOSED
CONNECTOR
12'-7 1/2"
PROPOSED ADDITION
NEIGHBOR'S
LIGHT WELL
1ST STREET
H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
EXISTING HISTORIC RESOURCE LOCATION (SHOWN HATCHED)
NORTH
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
4'
-
8
1
/
4
"
3'
-
7
5
/
8
"
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
1'
-
1
5
/
8
"
EXISTING
6'-10"
PROPOSED LIGHT WELLS
SKYLIGHT TO BELOW
LINE OF PROPOSED ADDITION ABOVE
2
'
-
2
"
EXISTING
26'-8 7/8"
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE PROTECTION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE PROTECTION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE PROTECTION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE PROTECTION
FRONT ENTRY
& PORCH
REVISION:
ADDED COLUMN;
NO CANTILEVER
(2/25/15)
3'-9".
EXISTING
16'-10"
3'-1".
P
2
6
I
I
I
.
A
.
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
UPPER LEVEL PLAN - 1/4” = 1’-0”
11.11.2015 CONNECTOR DECK
04.17.2015 CALL-UP
02.25.2015 REVISIONS
11.25.2014 SUBMISSION DATE
PROPOSED
ROOF
DECK
PROPOSED ADDITION
ROOF OF HISTORIC
RESOURCE (NO
PROPOSED UPPER
LEVEL)
(S
E
T
B
A
C
K
)
2'
-
8
"
.
(CONNECTOR)
17'-9"
EDGE OF CONNECTOR ROOF
EDGE OF CONNECTOR ROOF
P
2
7
I
I
I
.
A
.
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
WEST ELEVATION - 1/4” = 1’-0”
11.11.2015 CONNECTOR DECK
04.17.2015 CALL-UP
02.25.2015 REVISIONS
11.25.2014 SUBMISSION DATE
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
UPPER LEVEL
110'-0"
BASEMENT 01
88'-0"
BASEMENT 02
76'-0"
GARAGE LEVEL
98'-0"
PROPOSED SHORING;
TYPICAL ALL SIDES
2'-0"
23
'
-
6
"
1
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
2
"
.
GLASS RAIL SET-BACK
2'-8" FROM EDGE OF
CONNECTOR ROOF
P
2
8
I
I
I
.
A
.
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
PERSPECTIVE FROM WEST SIDE OF 1ST STREET
Transparent glass rail:
No visible connections &
Set-back 2’-8” from Edge
of Connector Roof
11.11.2015 CONNECTOR DECK
04.17.2015 CALL-UP
02.25.2015 REVISIONS
11.25.2014 SUBMISSION DATE
P
2
9
I
I
I
.
A
.
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
CONNECTOR DECK PRECEDENT
11.11.2015 CONNECTOR DECK
04.17.2015 CALL-UP
02.25.2015 REVISIONS
11.25.2014 SUBMISSION DATE
P
3
0
I
I
I
.
A
.
209 East Bleeker St.
Staff Memo 11/11/15
Page 1 of 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: 209 East Bleeker St. – Conceptual Major Development Review, Partial
Demolition, Setback Variations, FAR Bonus, PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: November 11, 2015
SUMMARY: 209 East Bleeker is a designated landmark located in Aspen’s West End
neighborhood. It is a 6,000 square foot lot that is zoned R-6, Medium Density Residential with
an allowable floor area of 3,240 sf for a single family home. The home has been in the Hayes
family until recently. The applicant proposes to restore the miner’s cabin to its original form
(there have been numerous alterations over the years including a new second story on top of the
miner’s cabin) and construct a two story addition along the rear and side of the property.
Variations and the FAR Bonus are requested.
The project was continued by HPC on September 23rd to restudy the site design and mass. The
applicant worked diligently to update the project and address these concerns. Minutes from the
meeting are attached.
APPLICANT: 209 Bleeker, LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, 802 E. Cooper
Ave., Suite 4, Aspen, CO 81621.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-20-002
ADDRESS: 209 E. Bleeker Street, Lots C, D and a portion of Lot B, Block 73, City and
Townsite of Aspen Colorado
ZONING: R-6
P31
III.B.
209 East Bleeker St.
Staff Memo 11/11/15
Page 2 of 10
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOLITION
Images top left to
right: Current
condition of 209 E.
Bleeker St.; east side
view of 209 E.
Bleeker; and 1904
Sanborne Map.
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.
P32
III.B.
209 East Bleeker St.
Staff Memo 11/11/15
Page 3 of 10
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.”
Background: The house has been heavily altered from its original form. There are only a few
photographs to inform restoration; nonetheless, this is a designated landmark and Staff is
appreciative of the proposed efforts to restore the
home. Some photographs are below:
Images 4 and 5: Original east
elevation of 209 East Bleeker.
Construction of the second floor in
1978.
P33
III.B.
209 East Bleeker St.
Staff Memo 11/11/15
Page 4 of 10
Site plan: At the previous hearing, Staff and HPC voiced concerns about the proposed addition
overwhelming the historic resource. This was mostly a result of the placement of massing on the
site: a two story addition wrapped around the landmark, both behind and next to it. The applicant
redesigned the project to reduce the addition to a single story behind the landmark with a single
story connection between the one story and new two story additions. The two story mass
adjacent to the resource reads almost as a separate building similar to a lot split. The two story
mass is setback about 15 ft. from the front of the landmark to accommodate existing trees and to
expose the east elevation of the resource. Staff is supportive of the proposed site plan.
Mass/Scale: The applicant proposes simple forms and a gable roof for the two story addition that
relates well to the landmark. A single story, gable roof addition is proposed directly behind the
landmark. Staff is supportive of a one story addition which is hidden behind the landmark;
however Staff prefers a flat roof connection immediately behind the landmark that tucks
underneath the existing eave (if possible) in order to preserve the original roof form at the rear. A
condition of approval is included in the draft resolution to address this concern.
Overall the proposed architecture is appropriate and the setback locations and height provide a
buffer between the current context of the block and the newly restored landmark. Staff finds that
the Design Guidelines 10.4, 10.7, 10.8, and 10.14 are met.
Relevant Design Guidelines:
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.
P34
III.B.
209 East Bleeker St.
Staff Memo 11/11/15
Page 5 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.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
A 1-story connector is preferred.
The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize
the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure.
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
P35
III.B.
209 East Bleeker St.
Staff Memo 11/11/15
Page 6 of 10
VARIANCES: FAR BONUS, SETBACK VARIATIONS, RDS VARIANCES
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: The applicant proposes demolition of the non-historic additions to the
landmark in order to restore the original form of the building. Historic photographs are available
to guide the restoration and the demolition effort. Staff finds that the review criteria for
demolition of the non-historic aspects of the building are met and recommends approval.
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing small shed that was used as a kid’s playhouse.
Some of the materials are old, but it hard to tell whether they were reused from a different
property or building. There is no evidence of a shed of this size and in this location on the
Sanborne map (shown on page 1 of memo). Staff is supportive of the demolition of the shed and
finds that the review criteria are met – mainly that there is no documentation to support that the
building is from the 19th century.
Parking: The applicant proposes 2 onsite parking spaces in the garage, accessed off of the alley.
This meets zoning requirements.
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;
P36
III.B.
209 East Bleeker St.
Staff Memo 11/11/15
Page 7 of 10
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.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits
of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic
preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described
above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur
as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection
26.415.070.D. The floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic
Landmark Lot Split Review.
4. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. A property shall receive no more than 500
square feet total.
Staff Response: The applicant requests the 500 sf FAR Bonus. Extensive
restoration/reconstruction of the miner’s cabin is proposed. Historic photographs are available to
inform the reconstruction but many details will need to be based on general architectural details
based on the limited amount of information available. The level of integrity for this building
calls into question whether the entire 500 sf Bonus is appropriate. Exemplary historic
preservation practices as required in criterion 2 above may not be able to be attained based on the
limited amount of documentation for this home and the extensive remodeling that has occurred.
The applicant was able to incorporate the 500 sf Bonus into the new design without
overwhelming the historic landmark. Staff is still concerned about the level of guesswork that
will go into recreating the historic resource and whether criterion 2 is met; however should HPC
be comfortable that criterion 2 is met, Staff finds that criteria 1.a – 1.f are met with conditions
listed at the end of the memo. The building has value to the neighborhood as a representation of
a miner’s cottage and the family history is important to the community.
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;
P37
III.B.
209 East Bleeker St.
Staff Memo 11/11/15
Page 8 of 10
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 applicant requests the following variations (bold indicates a variation request):
Required Provided
East side yard setback 5’ 5’ 3”
West side yard setback 5’ 1’2”
Note: this is the existing location
of the landmark.
4’ for the new addition
Distance between buildings 10’ 9’ 7 ¾” proposed wall to wall, not
including lightwells
Combined side yard setback 15’ 8’ 7”
Rear yard setback 5’ required for garage;
10’ required for living space
and decks
5’ for garage;
5’ for living space below grade and
5’ for a deck on top of the garage
Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the east side yard setback to legalize the current location
of the landmark. A BBQ and other landscape features are shown on the site plan, which may
also need variations if 30” above grade. These features can be addressed at Final Review during
the landscape discussion. A large window well is located behind the landmark within the west
sideyard setback area. Due to its location, Staff is supportive of the variation.
Staff is supportive of the requested variations which allow the majority of mass to be
consolidated to the east of the landmark in a two story addition that is pushed away from
resource. Staff finds that criterion (b) is met in the requested variations with the exception noted
below.
Staff is supportive of the below grade variation for the basement which does not impact the
landmark. Staff is not supportive of the deck on top of the garage which adds mass to the site
and does not meet review criterion (b) for granting a variation.
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
P38
III.B.
209 East Bleeker St.
Staff Memo 11/11/15
Page 9 of 10
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 are the requested variances, underlined area are not met in the proposal:
D.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:
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.
Staff Response: The original front porch, which is proposed to be restored, does not meet
the 6’ depth requirement. Staff is supportive of the proposed historic porch, finds that
criterion (a) is met and recommends approval.
__________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Conceptual Major Development, Partial
demolition, FAR Bonus, Variations be granted with the following conditions:
1) Conceptual Major Development approval is granted as shown in Exhibit A with the
following conditions to be addressed in the Final Review application:
a. The connector directly behind the landmark shall be a flat roof that connects to
a one story gable roof.
b. The applicant shall demonstrate whether the flat roof connector can be tucked
beneath the original eave of the landmark.
c. All built-in features shown in setbacks shall be identified in height and location
to determine whether a variation is needed.
d. Detailed preservation plans for the historic resource shall be submitted
including an appropriately sized window in the gable end of the landmark.
P39
III.B.
209 East Bleeker St.
Staff Memo 11/11/15
Page 10 of 10
e. A detailed landscape plan that includes a conceptual proposal addressing storm
water management requirements.
2) Demolition is granted for the non-historic additions and the non-historic shed.
3) The 500 sf FAR Bonus is granted.
4) The following variations are granted. Any discrepancy between the dimensions below
and the attached site plan, the site plan prevails. Landscape features (BBQs, firepits, etc.)
in the setbacks are not approved during Conceptual Review and shall be addressed during
Final Review should variations be requested.
5) A Residential Design Standard variation is granted for the size and depth of the
recreated historic front porch.
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.
HPC Resolution __, Series of 2015
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines
Exhibit B: HPC Meeting Minutes from 9/23/15
Exhibit C: Application
Approved
West side yard setback 1’2”
Note: this is the existing location
of the landmark.
4’ for the new addition
Distance between buildings 9’ 7 ¾” proposed wall to wall, not
including lightwells
Combined side yard setback 8’7”
Rear yard setback 5’ for living space below grade and
5’ for a deck on top of the garage
P40
III.B.
209 East Bleeker Street
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015
Page 1 of 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, FAR
BONUS, AND VARIATION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 209
EAST BLEEKER STREET, LOTS C, D, AND A PORTION OF LOT B, BLOCK 73,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2015
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-20-002
WHEREAS, the applicant, 209 Bleeker LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, requested
HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, FAR Bonus, and Variation approval for the
property located at 209 East Bleeker Street, Lots C, D, and a portion of Lot B, Block 73, City and
Townsite of Aspen; 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 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
P41
III.B.
209 East Bleeker Street
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015
Page 2 of 4
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 variations 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:
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 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.
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated November 11, 2015, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval of the project with
conditions; and
P42
III.B.
209 East Bleeker Street
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015
Page 3 of 4
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on November 11, 2015 continued from September 23,
2015, 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, Variations, and the 500
square feet FAR Bonus with the following conditions:
1) Conceptual Major Development approval is granted as shown in Exhibit A with the
following conditions to be addressed in the Final Review application:
a. The connector directly behind the landmark shall be a flat roof that connects to
a one story gable roof.
b. The applicant shall demonstrate whether the flat roof connector can be tucked
beneath the original eave of the landmark.
c. All built-in features shown in setbacks shall be identified in height and location
to determine whether a variation is needed.
d. Detailed preservation plans for the historic resource shall be submitted
including an appropriately sized window in the gable end of the landmark.
e. A detailed landscape plan that includes a conceptual proposal addressing storm
water management requirements.
2) Demolition is granted for the non-historic additions and the non-historic shed.
3) The 500 sf FAR Bonus is granted.
4) The following variations are granted. Any discrepancy between the dimensions below
and the attached site plan, the site plan prevails. Landscape features (BBQs, firepits, etc.)
in the setbacks are not approved during Conceptual Review and shall be addressed during
Final Review should variations be requested.
Approved
West side yard setback 1’2”
Note: this is the existing location
of the landmark.
4’ for the new addition
Distance between buildings 9’ 7 ¾” proposed wall to wall, not
including lightwells
Combined side yard setback 8’7”
Rear yard setback 5’ for living space below grade and
5’ for a deck on top of the garage
P43
III.B.
209 East Bleeker Street
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015
Page 4 of 4
5) A Residential Design Standard variation is granted for the size and depth of the
recreated historic front porch.
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 11th day of November,
2015.
______________________
Willis Pember, Chair
Approved as to Form:
___________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit A: conceptually approved site plan and elevations.
P44
III.B.
Exhibit A – Relevant Design Guidelines
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing
materials on primary surfaces.
If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement
material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of
exposed lap and finish.
Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then
only those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials.
In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural
details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such
as a fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic
model.
Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced
with synthetic materials.
Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick.
EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco.
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.
P45
III.B.
Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will
negatively affect the integrity of a structure.
3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-
hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number
and position of glass panes.
Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining
facades.
3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.
Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining
facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the
window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and
finish.
3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to
receive a larger window is inappropriate.
Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered.
3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that
of the original window.
A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash
steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These
increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are
important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane
of the wall.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may
include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling,
hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights.
Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary
entrances.
If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be
reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the
door in place, in its historic position.
If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade
must remain operable.
P46
III.B.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in
height.
4.5 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.
5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is
strongly encouraged.
This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one
primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element.
Porch Replacement
5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form
and detail.
Use materials that appear similar to the original.
While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted
appropriately, alternative materials may be considered.
Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may
be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings.
Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are
not known to have been used on the house or others like it.
When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building.
The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork.
The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those
used historically as well.
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.
P47
III.B.
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.
6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities.
Replace only those portions that are beyond repair.
Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence.
Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible.
A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself
conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass
cornice may be considered at the top of a building.
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.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential
Design Standards).
The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations
and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it
should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building
also is inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
P48
III.B.
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.
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.
P49
III.B.
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.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the
historic building.
If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the
addition should be similar.
Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or
structure.
P50
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
1
Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Jim DeFrancia, Gretchen Greenwood,
Patrick Sagal. Absent were Nora Berko, Sallie Golden, John Whipple, Bob
Blaich and Michael Brown.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Sara Adams, Senior Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION: Jim made the motion to approve the minutes of September 9th as
amended by Willis. Willis second, all in favor, motion carried.
209 E. Bleeker – Major Development Conceptual review, Demolition,
Relocation, FAR Bonus, Residential Design Standards and Variations,
Public Hearing
Debbie said the affidavits of posting are in order - Exhibit I
Photographs - Exhibit II
Sara said the building was owned by the Hayes family for a long time and it
has been heavily altered. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the
miner’s cabin and add an addition. This is a designated landmark site. They
are also requesting the 500 square foot bonus and some variations to
setbacks and approval of partial demolition for the removal of the non-
historic additions that have happened over time. It is a 6,000 square foot lot
zoned R-6. The proposed site plan and the amount of mass that is being
proposed for the site is a concern. The new addition wraps around the
landmark in a way that overwhelms the one story landmark. The applicant
has pushed the addition to the rear but there is a piece sticking out adjacent
to the landmark that is two stories which is a concern of staff. Staff is
recommending a restudy of the site plan and massing. There are two
different concepts. One is to shift all of the mass to the rear so you don’t
have the “finger” sticking out next to the Victorian. The other approach is
to create the look of a lot split with two separate buildings from the street
facing façade and do almost an invisible addition behind the landmark.
Maybe use a one story connector that you can’t see. What is being proposed
is new construction next to it and also a two story behind the landmark.
P51
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
2
Staff feels there is too much mass on the site. Guideline 10.6, 10.8 and
10.14 are not met. The applicant is proposing a gabled roof which is more in
keeping with the Victorian. Staff is in support of removing the non -historic
addition. There is a shed but it cannot be linked to the Sanborne Map or any
documentation.
Sara explained that the bonus is in two parts. We are talking about a
reconstruction of this building with limited information and whether that
makes the FAR bonus appropriate. If there is a lot of guess work does that
mean they should get the bonus or is it even appropriate. The bonus should
be linked to preservation and maybe not re-creation.
Sara said if HPC feels the bonus is appropriate and the criteria met then we
recommend that the bonus be conditioned on two TDR’s being applied for.
Again, we feel there is too much mass on the site.
Variations – They are requesting variations for the east, west, combined and
rear yard setback. The variations requested are a product of too much mass
on the site. We are OK with legalizing the current location of the home
because they are not moving the home. The below grade space is a great
way to have mass underground. As far as the combined variances and the
east setback we felt that the project could get closer to meeting those
requirements. There is a 15 foot combined side yard setback and they are
providing about three feet.
Residential design standards – They are requesting a variation for the size
of the original front porch which doesn’t meet the six foot depth
requirement. Staff is absolutely supportive of that because it will recreating
the existing condition. Staff is recommending continuation to restudy the
mass and the site plan to meet the east side yard setback of 5 feet to get
closer to the combined setback of 15 feet.
Kim Raymond, architect
The proposal is an addition to the east and rear. We will take the gable
window out of the rendering because it is not there. We will put the dormer
back and restore the roof. We don’t feel the shed that Sara mention is old
but old wood has been used on it. A new roof was built over the existing
roof and a fireplace was added over time. We will put a small dormer that
existed back and restore the roof. We will refurbish the existing doors that
were found in the basement. They were probably the two doors that were on
P52
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
3
the front porch. Jim and Mary Hayes who lived in the house were prominent
members of the Aspen community.
Kim did a context power point of different buildings on the block and
explained their density.
Kim said we are at 45% site coverage on the lot. We feel the density is
appropriate on the lot and is in keeping with other projects approved by the
HPC and what is going on in the neighborhood. If the building was by itself
it gets overwhelmed by the large building beside it. The addition steps back
18 feet and then the two story element starts back another 5.7 feet. It would
be very hard to see the addition from either direction. The little shed will go
away and we are restoring the front porch. We have the five foot setback for
the garage. There is 9’10” between the cabin and the addition. The cabin
will be the main living room. We are trying to keep the same forms, flat
roofs and gables. The cabin is a very simple structure. The gable in the
back of the addition is 15 feet behind the back of the historic building. We
are going to great lengths to figure out what the cabin was and put it back as
close as we can and we feel the bonus is warranted. We are losing high
ceilings in order to re-create the little cabin. Aspen’s history is important to
this board and that is why we are re-creating the roof back to where it was
and another reason for granting the bonus. We also feel the cabin needs
something behind it to back it up. 417 421 Hallam is a similar project with
the building in the middle of the block and has a very similar site plan with
an addition that wraps around like our which is another example of what has
been approved by the HPC. We feel the FAR of 3,750 fit nicely on a 6,000
square foot lot. City Council does not want us to create TDR’s and sell them
or take them off the property. City Council wants us to keep them on the
property.
Design standards 10.6 - design an addition to be compatible with the size
and scale of the main building. We feel we have accomplished that here.
Guideline 10.8 says place an addition at the rear of the building or set it back
from the front to minimize. The two story addition is 23 ½ feet behind the
cabin and out link is off the back instead of off the side.
Sara said there are ways to move the mass around so that it doesn’t feel like
there is a two story mass all the way around the cabin. If you are having the
addition in the back make sure the side yard is much more subordinate to the
P53
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
4
landmark. If the addition is to the side then the rear absolutely needs to be
subordinate to the landmark. Don’t do both is what we are trying to say.
Jim said this has an addition to the side and rear and has the propensity to
overpower the cabin.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments.
Willis identified the issues:
Mass and scale and the disposition on site
Demolition of the shed
FAR bonus
Setback variances being requested.
15 foot combined side yard setback which is now 3 feet
Rear yard setback for a deck on top of the garage
Willis said he shares a lot of staffs concerns about mass and scale. There
seems to be two “nested” L’s. Willis said he appreciated the analysis
presented. You can’t see the connector piece. The underutilization of the
southwest corner of the lot could be addressed. The mass is usually back
toward the alley and have a more open area to the front of the house. The
three stacked windows on both floors is quite a lot of volume. Not being
able to see through to the connector is also a concern.
Patrick also agreed that the mass could be moved to the southwest corner
and they could still have the stone patio. The gable roof is desirable to keep
the historic character.
Gretchen said sometimes it is a value to discuss windows with respect to
mass and scale because they can significantly affect the perception of the
height of the building.
Jim agreed about the concern of the mass and not wanting to overwhelm the
historic structure. The FAR bonus is OK because they are going to a
considerable effort to restore an historic property. Taking the TDR’s off the
site would be preferable and that is the intent that the TDR’s are transferable
so you can do a better job preserving the site.
P54
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
5
Gretchen agreed with Staff and Willis regarding the mass and site planning.
This project doesn’t meet 75% of the guidelines in terms of preservation in
Aspen. The addition overwhelms a significant building for the community
that is not only an historic resource but also important members of our
community have lived here. The site is over developed. You are asking for
variances at the back of the building which could be avoided by re-designing
the space. The two story massing wrapping around the building is
unsuccessful from a preservation standpoint. Small cabins are not deemed
to have large additions. The lot split ordinance was adopted to try to prevent
this exact type of development. The site plan coverage needs restudied. The
bonus is not worthy in the current form. If the massing was taken down to a
one story structure next to the historic building and pushed back on the site
that might work. Setbacks should only be for historic resources not
additions when you have this much land to work with.
Willis said he would support a 6’10“combined side yard setback. Five foot
on the east and 1’10” for the resource. Willis said Jim and Mary Hayes were
a legacy and possibly a plaque could be done in memory of them.
MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 209 E. Bleeker until Nov. 11th with
guidance that the board has given; second by Jim. All in favor, motion
carried.
Draft revisions to HPC guidelines, Chapter 2-7
Amy Simon, Sara Adams, Sarah Rosenberg are the team working on the
guidelines.
Amy said they are changing the guidelines to be simplified. All the
photographs are from Aspen.
Sara mentioned that the goal is to make the guidelines more user friendly
and more concise. Below are the proposed changes.
Chapter 2 – Building Materials
Victorians have clapboard siding and Aspen Modern has other materials.
The section on aluminum siding has been pulled out.
Also pulled out was information on building maintenance and a chapter at
the end of the guidelines will be added about painting and maintenance.
P55
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
6
2.5 Alternative materials: Added: you can’t replace wood siding with
synthetic materials.
2.2 Finish of materials. Added: Finish of materials should be as it would
have existed historically.
Patrick suggested putting the original pictures up first and then the altered
photographs.
Chapter 3 – Windows
3.1 Preserve the original glass. If Victorian era glass is broken consider
using restoration glass for the repair.
3.4 Replacing of a historic window. Use materials that are the same as the
original.
3.7 New guideline: Adding new openings on a historic structure are
generally not allowed.
3.8 Use storm windows exterior or interior as an option.
Chapter 4
4.4 If you are replacing a door on a historic building you could use a
salvaged door.
4.5 Adding doors are generally not allowed.
4.8 New guideline: Preserve historic hardware.
Chapter 5
Porches and balconies
Back porch can’t be demolished.
5.5 If new steps are constructed construct them out of the same primary
materials used on the original and design them to be in scale with the porch
or balcony.
5.6 Avoid handrails and guardrails on steps where they did not exist
historically, particularly where visible from the street.
P56
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
7
Chapter 6
Architectural details
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required
based on original designs.
Chapter 7
Roofs
Amy said more information has been added about vents and they should be
minimal and painted a dark color.
7.3 Skylights – Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a flat
roof on an historic structure.
Gretchen said she would not support any skylights on a historic structure. Is
it preservation or not. Skylights and solar panels are not acceptable on any
portion of an historic structure.
7.4 New vents should be minimized carefully placed and painted a dark
color and toward the back of the building. You can’t do direct vent
fireplaces on historic structures.
7.6 Dormers cannot be added on a front primary façade. Not every building
will be allowed to have a dormer.
7.8 Flashing – We are looking for a gray finish, tin, galvanized lead coated
copper, painted metal. Cooper flashing is too fancy. Metal roofs are not
appropriate for an Aspen Victorian home but maybe for a secondary
structure.
7.12 New guideline: Gutters should be minimized and not use copper for a
Victorian.
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P57
III.B.
802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
November
5,
2015
Sara
Adams
City
of
Aspen
Historic
Preservation
130
S
Galena
Street,
3rd
Floor
Aspen,
CO
81611
RE:
209
E
Bleeker
Ave
Summary
Letter
for
second
hearing
Aspen,
Colorado
Parcel
ID:
273707320002
Dear
Sara,
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
expertise
regarding
this
property
that
has
historic
significance
as
a
structure
in
the
community
due
to
the
fact
that
the
Hayes
family
had
this
home
in
their
family
for
decades.
The
home
has
had
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
done
to
it
over
the
years,
so
the
restoration
back
to
the
original
cottage
will
be
substantial.
We
have
located
great
photos
to
show
us
how
to
re-‐construct
the
home
to
it’s
original
appearance.
This
letter
has
information
about
the
changes
made
to
the
home
since
the
first
meeting,
along
with
keeping
the
pertinent
information
from
the
original
application.
The
home
will
remain
in
the
original
location,
which
had
a
full
basement
constructed
below
it
some
time
ago.
This
basement
will
be
expanded
under
the
new
addition
to
the
south
and
east
of
the
historic
cottage.
The
addition
will
have
a
single
story
addition
beyond
the
link
at
the
rear
of
the
cottage
and
then
a
two
story
element,
that
has
a
very
simple
form
with
a
gable
roof
to
the
east.
This
skinny
addition
will
be
reminiscent
of
the
smaller
homes
that
used
to
occupy
most
of
the
west
end;
with
a
modern
twist
The
original
building
is
located
only
14”
from
the
west
property
line,
requiring
a
side
yard
variance
and
combined
side
yard
variance.
The
addition
is
held
9’-‐7”
away
from
the
resource
to
the
east;
creating
a
pattern
with
the
spacing
between
the
neighbors
on
both
east
and
west
of
nearly
10’-‐0”
between
all
the
buildings
and
building
elements.
The
front
façade
is
held
back
15’
from
the
front
façade
of
the
cottage,
being
P58
III.B.
802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
set
back
from
the
resource
and
allowing
the
existing
trees
to
remain;
leaving
the
historic
building
in
the
dominant
location
on
the
property
as
the
focus
for
pedestrians
while
keeping
with
the
rhythm
of
narrow
houses
addressing
the
street.
The
attached
Sanborn
and
Sons
map
shows
that
this
small
cottage
was
originally
on
just
one
city
lot
and
there
was
another
small
cottage
on
the
lot
next
to
it.
This
explains
the
proximity
to
the
west
lot
line.
The
map
also
shows
two
small
outbuildings
located
on
the
alley.
They
are
no
longer
in
existence.
There
is
a
small,
non-‐historic
shed
that
will
be
removed.
We
are
seeking
the
500
sq
ft
FAR
bonus
for
an
outstanding
job
in
restoring
this
little
cottage
to
it’s
historic,
original
appearance.
The
details
of
this
restoration
work
will
be
detailed
below.
Section
26.314.040
-‐
Standards
Applicable
to
variances.
A.
The
required
three
circumstances
exist;
for
the
HPC
to
have
the
ability
to
grant
dimensional
variances:
1.
The
granting
of
a
variance
to
this
project
is
consistent
with
the
purposes,
goals
and
objectives
of
the
Land
Use
Code
and
the
Municipal
Code;
the
preservation
and
restoration
of
a
Historic
Resource
is
consistent
with
both
codes.
2.
The
variances
requested
are
the
minimal
variances
needed
to
make
the
best
use
of
the
parcel,
leaving
the
historic
resource
in
it’s
original
location.
3.
The
literal
interpretation
of
the
section
of
the
code
regarding
side
yard
setbacks
and
combined
side
yard
setbacks
will
deprive
the
owners
of
the
opportunity
to
leave
the
historic
resource
in
it’s
original
location;
resulting
in
excessive
cost
to
relocate
the
building
that
would
otherwise
not
be
incurred.
It
would
also
add
further
hardship
to
make
an
addition
to
the
building
on
the
lot
in
a
manner
that
leaves
the
historic
building
as
the
‘center
piece’
of
the
lot.
And
moving
the
cottage
goes
completely
contrary
to
the
principles
of
historic
preservation.
a)
The
special
condition
of
this
parcel
is
that
the
historic
home
is
14”
from
the
west
side
lot
line;
leaving
it
there,
requires
a
3’-‐10”
side
yard
setback
variance.
A
combined
side
yard
variance
will
also
be
required.
The
addition
that
will
be
adjacent
to
the
historic
cottage
is
being
held
9’-‐7”
to
the
east,
to
create
space
and
“breathing
room”
for
the
historic
resource.
The
addition
will
meet
the
side
yard
setback
on
the
east
side,
but
the
combined
side
yard
setback
will
be
8’-‐6
¾”
shy
of
the
required
15”-‐0.
This
variance
is
not
required
for
the
entire
building,
but
the
length
of
the
addition
where
it
is
adjacent
to
the
historic
cottage;
31’-‐4
¼”.
Please
see
the
proposed
site
plan
for
the
layout
of
the
existing
and
proposed
building
elements.
Section
26.410
–
Residential
Design
Standards
A.
Site
design
1.
The
existing
house
is
located
on
a
standard
parcel
in
the
middle
of
a
city
block,
comprised
of
two
original
City
blocks.
The
historic
home
will
remain
in
P59
III.B.
802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
the
same
location
and
have
the
same
orientation
to
the
street;
with
the
front
door
on
the
restored
front
porch,
which
is
parallel
to
Bleeker.
The
original
porch,
as
was
common
in
those
days,
has
two
doors
on
the
porch
leading
to
the
interior
spaces.
The
applicant
proposes
to
use
one
of
these
doors
as
the
main
entry
to
the
new
home.
2.
The
building
will
remain
in
the
historic
location.
In
response
to
comments
from
the
HPC
members
and
staff,
we
changed
the
massing
so
it
doesn’t
wrap
around
the
cottage
as
two
levels
tall
on
two
sides.
This
configuration
has
two
storys
on
just
the
east
side;
a
simple
gable
form.
The
rest
of
the
addition
is
a
single
story
behind
the
cottage.
This
approach
would
look
like
a
lot
split
with
a
smaller
looking
house
next
to
the
cottage
with
a
short
and
mostly
glass
element
connecting
the
two
building
elements,
and
it
is
set
back
10
behind
the
back
of
the
cottage.
B.1.
Building
Form
1.
Secondary
Mass;
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
secondary
mass
that
will
be
connected
to
the
cottage
by
means
of
a
single
story
linking
element.
More
than
10%
of
the
total
square
feet
of
the
building
will
be
in
this
secondary
mass.
2.
Subordinate
linking
element:
This
link
does
not
meet
all
the
dimensional
standards
and
requirements
of
Section
26.410.040
of
the
Land
Use
Code.
It
does
have
a
plate
height
of
less
than
9’;
it
is
10’
in
length
and
but
is
wider
than
the
required
10.
With
the
programmatic
puzzle
of
using
the
historic
resource
as
the
entry
and
a
vibrant
part
of
the
residence,
and
keep
as
much
of
the
addition
behind
the
cottage
and
as
a
single
story
element,
we
expanded
the
width
of
the
link
to
15’-‐0
to
connect
the
living
room
to
the
kitchen.
This
expanded
link
still
leaves
both
rear
corners
of
the
cottage
exposed;
though
not
very
visible
from
either
side
as
there
is
an
existing
concrete
wall
along
the
west
property
line.
There
will
not
be
a
deck
above
this
linking
element.
E.
Context
1.
Materials.
E1.a
All
of
the
existing
materials
on
the
historic
house
will
be
cleaned
up
and
repaired
as
necessary
to
maintain
the
historic
character
of
the
existing
building;
the
materials
on
the
new
portion
of
this
home
will
be
a
similar
color
palette
with
appropriate
scale
wood
siding
to
blend,
but
be
differentiated
from
the
historic.
E2.
Inflection.
This
lot
has
two
story
buildings
on
both
sides.
The
addition
addresses
the
two
story
building
to
the
east
by
having
a
two
story
element,
set
back
from
the
front
façade
of
the
historic
resource;
it
addresses
the
street,
is
similar
in
height
to
the
neighboring
home,
but
does
not
overpower
the
miner’s
cottage.
The
addition
to
the
rear
is
a
single
story
element,
in
response
to
the
small
miner’s
cottage.
In
this
way
it
fits
into
the
neighborhood
by
not
being
‘dwarfed’
by
the
neighbors,
and
at
the
same
time
not
being
overwhelmed
by
the
addition.
P60
III.B.
802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
Section
26.415
–
Historic
Preservation
Section
26.415.110
Benefits
Pursuant
to
this
section
of
the
Land
Use
Code,
the
applicant
is
seeking
certain
benefits
being
offered
by
the
City
of
Aspen
to
encourage
good
preservation
practices;
taking
advantage
of
the
preservation
tools
that
were
developed
to
help
owners,
in
response
to
the
tight
historic
preservation
controls
legislated
by
the
City.
This
section
also
states
that
no
affordable
housing
mitigation
shall
be
required
as
a
result
of
the
addition
to
the
historic
resource
on
the
original
lot.
A.
Historic
Landmark
Lot
split
No
lot
split
is
being
requested.
B.
Increased
Density
This
project
is
not
increasing
the
density
on
this
lot;
it
will
remain
a
single-‐family
home.
C1.
Variances
The
applicant
will
seek
2
dimensional
variances;
one
for
the
side
yard
setback
and
the
other
for
the
combined
side
yard
setback.
The
historic
home
was
built
only
14”
from
what
is
now
the
west
property
line.
Since
the
home
is
not
being
relocated,
but
left
in
it’s
historic
location,
we
are
requesting
a
side
yard
setback
variance
of
3’-‐10”
on
the
west
side.
To
keep
some
distance
between
the
cottage
and
the
proposed
addition,
a
combined
side
yard
setback
is
being
requested
of
8’-‐6
¾”.
This
allows
nearly
ten
feet
of
space
between
the
cottage
and
the
addition;
which
is
also
held
back
behind
the
front
façade
of
the
original
cottage
15’-‐6”.
This
allows
the
cottage
to
be
the
focal
point
for
pedestrians;
allows
a
building
element
that
won’t
overwhelm
the
cottage,
but
will
help
with
the
inflection
to
the
neighboring
home
to
the
east.
The
other
variance
is
for
subgrade
living
space
to
be
allowed
under
the
garage
within
the
10’-‐0
setback
requirement,
and
for
a
deck
to
be
allowed
above
the
garage;
which
is
also
in
the
10’-‐0
setback.
The
deck
variance
is
to
allow
a
small
deck
on
the
sunny
and
view
side
of
the
property
and
to
keep
it
hidden
from
pedestrians
on
Bleeker
Street.
C2a.
We
feel
that
the
small
variances
from
the
residential
design
standards
is
in
keeping
with
the
pattern
and
characteristics
of
the
historic
district
by
leaving
the
Miner’s
cottage
in
it’s
original
location
on
the
lot,
keeping
a
large
front
yard
to
the
east,
thus
keeping
the
cottage
as
the
focal
or
predominant
feature
of
the
lot
from
the
road.
The
design
is
creating
a
significant,
yet
complimentary
distinction
between
the
historic
and
new
construction.
D.
Parking
We
are
not
seeking
a
parking
variance,
we
are
providing
2
spaces.
E.
Conditional
Uses
We
are
not
seeking
a
conditional
use.
F.
Floor
Area
Bonus:
We
are
asking
that
the
HPC
grant
the
500
sq.
ft.
bonus
P61
III.B.
802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
to
this
project
for
an
outstanding
effort
in
restoration
of
the
historic
cottage.
1.
Please
consider
the
following:
a) The
Historic
home
and
the
proposed
addition
meet
the
residential
design
standards
except
the
side
yard
setback,
due
to
it’s
original
location
being
only
14”
from
the
west
side
property
line;
and
the
resulting
combined
sideyard
setback;
and
the
width
of
the
link;
which
is
not
visible
from
any
public
viewpoint.
b)
The
Miner’s
Cottage
is
remaining
the
key
element
of
the
property,
staying
in
the
original
location
with
the
addition
being
respectfully
behind
and
offset
from
the
historic
building;
it
appears
to
be
a
separate
building.
c)
Using
photos
and
the
Sanborn
and
Son’s
Maps,
we
are
restoring
what
remains
of
the
original
building
to
it’s
historic
appearance,
even
rebuilding
major
portions
of
the
structure
that
have
been
demolished
or
buried.
The
applicant
proposes
taking
off
the
addition
of
a
new
roof
and
second
story,
and
the
addition
to
the
east;
replacing
the
original
roof;
repairing
and
restoring
the
front
porch
as
a
single
story
element;
removing
the
added
chimney
mass
that
faces
the
street
and
replace
the
front
windows;
and
replacing
the
small
dormer
on
the
south
side
of
the
main
gable
roof.
d)
The
new
addition
is
reflective
of
the
historic
building’s
proportional
patterns
in
form,
material
and
openings.
The
dominant
element
of
the
addition
has
a
gable
form
that
is
the
same
slope
as
the
main
gable
on
the
cottage,
which
also
faces
Bleeker
Street;
this
gable
shape
has
more
modern
detailing
to
distinguish
it
from
the
original,
with
a
plumb
cut
eave
that
is
flush
with
the
walls.
The
punch
opening
of
glazing
on
the
north
façade
is
set
into
a
deep
frame,
accentuating
the
modern
application
The
windows
in
the
addition
are
all
tall
and
narrow
reflecting
the
proportion
of
the
double
hung
windows
of
the
cottage.
The
modern
twist
to
this
is
that
the
windows
in
the
new
construction
will
be
taller,
for
the
modern
treatment
of
a
tall,
narrow
window.
The
glazing
in
the
windows
are
broken
up
with
mullions
to
bring
the
scale
down
in
respect
to
the
cottage,
except
on
the
south
side,
where
they
will
not
be
seen
in
connection
with
the
cottage
from
passers-‐by.
F2.
As
outlined
above,
we
feel
that
we
are
meeting
all
of
the
criteria
to
be
considered
an
outstanding
renovation
to
earn
the
500
sq.
ft.
bonus.
This
project
will
demonstrate
exemplary
preservation
practices
and
restore
to
the
original
appearance
the
cottage
that
belonged
to
a
well
known
and
loved
family
in
the
community.
The
applicant
has
gone
to
great
lengths
to
find
old
photos
to
discover
the
original
building
under
all
of
the
years
of
additions
and
neglect.
We
understand
that
this
cottage
is
far
from
it’s
original
appearance
and
needs
to
be
as
much
re-‐constructed
as
it
is
renovated;
the
historic
significance
of
the
property
being
attributed
more
to
the
inhabitants
than
the
structure.
The
owner
is
open
to
putting
some
sort
of
a
plaque
on
the
building
in
their
honor.
P62
III.B.
802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
Section
26.575.020
–
Calculations
and
Measurements.
Please
see
attached
Floor
Area
Ratio
Calculations.
These
calculations
were
made
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
and
rules
of
this
section
and
Section
26.710.040
R-‐6
medium
Density
Zone
District.
The
Floor
Area
for
this
parcel
is
3240
sq.
ft.
for
a
single
family
home
on
a
6000
sq.
ft.
lot,
plus
the
requested
floor
area
bonus
of
500
sq.
ft.
=
3740
sq.
ft.
of
allowable
FAR;
if
the
bonus
is
granted.
The
current
measurements
and
calculations
per
this
section
have
been
used
in
the
calculation
of
floor
area
for
the
building,
including
the
subgrade
space.
The
Site
Plan
addresses
the
front,
rear
and
side
yard
setbacks.
The
elevations
show
compliance
with
the
height
limitations
as
described
herein.
Please
see
attached
drawings
for
the
FAR
Calculations,
Site
plan
and
Exterior
Building
Elevations.
The
changes
to
the
existing
building
and
all
new
construction
comply
with
the
definitions,
requirements
and
limitations
as
outlined
in
this
section.
In
Summary,
we
feel
like
the
changes
that
were
made
to
the
massing
and
reconfiguring
of
the
floor
plan
bring
this
project
in
line
with
the
Historic
Preservation
design
standards
and
the
direction
given
by
both
the
members
of
HPC
and
by
staff.
We
feel
that
this
project
meets
all
of
the
criteria
and
design
standard
intentions
to
be
an
outstanding
Historic
Preservation
and
Restoration
project.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
of
this
project.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
the
HPC
on
this
renovation/addition.
Sincerely,
Kim
Raymond,
Principal
Kim
Raymond
Architects,
Inc
P63
III.B.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 0.0
11/5/15Plotted On:T
I
T
L
E
/
C
O
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
GENERAL CONTRACTOR:
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
MECHANICAL ENGINEER:
CIVIL ENGINEER:
0103
02
04
V
I C
I N
I T
Y
M
A
P
2
0
9
E A
S
T
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
7/20/15
A
S P E
N
, C O
PARCEL ID: 273707320002
Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 73 Lot: C & D
1
A7.1
LOCATION
1
A4.1
1
A5.1
PARCEL ID NUMBER:
ZONING:
SITE AREA:
BLDG USE:
OCC. GROUP:
CONST. TYPE:
CLIMATE ZONE:
FIRE SPRINKLERS:
LEGAL DESC'N:
273707320002
R6-Medium Density Residential
6000 sq ft
Residential
####
####
####
####
209 E. BLEEKER STREET
"HAYES HOUSE"
ABBREVIATIONS
MATERIAL LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
SHEET INDEXPROJECT TEAMAPPLICABLE CODES PROJECT DATA
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
A 0.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
A 0.1 SURVEY
A 1.0 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
A 1.1 NEIGHBORHOOD
A 1.2 FAR CALCULATIONS - EXISTING
A 1.3 FAR CALCULATIONS - PROPOSED
A 1.4 FAR CALCULATIONS - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
A 2.0 EXISTING FLOOR PLANS
A 2.1 EXISTING ELEVATIONS
A 2.2 DEMO CALCS
A 3.1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A 3.2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A 3.3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR & ROOF PLAN
A 3.4 ROOF PLAN
A 4.1 NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS
A 4.2 EAST ELEVATIONS
A 4.3 WEST ELEVATIONS
A 5.1 SECTION
A 5.2 SECTION
A 9.0 3D RENDERS
ALL CODES REFERENCED ARE TO BE USED AS AMENDED
BY THE STATE OF COLORADO AND LOCAL JURISDICTION.
FAR (FLOOR AREA RATIO)
1. THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS, AS
INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE
PRODUCED IS CONSTRUCTED OR NOT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO
BE REUSED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT
CONTRACT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ARCHITECT.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO INSURE THAT
CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AND
RELATED CODES AND PRACTICES. SKILLED AND QUALIFIED WORKMEN IN
THEIR ASSOCIATED TRADES SHALL PERFORM ALL WORK AT THE HIGHEST
STANDARD OF CRAFTSMANSHIP.
3. THE ARCHITECT WILL PROVIDE DETAILS AND/OR DIRECTION FOR
DESIGN INTENT WHERE IT IS NEGLECTED IN THE DOCUMENTS OR
ALTERED BY EXISTING CONDITIONS.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS
DEPICTED IN THESE DOCUMENTS AND SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF
ANY DISCREPANCIES, OMISSIONS, AND/OR CONFLICTS PRIOR TO
PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. ALL DIMENSIONS ON STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS SHALL BE CHECKED AGAINST ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS.
NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO
PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DRAWINGS.
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL
TRADES UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY WITH DRAWINGS AND/OR
SPECIFICATIONS.
7. THE OWNER AND/OR ARCHITECT SHALL APPROVE ANY “EQUAL”
MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, ETC. PRESENTED BY THE
CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY THE ARCHITECT AND/OR
OWNER WITH SAMPLES OF ALL FINISH MATERIALS AND SHALL NOT
PROCEED WITH INSTALLATION UNTIL THE ARCHITECT AND/OR OWNER
ISSUES AN APPROVAL. ALL WORK MUST CONFORM TO THE APPROVED
SAMPLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FORWARD ALL REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
AND VERIFICATIONS TO THE ARCHITECT WITH ADEQUATE TIME FOR
REVIEW AS NOT TO DELAY THE WORK IN PROGRESS.
8. IF REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT WITH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN PRIOR TO
OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT.
9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS TO THE ARCHITECT
FOR WINDOWS, DOORS, CASEWORK, METAL DETAILING, STAIRS,
FIREPLACE, AND ANY OTHER WORK NOTED IN THE DOCUMENTS.
FABRICATION SHALL NOT PROCEED ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS UNTIL THE
CONTRACTOR RECEIVES APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS FROM THE
ARCHITECT. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROVED SHOP
DRAWINGS.
10. THE DESIGN, ADEQUACY, AND SAFETY OF ERECTION BRACING,
TEMPORARY SUPPORTS, SHORING, ETC. SHALL BE THE SOLE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED
BY THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE STABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF
CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL CONFORM TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND
LOCAL O.S.H.A. REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY AND CARE OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REQUESTING
BUILDING INSPECTIONS AS APPLICABLE TO THE INTERNATIONAL
BUILDING / RESIDENTIAL CODE AND LOCAL ORDINANCES.
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL OPENINGS THROUGH
WALLS, FLOORS, AND CEILINGS WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL,
MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, AND LIGHTING DRAWINGS. REFER
TO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR ALLOWABLE OPENING SIZES /
REQUIREMENTS IN STRUCTURAL MEMBERS.
13. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE STONE MASON’S
TAKE-OFFS AND WILL ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COORDINATING
ANY ITEMS THAT REQUIRE CLARIFICATION DURING THE BIDDING
PROCESS.
14. THE ARCHITECT WILL VERIFY IN FIELD ALL LIGHTING FIXTURES,
SWITCHES, MECHANICAL GRILLES, REGISTERS, AND THERMOSTAT
LOCATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH-IN
LIGHTING FIXTURES AND ILLUSTRATE SWITCH, REGISTER, AND GRILLE
LOCATIONS PRIOR TO THE ARCHITECT WALK-THROUGH.
15. ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATIONS SUCH AS GRILLES, BOILER FLAPS, ETC.
TO BE COPPER OR ENCLOSED BY COPPER FITTINGS.
- 2009 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE
- 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
- 2009 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE
- PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE
- PITKIN COUNTY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODE
- PITKIN COUNTY PROPERTY RESOLUTIONS OFFICE PHONE:
CONTACT:
KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
0133 Prospector Rd. Unit 4102X
Aspen, CO 81611
970.925.2252
KIM RAYMOND / kim@krai.us
LIVABLE
LOWER LEVEL: 131 sf.
MAIN LEVEL: 2130 sf.
UPPER LEVEL: 1340 sf.
SUBTOTAL: 3609 sf.
DECK
MAIN LEVEL 708 sf.
UPPER LEVEL 163 sf.
SUBTOTAL 871 sf.
GARAGE
MAIN LEVEL: 122.5 sf.
122.5 sf.
TOTAL: 3731.5 sf.
*REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DOCUMENTS
A1.3 FOR THE FAR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION.
JST.JOIST
VINYL COMPOSITION TILEVCT
YARD
WROUGHT IRON
WOOD
WITHOUT
WITH
WEIGHT
WEATHER PROOF
WAINSCOT
WINDOW
WATER CLOSET
VERTICAL
VOLT AMPERE
VERIFY IN FIELD
VAPOR BARRIER
URINAL
UNFINISHED
TYPICAL
TRANSFORMER
TOILET
THROUGH
THICK
THREADED
THRESHOLD
TELEPHONE
TELEVISION OUTLET
TUBE STEEL
TOP OF WALL
TOP OF SLAB
TOP OF MASONRY
TOP OF JOIST
TOP OF FOOTING
TOP OF CURB
TOP OF BEAM
TOP OF
TELEPHONE MOUNTING BOARD
THROUGH BOLT
TONGUE AND GROOVE
SYSTEM
SYMMETRICAL
SWITCH
SUSPENDED
STEEL
STANDARD
SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS
SQUARE INCHES
SQUARE FEET
SPEAKER
SPECIFICATIONS
SPACE
SIMILAR
SHEATHING
SHEET
SERVICE ENTRANCE SECTION
SECTION
SCHEDULE
SELF CLOSING
STAINLESS STEEL
SKYLIGHT
SHUT OFF VALVE
SMOKE DETECTOR
SOLID CORE
REMOVE
ROOM
REVISION
RETURN
REQUIRED
REINFORCED
REFERENCE
REFRIGERATOR
RIGHT OF WAY
ROUGH OPENING
ROOF DRAIN OVERFLOW
ROOF DRAIN LEADER
RADIUS
QUANTITY
QUARRY TILE
POWER
POLYVINYLCLORIDE
PARTITION
POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT
PREFABRICATED
PERFORATED
PORCELAIN
PLYWOOD
PLUMBING
PLASTIC
PLATE
PLASTER
PHASE
PERPENDICULAR
POINT OF CONNECTION
PLASTIC LAMINATE
PROPERTY LINE
PRECAST CONCRETE
OPPOSITE
OPENING
OVER HEAD
OUTSIDE AIR INTAKE
OUTSIDE RADIUS
ORNAMENTAL IRON
OVER HANG
OUTSIDE DIAMETER
ON CENTER
NOMINAL
NUMBER
NAILER
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NON-CORROSIVE METAL
NOT TO SCALE
NOT IN CONTRACT
MULLION
METAL
MODULAR
MISCELLANEOUS
MINIMUM
MANUFACTURER
MANUFACTURING
MEDIUM
MECHANICAL
MAXIMUM
MATERIAL
MASONRY
MARBLE
MASONRY OPENING
MALLEABLE IRON
MANHOLE
MACHINE BOLT
LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER
LIGHTING
LIGHT
LINOLEUM
LINEAR
LEAD
LAVATORY
LATERAL
LAMINATE
LINEAR FEET
LIGHT EMITTING DIODE
KNOCK OUT
KILN DRIED
KNOCK DOWN
JOINT
JUNCTION
JUNCTION BOX
INTERIOR
INSULATION
INCLUDE, INCLUSIVE
IMPREGNATED
INTERMEDIATE METALLIC CONDUIT
ISOLATED GROUND
IDENTIFICATION
INSIDE FACE
INSIDE DIAMETER
INTERCOM OUTLET
HYDRAULIC
HOT WATER
HEATING, VENTILATING & AIR CONDITIONING
HEATER
HORIZONTAL
HEIGHT
HARDWARE
HARDBOARD
HANDICAPPED
HOLLOW METAL
HOLLOW CORE
HOSE BIBB
GYPSUM BOARD
GYPSUM
GALVANIZED RIGID TUBING
GATE VALVE
GRADE MARK
GLUE LAMINATED BEAM
GLASS
GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER
GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER
GARAGE
GALVANIZED
GAUGE
GALVANIZED IRON
FURNISH
FOOTING
FIRE PROOF
FLUORESCENT
FLOORING
FLOOR
FINISH
FIRE HOSE CABINET
FOUNDATION
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION
FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL
FABRICATE
FIBERGLASS
FLOOR SINK
FACE OF
FIELD NAILING
FIRE EXTINGUISHER
FLOOR DRAIN
FLOOR CLEAN OUT
FAN COIL
FIRE ALARM
EXTERIOR
EXISTING
EXHAUST
EXCAVATE
ELECTRIC DRINKING COOLER
EVAPORATIVE COOLER
ESTIMATE
EQUIPMENT
EQUAL
ELECTRICAL NON-METALLIC TUBING
ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING
ELECTRICAL METALLIC CONDUIT
ELEVATOR
"ELECTRIC, ELECTRICAL"
ELEVATION
EACH
EACH WAY
END NAILING
EXPANSION JOINT
EXHAUST FAN
EXPANSION ANCHOR
DOOR
DOWN
DEAD LOAD
DIMENSION
DIAGONAL
DIAMETER
DEMOLITION
DOUBLE
DISHWASHER
DOWN SPOUT
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
PENNY
COPPER
CONTRACTOR
CONTINUOUS
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE
COMBINATION
COLUMN
CENTERED
CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
CLEAR
CLOSET
CAULKING
CEILING
CENTERLINE
CIRCUIT BREAKER
CHANNEL
CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE
CERAMIC
CEMENT
CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION
CAMBER
CABINET
CERAMIC TILE
CLEAN OUT
CONTROL JOINT
CAST IN PLACE
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
CONCRETE ASBESTOS PIPE
BRONZE
BEARING
BRASS
BEAM
BLOCKING
BLOCK
BUILDING
BOARD
BACK OF CURB
BUILT UP
BOTTOM OF FOOTING
BOTTOM OF
BOUNDARY NAILING
BENCH MARK
ANGLE
AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE
AVERAGE
ASPHALT
ANNEALED
ALTERNATE
ALUMINUM
AIR HANDLER UNIT
ABOVE GRADE
ADDITION or ADDENDUM
ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE
ACOUSTIC
ASBESTOS-CEMENT BOARD
ABOVE
ACRYLONITRILE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
AIR CONDITIONING
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
ANCHOR BOLT
AMPERES
YD.
W.I.
WD.
W/O
W/
WT.
WP
WCT
WDW
WC
VERT.
VA
V.I.F.
V.B.
UR
UNF.
TYP.
TRANS.
TLT.
THRU
THK.
THD.
TH.
TEL.
T.V.
T.S.
T.O.W.
T.O.S.
T.O.M.
T.O.J.
T.O.F.
T.O.C.
T.O.B.
T.O.
T.M.B.
T.B.
T & G
SYS.
SYM
SW
SUSP.
STL.
STD.
STC
SQ. IN.
SQ. FT.
SPKR.
SPECS
SPA.
SIM.
SHT'G.
SH
SES
SECT.
SCHED.
SC
S/S
S/L
S.O.V.
S.D.
S.C.
RMV.
RM
REV.
RET.
REQ'D.
REINF.
REF.
REF
R.O.W. or R/W
R.O.
R.D.O.
R.D.L.
R
QTY.
Q.T.
PWR.
PVC
PTN.
PSI
PSF
PREFAB.
PERF.
PORC.
PLYWD.
PLUMB.
PLAS.
PLT.
PL.
PH or Ø
PERP. or
P.O.C.
P.LAM.
P.L.
P.C.
OPPO.
OPNG.
OH
OAI
O.R.
O.I.
O.H.
O.D.
O.C.
NOM.
NO.
NLR.
NFC
NCM
N.T.S.
N.I.C.
MUL
MTL.
MOD
MISC.
MIN.
MFR.
MFG.
MED.
MECH.
MAX.
MAT'L
MAS.
MAR.
M.O.
M.I.
M.H.
M.B.
LVL
LTG.
LT.
LINO.
LIN.
LD.
LAV
LAT.
LAM
L.FT.
L.E.D.
KO
KD
K-D
JT.
JCT
J-BOX
INT.
INSUL.
INCL.
IMPG
IMC
IG
ID
I.F.
I.D.
I.C.
HYD.
HW
HVAC
HTR
HOR.
HGT.
HDW
HDBD.
H/C
H.M.
H.C.
H.B.
GYP. BD.
GYP.
GRC
GM
GM
GLB
GL
GFI
GFCI
GAR.
GALV.
GA.
G.I.
FURN.
FTG.
FP
FLUOR.
FLG.
FL
FIN.
FHC
FDN.
FDC
FACP
FAB.
F/G
F.S.
F.O.
F.N.
F.E.
F.D.
F.C.O.
F.C.
F.A.
EXT.
EXIST. or E
EXH.
EXC
EWC
EVAP.
EST.
EQUIP.
EQ.
ENT
EMT
EMC
ELEV.
ELECT.
EL
EA.
E.W.
E.N.
E.J.
E.F.
E.A.
DR
DN.
DL
DIM.
DIAG.
DIA. or Ø
DEMO
DBL.
D/W
D.S.
D.G.
D.F.
d
CU
CONTR.
CONT.
CONST.
CONC.
COMB.
COL.
CNTRD.
CMU
CLR.
CLO.
CLKG.
CLG.
CL or C.L.
CKT. BKR.
CH
CFM
CER
CEM.
CCTV
CAM.
CAB
C.T.
C.O.
C.J.
C.I.P.
C.D.
C.A.P.
BRZ
BRG.
BR
BM.
BLKG.
BLK.
BLDG
BD.
B/C
B.U.
B.O.F.
B.O.
B.N.
B.M.
AWG
AVG
ASPH.
ANL
ALT.
AL. or ALUM.
AHU
AG
ADD.
ACT
ACOU.
ACB
ABV.
ABS
ABC
A/C
A.F.G.
A.F.F.
A.B.
A
SLOPE TO DRAINS.T.D.
GENERAL NOTES
FINISH WOOD
WOOD STUD
BLOCKING
STEEL
STEEL STUD
FRAMED WALL
BATT INSULATION
OR
PLYWOOD
PLYWOOD
OR
GLU-LAM
CONCRETE
STONE
CMU
SAND
GRAVEL
GWB
COMPACTED SOIL
SPRAY-FOAM INSULATION
RIGID INSULATION
GRID LINE
BREAK LINE
MATCH LINE
REVISION
A9.1
ELEVATION MARKER
SECTION MARKER
DETAIL CUT
DETAIL
1
A6.1
ELEVATION
100
A
ROOM NAME
101
INTERIOR ELEVATION MARKER
ELEVATION NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
SECTION NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
DETAIL NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
SPOT ELEVATION
DOOR MARK
WINDOW MARK
ROOM NAME AND NUMBER
ELEVATION NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
SYMBOL LEGEND
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LA 1.0
STRUCTURAL
SV 1.1
ELECTRICAL
E 1.1 ####
LIGHTING
L1.1
Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
Block: 73 Lot: C & D
P
6
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
HPC 1
11/5/15Plotted On:C
A
B
I
N
E
V
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
1955 - FRONT VIEW 1955 - BACK VIEW 1955 - ROOF
1978 ADDITION - FRONT VIEW 1978 ADDITION - BACK VIEW 1978 ADDITION - ROOF
2015 - BACK VIEW 2015 - ROOF2015 - FRONT VIEW
O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L
C
A
B
I
N
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
6
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
HPC 2
11/5/15Plotted On:1
9
5
5
-
O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L
C
A
B
I
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 ORIGINAL-NORTH
HPC 2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 ORIGINAL-WEST
HPC 2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
5 ORIGINAL-EAST
HPC 2
BRICK FIREPLACE
AT CROSS RIDGE
ENTRY PORCH
ON CORNER. WOOD
POSTS AND HANDRAIL.
SHINGLE ROOF
ONE STORY CABIN,
SIDING FINISH AND
CORNER TRIM
BRICK CHIMNEY
FRONT CENTRAL WINDOW
PORCH HAS BEEN
CLOSED COVERED
BACK SHED ADDITION
BACK SHED ADDITION
BACK SHED
ADDITION
WEST VIEW FROM BLEEKER ST. AND ASPEN ST. - YEAR 1955
(ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY ARCHIVE)
EAST VIEW FROM BLEEKER ST. - YEAR UNKNOWN (BEFORE 1978)
(MARY HAYES PHOTOGRAPHY)
P
6
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
HPC 3
11/5/15Plotted On:1
9
7
8
-
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 ORIGINAL-SOUTH
HPC 3
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
5 ORIGINAL-EAST
HPC 3
BRICK CHIMNEY
GABLED DORMER
WOOD PANELED
DOOR
SHED ROOF
FOR BACK
ADDITION
BRICK CHIMNEY
SOUTH AND EAST VIEWS - YEAR 1978 (REMODEL)
(MARY HAYES PHOTOGRAPHY)
P
6
7
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
HPC 4
11/5/15Plotted On:R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
BRICK CHIMNEY
WOOD SHINGLES
HORIZONTAL SIDING
SIMPLE WOOD COLUMNS
FOR PORCH
BACK SHED ROOF
HORIZONTAL SIDING
BACK SHED ROOF
SIDE VIEW
(S. HUNTER STREET)
FRONT VIEW
(E. HOPKINS AVENUE)
BACK VIEW
(ALLEY)
HISTORICAL CABIN
CORNER OF HOPKINS &
HUNTER
THIS CABIN HAS SIMILAR
DESIGN TYPOLOGY AS THE
ORIGINAL 209 BLEEKER
CABIN.
ORIGINAL DOORS
(FOUND IN EXISTING CABIN
BASEMENT. TO BE
RESTORED AND USED AT
FRONT DOOR)
P
6
8
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
HPC 5
11/5/15Plotted On:R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
6,000 sq ft 6,000 sq ft4,500 sq ft
3,000 sq ft
2,605 sq ft
1,915 sq ft
1,808 sq ft
2
8
'
-
5
1
1
/
1
6
"
T.O. RIDGE: 33'-3"
T.O. TOWER:
29'-1"
T.O. RIDGE:
26'-1"
T.O. RIDGE:
16'-10"
SECOND
FLOOR
SETBACK
9
'
-
6
"
3'-3"
1
'
3'-9"
3'-6"
1'-6"
9
5
/
8
"
3'-1"
4
'
-
1
1
3
/
8
"
5'-3 1/4"
1
6
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
1
2
'
-
1
"
4'
2
4
'
5
'
-
4
"
3'-9"
9'-10"
3,098 sq ft
SECOND
FLOOR
SETBACK
114 N. ASPEN STREET
LOT SIZE: 6,000 sq ft
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 2,605 sq ft
NET SQ FOOTAGE: 6585 sq ft
2,605/6,000= 0.43= 43%
209 E. BLEEKER STREET
LOT SIZE: 6,000 sq ft
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 3,098 sq ft
NET SQ FOOTAGE:
3,098/6,000= 0.64= 64%
217 E. BLEEKER STREET
LOT SIZE: 4,500 sq ft
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 1,915 sq ft
NET SQ FOOTAGE: 4,460 sq ft
1,915/4,500= 0.43= 43%
208 E. MAIN STREET
LOT SIZE: 3,000 sq ft
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 1,503 sq ft
NET SQ FOOTAGE: 3,567 sq ft
(LIVABLE & LEASABLE)
1,503/3,000= 0.50= 50%
ALLEY
2
6
'
-
1
"
3
3
'
-
3
"
114 N. ASPEN STREET
(TO WEST SIDE)
217 E. BLEEKER STREET
(TO EAST SIDE)
E. MAIN STREET
E. BLEEKER STREET
ALLEY
N
.
A
S
P
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
.
M
O
N
A
R
C
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
217 209 114
208
FRONT VIEW FROM BLEEKER STREET
P
6
9
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
HPC 6
11/5/15Plotted On:P
I
C
T
U
R
E
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
S
T
O
O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L
C
A
B
I
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
ORIGINAL-SOUTH
ORIGINAL-EASTORIGINAL-NORTH
ORIGINAL-WEST
BRICK CHIMNEY
GABLED DORMER
SHED ROOF
FOR BACK
ADDITION
SOUTH AND EAST VIEWS - YEAR 1978 (REMODEL)
(MARY HAYES PHOTOGRAPHY)
P
7
0
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
HPC 6
11/5/15Plotted On:N
O
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
D C B A
EXISTING 209 E. BLEEKER STREET
BUILDING OUTLINEGABLE ROOF VERSION
114 N. ASPEN STREET
(TO WEST SIDE)
217 E. BLEEKER STREET
(TO EAST SIDE)
SCALE: 1:56.47
1 STREET VIEW ELEVATION
HPC 6
P
7
1
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
HPC 7
11/5/15Plotted On:E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
F
R
O
M
N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
6 5 4 3 12
217 E. BLEEKER
HOUSE OUTLINE
(ON EAST SIDE OF 209 BLEEKER)EXISTING 209 E. BLEEKER STREET
BUILDINGOUTLINE
GABLE ROOF VERSION
BLEEKER STREET
(NORTH SIDE)
ALLEY
(SOUTH SIDE)
1 3 4 5 62
114 N. ASPEN STREET
HOUSE OUTLINE
(ON WEST SIDE OF 209 BLEEKER)
EXISTING 209 E. BLEEKER STREET
BUILDING OUTLINE GABLE ROOF VERSION
BLEEKER STREET
(NORTH SIDE)
ALLEY
(SOUTH SIDE)
NOT TO SCALE
1 HPC-EAST
HPC 7
NOT TO SCALE
2 HPC-WEST
HPC 7
P
7
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
HPC 8
11/5/15Plotted On:N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
H
O
O
D
P
I
C
T
U
R
E
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
V
I
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
2
0
9
E
A
S
T
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
7/20/15
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
PARCEL ID: 273707320002
Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 73 Lot: C & D
2
1. E. BLEEKER ST. & MONARCH ST.
2. E. BLEEKER ST. & MONARCH ST.
3
1
3. E. BLEEKER ST. & MONARCH ST.
4. E. BLEEKER ST. & MONARCH ST.
4
10. E. BLEEKER ST. & N. ASPEN ST.
9. E. BLEEKER ST. & N. ASPEN ST.
8. E. BLEEKER ST. & N. ASPEN ST.
7. E. BLEEKER ST. & N. ASPEN ST.5. E. BLEEKER ST.6. E. BLEEKER ST.7. E. BLEEKER ST.
5678
9 10 11
10. E. BLEEKER ST.11. E. BLEEKER ST.
12. 209 E. BLEEKER ST.
12
P
7
3
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.0
11/5/15Plotted On:S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
B B
C C
D D
6
6
3
3
1
1
A A
5
5
4
4
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
5
'
-
3
1
/
4
"
2
0
'
-
1
1
"
2
9
'
-
1
1
1
/
4
"
4
'
-
0
"
2
3
'
-
5
9
/
1
6
"
9
'
-
7
3
/
4
"
1
'
-
2
"
16'-4 1/2"12'-1 3/16"
4'-9 3/4"5'-6 5/16"
REMOVE EXISTING
PLANTERREMOVE EXISTING
WOOD SHED- NOT HISTORIC REMOVE EXISTING FLAGSTONE WALK
NON-HISTORIC ELEMENT; REVEGETATE
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
NEW GATESTEP DOWN
2 STEPS UP
TO ENTRY PORCH
EXISTING STONE SITE
WALL TO REMAIN
EXISTING WEST SETBACK
(TO REMAIN)
EXISTING TREES TO
REMAIN
NEW GATESTEP DOWN
2 STEPS UP
TO ENTRY PORCH
THIN DENSE PLANTING
OF ASPEN TREES ALONG
PROPERTY LINE
THIN DENSE PLANTING
OF ASPEN TREES ALONG
PROPERTY LINE
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
L
L
E
Y
C
U
R
B
C
U
R
B
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
7895
7895
7
8
9
678
9
7
7
8
9
6
7896
7
8
9
6
PROPERTY LINE
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
ENTRY
PORCH
MUD ROOM
FAMILY ROOM
KITCHEN
POWDER
BEDROOM 1
FIREPLACE TV
DINING
GLASS FLOOR
FI
R
E
P
I
T
LI
N
E
O
F
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
W
A
L
L
A
B
O
V
E
2 CAR
GARAGE
PANTRY
ICE
MAKER
UC
WINE
FRIG
36" CABINET
BAR
SINK
FRIG
DRAWER
MICRO
WAVE
DRAWER
STONE
PATIO
GARDENS
TRASH
RECYCLE
HOT
COLD
FILTERED
DOG
WASH
BUILT-IN NOOK/BENCH
BOOK SHELVES
RIDGE
VAULTED CEILING
WINDOW
WELL
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
ARCHITECTURAL 100'-0" =
SITE 7896'-6"
ARCH 100'-3"
SITE 7896'- 9"
T.O. PLYWD. 100'-0"
T.O. FINISHED FLOOR 100'-3
BENCH
CLOSET
BATH 1
OFFICE
T.O. PLYWD. 99'-0"
T.O. FINISHED FLOOR 99'-3
CLOSET
CUBBY
CABINET
WINDOW
WELL
DW
DN
TR
E
N
C
H
D
R
A
I
N
R
E
M
O
V
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
U
R
B
A
T
N
E
W
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
N
F
REMOVE EXISTING BRICK PAVERS
NON-HISTORIC ELEMENT; REVEGETATE
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE RAMPS
NON-HISTORIC ELEMENT; REVEGETATE
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
NEW CONCRETE WALKWAY
EXPOSED AGGREGATE W/
SMOOTH CONCRETE BORDER
EXISTING TREES TO
REMAIN
REMOVE EXISTING TREE
CONCRETE WALK
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 SITE PLAN
A 1.0
P
7
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.2
11/5/15Plotted On:E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
F
A
R
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
12345
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
F
W
KITCHEN
BATHROOM
DINING ROOM OFFICE
LIVING ROOM
ENTRY
STORAGE
1,025.74 sq ft
12345
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LIVING ROOM
DECK
826.09 sq ft
123
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
994.99 sq ft
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 EXISTING-MAIN LEVEL FAR
A 1.2SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EXISTING-UPPER LEVEL FAR
A 1.2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 EXISTING-LOWER LEVEL FAR
A 1.2
CABIN LOWER LEVEL (994.99 SF)
CABIN MAIN LEVEL 1025.74 SF
CABIN UPPER LEVEL 826.09 SF
TOTAL CABIN FAR 1851.83 SF
P
7
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.3
11/5/15Plotted On:P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
A
R
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
3,072.14 sq ft
B B
C C
D D
6
6
3
3
1
1
A A
5
5
4
4
W/D W/D
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
13'-6 X 7' = 94 SQ FT
EXPOSED WALL
BATH 3
SKYLIGHT ABOVE
UP
CL
O
S
E
T
T
V
GUEST SUITE
MECHANICAL
BEDROOM 2
POWDER
WE
I
G
H
T
S
GYM
LAUNDRY
FAMILY ROOM
GL
A
S
S
E
N
C
L
O
S
E
D
WI
N
E
C
A
B
I
N
E
T
TV FP
HOT / COLD WATER
FILTER DISPENSER
UC FRIG
GUEST BATH
ART GALLERY WALL
BATH 3
BEDROOM 3
47
WET
BAR
LINEN
TV
3,070.42 sq ft
B B
C C
D D
6
6
3
3
1
1
A A
5
5
4
4
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
N/S
1/A5.1
N/S
1/A5.1
LO
N
G
,
L
O
W
F
I
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
DN
MASTER
BATH
MASTER BEDROOM
TV
R
A
I
S
E
S
FR
O
M
C
A
B
I
N
E
T
STEAM
SHOWER
PATTERN OF CLEAR IN THEACID ETCHED GLASS
FREESTANDINGTUB
ART WALL
MASTER
DRESSING/
CLOSETS
DR
E
S
S
E
R
DECK
1,011.98 sq ft
111.99 sq ft
B B
C C
D D
6
6
3
3
1
1
A A
5
5
4
4
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
5
'
-
3
1
/
4
"
2
0
'
-
1
1
"
2
9
'
-
1
1
1
/
4
"
4
'
-
0
"
2
3
'
-
5
9
/
1
6
"
9
'
-
7
3
/
4
"
1
'
-
2
"
16'-4 1/2"12'-1 3/16"
4'-9 3/4"5'-6 5/16"
N/S
1/A5.1
N/S
1/A5.1
461.18 sq ft
60.71 sq ft
REMOVE EXISTING
PLANTERREMOVE EXISTING
WOOD SHED- NOT HISTORIC REMOVE EXISTING FLAGSTONE WALK
NON-HISTORIC ELEMENT; REVEGETATE
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
STEP DOWN
2 STEPS UP
TO ENTRY PORCH
THIN DENSE PLANTING
OF ASPEN TREES ALONG
PROPERTY LINE
THIN DENSE PLANTING
OF ASPEN TREES ALONG
PROPERTY LINE
A
L
L
E
Y
C
U
R
B
A
L
L
E
Y
N
F
2,436.19 sq ft
464.20 sq ft
60.71 sq ft
LOWER LEVEL FAR
UPPER LEVEL FAR MAIN LEVEL FAR
FAR CALCULATIONS
- LOWER LEVEL:
2790 SF
2790 X 4.7%
FLOOR AREA GROSS:
FLOOR AREA NET:
131 SF
- MAIN LEVEL:
FLOOR AREA :
2172 SF
- UPPER LEVEL:
FLOOR AREA :
1125 SF
MAIN LEVEL: PATIOS - EXCEMPT ON GRADE: 310+337=
PORCH - EXCEMPT=
UPPER LEVEL DECKS:
628 SF
61 SF
117 SF
LIVING FAR TOTAL 3428 SF
GARAGE : 464 SQ FT
464 SF - 250 SF= 214/2 =
107 SF
3428 SFLIVING FAR=
107 SFGARAGE FAR=
TOTAL FAR = 3535 SF
3240 SF ALLOWABLE FAR BASED ON 6000 SF LOT
(REQUESTING A 500 SF BONUS)
3240 SF + 500 SF= 3740 SF ALLOWABLE FAR
P
7
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.4
11/5/15Plotted On:P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
A
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
6 5 4 3 12
22
'
-
5
7
/
8
"
645.98 sq ft
T.O. RIDGE EXISTING
ELEV. 116'-7"
T.O. PLY COTTAGE
ELEV. 100'-0"
T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 87'-10"
T.O. PLATE, GUEST BEDRM
ELEV. 118'-6"
T.O. PLY, GUEST BEDRM
ELEV. 108'-0"
D C B A
556.85 sq ft
T.O. RIDGE EXISTING
ELEV. 116'-7"
T.O. PLY COTTAGE
ELEV. 100'-0"
T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 87'-10"
A B C D
590.38 sq ft
T.O. RIDGE EXISTING
ELEV. 116'-7"
T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL, NEW
ELEV. 100'-0"
T.O. PLY LOWER LEVEL, NEW
ELEV. 87'-10"
1 3 4 5 62
912.62 sq ft
T.O. PLY PROPOSED
ELEV. 100'-0"
T.O. PLATE MASTER BED
ELEV. 117'-4"
T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL, NEW
ELEV. 100'-0"
T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 87'-10"
T.O. PLY UPPER LEV.
ELEV. 109'-0"
HISTORICAL
CABIN
LINK TO
ADDITION
4 3 12
515.54 sq ft
116.95 sq ft
T.O. RIDGE EXISTING
ELEV. 116'-7"
T.O. PLY COTTAGE
ELEV. 100'-0"
T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 87'-10"
T.O. PLATE, GUEST BEDRM
ELEV. 118'-6"
HISTORICAL
CABIN
LINK TO
ADDITION
3 42
309.43 sq ft
51.07 sq ft
T.O. PLY PROPOSED
ELEV. 98'-0"
T.O. PLATE MASTER BED
ELEV. 117'4"
T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 88'-10"
T.O. PLY UPPER LEV.
ELEV. 108'-0"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 EAST ELEVATION-FAR
A 1.4
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 NORTH ELEVATION-FAR
A 1.4SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 SOUTH ELEVATION-FAR
A 1.4
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
5 WEST ELEVATIONFAR
A 1.4
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
4 FAR PROPOSED-PARTIAL EAST
A 1.4
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
6 FAR PROPOSED-PARTIAL WEST
A 1.4
FAR ELEVATION CALCULATIONS
TOTAL WALL SURFACE:
(590+913+309+557+646+516)= 3541 SQ FT
EXPOSED WALL SURFACE:
(51+167)= 218 SQ FT
218/3541= 0.06= 6 %
P
7
7
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 2.0
11/5/15Plotted On:E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
123
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
12345
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
F
W
KITCHEN
BATHROOM
DINING ROOM OFFICE
LIVING ROOM
ENTRY
STORAGE
12345
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LIVING ROOM
DECK
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 EXISTING-LOWER LEVEL
A 2.0
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 EXISTING-MAIN LEVEL
A 2.0
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EXISTING-UPPER LEVEL
A 2.0
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 EXISTING-ROOF PLAN
A 2.0
P
7
8
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 2.1
11/5/15Plotted On:E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 EXISTING-NORTH
A 2.1
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 EXISTING-SOUTH
A 2.1
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EXISTING-EAST
A 2.1
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 EXISTING-WEST
A 2.1
P
7
9
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.1
11/5/15Plotted On:L
O
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
B B
C C
D D
6
6
3
3
1
1
A A
5
5
4
4
W/D W/D
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
46'-2 1/2"
2
5
'
-
3
"
8"34'-6 5/16"8"
8"13'-6"8"
13'-6 X 7' = 94 SQ FT
EXPOSED WALL
BATH 3
SKYLIGHT ABOVE
UP
C
L
O
S
E
T
T
V
GUEST SUITE
MECHANICAL
BEDROOM 2
POWDER
W
E
I
G
H
T
S
GYM
LAUNDRY
FAMILY ROOM
G
L
A
S
S
E
N
C
L
O
S
E
D
W
I
N
E
C
A
B
I
N
E
T
TV FP
HOT / COLD WATER
FILTER DISPENSER
UC FRIG
GUEST BATH
ART GALLERY WALL
BATH 3
BEDROOM 3
47
WET
BAR
LINEN
T
V
N/S
1/A5.1
N/S
1/A5.1
F
F
F
F
F
F
02
PROPOSED 2-EAST
04PROPOSED-‐WEST
01
PROPOSED-‐NORTH
03
PROPOSED-‐SOUTH
05
PROPOSED-‐PARTIAL
WEST
F F
06
PROPOSED-‐PARTIAL
EAST
F F
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN
A 3.1
P
8
0
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.2
11/5/15Plotted On:M
A
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
B B
C C
D D
6
6
3
3
1
1
A A
5
5
4
4
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
5"5'-1/2"4 1/2"
5
"
1
0
'
-
5
1
5
/
1
6
"
8
1
/
2
"
5 1/2"29'-6 3/4"11 1/4"
5 1/2"
F
F
F
F
F
F
02
PROPOSED 2-EAST
04
PROPOSED-‐WEST
01
PROPOSED-‐NORTH
PROPOSED-‐SOUTH
05PROPOSED-‐PARTIAL
WEST
STEP DOWN
2 STEPS UP
TO ENTRY PORCH
EXISTING STONE SITE
WALL TO REMAIN
EXISTING WEST SETBACK
(TO REMAIN)
EXISTING TREES TO
REMAIN
STEP DOWN
2 STEPS UP
TO ENTRY PORCH
ENTRY
PORCH
MUD ROOM
FAMILY ROOM
KITCHEN
POWDER
BEDROOM 1
FIREPLACE TV
DINING
GLASS FLOOR
FI
R
E
P
I
T
LI
N
E
O
F
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
W
A
L
L
A
B
O
V
E
2 CAR
GARAGE
PANTRY
ICE
MAKER
UC
WINE
FRIG
36" CABINET
BAR
SINK
FRIG
DRAWER
MICRO
WAVE
DRAWER
STONE
PATIO
GARDENS
TRASH
RECYCLE
HOT
COLD
FILTERED
DOG
WASH
BUILT-IN NOOK/BENCH
BOOK SHELVES
RIDGE
VAULTED CEILING
WINDOW
WELL
ARCHITECTURAL 100'-0" =
SITE 7896'-6"
ARCH 100'-3"
SITE 7896'- 9"
T.O. PLYWD. 100'-0"
T.O. FINISHED FLOOR 100'-3
BENCH
CLOSET
BATH 1
OFFICE
T.O. PLYWD. 99'-0"
T.O. FINISHED FLOOR 99'-3
CLOSET
CUBBY
CABINET
WINDOW
WELL
DW
DN
TR
E
N
C
H
D
R
A
I
N
R
E
M
O
V
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
U
R
B
A
T
N
E
W
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
F
N
06
PROPOSED-‐PARTIAL
EAST
F
5
1
/
2
"
EXISTING TREES TO
REMAIN
CONCRETE WALK
F
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN
A 3.2
P
8
1
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.3
11/5/15Plotted On:U
P
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
B B
C C
D D
6
6
3
3
1
1
A A
5
5
4
4
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
F
F
F
F
F
F
02
PROPOSED 2-EAST
04
PROPOSED-‐WEST
01
PROPOSED-‐NORTH
03
PROPOSED-‐SOUTH
05PROPOSED-‐PARTIAL
WEST
LO
N
G
,
L
O
W
F
I
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
DN
MASTER
BATH
MASTER BEDROOM
T
V
R
A
I
S
E
S
F
R
O
M
C
A
B
I
N
E
T
STEAM
SHOWER
PATTERN OF CLEAR IN THE
ACID ETCHED GLASS
FREE
STANDING
TUB
ART WALL
MASTER
DRESSING/
CLOSETS
D
R
E
S
S
E
R
DECK
F F
06
PROPOSED-‐PARTIAL
EAST
F F
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN
A 3.3
P
8
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.4G
11/5/15Plotted On:R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
-
G
A
B
L
E
V
E
R
S
I
O
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
B B
C C
D D
6
6
3
3
1
1
A A
5
5
4
4
2
2
F
F
F
F
F
F
02
PROPOSED 2-EAST
04
PROPOSED-‐WEST
01
PROPOSED-‐NORTH
03
PROPOSED-‐SOUTH
05
PROPOSED-‐PARTIAL
WEST
F F
06PROPOSED-‐PARTIAL
EAST
F F
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 ROOF PLAN-GABLE VERSION
A 3.4G
P
8
3
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.4F
11/5/15Plotted On:R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
-
F
L
A
T
V
E
R
S
I
O
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
B B
C C
D D
6
6
3
3
1
1
A A
5
5
4
4
2
2
F
F
F
F
F
F
02
PROPOSED 2-EAST
04PROPOSED-‐WEST
01
PROPOSED-‐NORTH
03
PROPOSED-‐SOUTH
05
PROPOSED-‐PARTIAL
WEST
F F
06
PROPOSED-‐PARTIAL
EAST
F F
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 ROOF PLAN-FLAT VERSION
A 3.4F
P
8
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 4.1G
11/5/15Plotted On:N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
S
O
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
D C B A
A B C D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED GABLE-NORTH
A 4.1G
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 PROPOSED GABLE-SOUTH
A 4.1G
P
8
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 4.2G
11/5/15Plotted On:E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
5 4 2 1
2 1
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 PROPOSED GABLE-EAST
A 4.2G
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED GABLE-PARTIAL EAST
A 4.2G
P
8
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 4.3G
11/5/15Plotted On:W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
1 3 4 5 62
T.O. RIDGE EXISTING
ELEV. 116'-7"
T.O. PLY PROPOSED
ELEV. 100'-0"
T.O. PLATE MASTER BED
ELEV. 117'-4"
T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL, NEW
ELEV. 100'-0"
T.O. PLY UPPER LEV.
ELEV. 109'-0"
HISTORICAL
CABIN
LINK TO
ADDITION
2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 FAR PROPOSED-WEST
A 4.3G
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 PROPOSED GABLE-PARTIAL WEST
A 4.3G
P
8
7
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 4.1F
11/5/15Plotted On:N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
S
O
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
A B C D
D C B A
1
6
'
-
1
0
"
2
1
'
-
1
3
/
4
"
WOOD SIDING
HORIZONTAL
ORIGINAL
WOOD SIDING
TO BE
RESTORED
T.O. RIDGE EXISTING
ELEV. 116'-7"
T.O. PLY COTTAGE
ELEV. 100'-0"
T.O. PLY GUEST BED
ELEV. 108'-0"
T.O. PLY GUEST BEDRM
ELEV. 98'-0"
T.O. PLATE
ELEV. 108'-0"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED FLAT-SOUTH
A 4.1F
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 NORTH ELEVATION
A 4.1F
P
8
8
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 4.2F
11/5/15Plotted On:E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
5 4 2 1
2 1
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED FLAT-EAST
A 4.2F
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 PROPOSED FLAT-PARTIAL EAST
A 4.2F
P
8
9
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 4.3F
11/5/15Plotted On:W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
1 2 4 5
2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED FLAT-WEST
A 4.3F
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 PROPOSED FLAT-PARTIAL WEST
A 4.3F
P
9
0
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 5.1G
11/5/15Plotted On:S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
G
A
B
L
E
V
E
R
S
I
O
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
4 2 13
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
87'-10"
MAIN LEVEL
109'-11"
DINING
ROOM
LINK LIVING
ROOM
OFFICEMASTER
BATH
MECHANICAL STORAGE CLOSET BEDROOM
3
BATH 3 GUEST SUITE
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
87'-10"
MAIN LEVEL
109'-11"
ABCD
LIVING
ROOM
BEDROOM 3HALLWAYFAMILY
ROOM
BED ROOM
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 SECT. 1-1'
A 5.1G
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 SECT. 3-3'
A 5.1G
P
9
1
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 5.1F
11/5/15Plotted On:S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
F
L
A
T
V
E
R
S
I
O
N
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
87'-10"
MAIN LEVEL
109'-11"
ABCD
LIVING
ROOM
BEDROOM 3HALLWAYFAMILY
ROOM
BED ROOM
5 4 2 13
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
87'-10"
MAIN LEVEL
109'-11"
DINING
ROOM
LINK LIVING
ROOM
OFFICEMASTER
BATH
MECHANICAL STORAGE CLOSET BEDROOM
3
BATH 3 GUEST SUITE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 SECT. 3-3'
A 5.1F
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 SECT. 1-1'
A 5.1F
P
9
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
Scale:
ISSUE
A 9.0
11/5/15Plotted On:3
D
R
E
N
D
E
R
V
I
E
W
S
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.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15
2
0
9
E
.
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
"
H
A
Y
E
S
H
O
U
S
E
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15
NORTH EAST VIEW
SOUTH EAST VIEW
NORTH VIEW
SOUTH WEST VIEW
NORTH WEST VIEW
P
9
3
I
I
I
.
B
.