Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.20160210
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 10, 2016 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 January 27, 2016 minutes C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. OLD BUSINESS A. 114 Neale - Request for HPC review of a project monitor determination B. 124 W. Hallam - Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing Continued from Dec. 9, 2015 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 1102 Waters Ave. - Minor Development Review, PH B. Referral comment, newspaper boxes V. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution #6, 2016 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 JANUARY 27, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Michael Brown, Bob Blaich and Jim DeFrancia. Absent was Sallie Golden. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of January 13th second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. 533 E. Main Street – St. Mary’s Church Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Special Review and View plane Review, Public Hearing cont’d from Oct 28th Amy relayed that the proposal was continued partially about the discussion of the curb cut that exists along Main Street and whether or not the church could continue to use that or abandon it and relocate all access from the alley. The applicant has had discussions with CDOT and the Engineering Dept. has deferred to CDOT. It isn’t completely resolved and the applicant has gotten positive feedback but at this point we are going forward assuming that it will be resolved and no longer an issue. There were also concerns about the size and location of the expansion. We do recognize that this is a project with community good behind it. Staff does have concerns with the specifics of the proposal. The proposal is to create a new event type space on the site. They are well below the allowed square footage on this property which occupies an entire half city block. Most of the event space is below grade. The applicant has reduced the size of the above grade about half. With the proposed addition there is less of an intrusion into the view plane. Staff feels there needs to be discussion on the site plan. We prefer a site plan that would locate any above grade aspect of the pavilion to the center of the lot in the area where there was previously a chapel. Having buildings front Main Street is in keeping with the 19th Century site planning concepts than occupying the entire alley with facades. We are concerned about the basic location of the new construction. We are also concerned with the P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 2 shape of it. It is proposed to be a flat roof structure with glass. We like the idea that the addition is minimized in presence but more compatibility with the shapes and character of the 19th Century development on this site is needed. This might not be the time to make statements with forms and materials in terms of new construction on this site. We would like to see a restudy of the location and shape of the roof over the pavilion element. Most of the meeting space is below grade and day lighted with a roof that pitches with clerestory windows up to 3.6 feet high along the Main Street frontage of the property. This is inconsistent with the character of the property and interferes with the use of the open green yard which a real amenity to the site. There may be a way to create a better courtyard or ground level space that would bring daylight into the basement but we feel this is not the solution. The applicant proposes to redo the egress out of the sanctuary. There is a good exit at the front of the church and at the alley there is a minimal staircase that leads down to the alley that is not offered to the use of the parishioners. The applicant is proposing to add a staircase on the west side of the building. They are offering three options one to completely enclose it, one is just roofed and the third is completely open to the air. If approved staff would recommend the stair open to the air because it has the least impact physically on the building. If it were enclosed you would no longer have review authority over what had become an interior wall of the building so the windows and masonry could be changed without any review and that would be a loss of historic fabric. There would also need to be fire improvements to the doors and windows and could be an alteration that you could be concerned with. Amy said on the front the applicant is proposing something light to open up the existing porch element that is there which is non-historic. The building originally had no covering over the entry. We would like to see a restudy with more traditional materials and closer to the height of the door and not so high up on the wall because the proposal interferes with the expression of the steeple. The trash storage area will be upgraded and the proposal is to have a roof over it and more protected for the needs of the property. Environmental Health requires a roll up door that has at least 9 feet clearance and they proposed building is 11 feet tall. Anything that can be done to reduce the scale would be great because it is right next to the church. Sara Nadolny said there is no standard in the code that relates to parking for civic uses so any requirement for parking on-site is related to net leasable or new net leases on the site. There are three on-site spaces that are garage P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 3 spaces. At the last hearing a formal parking study was requested. The parking plan has been reviewed by the Engineering staff. It concluded that no additional parking is needed for the site and street parking is adequate for special events and new expansion. The study has not yet been reviewed by the Transportation Dept. for comments yet. Staff has issues about expanding both uses and structure and whether parking is needed or not. Staff is recommending holding off on the parking decision until Transportation reviews the study. Sara said other departments feel the proposed mitigation methods are acceptable for the project so we are happy with the TIA and that portion is closed. Growth Management – Sara said civic uses are considered essential public facilities and council can access and waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements. We discussed 10.27 fte’s which is calculated at the commercial rate which might seem high. Staff is requesting some mitigation for the increased floor area. The Housing Authority request some mitigation as well but the Housing Board recommends no mitigation. Staff suggests turning the free market unit that is above the garage into a mandatory occupancy deed restricted unit. The mandatory occupancy could be chosen by the church. We think the unit is around 535 square feet. This equates to around 1.35 fte’s so it does provide some mitigation for the new development. Mountain View planes – Sara said at the last meeting the applicant was directed to reduce the height of the pavilion structure which was at 21 to 25 feet as it was encroaching into the view plane. The applicant has responded and reduced the height to 14 feet which is beneath the view plane. The egress stairway reaches the height of 25 feet which extends into the view plane. If HPC picks an option of either closed or roofed they must find that the additional structure has minimal impact on the view plane. The unenclosed option is more modest in height and we measure it to be around 15 feet and this proposal does not extend into the view plane. Amy said staff is recommending continuation of this hearing to March 9th. • Restudy the height and form of the pavilion. Consider moving this structure to the north of the carriage house. P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 4 • Eliminate the day-lighted basement concept. • Eliminate the proposals to enclose or partially enclose the egress stair. Provide more detail regarding impacts to the historic structure and study more traditional building materials. • Re-study the front entry into the church and restore the original condition or minimize impacts of any roof canopy and railings. • Confirm the Transportation Department’s assessment of the parking study and need for any mitigation. • Provide an analysis of the number of employees that would be mitigated through a mandatory occupancy deed restriction of the existing ADU. Michael asked if there is a precedence that we could look regarding other civic buildings. 4.1 fte’s for commercial space seems punitive for a civic use. Amy said there are previous church expansions that have been analyzed and provided some kind of affordable housing mitigation. The applicant feels that their existing employees can cover the new space. Staff feels there is some additional impact. Patrick Rawley, Land planner from Stan Clauson & Associates Marina Skiles, Charles Cunniffe from Charles Cunniffe Architects Patrick R. said St. Mary’s church is a vital part of our community. We are seeking the continuation of our parish. The proposed social hall straddles lots D & E. We have sunken the social hall in the ground which keeps the green space open. CDOT said if you submit something and it meets the standards it can be permitted. That process is about 4 months. We have addressed the front entry, TIA and parking. We have also reduced the height of the pavilion which eliminates the view plane issue. The current church was built in 1892. In that zone district we can go up to almost 75,000 square feet. The existing church has a little over 16,000 of existing square feet divided into the church, rectory and the employee housing over the garage. P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 5 We have 3 full time employees living on site. The parish is made up of 300 families. Patrick R. did a power point of the proposal. The existing main floor has classrooms. The elevator tower was built in the 1990’sand thee is the trash area of the alley and a garage and rectory building. We currently do not have enough room for all the classes and the spill out into the hallway. We also have the homeless shelter during the winter months. Patrick R. said we are proposing an interior remodel of the church to bring it back to its historical appearance. We want to improve the efficiency and comfort of the church and safety for the occupants. With the one means of egress it is not adequate to get everyone out in an emergency. We would like to remove the front porch and re-establish the historic appearance. We also need a second means of egress. The subgrade parish social hall has been created to meet the space needs. It would be around 9,000 square feet of new civic cultural space and of that it would be 3,200 square feet of contributing floor area. We are looking at a total of 19,600 square feet when we have the ability to go up to 75,000 square feet. This is our spiritual home and we take that stewardship seriously. Marina said two things are very important to the client, one to keep the lawn maintained. We will maintain access into the existing garage by using grass and lawn pavers. The pavilion is a gathering place for after mass and an area for parents to congregate and watch their children on the lawn. We intend to expand the bathrooms, office space and the reception area and we will refurbish the altar. We will keep the stairs at the front of the church for one egress. The lower level of the church will be kept as is. We did look at excavating underneath it but it was structurally unfeasible and might damage the historic church. We are proposing a subgrade access from the existing main stairs that come down and accesses to the subgrade area. There are a lot of advantages putting the bulk of the property below grade. Patrick R. went over some of the interior renovations. The altars of Mary and Joseph on either side of the sanctuary will be maintained. Regarding the egress stair that goes out of the church, the window in the church will be converted into a door on the west. Marina said the maximum required distance to a means of egress is 75 feet for this occupancy level. We are well over 150 feet. There has been P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 6 discussion about the existing stair. The stair is only 30 inches wide. It would be difficult to use as an egress because you would have to come through the sacred altar and come up a couple of steps and into the altar boy sacristy and go down the stairs. We are eliminating that stair to enlarge the bathrooms downstairs. Patrick R. said the most logical place to put the egress stair is on the south west corner. Marina said we have three options for the egress stair; 1, to fully enclose it with a sloping metal roof and all glass walls. #2, partially enclose it with a glass roof and #3 make it look like an old fire escape with very minimal steel stringers. We would prefer option #1which is utilitarian. Patrick R. said the entry has seen various modifications. In the mid 1990’s the current condition was built. It is our intent to uncover the arched stained glass window that was installed in 1982, the centennial of the parish. Patrick R. said the western façade has had changes specifically the elevator tower. With the subgrade social hall you can still read and see the western façade of the historic church. It is also setback from the main front of the church. The lilacs will remain untouched. Charles said there will be a lifted lawn with a railing and glass windows. The social hall is in the St. Stephens footprint. The lilacs and fence become the buffer. The social hall will be accessed from the pavilion above. Patrick R. pointed out that the top of the pavilion is in line with the sanctuary level of the church. Steel and glass allow the transparency. The egress stair is very important for our parishioners. Nora said with 9,000 square feet isn’t there a way to upgrade the egress in the stairs. Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building official Stephen said the elevator allows access to the church for the disabled. There is no defensible argument to not put some provisions for accessibility to the second floor. Chapter 34 of the IBC applies for exiting out of the existing building. We have an existing single exit building. The occupancy load can be 260 to 700 people. It is important to get the people out of the sanctuary P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 7 and rescue personnel in. The building has a sprinkler system. In Chapter 34 for the required exit width as a single exit building is allowed to be .2 inches per every occupant. For an occupant load of 300 those existing stairs comply. The pavilion is part of the entire approach to what we would require as exiting out of the sanctuary. The connection of the building to the pavilion would require the second exit as it is considered one building. The people in the pavilion don’t exit out of the sanctuary. If the renovation was the only work contemplated then I would not say yes you have to have the second exit. When we consider the size of the building as a whole and with the pavilion added I think that makes a strong case for requiring the second exit. In the code the entry to a building has to be covered or the area maintain and be free of the accumulation of ice and snow. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Jim Markalunas said a second means of egress is necessary but I have serious reservations about it being placed on the west side of the church and using an existing window. You will have problems with ice and snow coming from the roof unless you enclose it. The snow weight in 1957 began to push the walls out. Steel rods were put in for stabilization. After that a metal roof was installed. Regarding the egress the best way is to modify the altar boy sanctuary and have it be code compliant. Julie Markalunas Hall – Exhibit I My letter was submitted to not compromise the west side of the church. When you are traveling down Main Street and your view is to the east you will see the west façade of the church. Once that side is compromised in the future it will be easier to request modifications. Julie thanked the architect for moving the pavilion away from the church. Lisa Markalunas said this is a significant historic building in this community and it deserves to have the time and detail analysis of what is best for the historic property. The exterior stairs block the west façade and the materials are inappropriate and they modernize the lawn area. The trash structure is oversized and the exterior egress blocks the kitchen. The interior stair can be modified which can be an expansion of the existing stair in the side room and it doesn’t involve moving the arch over the altar. The normal stair is 48 inches and the one drawn is 46 inches. This would vastly improve the current situation and not add an exterior stair that would be blocked by snow and ice and block the view of the current structure. It is worthy of P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 8 consideration to see if the egress stair can be accommodated on the interior of the property. There is no really good handicapped access to the church and there is no place to drop anyone off other than the back door by the alley. At some point we need to address access to the property. Interior stair drawing – Exhibit I John Kelleher said St. Mary’s church has been on this property since 1882. Renovations have occurred over the past 25 years and the time has come to further the religious and educational opportunities for members of our parish and all members of the community. The pavilion will be used for classes and the design is restricted by the court house and Veterans Park and historic aspects of the existing church. We proposed having the building on the alley. Staff recommended placing the buildings along Main Street where the view plane is the lowest. By doing this we could only get a building 8 feet high and thus is the reason for the proposing the building below ground. HPC doesn’t support either of these schemes. The egress options shows a stair at the south west corner of the building that has no connection to the proposed building. All traffic between the church and the pavilion would be in the open subject to inclement weather. That isn’t conducive to wheeling food carts from the kitchen to events. To compromise any reasonable functionality of an expansion of an existing facility which is necessary for the church is under the pretense of preserving the west façade is insane. We are trying to do something for the benefit of the community. Judy Gunn said the beauty of the building is in the inside. The egress situation is not one we like but it is important. Most of the things in the church from 1892 are still there. The renovation will ensure that those things stay in place. We need the additional space for our parish to grown. Stowman L. Stines II – letter – Exhibit II Stowman said he think the project will be a positive influence on the city as a whole and the renovation will modernize the infill structure. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Charles said the younger families are in support of the application. We have been holding open houses after Saturday and Sunday mass and the attendance has been good. Patrick R. said losing any loss of the liturgical function is unacceptable to us. P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 9 Willis said you are talking about 50 square feet. Patrick R. said Mary’s altar is an historic component of the church and to have people passing into the altar area for egress doesn’t work. Mary’s altar is part of our religious practices. That area is also for the preparation of mass. Willis identified the issues: Over all site plan Modifications to the entry on Main Street Egress stair View plane GMQS – 10 to 14 fte’s Mass and scale – Commercial guidelines and Historic Main St. guidelines Willis said this building is part of our community and the need is demonstrated by the various parishioners. Willis thanked everyone for participating. The site plan is hugely improved over the first one that was submitted at the last meeting. The view plane subject has been handled well and all in all it is a modest program. The entire effect is less than anything built on the entire site. The pavilion is smaller than any of the secondary structures that exist. Architecturally it is quite compelling. The only way it would be perfect is if the 1990’s elevator were moved and combined with the egress stair that the applicant needs. If the Markalunas plan could be incorporated it would improve the reading of the West façade and the lawn. Option 1,2,3 on the exterior muddies the water in making something approvable. The site plan and the roof on the lawn is landscape architecture. The driveway turning to grass-crete that grows is going to be a huge asset to the community. Patrick also thanked the design team for going in the right direction. Patrick said he supports staff’s recommendations. Restudy the height of the pavilion. The daylight basement concept should be at ground level and no three foot glass walls to break up the lawn. The inside stairs should be looked at for the second egress. The loss of the bathroom or classroom downstairs to accommodate the egress is not significant when the project is 9,000 square feet. The roof of the trash area should be lowered. P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 10 Gretchen said the site plan is an improvement but there are still problems with it. There are a lot of parts and piece on the church and we are adding more. We are adding a pavilion and raised roof with glass. It stems from the fact that they are retaining the driveway of Hwy 82 and its pushing development. The existing carriage house could be accessed off the alley that is required in the residential design standards. Handicapped access should also be addressed. Our historic buildings are slowly being eroded away. The entire site should be looked at with the elimination of the driveway off Hwy 82. There are parts and pieces that do not make up the historic pattern of what should be developed on this property. Perhaps this should be back to having something very simple. The stairs could go on the inside. The pavilion should be accessed on ground level and the classes below. Having most of the building below grade is good. All parking should be accessed off the alley and redo the carriage house and put garage doors on the alley. John said he echoes Willis’s comments and this project has come a long way. It is unfortunate that the functionality has somewhat been lost. The parish is clearly needing space. I was in support of the original plan. One thing that could have been entertained is the existing elevator shaft and there are a myriad of new technology in elevators since this was put in. If we could have put the egress there it would make for a better project. Bob said we are living with certain constraints and one is the view plane. I don’t want us to make another mistake. I was on P&Z when the carriage house was proposed and we approved it and it didn’t meet any of the criteria regarding site lines. Instead of having a modern pavilion take that same kind of architecture and then it would be more complimentary in terms of materials. The original proposal was acceptable. The project needs to be compatible with the existing facilities. The second proposal is an improvement. Possibly restudying the elevator and put the egress adjacent to it. Another alternative is to take the carriage house and extend it. Jim said he also agreed with John and was in favor of the original proposal regarding form follows function. I’m not sure about the raised lawn as it might not create a functional lawn area. A suggestion would be to pull the egress stair next to the elevator wing and redo the elevator wing to get a stair in which would minimize the impact on the entire façade. P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 11 Nora thanked the applicant for their presentation and the public comments. Our moral obligation is the historic preservation of this building. Once it’s gone it’s gone. The egress is a concern and if there is a code compliment internally that would be acceptable. Enclosing an outside egress is a concern and losing control of one more historic fabric. I support staff’s recommendation. Seeing lawn is appropriate and possibly change the employee free market unit to an employee unit. I am in support of the pavilion underground without the elevated lawn. Willis pointed out that staff’s recommendation is completely different regarding the site plan. Michael said he appreciates the movement from the August meeting to this one; the improved distance between the buildings and fixing the view plane. It would be nice to see the movement of the elevator but that is up to the applicant to restudy it. Regarding the GMQS I would like to see some precedence from staff. We also need more detailing on the entry awning regarding the distance that it come out from the building. Regarding the stair egress it should be configured internally and explored as to what can be done internally. The daylighting on the raised lawn is not appropriate. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #4, conceptual development with the condition that the elevator be restudied and the egress stair become internal and in so doing make wheelchair access to the church improved. The lawned roof with animate the street and site lines will go down into the main gathering area. Motion second by Jim. Patrick made a friendly amendment that the sloping roof be at grade and that the pavilion be more in character with the existing buildings regarding mass and scale. Roll call vote on the friendly amendment: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, no; Nora, no, Willis, no; Bob, no; John, no; Jim, no. Motion carried 6-1. Roll call vote on the motion: Nora, no; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, no; Patrick, no; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-3. Amy pointed out that there is no drawing or image of the elevator presented to base the motion on. P11 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 12 Charles said if the elevator is addressed there will still be an object there and might be in the view plane. Patrick R. said the motion is very confusing and convoluted that we would prefer a continuation to a date certain. MOTION: Jim moved to rescind resolution #4; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 533 E. Main St. to March 9th; second by John. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. 629 W. Francis Street – Historic Designation, AspenModern, Public Hearing Debbie said the public notice has been properly provided – Exhibit I Amy said we welcome another voluntary landmark designation of an Aspen Modern resource. The subject property contains two units. It is a duplex with mirror images of each other. They were built in 1964 and considered modern chalet. Two years ago the owner designated half of the duplex that he owned and that same client has purchased the other half of the duplex and desires to voluntary landmark it. The entire complex will be preserved. The request for incentives is minimal. They are requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus which will be turned into two TDR’s. The applicant will have a little less than 200 square feet that they could add on someday and that would have HPC’s review. Usually when you have one property that is a landmark there is one 500 square foot floor area bonus. If this scenario is approved of 500 square feet, 322 was granted for the other duplex that was turned into 1 TDR and a 70 foot addition. If you look at it as a whole the bonus for the site would be 822 square feet but there are two voluntary designations. We feel this is a very positive project. It is a 9,000 square foot condo minimized property. There was a 1964 building permit and the contractor was C.M. Clark who was Butch Clark. We feel these are very good examples of this modern chalet style. There are very few alterations other than window replacements. We feel it meets two of the designation criteria, style and period of significance. In terms of scoring it met 19 out of 20 points. We ask that HPC make a recommendation to council for designation, a 500 square foot bonus that is turned into two TDR’s. P12 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 13 Michael asked what else could have been available regarding incentives. Amy said for voluntarily designation you may ask council for any incentive that you think necessary to bring you to the table for landmark. Typically we see setback variances, height, FAR bonus and impact fee waivers. None of that is being requested. Kim Raymond, architect The applicant is excited about land marking this unit. In the last few years the owner has done at least 9 or 10 HPC projects and he is committed to historic designation. There is only a roof between the two units and there is no common wall. We intend to update the inside of the building a little. Our request is for the 500 square foot bonus for 2 TDR’s. There would be about 190 square feet left. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #4 to approve AspenModern designation. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0 529-535 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual, Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Mountain View plane Review, Demolition, Public hearing Debbie said the public notice has property been provided – Exhibit I Justin Barker, Senior Planner Justin said the property is located at the corner of Coper and Hunter on the south west corner of the intersection. It is known as the Stein or Bowman bldg. It was originally constructed 1888 and currently contains a mix of commercial and residential uses. The proposal is to add a one story commercial addition and utility trash area on the back of the property. There will also be a conversion of a residential unit that will be dealt with at the final review with growth management. The 1890 Sanborn map originally showed that the structure extended all the way to the alley. The southern portion has been removed sometime in the past. The existing southern potion today was a remodel by Fritz Benedict in 1953. That is the portion P13 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 14 that has the wood siding on it. They are proposing internal connections on the first floor for the new construction. The entire rest of the building will be preserved including the decks on the southern portion that faces the alley. Public amenity: Justin said there is currently 11% of the lot which is approximately 715 square feet to provide. The applicant’s requirement is to provide the same amount either onsite or cash-in-lieu. Due to the nature of this site and the extent and size they are proposing it is not appropriate to have more public amenity provided onsite otherwise there wouldn’t be much of a project left and it would be detrimental to the commercial space to try and create and carve out more space for the public amenity space. There will be some cash-in-lieu provision that will be necessary. Staff is comfortable with what is proposed and it meets the requirements of the design standards. The guidelines call for maintaining the alignment of the building facades at the sidewalk edge. It would be inappropriate for them to pull back further on the Hunter Street side. Staff appreciates that they have pulled it back slightly in order accentuate the existing corner of the Fritz Benedict addition. All trash and utility concerns have been resolved by Environmental Health. There is a small sliver that is intersected by the Cooper Street view plane; however, the applicant has represented that the proposed development would be underneath and not infringe upon that view plane. No review will be necessary. Staff recommends approval with condition as indicated in the resolution. John Rowland, Dana Ellis – Rowland Broughton architects Mitch Hass, Hass Planning Mitch said on the second floor there are 5 residences and 1 commercial space. There is a small deck area behind the fence which is our existing public amenity space. The addition is a one story and we are replacing the little deck area. The building steps down to the alley and there is a slight setback off the sidewalk to reveal the corner of the historic building. On the alley there are store front windows and planters to soften the area. There is also a green roof proposed. We are fine with the public amenity being the planter boxes and paying the rest in cash-in-lieu. We are doing a few improvements to the public-right-of-way and putting in drainage on the corner which will be a vast improvement for the downtown. There will also be an enclosed trash area on the property. The egress stairs will on the property instead of on the alley. We are restoring a window back to an historic door. P14 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 15 Dana Ellis, architect Dana said the vertical articulation of masonry in an abstract way balances with a lot of the corner details on the other façade. We are using vertical wood elements not in a matching color above the glass. The detailing about the class windows will be different than the existing casement but it would have the same interior glass relationship. There will be a solid partition between the green roof and the decks so that no one in the future could break through to the green roof. The alley façade is simpler and a clean feel. The 1888 historic building and the 1953 addition have merged together. The green roof is not just for storm water and there is vegetation in that space with a skylight. Dana said the tree in front will remain. Dana said there was an historic door in 1953 addition that will be restored. Mitch also stated that they are well within the FAR limits. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis identified the issues: Public amenity requirement 11% - cash-in-lieu Demolition Mass and scale Commercial design standards Willis said he supports staff’s recommendation and the green roof for drainage makes sense. All tenants looking down will see no mechanical equipment and an enhanced view. There are no elements of controversy in the proposal. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #5, 2016, second by John. Michael said he pleased with the application and the improved drainage. Having this building there will be a significant improvement. Nora said having the corner brought back is commendable. Nora said she wishes zoning could do something about the heavy barrier wall. Jim said he endorses the application. P15 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 16 Bob said he is positive about the application. John said he also supports the applicant and it is a great project. Gretchen said she is also in support and the way the building turns the corner on the alley is a good solution. Patrick said he agrees with staff’s recommendation for mass and scale. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; John, yes, Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0. Guidelines Amy said she has one more picture to add to the guidelines in the landscape design section. All approved. Election of Chair and Vice-chair Willis was elected Chair. Gretchen was elected Vice-chair MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; secondo by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P16 II.B. 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. P17 II.K. 114 Neale Ave. Project Monitoring 2/10/2016 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner RE: 114 Neale Ave. – Request for HPC Review of project monitor determination DATE: February 10, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ Summary: 114 Neale Avenue is a locally designated landmark. It is located at the corner of Neale Avenue and King Street on the south side of the intersection. The original miner’s cottage structure was built circa 1891 and located down the hill closer to Queen Street. The structure was moved up the hill to its current location as part of a historic lot split in 1998. The applicant is requesting approval for a 36” wrought iron metal fence in the following locations on the property: • Wrapping around the historic resource • On top of driveway retaining wall in southwest corner P18 III.A. 114 Neale Ave. Project Monitoring 2/10/2016 2 • On top of driveway retaining wall on east property line Background and Discussion: HPC granted Major Development approval in May of 2013. The approval included picking up the historic house to dig a basement, removal of non-historic additions and construction of a new addition. The applicant represented in Final Review with HPC that the proposed new fence wrapping around the historic resource would be wood picket (image below) and that the fence along the east property line would be a different wood picket (image on next page). There was no fence represented to HPC in the southwest corner of the property. P19 III.A. 114 Neale Ave. Project Monitoring 2/10/2016 3 The building permit included detail for a metal fence instead of a wood picket fence without HPC input. The detail was missed during permit review and the permit was approved, as well as subsequent change orders that represented the same detail. The metal fence detail was discovered during the most recent submitted change order. Staff discussed this with the Monitor and decided it should be reviewed by HPC. Originally, wood picket fences were commonly used to define front yard for Victorian era properties. These fences provided a subtle delineation of private yard versus public right-of-way and were low in height, transparent in design, and did not create walled off private areas. Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history and are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. From the documentation found, there was never a fence located in front of this house. Most historic wrought iron fences have been located in the West End, while this area of town would have typically included no fence, or a modest wood fence at the most. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the fence wrapping around the historic resource should be wood picket as reviewed and approved by HPC. This is a more appropriate material relationship to the historic resource for this area of town. A wrought iron fence would be acceptable in the other proposed locations near the contemporary additions. Request: Staff and Monitor look to the HPC to provide guidance on whether the fences should be wood picket as represented at Final Review or if the proposed metal would be acceptable. Photographs are provided below (in chronological order): P20 III.A. 114 Neale Ave. Project Monitoring 2/10/2016 4 Figure 1: Photo of 114 Neale – oldest documentation found (1987) Figure 2: Photo of 114 Neale in original location (1991) P21 III.A. 114 Neale Ave. Project Monitoring 2/10/2016 5 Figure 3: Photo of 114 Neale in current location (2000) P22 III.A. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 1 of 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 124 W. Hallam Street, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, and Variations review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 9, 2015 DATE: February 10, 2016 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 124 W. Hallam is a Victorian era home, built in approximately 1887. The house has been significantly remodeled over the years, with alterations to historic features, and additions on all sides, including one which spans towards the west, where another Victorian once stood. In 1999, the former property owner applied for Subdivision review to split the then 12,000 square foot lot into two 6,000 parcels. This was approved but triggered a debate about whether the property should have landmark status or not. The owner was opposed, but Council approved designation of the east lot only. The east lot is the subject of the HPC hearing. The west (corner lot) is also proposed for redevelopment by this applicant, but there will be no HPC review. The Commission is asked to consider a proposal to return the house at 124 W. Hallam to its original form and construct a new basement and addition. The first step is Conceptual design (scale, massing and site plan), Relocation, Demolition, and Variation review by HPC. A setback reduction and a floor area bonus request are included. Following Conceptual, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to “Call-Up” any aspects of the approval that they find require additional review. This is a standard practice for all significant projects. The last review step before applying for building permit is Final design (landscape, lighting and materials.) APPLICANT: 308 Aspen E, LLC, represented by Ro | Rockett Design. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-21-011. ADDRESS: 124 W. Hallam Street, Lot 2, Nolan Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. P23 III.B. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 2 of 12 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” Currently, it is difficult to distinguish the original Victorian house amidst the numerous additions and faux Victorian features that have been added, including a tall hexagonal turret on the front façade. In preparation for this hearing, staff has searched all available resources for information about the original building. There are no photos specifically of this house at the Aspen Historical Society. The building can be seen in some 19th century panoramic pictures of the West End. In addition the 1893 Bird’s Eye View of Aspen and the 1904 Sanborn maps depict the home. The project architects have studied the building carefully, including accessing the crawlspace beneath the house to locate the historic foundation that defines the perimeter. Sheets Z-002 through -004 identify the historic fabric that will be preserved or restored. The interior of the house is reasonably intact and several features, including the original front door and an adjacent window remain in place. Historic siding can be viewed from some areas of the interior. There are several original windows and numerous areas of original trim that still exist. Below are the images that have been referenced for this project. P24 III.B. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 3 of 12 The 1904 Sanborn map shows the footprint of the house, including bay windows on the east and west. Based on the architect’s investigation of the foundation, the map is slightly inaccurate on the placement of the east bay. The correct condition is reflected in the proposed plans. The first action in this project will be to demolish the non- historic additions. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and P25 III.B. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 4 of 12 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. The areas proposed for demolition are not part of the original structure. They detract from the original resource and confuse the history of the property. Staff supports the demolition as proposed. The resource will be lifted for a new basement and repositioned approximately 4’ to the east of the current location. Right now, the west facing bay sits very close to the west lot line. The applicant proposes to provide a 5’ side yard setback in order to meet today’s codes. The house will be moved forward about 4’, to be located at the minimum front yard setback line. Relocation of a historic building will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. The current location of the house raises numerous building code issues because of proximity to the property line. A number of fireproofing related alterations could be required. Staff supports the eastward move of this house. Moving the building slightly P26 III.B. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 5 of 12 forward on the lot helps to create an adequate area for a one story connector piece between the Victorian and the proposed addition. It also allows the addition to be accommodated without the need for either front or rear yard setback variations above grade. There is one other historic resource nearby, at the other end of the blockface. 124 W. Hallam will maintain a similar setback as found on that property. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit the standard assurances that relocation will proceed with care, including a $30,000 deposit with the City during the construction process. As stated above, an addition is proposed on the rear half of the property. The addition includes a connector that meets HPC’s policies of being 10’ long and one story tall. A green roof, rather than a deck is on top of the connector. The proposed addition meets setback requirements, except for one below grade condition. The basement of the addition is required to be 10’ from the rear property line, but is 5’ away. In order to grant a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff supports the applicant’s request. Development options on the site are more limited than a property that does not contain a historic resource. There is no above grade impact on the historic resource as a result of this variation. The footprint of the addition is approximately the same size as that of the Victorian, though it is wider than the resource. The addition is lower than the ridge of the historic building by virtue of having a flat roof. HPC discussed this project on December 9th and continued for restudy. Minutes of that meeting are attached. Areas where a majority of board members requested restudy or more information included building height, building length in the east-west direction, scale and proportion in comparison to the historic resource, and visual character of the proposed glazing on the upper floor. The architect has revised the project in two ways. First, the height of the addition has been reduced by 1’6”, with the deck railing set back from the edge of the roof. Second, the width of the individual glass panels has been narrowed, so that the proportion of each panel is approximately twice as tall as wide, similar to most of the windows on the historic structure. The following page is a comparison of the December 9th and February 8th proposal. P27 III.B. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 6 of 12 DECEMBER 9TH FEBRUARY 8TH P28 III.B. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 7 of 12 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.9 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. 10.14 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. Staff finds that the issues of height and scale have been improved. The height was reduced as requested and the window proportions are more compatible with the Victorian. The applicant has provided excellent illustrations of the project in daytime and nighttime conditions, as well as a sketch up model of the project within the larger context of the neighborhood. Materials, though important to the analysis of this project, are ultimately a Final design review determination. The applicant has included an alternative design that features stone on the ground floor and wood siding on the upper floor. HPC may comment preliminarily on the alternatives for exterior materials at this meeting if desired. Staff finds the project to be very similar to others that have received approval, minus a gable roof. The reduced mass that results from the flat roof does decrease impacts on the historic resource. As an interior lot, staff finds the form to be a successful solution for this site. While the proposal does contrast with the historic resource in terms of roof form, other elements, including fenestration and materials are connected. The addition has a smaller footprint than the historic structure, includes less total square footage, and is lower in height. This is a sympathetic relationship that is often difficult to achieve on historic preservation projects in Aspen. Relevant design guidelines include: P29 III.B. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 8 of 12 The applicant request a 500 square foot floor area bonus. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. The restoration work proposed in this project is substantial and well thought out. The placement of the addition is appropriate and the project meets the design guidelines. The project will benefit the neighborhood and community by rescuing a badly altered historic resource. Staff finds that several of the criteria above, namely a through f, are met and supports the award of the bonus. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus. 2. HPC hereby grants a variation to allow the basement to be 5’ from the rear lot line. 3. Prior to Final review, contact the Zoning Officer to confirm that all decks and green roofs have properly designed and accounted for in floor area. 4. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of February 10, 2016, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Dec. 9th minutes Exhibit C: Application text and drawings P30 III.B. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 9 of 12 Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 124 W. Hallam, Conceptual review 2.1 Preserve original building materials. Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 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. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. Repair only those features that are deteriorated. Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 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. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. P31 III.B. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 10 of 12 In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). The size of a lightwell should be minimized. A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. P32 III.B. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 11 of 12 An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. A 1-story connector is preferred. 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. P33 III.B. HPC Review 2.10.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 12 of 12 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. P34 III.B. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, AND VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 124 W. HALLAM STREET, LOT 2, NOLAN LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2016 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-21-011 WHEREAS, the applicant, 308 Aspen E, LLC, represented by Ro | Rockett Design has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, and Variations for the property located at 124 W. Hallam Street, Lot 2, Nolan Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Demolition, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.080.A, Demolition of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variations according to Section 26.415.110.C.1.a, Variances; and WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for a floor area bonus, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on December 9, 2015 and February 10, 2016. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. P35 III.B. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, and Variation review for 124 W. Hallam Street with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus. 2. HPC hereby grants a variation to allow the basement to be 5’ from the rear lot line. 3. Prior to Final review, contact the Zoning Officer to confirm that all decks and green roofs have properly designed and accounted for in floor area. 4. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of February 10, 2016, 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 10th day of February, 2016. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ___________________________________ _____________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P36 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Sallie Golden, Michael Brown and Bob Blaich. Absent was Jim DeFrancia. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Public Comment: Jim Curtis represented the Aspen Institute and asked if there was any way HPC could push the application to early March or have an extra meeting. Willis said he discussed this with staff and HPC is willing to start one meeting a month at 4:00 to accommodate applicants and expedite the meetings. Amy said the guidelines will be presented to HPC in January and then council will adopt them. Disclosure: Michael said he assigned a contract to purchase a TDR, a transferable development right to Bill Guth for no consideration. Jim said the disclosure is appropriate but not substantive for a recusal. 124 W. Hallam – Conceptual Major Development Review Demolition, Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing Public Notice – Exhibit I Amy said the property at one time was 12, 000 square feet, 4 city lots. A subdivision took place about ten years ago. It is a Victorian era building that has additions and alterations and the 6,000 square foot lot is designated. The corner property will be developed with a new house and it will not appear in front of HPC. The architect team crawled under the building to try and locate the exact perimeter of the original foundation to determine what was old and what was new. The proposal is to tear off everything that isn’t P37 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 2 original. It is a large cross gable Victorian house which will face Hallam Street. They are requesting to demolish the non-historic construction and the second request is to relocate the house eastward so that they provide the proper side yard setback. They are also asking to move the house forward four feet to the minimum front yard setback line. Also by moving it forward it allows for the proper ten foot connector piece and an addition at the back of the property that doesn’t require setback variances above grade. There will also be a basement. Part of the basement is within five feet of the property line and that will need a variance request. It has no above ground implications. The footprint of the addition is similar in size to the Victorian and we feel that it is not an imposing relationship between the new and old. Staff has concerns with the design of the addition. It has a flat roof, a 25 foot tall cube. There is a roof deck on the addition and instead of having the railing pulled in from the edges it is all in the same plane. We feel there are ways to break down the height or reduce the perceived height of the addition by altering the way they are protecting the roof deck. We are also concerned with the cut in decks and other features that are not visually related to the Victorian. We are looking for a balance of fenestration and materials and compatibility. We also have concerns with the material choices. They are also requesting a 500 FAR bonus and we feel not enough of the requirements for a bonus are met. The restoration work involved will be a benefit to the neighborhood. Staff is recommending continuation to February 10th. Michael asked if just the southern façade needs addressed with the cut in deck. Amy said she feels all of the facades need addressed. Additions should be sympathetic in relationship to the historic house. Bill Guth, owner Zack Rorockett, architect Andrew Alexander Green, Rorockett Architects Zack thanked staff for their great process and good analysis. The parcel has a great relationship to the primary view corridors. We are orienting what was a front door on 1st St. to its historic location on Hallam St. We do have an alley to the north on the rear lot line which gives us prime access to a garage. In addition there are a handful of houses on the alley which we will respect. The parcel to the east has a wonderful buffer of Aspen trees and is P38 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 3 set back a considerably distance from this lot. The historic house was built in 1880. The southern exposure is along Hallam and the sun will be tracking around the front of the building and shadows to the rear. We will leave a five yard setback to the west and a ten yard setback to the east complying with the ten foot setback to the front and the rear yard setbacks deal with the addition and the garage. There is an existing large window and a cross gable that will be brought back. We took the Sanborn map and lot survey and overlaid the two to find out the historic footprint. The historic piece has been swallowed by additions. The porch will be restored and the central dormer will be brought back. The rear of the house will have a single gable. Zack said the new addition is to the rear. We have brought in the subordinating link element and we created a landscape buffer for a private court. The addition is a simple form that acts as a drop back for the Victorian. We initially thought of a gable form but with the gable the new addition gets quite large and would project 8 feet above the ridge line of the Victorian. That height would also impede on the neighbors. The 25 foot height limit tracks through lower than the ridge of the Victorian. The addition would be 3 feet lower than the historic ridge. We would also like to add a green roof and to the east side a deck. We are also proposing that the parapet operate as the guard rail. The base would be a wood siding similar to what is used on a Victorian and the top would be a milky glass surface that has some wood tracking through it and would be broken down into panels. It is effectively used to de-materialize the top of the building. The milky glass material also breaks down the mass. Each set of materials would be around 12 feet tall on the addition. Zack said the ground floor of the Victorian would be the public space with the kitchen, living room and dining room. The linking element will hold the powder room and the rear addition would have a small two car garage and a stair to go up and down and a single bedroom suite. Upstairs on the Victorian would be a suite and across to the addition two bedroom suites. Generally speaking the language is a soft wood siding and a soft milky glass. This addition clearly delineates old from new. Bill said we are trying to accomplish focusing on the Victorian. We are trying to subtly articulate the façade of the new addition. We are breaking down the mass of a 25 foot tall addition into the base and top. P39 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 4 Zack said there is a simple entry path from Hallam Street, with a low wood picket fence, restored porch, restored dormer, restored front façade at the gable. The addition is a few feet lower than the Victorian. There is a landscape zone in between the two houses. There will also be aspen groves along the lot line that further softens the continuity of old and new. Bill said the house on the corner lot will be contemporary with a flat roof. Zack said where we have doors and windows the glass will shift in its transparency. We are imagining single panels that are between three and four feet in width of a certain height that corresponds between the two floors. The technique is to soften the top of the building. Willis said the milky glass is technically cladding with window openings. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Zack summarized that their approach is to celebrate this historic asset for the city. It is exciting to restore this house to what it once was. For the addition it is not replicating things on the Victorian. We are through the language of modern architecture trying articulate the volume in such a way that it provides for a kind of human scale and it doesn’t appear imposing and it recedes and allows the Victorian to be on the front which is Hallam Street and it is a quiet addition in the back yard that is not confused as an historic piece. Bill thanked HPC for their time and effort that they put forth on HPC and it is greatly appreciated. Willis commented that the presentation was well thought out. Willis identified the issues: Demolition; relocation southward toward the street; sub-grade eastward variation; FAR bonus 500 square feet; restoration; mass and scale of the addition and the materiality. It becomes important because of the dialogue between the addition and resource. P40 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 5 Willis said the diagram is elegant and the concept is great. The blue sky approach in terms of how the materials interact is close. The milky glass will create a ghosted fenestration at night and during the day it will appear more of a cladded material. Willis said he can support this if one considers the cladding as another texture. It is also important to know that the neighboring house will have a flat roof with a contemporary structure. Willis said he hopes the board understands the clear glass and what it will look like at night. Patrick commented that it appears they have a very large 25 foot high box and it is a glass box. The guidelines talk about having windows of similar shape. The guidelines say for residential that the roof should be gabled or shed. They should re-design this to have more of a Victorian character. Gretchen said she appreciates the thoughts and concepts as to how the addition was approached. You deserve the bonus for reconstructing the Victorian. The problem with this is the 45 feet long by 25 feet high glass box off the alley. The scale is not compatible with the scale of a Victorian residence in a residential area. The addition doesn’t reflect a residential neighborhood. This building confuses me and doesn’t say I’m a modern building and a product of its own time in Aspen. It is the mass and there is no breakdown in scale of the building. I’m concerned that the materials will be a problem for the neighbors at night. We don’t know how the windows will work in the evening. I am in favor of the setbacks and the bonus. The building needs a significant design transformation to break down the scale to be similar to a Victorian building. John said he is OK with the demolition and relocation to the east and south. The subgrade variance is fully adequate. I’m also OK with the FAR bonus. The porch etc. should be restored to its authenticity as best possible. This is absolutely a product of its time. It is very clear the old from the new. A lot of thought has been put into this design to create a good product and it is appreciated. It is creative and there is so much good change happening to reinstate the historic resource that there should be some allowance for creativity within the perimeters that are very confined. Bob said he is OK with all the boiler plate items. When the image of the pitched roof was shown and the effect on the neighbors behind I think this is a very creative approach. The visual interpretation will be good in that area. It is an interesting modern box and only needs a little tweaking. I am P41 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 6 positive about the project. It is a benefit to the entire neighborhood bringing back the original house. Nora said she is glad to see the house come back to its original form. Clearly the demolition and the movement to avoid setbacks and the subgrade are all fine. The bonus hinges on the three guidelines and we are not quite there yet. A modern box can also have articulation. We are almost there. I am a little concerned about the 25 foot wall of glass. Maybe having a lighter guard-rail might lighten it up as it feels a little top heavy. Willis said there is more articulation than we realize but it just wasn’t conveyed. Sallie said to bring the house back to what it was is a beautiful project. I am for all the boiler plate items including the FAR bonus because of what you are doing. I am torn with the back addition. It is a beautiful piece of architecture but the guidelines say similar mass and scale to the original Victorian with modern materials. A box could work but the design isn’t there yet. All the glass is a concern and I am torn with the glass at night and what might happen. I haven’t seen a lot of opaque glass used. Willis said most of the milky glass is a wall of insulation. It is really a cladding. The project is challenging because of the form and fenestration. Michael said we will see the fenestration at final. Gretchen said no matter what materials it is a large box. Willis said the materials soften the box. Michael said he thought the presentation was excellent and it helped us understand the project very well. The demolition, relocation, the subgrade variation toward the rear and all OK. I like the design of the connection and design of the addition. It is a product of its own time. Bob suggested having a model for the next meeting to see how the different shapes etc. interact. John said he doesn’t see this as a box. There is a lot of undulation taking place here that breaks up the box. The bottom of the addition is wood. P42 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 7 Willis pointed out that the spectrum of variables in glass is enormous. Michael said at final they can bring in a sample of the glass. Willis said from the alley it shows its true mass and scale. Nora said a little “breakup” might enhance the project. Patrick said guideline 10.9 and 10.14 are not met. There should be a subtle difference not a major one. The window shape is also not similar. Gretchen said she doesn’t have a problem with flat roofs but this is not compatible in the breakdown of scale to the residential character of a Victorian residence. Sallie asked who on the board is ok with a flat roof and the 25 foot height. John, Bob, Michael and Sallie are OK with the flat roof and 25 foot height. Bill said we will go above and beyond on the fenestration and glass samples at final. John said at night the only thing being illuminated are the punched out dotted lines which is the glass for the windows. The applicant has shown what materials they like and this is a full complete packet. Bob pointed out that a lot of the fenestration changes are on the alley. Bill said you barely see the addition from the street and it is a small visual impact. Gretchen reiterated that her concern is the abrupt flat roof for 45 feet and she has stated this on other projects consistently. You need the breakdown of Victorian scale. It looks like a commercial building. Nora said she senses that there is enough discussion about not being totally comfortable with the project and it should be continued. P43 III.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 8 MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 124 W. Hallam conceptual development to February 10; second by Gretchen. Michael suggested giving the applicant clear direction. Sallie also said if we required a model our discussions would go a lot easier. Bob said you don’t see the new addition on the back from the streetscape or very little of it. A lot of it is on the alley. A pitched roof would not work and I am very positive about this project. There will also be something on the west side of the lot. John said we owe the applicant some direction as to what needs changed. Willis said a block elevation of the alley would is advised and photo sides of the alley. Patrick suggested the applicant listen to staff’s recommendation. Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes Sallie, no; John, no. Motion carried 5-2. 517 E. Hopkins Ave. – Conceptual Design Review and Demolition Proof of publication – Exhibit I Justin Barker, Senior Planner Justin said the proposed project is to demolish the existing building and replace it with a two story commercial building with a basement. This building is not a designated building but is located within the commercial core historic district. HPC is being asked to review conceptual design, conceptual commercial design review as well as the demolition for the existing building. All other reviews will be combined with the final review. Staff is in support of the demolition. There is currently no parking provided onsite and the applicant has the right to maintain this deficit and will only have to provide for the increase of net leasable which they are going to do through cash-in-lieu. The project is also required to provide a minimum of 10% of public amenity space of the lot which equates to about 900 square feet and it is a 9,000 square foot lot. There is currently 500 square feet of space that qualified as public amenity which is essentially the walkway that P44 III.B. Overview Our proposal is to restore the existing Victorian house at 124 W. Hallam St. to its historic condition. In so doing, we propose to remove multiple, non-historic additions and structures and to include a new, subordinate addition at the rear of the property. The house as currently positioned will be relocated to place it into compliance with established property setbacks and to assist in continuing the traditional relationship of house to street. Notably, the front door of the house will be restored to its historic orientation on Hallam Street. Historic Preservation Guidelines • Chapters 1 – 9, where applicable: o Based on historic photographs, maps, documented foundation and framing evidence and assisted with input from members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Department, a clear direction has been established for the Victorian that preserves original materials and elements. The house restoration works to restore and incorporate relevant historic architectural principals such as proportion, depth, and form whenever possible. o As noted, the front of the house will be restored to its historic orientation on Hallam Street and is situated to continue the traditional rhythm of the neighborhood and street – restoring the established progression of public to private spaces. A linear path of stone pavers will connect the street to the front porch and on to the front door. The porch itself will be restored to its original size and proportion and will be constructed in a manner that incorporates appropriate railing, post, and eave elements. A salon door off the porch will be restored as an auxiliary point of entry typical of the period. An historic, double hung window adjacent the front door will be uncovered and restored. A new, wooden front yard fence utilizing transparency, proportion and materiality compatible with the historic context and adjacent properties will be added along the front property line. o Around the house, and particularly at visible facades, doors, windows and dormers will be restored to original locations as noted in available historic evidence. These will be scaled and detailed according to fenestration strategies of the period and per the historic evidence on hand. o The roof will be repaired or replaced where needed utilizing replacement materials similar to those used traditionally. The original character and form of eave lines and projecting dormers will be preserved and recreated, where appropriate. o Original materials will be retained where possible and replaced where necessary with materials compatible to the period. As the building is being relocated to conform to the site setbacks, the original floor heights will be preserved. The existing stone foundation will be preserved and utilized as a finish over the new foundation, where possible. • Chapter 10 – addition (12/09/2015): o The new addition, located at the rear of the setback, differentiates itself from the Victorian while maintaining compatibility in terms of materials, scale, and height. Clad in vertical wood siding scaled to that of the existing house, the ground level of the proposed addition is visually compatible yet clearly a product of its own time. Above the wood siding at the Ground Level of the addition, a glass facade of varying transparencies relates to soft tonal aspects of winter in Aspen. The glass, framed in wood, reinforces the surrounding vibrant colors of neighboring trees, mountains and skies, becoming part of its natural surroundings in muted reflections. The addition incorporates a flat roof, staying within the height setback, and allowing the original P45 III.B. proportions and character of the Victorian to remain prominent, as well as visually minimizing the house from Hallam Street as well as the neighbors sharing the adjacent alley. The new addition connects to the historic Victorian delicately visually and physically via a linking element. At the connection, vertical wood siding transitions to a vertical band of glass, highlighting the Victorian’s original wood siding as it runs into the interior volume, distinguishing itself as new and unique, while simultaneously acknowledging its historic counterpart. • Chapter 10 – Addition Revisions from HPC Meeting (01/28/2016): o The new addition, located at the rear of the setback, differentiates itself from the Victorian while maintaining compatibility in terms of materials, scale, and height. Clad in vertical wood slats scaled to that of the existing house, the ground level of the proposed addition is visually compatible yet clearly a product of its own time. Above the wood siding at the Ground Level of the addition, a glass facade of varying transparencies relates to soft tonal aspects of winter in Aspen. The glass, framed in wood continuing upwards from the wood slat façade below, reinforces the surrounding vibrant colors of neighboring trees, mountains and skies, becoming part of its natural surroundings in muted reflections. Within the soft opaque glass cladding of the upper level façade, there are transparent windows of 2:1 historic proportion found on the adjacent Victorian house. The addition incorporates a flat roof, staying under the height setback, and allowing the original proportions and character of the Victorian to remain prominent, and visually minimizing the house from Hallam Street as well as the neighbors sharing the adjacent alley. The roof deck guardrails are set back from the primary plane of the building façade, which is lowered 1’-6” below the height setback, to reduce building mass significantly. The new addition connects to the historic Victorian delicately visually and physically via a linking element. At the connection, vertical wood slats transition to a vertical band of glass, highlighting the Victorian’s original wood siding as it runs into the interior volume, distinguishing itself as new and unique, while simultaneously acknowledging its historic counterpart. • Alternate Design Scheme: If the revised primary design scheme proposed is found by the Board to remain inconsistent with the HPC Design Guidelines, an alternate design scheme is proposed. The scheme retains the same floor plan, square-footage, massing, and height, but with a more traditional material palette and expression of windows and openings. The base, or first level of the addition, utilizes a horizontal stone cladding. The upper level, separated by a horizontal reveal to break down the mass and plane of the building facades, is to be white horizontal siding of the same proportion as the existing Victorian home. All windows and doors occur in traditional punched openings, similar to historic Victorian 2:1 proportion. The linking element connection utilizes the same horizontal wood siding as the Victorian and upper level of the addition to provide further continuity and tie the two buildings together cohesively. *SEE ALSO SHEET Z-102.0 – HPC GUIDELINES FOR DETAILED RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC HPC CHAPTERS P46 III.B. DESIGN REVISIONS P 4 7 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016COURTYARD VIEW TOP OF ROOF DECK HAS BEEN LOWERED FROM 25’-0” TO 23’-6” TO REDUCE FACADE AREA AND BUILDING MASS. (ROOF DECK GUARDRAIL SET BACK FROM EDGE OF BUILDING TO REDUCE FACADE SIZE AND BUIDLING MASS) VERTICAL WOOD WINDOW FACADE ELEMENTS CHANGED TO SMALLER MODULE. TRANSPARENT WINDOW OPENINGS BECOME 2:1 HISTORIC PROPORTION TO RELATE TO VICTORIAN OPAQUE GLASS CLADDING VERTICAL WOOD SLATS AT BUILDING BASE P 4 8 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016ALLEY VIEW LOOKING WEST VERTICAL WOOD WINDOW FACADE ELEMENTS CHANGED TO SMALLER MODULE. TRANSPARENT WINDOW OPENINGS BECOME 2:1 HISTORIC PROPORTION TO RELATE TO VICTORIAN TOP OF ROOF DECK HAS BEEN LOWERED FROM 25’-0” TO 23’-6” TO REDUCE FACADE AREA AND BUILDING MASS. ROOF DECK GUARDRAIL SET BACK FROM EDGE OF BUILDING TO REDUCE FACADE SIZE AND BUIDLING MASS REAR FACADE BROKEN UP BY VERTICAL GLASS OPENING AT STAIR TO REDUCE MASS AND SIZE OF BUILDING AT ALLEY P 4 9 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016ALLEY VIEW AT GARAGE ROOF DECK GUARDRAIL SET BACK FROM EDGE OF BUILDING TO REDUCE FACADE SIZE AND BUIDLING MASS. *USABLE ROOF DECK AREA REPRESENTS ONLY 35% OF ROOF AREA TOP OF ROOF DECK HAS BEEN LOWERED FROM 25’-0” TO 23’-6” TO REDUCE FACADE AREA AND BUILDING MASS. TRANSPARENT WINDOW OPENINGS BECOME 2:1 HISTORIC PROPORTION TO RELATE TO VICTORIAN REAR FACADE BROKEN UP BY VERTICAL GLASS OPENING AT STAIR TO REDUCE MASS AND SIZE OF BUILDING AT ALLEY OPAQUE GLASS CLADDING VERTICAL WOOD SLATS AT BUILDING BASE VERTICAL WOOD WINDOW FACADE ELEMENTS CHANGED TO SMALLER MODULE SPACING. WOOD-FRAME TRANSPARENT OPERABLE WINDOW P 5 0 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016COURTYARD VIEW P 5 1 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016COURTYARD VIEW FROM EAST P 5 2 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016ALLEY VIEW LOOKING WEST P 5 3 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016ALLEY VIEW AT GARAGE P 5 4 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016ALLEY VIEW AT GARAGE - SUNSET P 5 5 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST YELLOW BRICK SCHOOL BUILDING RED BRICK COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS FUTURE LOT 1 DEVELOPMENT - 308 N. FIRST ST RESTORED VICTORIAN & ADDITION- 124 W. HALLAM F I R S T S T R E E T HALLA M S T . P 5 6 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016VIEW AT ALLEY LOOKING SOUTHEAST P 5 7 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016VIEW AT HALLAM LOOKING NORTHEAST P 5 8 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016ALLEY VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST P 5 9 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016AERIAL VIEW AT ALLEY LOOKING WEST P 6 0 I I I . B . P61 III.B. P62 III.B. P63 III.B. P64 III.B. P65 III.B. P66 III.B. P67 III.B. P68 III.B. P69 III.B. P70 III.B. P71 III.B. P72 III.B. P73 III.B. P74 III.B. P75 III.B. P76 III.B. P77 III.B. P78 III.B. P79 III.B. P 8 0 I I I . B . P81 III.B. P82 III.B. P83 III.B. P84 III.B. P85 III.B. P86 III.B. P87 III.B. P88 III.B. P89 III.B. RO | ROCKETT DESIGN ALTERNATE DESIGN SCHEME P 9 0 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016ALTERNATE SCHEME - ALLEY VIEW HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING TO MATCH (E) VICTORIAN HORIZONTAL STONE CLADDING TYPICAL 2 TO 1 PROPORTION VICTORIAN PUNCHED WINDOW OPENING P 9 1 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016ALTERNATE SCHEME - COURTYARD VIEW P 9 2 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS P 9 3 I I I . B . RO | ROCKETT DESIGN 1507 | ASPEN 124 W. HALLAM STREET JANUARY 28, 2016EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS P 9 4 I I I . B . 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 1102 Waters Avenue- Minor Development, Public Hearing DATE: February 10, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 1102 Waters Avenue was approved for landmark designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split in 2010. The property has been in the ownership of the Geary family since 1967, when they constructed a vacation home prototype which was designed by Fritz Benedict and marketed for construction around the country by Ski Magazine. As a result of the lot split approval, 1102 Waters is a 3,995 square foot lot with limited area for expansion. The property has a designated building envelope which defines the boundaries within which development can occur, above and below grade. The maximum floor area on the site is 1,220 square feet. The applicant has determined that the most appropriate way to gain some additional living space is to expand the basement beneath the front yard. The only above grade change that will be visible as a result of the project is a new lightwell on the west side of the historic resource. If HPC approval is granted, the applicant must receive administrative approval to reduce their approved building envelope on the river side of the lot and replace it with an equal area on the front of the lot. From an environmental impact point of view, this is an improvement. Staff recommends HPC grant Minor Development approval with conditions. APPLICANT: Geary Family, LLC, represented by Doug Rager, Architect. ADDRESS: 1102 Waters Avenue, Lot 1 of the Lot 14 Calderwood Subdivision Historic Landmark Lot Split, City of Aspen. PARCEL ID: 2735-182-66-015. ZONING: R-15. MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The P95 IV.A. 2 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. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: The home at 1102 Waters Avenue is unaltered from the original Benedict Design. The property is adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. It is flat along Waters Avenue, but approximately half the site drops off steeply to the river. The top image is the house as viewed from Waters Avenue. The bottom image is the view from the Roaring Fork River. Because the house is built into a hillside, some of the below grade living space does not count in floor area. The applicant represents that the existing floor area of the house is 991 square feet. The proposed floor area, with the expanded basement, is 1,128 square feet. This is within the limits allowed by the lot split. An addition limit that HPC must be aware of is that Aspen City Council Ordinance # 23, Series of 2010, which approved the lot split, contains a condition that “any expansion of the existing house shall be subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and shall not affect the south/front façade of the house.” Staff finds that this project does not affect the front of the house. This is a low impact project that improves the usability of the house. Staff finds that the applicable design guidelines are met and recommends approval. P96 IV.A. 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Minor Development approval, with the following conditions: 1. Submit a landscape plan in the building permit, indicating that the existing landscape conditions in the front of the house will be replicated. 2. Submit drawings in the building permit indicating that the front deck will be re- constructed to match the existing condition. 3. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 1102 Waters Avenue. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or P97 IV.A. 4 the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Exhibits: A. Design Guidelines B. Application text and drawings Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 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. P98 IV.A. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 1102 WATERS AVENUE, LOT 1 OF THE LOT 14 CALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2016 PARCEL ID: 2735-182-66-015 WHEREAS, the applicant, Geary Family, LLC, represented by Doug Rager, Architect, submitted an application requesting Minor Development review for the property located at 1102 Waters Avenue, Lot 1 of the Lot 14 Calderwood Subdivision Historic Landmark Lot Split, City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of Minor Development with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on February 10, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission approves the application with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grants Minor Development approval for the property located at 1102 Waters Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. Submit a landscape plan in the building permit, indicating that the existing landscape conditions in the front of the house will be replicated. 2. Submit drawings in the building permit indicating that the front deck will be re- constructed to match the existing condition. 3. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the P99 IV.A. development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 1102 Waters Avenue. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of February, 2016. ______________________ Willis Pember, Chair Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P100 IV.A. Map of: 1102 Waters Ave Aspen, CO 81611-2138 Notes ©2015 MapQuest, Inc. Use of directions and maps is subject to the MapQuest Terms of Use. We make no guarantee of the accuracy of their content, road conditions or route usability. You assume all risk of use.View Terms of Use ©2015 MapQuest - Portions ©2015 TomTom | Te rms | Privacy 1102 Waters Ave, Aspen, CO 81611 Directions, Location and Map | Ma... http://www.mapquest.com/print?a=app.core.e989f0e4e97aeb3fdfc7c312 1 of 1 10/15/2015 12:08 PM 1102 waters ave aspen colorado vicinity map P 1 0 1 I V . A . BY REVISIONS DATE Job: Sheet Date: Scale: Drawn: A1.01 1/14/2016Plotted On: 1/14/2016 AS NOTED T I T L E S H E E T / G E N E R A L IN F O E :\ar c h i c a d pr o j e c t fo l d e r \D o u g Ra g e r - Ar c h i t e c t Ar c h i c a d \11 0 2 Wa t e r s \11 0 2 W a t e r s V 18 Ad d i t i o n BR v 2 .pl n 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 1:12 PM 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E . A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E D O U G R A G E R - A R C H I T E C T P .C . 17 8 0 S n o w m a s s C r e e k R d . S n o w m a s s , C o . 8 1 6 5 4 (9 7 0 ) 9 2 7 -17 8 0 TE L / FA X J.M PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Parcel Id: BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS: SQ. FOOTAGE/ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: LAND USE ZONE: DESIGN CRITERIA: GENERAL NOTES PROJECT DIRECTORY ARCHITECT: DOUG RAGER - ARCHITECT P.C.1780 SNOWMASS CREEK RDSNOWMASS, CO. 81654 (970) 927-1780 PHONE/FAXdoug@dougragerarchitect.com BUILDING / ZONING DATA STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: 1102 WATERS AVE 1102 WATERS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO Mechanical System Notes: request minor hpc review and insubstantial subdivision amendment for the develo-pment ofa below grade expansion of the existing residence. 2009 irc chapters 1-10 onlyThe adopted appendices for this code are:E: Manufactured housing used as dwellingsF: radon control methods H: patio coversJ: existing building and structuresk: souund transmission2009 international plumbing code2009 international mechanical code relevant land use code section(s): 26.304 - Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.070.C - HPC Minor Development 26.480.090.b - insubstantial amendment, subdivision (see sheeta2.01 #2)26.575.020 - calculations and measurements (see sheet a1.02) ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE: OCCUPANCY TYPE: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 2009 IECC COMPLIANCE: - ALL ROOF CAVITIES TO BE COMPLETEY FILLED WITH CLOSED CELL SPRAYINSULATION (r-VALUE OF 49 OR HIGHER)- wALL CAVITIES TO BE COMPLETEY FILLED WITH INSULATIONWOOD FRAMED WALL (R-VALUE OF 21 OR HIGHER)- ALL NEW WINDOWS & DOORS TO COMPLY WITH TABLE 402.1.1(fENESTRATION u-FACTOR OF .35 OR HIGHER) FOR EXISTING cEILINGS, WALLS OR FLOORS CAVITIES SEE SECTION 101.4.3EXCEPTION #3 EXCEPTIONS: THE FOLLOWING NEED NOT COMPLY PROVIDED THE ENERGY USE OFTHE BUILIDING IS NOT INCREASED: 3. EXISTING CEILING, WALL OR FLOOR CAVITIES EXPOSED DURING CONTRUCTION PROVIDED THAT THESE CAVITIES ARE FILLED WITH INSULATION refer to structural drawings K. VERIFY ALL SPACE DIMENSIONS AS SHOWN WITH EXISTING JOB CONDITIONS BEFORE STARTING CONSTRUCTION. L. WHERE WORK IS INSTALLED OR EXISTING FINISHES ARE DISTURBED, SUCH AREA SHALL BE REFINISHED TO MATCH THE AREA PRIOR TO THE DISTURBANCE. P. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS ARE TO BE CLARIFIED WITH THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDERING MATERIALS OR PROCEEDING WITH THE RELATED WORK. J. CONTRACTOR WILL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITEMS REQUIRING COORDINATION AND RESOLUTION DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ARCHITECT FOR ANY CLARIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT EXCLUDE FROM HIS BID, ANY ITEMS, AS NOTED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF THE ARCHITECT. CONTRACTOR'S CLARIFICATIONS SHALL NOT OMIT, CHANGE OR REDUCE THE QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION AS INDICATED BY THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. B. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED TO INCLUDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ALL WORK DESCRIBED THEREIN. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT ANY CONDITIONS WHICH WILL NOT PERMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCORDING TO THE INTENTIONS OF THESE DOCUMENTS. THE ARCHITECT SHALL PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING DESIGN INTENT WHERE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS OR WHERE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS ABSENT FROM THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL CONDITIONS. G. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY AND CARE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND SATE O.S.H.A. REGULATIONS, AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL WORK UNTIL IT IS DELIVERED COMPLETED TO THE OWNER. A. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES, AND SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF CRAFTSMANSHIP BY JOURNEYMEN OF THE APPROPRIATE TRADES. I. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND COORDINATE ALL OPENINGS THROUGH FLOORS, CEILINGS, AND WALLS WITH ALL ARCHITECTURAL , STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND OTHER DISCIPLINE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS WELL AS EXISTING CONDITIONS. N. EACH MISCELLANEOUS ITEM OF CUTTING, PATCHING, OR FITTING IS NOT NECESSARILY INDIVIDUALLY DESCRIBED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. NO SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF CUTTING, PATCH IN OR FITTING REQUIRED TO PROPERLY ACCOMMODATE THE SCOPE OF WORK SHALL RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PERFORM SUCH WORK AS REQUIRED. M. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WITH FIELD CONDITIONS, CONFIRMING THAT ALL WORK IS BUILDABLE AS SHOWN, PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK,. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IF ANY DISCREPANCIES EXIST, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, THEREAFTER. E. ALL WORK SHALL BE ERECTED PLUMB AND TRUE-TO-LINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH BEST PRACTICES OF THE TRADE, MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PARTICULAR PRODUCT, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. H. ALL DIMENSIONS NOTED TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. DIMENSIONS NOTED "N.T.S." DENOTES NOT TO SCALE. C. ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTION OF SPECIFIED MATERIALS/PRODUCTS SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW, SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF A MORE ADVANTAGEOUS DELIVERY DATE OR LESSER COST, WITH CREDIT TO THE OWNER, ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT SACRIFICING QUALITY, APPEARANCE, AND/OR FUNCTION. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THE ARCHITECT BE REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT A PRODUCT PROPOSED FOR SUBSTITUTION IS OR IS NOT EQUAL TO THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT SPECIFIED. INITIATING A REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE CONTRACTOR TO CHANGE THE SPECIFIED PRODUCT, UNTIL THE ARCHITECT AS APPROVED THE SUBSTITUTION. D. SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS, CUT SHEETS AND SAMPLES WHEN REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS, FOR REVIEW BY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH RELATED WORK. ALL WORK RELATED TO SUCH SAMPLES SHALL CONFORM WITH REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED SAMPLES. WORK WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. SUB-CONTRACTORS SHALL SUBMIT ALL SUBMITTALS AND SAMPLES FOR REVIEW THROUGH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ALL SUBMITTALS AND SAMPLES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN SUCH A MANNER, AS TO ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME FOR REVIEW, AS NOTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, AND AS NOT TO DELAY WORK IN PROGRESS. F. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SHALL BE NOTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHEN THERE IS NEED OF INSPECTION AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE CODE OR BY ANY CODE OR ORDINANCE. SEE SHEET a1.o2 floor area calculations 2737-182-66-015 calderwood lot 14 historic landmark split lot 1.see ordinance #23, series of 2010 legal description: r-15 moderate density residential v r-3 single family residence Land Use Code: <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community- Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use- Code/> ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS A1.01 A1.02 A2.01 A3.01 A3.02 A4.01 A4.02 A5.01 Layout TITLE SHEET / GENERAL INFO FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS SITE PLAN BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN SECOND LEVEL PLAN BUILDING ELEVATIONS BUILDING ELEVATIONS (CONT) BUILDING SECTIONS P 1 0 2 I V . A . BY REVISIONS DATE Job: Sheet Date: Scale: Drawn: A1.02 1/14/2016Plotted On: 1/14/2016 AS NOTED F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S E :\ar c h i c a d pr o j e c t fo l d e r \D o u g Ra g e r - Ar c h i t e c t Ar c h i c a d \11 0 2 Wa t e r s \11 0 2 W a t e r s V 18 Ad d i t i o n BR v 2 .pl n 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 1:12 PM 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E . A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E D O U G R A G E R - A R C H I T E C T P .C . 17 8 0 S n o w m a s s C r e e k R d . S n o w m a s s , C o . 8 1 6 5 4 (9 7 0 ) 9 2 7 -17 8 0 TE L / FA X J.M 01 6 '-9 " 2 '-10 " 6 sq ft 6 sq ft 29 sq ft 184 sq ft 183 sq ft64 sq ft 97 sq ft 32 sq ft 224 sq ft 130 sq ft 132 sq ft20 sq ft 184 sq ft 148 sq ft 183 sq ft 101 sq ft 23'-3 15/16" 23'-3 15/16" 7' - 1 0 3/ 4 " 23'-3 15/16"23'-2" 16'-3"27'-11 1/2"4'-11/32"3'-8"23'-9 15/16" 2'-6"16'-6 11/32"4'4' 2' - 8 3/ 4 " 7' - 1 0 3/ 4 " 3'-8" 8' 2' - 1 0 " 5' - 2 " 8'8'8' 8'8' 1' 6 51 / 6 4 " 6 51 / 6 4 " 1' 23 ' - 2 " 3'-8"8" 23 ' - 2 " 27 ' - 1 1 1/2 " 16' - 3 " 2'-6 " 16 ' - 6 11 / 3 2 " 7' - 1 0 3/ 4 " 23'-2" 3'-8" 8' 2' 5' - 1 0 3/ 4 " 4' - 1 1 / 3 2 " 3'-8"23'-9 15/16" 23'-3 15/16" 23'-2" 7' - 1 0 3/ 4 " 23'-3 15/16" 7' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 23'-2" 1,195 sq ft wall a wall bwall D wall C ABOVE CEILING OF NEW SUBTERRAINIALAREA wall E BELOWEXISTING BASEMENT SLAB wall F wall G wall H wall I wall J wall b wall a wall D wall C wall E wall K wall F wall J wall H wall L INCLUDED IN WALL E area exposed to outside area total wall area wall G wall K wall L LOWER LEVEL DECK wall a wall b wall C area exposed to outside area wall f WALL COMPLETELY BURIED WALL COMPLETELY BURIED WALL COMPLETELY BURIED WALL COMPLETELY BURIED WALL COMPLETELY BURIED WALL COMPLETELY BURIED WALL COMPLETELY BURIED WALL COMPLETELY BURIED wall D wall I wall J wall I wall K wall L wall F wall G wall H 137 sq ft floor area basement level UPPER LEVEL DECK 2'-9" x8' 4'-6" x4' 3' x8'-2 3/4" 631 sq ft 105 sq ft floor area main level Proposed Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Existing Subgrade Level Floor Area (Sq Ft) Subgrade Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,195 1,169 X 36.8634% Subgrade Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)438 Overall Wall Exposed Wall Sq Ft Sq Ft a 184 184 b 183 101 c 64 0 d 183 148 e 97 29 f 32 0 g 224 0 h 130 0 i 20 0 j 132 0 k 6 0 l 6 0 1261 462 Percent Exposed 36.6376% Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)438 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)631 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)59 Garage Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Total Existing Floor (Sq Ft)1,128 Proposed Floor Area Calculations Main Level Proposed Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft) Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)631 Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)631 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Deck Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)242 Deck Excempt 15% of Allowable (Sq Ft) [Allowabe = 1220]183 15% X 1220 = 183 Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)59 Proposed Garage Floor Area Calculations Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Garage Excempt 500 (first 500) + 1/2(second 500-1000)0 Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)438 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)631 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)59 Garage Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Total Proposed Floor (Sq Ft)1,128 Allowable Floor Area Reference 1,220 City of Aspen Ordinance No. 23 (Series of 2010) Unique Approveals Reference Variances Reference Exemptions Reference Garage Exemption City of Aspen Ordinance No. 7 (Series of 2014) Deck Exemption City of Aspen Ordinance No. 7 (Series of 2014) Floor Area Summary Existing Gross (Sq Ft)Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)Proposed Gross (Sq Ft)Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)Reference Subgrade Level 582 301 1,169 438 See sheet A1.02 Main Level 631 631 631 631 See sheet A1.02 Garage 0 0 0 0 See sheet A1.02 Deck 242 59 242 59 See sheet A1.02 ADU 0 0 0 0 N/A Totals 1,455 991 2,042 1,128 See sheet A1.02 For each unit 0-250 sq ft excempt 500 sq ft, 251-500 50% excempt 250 sq ft, > 500 countable. Duplex garage excemption 750 sq ft excempt Deck Excemption is equal to 15% of Allowable = 1,220*.15 = 183 sq ft. Zoning Floor Area City of Aspen Model Zoning Submission SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 BASEMENT LEVEL SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL 4 1102 WATERS Subgrade floor area pdf 5 1102 WATERS Main Level floor area pdf 3 1102 WATERS floor area summary pdf per section 26.575.020 - calculations and measurements P 1 0 3 I V . A . BY REVISIONS DATE Job: Sheet Date: Scale: Drawn: A2.01 1/14/2016Plotted On: 1/14/2016 AS NOTED S I T E P L A N E :\ar c h i c a d pr o j e c t fo l d e r \D o u g Ra g e r - Ar c h i t e c t Ar c h i c a d \11 0 2 Wa t e r s \11 0 2 W a t e r s V 18 Ad d i t i o n BR v 2 .pl n 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 1:12 PM 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E . A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E D O U G R A G E R - A R C H I T E C T P .C . 17 8 0 S n o w m a s s C r e e k R d . S n o w m a s s , C o . 8 1 6 5 4 (9 7 0 ) 9 2 7 -17 8 0 TE L / FA X J.M entry deck TO BE REBUILT TO MATCH EXISTING MATERIAL AND DETAILS pr o p e r t y lin e pr o p e r t y lin e proper t y line pr o p e r t y li n e existing main level deck existig lower deck subterrainial living area CITY OF ASPEN TOP OF SLOPE WATERS AVE. 7960 7965 7955 7950 LOT 1 3,995± S.F. EXISTING FENCE ZONE X ZONE AE (4) 8" - 10" diameter aspens to remain (2) large cotton wood trees (1) 5"-6" diameter aspens to be removed (1) 8" - 10" diameter aspens to remain (1) 5" -6" diameter SPRUCE to be removed (1) 5" -6" diameter SPRUCE to REMAIN revegEtate disturbed LAWN AREA NO DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE BUILDING ENVELOPE AND BELOW CITY OF ASPEN TOP OF SLOPE LINE NO DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE BUILDING ENVELOPE AND BELOW CITY OF ASPEN TOP OF SLOPE LINE ESISTING SEASONAL IRRIGATION DITCH TO REMAIN NO CHANGES PROPOSED 275 sq ft 273 sq ft 1'- 5 1 / 6 4 " 7 23 / 6 4 " 1'-1 / 8 " pr o p e r t y lin e area of new buuilding envelope added area of existing building envelope to be abandonded old building envelope o l d b u i l d i n g e n v e l o p e ne w bui l d i n g en v e l o p e pr o p e r t y lin e proper t y line pr o p e r t y li n e ol d bu i l d i n g en v e l o p e existing main level deck ne w bu i l d i n g en v e l o p e old building envelope ex i s t i n g bu i l d i n g en v e l o p e existing entry deck existig lower deck EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE 1,667± S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE 1,647± S.F. ZONE X ZONE AE Map of: 1102 Waters Ave Aspen, CO 81611-2138 Notes ©2015 MapQuest, Inc. Use of directions and maps is subject to the MapQuest Terms of Use. We make no guarantee of the accuracy of their content, road conditions or route usability. You assume all risk of use.View Terms of Use ©2015 MapQuest - Portions ©2015 TomTom | Te rms | Privacy 1102 Waters Ave, Aspen, CO 81611 Directions, Location and Map | Ma... http://www.mapquest.com/print?a=app.core.e989f0e4e97aeb3fdfc7c312 1 of 1 10/15/2015 12:08 PM TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE & LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 DETAILED BUILDING ENVELOPE EXCHANGE vicinity map1102 waters ave. per section 26.480.090.b - insubstantial amendment, subdivision P 1 0 4 I V . A . BY REVISIONS DATE Job: Sheet Date: Scale: Drawn: A3.01 1/14/2016Plotted On: 1/14/2016 AS NOTED B A S E M E N T L E V E L P L A N E :\ar c h i c a d pr o j e c t fo l d e r \D o u g Ra g e r - Ar c h i t e c t Ar c h i c a d \11 0 2 Wa t e r s \11 0 2 W a t e r s V 18 Ad d i t i o n BR v 2 .pl n 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 1:12 PM 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E . A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E D O U G R A G E R - A R C H I T E C T P .C . 17 8 0 S n o w m a s s C r e e k R d . S n o w m a s s , C o . 8 1 6 5 4 (9 7 0 ) 9 2 7 -17 8 0 TE L / FA X J.M 01 7 '-7 " 2 '-10 " 004 6 '-8 " 2 '-2 " 02 6'-8" 5' 03 6 '-9 " 2 '-8 " 10" 2'- 3 1/ 3 2 " 10 " 10" 3" 15' - 9 " 3" 10" 17' - 1 1 " 29 ' - 2 9 / 6 4 " 92'-0" EXISTING STRUCTURAL SLAB 89'-2" NEW STRUCTURAL SLAB 147° dwn up exst'g bedroom #1 exst'g bedroom #1 new mstr. bedroom exst'g bath #1 exst'g bath #2 exst'g sauna mechanical/storage/closet ex s t 'g cl o s e t ex s t 'g cl o s e t exst'g stairs new stairs to mstr. new walls typical exst'g mech. new windows exstg tub existing concrete walls new concrete RETAINING wall SLOPE TO MATCH EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED new building envelope old building envelope old building envelope PROPOSED new building envelope EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE TO REMAIN EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE TO REMAIN property line property line property line FLAT FRAMED 2X4 exstg DECK KING EGRESS new mstr bathroom curbless shower bookcase up 2 A5.01 2 A5.01 3 1/2"3'3 1/2" up 1 A5.01 1 A5.01 up exst'g bedroom #1 exst'g bedroom #1 exst'g bath #1 exst'g bath #2 mechanical/storage/closet ex s t 'g cl o s e t ex s t 'g cl o s e t exst'g stairs exstg tub existing concrete walls old building envelope PROPOSED new building envelope EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE TO REMAIN EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE TO REMAIN property line property line exstg DECK PROPOSED new building envelope old building envelope exstg tub PLAN NORTH PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN P 1 0 5 I V . A . BY REVISIONS DATE Job: Sheet Date: Scale: Drawn: A3.02 1/14/2016Plotted On: 1/14/2016 AS NOTED S E C O N D L E V E L P L A N E :\ar c h i c a d pr o j e c t fo l d e r \D o u g Ra g e r - Ar c h i t e c t Ar c h i c a d \11 0 2 Wa t e r s \11 0 2 W a t e r s V 18 Ad d i t i o n BR v 2 .pl n 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 1:12 PM 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E . A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E D O U G R A G E R - A R C H I T E C T P .C . 17 8 0 S n o w m a s s C r e e k R d . S n o w m a s s , C o . 8 1 6 5 4 (9 7 0 ) 9 2 7 -17 8 0 TE L / FA X J.M 2 A5.01 2 A5.01 exstg DECK SUBTERRAINIAL SPACE BELOW GRADE PROPOSED new building envelope old building envelope old building envelope PROPOSED new building envelope EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE TO REMAIN property line property line property line 1 A5.01 1 A5.01 exst'g DECK to be rebuilt match original material and details DWN exst'g stairs exst'g living, family & dining exst'g kitchen exst'g pantry exst'g entry 2 A5.01 2 A5.01 PROPOSED new building envelope old building envelope old building envelope PROPOSED new building envelope EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE TO REMAIN property line property line SUBTERRAINIAL SPACE BELOW GRADE 1 A5.01 1 A5.01 exst'g DECK to be rebuilt match original material and details exst'g BASEMENT LEVEL DECK NO CHANGE exst'g MAIN LEVEL DECK NO CHANGE exst'g ROOF NO CHANGE PLAN NORTH PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN (NO PROPOSED CHANGES) SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING ROOF PLAN (NO PROPOSED CHANGES) P 1 0 6 I V . A . BY REVISIONS DATE Job: Sheet Date: Scale: Drawn: A4.01 1/14/2016Plotted On: 1/14/2016 AS NOTED B U I L D I N G E L E V A T I O N S E :\ar c h i c a d pr o j e c t fo l d e r \D o u g Ra g e r - Ar c h i t e c t Ar c h i c a d \11 0 2 Wa t e r s \11 0 2 W a t e r s V 18 Ad d i t i o n BR v 2 .pl n 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 1:12 PM 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E . A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E D O U G R A G E R - A R C H I T E C T P .C . 17 8 0 S n o w m a s s C r e e k R d . S n o w m a s s , C o . 8 1 6 5 4 (9 7 0 ) 9 2 7 -17 8 0 TE L / FA X J.M +92' -1 BASEMENT LEVEL +100' 1 MAIN LEVEL +92' -1 BASEMENT LEVEL +100' 1 MAIN LEVEL SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXIST'G SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 EXIST'G NORTH ELEVATION NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTINGEXTERIOR MATERIALS OR FINISHES NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTINGEXTERIOR MATERIALS OR FINISHES P 1 0 7 I V . A . BY REVISIONS DATE Job: Sheet Date: Scale: Drawn: A4.02 1/14/2016Plotted On: 1/14/2016 AS NOTED B U I L D I N G E L E V A T I O N S ( C O N T ) E :\ar c h i c a d pr o j e c t fo l d e r \D o u g Ra g e r - Ar c h i t e c t Ar c h i c a d \11 0 2 Wa t e r s \11 0 2 W a t e r s V 18 Ad d i t i o n BR v 2 .pl n 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 1:12 PM 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E . A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E D O U G R A G E R - A R C H I T E C T P .C . 17 8 0 S n o w m a s s C r e e k R d . S n o w m a s s , C o . 8 1 6 5 4 (9 7 0 ) 9 2 7 -17 8 0 TE L / FA X J.M +92' -1 BASEMENT LEVEL +100' 1 MAIN LEVEL +92' -1 BASEMENT LEVEL +100' 1 MAIN LEVEL EXIST'G SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 EXIST'G EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 EXIST'G WEST ELEVATION NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTINGEXTERIOR MATERIALS OR FINISHES NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTING EXTERIOR MATERIALS OR FINISHES P 1 0 8 I V . A . BY REVISIONS DATE Job: Sheet Date: Scale: Drawn: A5.01 1/14/2016Plotted On: 1/14/2016 AS NOTED B U I L D I N G S E C T I O N S E :\ar c h i c a d pr o j e c t fo l d e r \D o u g Ra g e r - Ar c h i t e c t Ar c h i c a d \11 0 2 Wa t e r s \11 0 2 W a t e r s V 18 Ad d i t i o n BR v 2 .pl n 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 1:12 PM 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E . A S P E N , C O L O R A D O 11 0 2 W A T E R S A V E D O U G R A G E R - A R C H I T E C T P .C . 17 8 0 S n o w m a s s C r e e k R d . S n o w m a s s , C o . 8 1 6 5 4 (9 7 0 ) 9 2 7 -17 8 0 TE L / FA X J.M 2' - 1 0 " 8' 8' 1' - 3 " 1' 7" 6' - 1 0 13 / 3 2 " 2' - 1 0 " 8' framing + steel& waterproofing earth deck +92' -1 BASEMENT LEVEL +92' -1 BASEMENT LEVEL +100' 1 MAIN LEVEL +100' 1 MAIN LEVEL 8 ' - 3 15 / 3 2 " +92' -1 BASEMENT LEVEL +92' -1 BASEMENT LEVEL +100' 1 MAIN LEVEL +100' 1 MAIN LEVEL SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SECTION THRU STAIRS TO MSTR. BEDROOM SCALE: 1:2.764East Side Illustration SCALE: 1:1.975West Side Area Well Illustration SCALE: 1:1.823STREET SIDE ILLUSTRATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 SECTION THUR NEW ADDITION EXTERIOR STAIR FOR EGRESS P 1 0 9 I V . A . The design proposal submitted for minor HPC review is a below grade expansion to an existing residence located at 1102 Waters Avenue, Lot 1 of the Lot 14 Calderwood Subdivision Historic Landmark Lot Split, Aspen, CO (parcel identification number 2737-182-66-001). Request is for an insubstantial subdivision amendment. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards & design guidelines relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines relevant to the development application. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Historic-Preservation/Historic- Properties/ Chapter 1: Streetscape & Lot Features, Policy: Historic landscapes and landscape elements that remain intact should be preserved. Additions to the landscape should be compatible with the historic context of the district or landmark property. The Streetscape & Lot Features will mostly remain intact and will be preserved. The few trees that must be removed for the excavation will be replaced. Intent of new landscaping is to restore everything, the trees, lawn, & a new walk to the same as existing. Chapters 2-8: There are no changes proposed with this application to the Building Materials, Window, Doors, Porches, Architectural Details, Roofs, or Secondary Structures (there are no secondary structures existing or proposed). Chapter 9: There is no Building Relocation proposed. Chapter 10: Building Additions; Policy: If a new addition to a historic building is to be constructed, it should be designed such that the early character of the original structure is maintained. It should also be subordinate in appearance to the main building. Older additions that have taken on significance also should be considered for preservation. The proposed addition is entirely below grade and not visible therefore the character of the original structure is not compromised. Chapters 11-13: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits, Design Main Street Historic District, Design in the Commercial Core Historic District These chapters are not applicable to this proposal. Relevant Land Use Code Sections 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.070.C. Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development. 1.a) Proposed expansion will increase the floor area of the structure less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Allowable floor area is 1220 square feet. Existing floor area is 991 square feet. Proposed floor area is 1211 square feet. 1211 – 991 = 220 square feet expansion. P110 IV.A. b) Alterations to a building facade: there are no alterations proposed to the building facade. c) There are no accessory features or other attachments proposed. d) Alterations to the non-historic portion of a designated house is not applicable to this project. e) No street furniture, signs, public art, or other visible improvements are included in this below grade expansion proposal. 2. An Application for minor development shall include the following: a) General application information is attached. b) Scaled Elevations & other drawings of the proposed work are attached. c)An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development. All exterior finishes on the existing building will remain & will not be altered. The small area of exposed exterior finish of the below grade expansion will match the exposed foundation walls of the existing building. d) See photographs of the existing building attached. e) Verification that proposal complies with Chapter 26.410 Residential Design Standards Chapter 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.410.A. Site Design See Landscape Plan sheet A2.01 There are several 5”-6” diameter trees that will require removal prior to excavation. Other existing trees will be protected & saved including a large twin cottonwood near the NW property corner. A tree mitigation plan will be provided with the tree removal permit application. A small seasonal irrigation ditch crosses the property near the South street side property line. The ditch will remain in the same location & will not be altered. Intent of new landscaping is to restore everything, the trees, lawn, & new walk same as existing. 26.410.A.1 Building Orientation Proposed below grade expansion is towards the Waters Avenue side of the existing house. Expansion to be located below the existing wood entry deck & below a level lawn area & entry walk. The existing deck, lawn, & entry walk to be removed & replaced/restored so that final appearance is the same as existing. When project is complete there will be no changes to the house visible from Waters Avenue. The proposed below grade expansion will be buried with soil over the top. Required egress & light & ventilation wells take advantage of the existing steep slope to the river, facing away from Waters Avenue & behind the front facade. The wells are completely sheltered by the wide, distinctive & sharply pointed existing roof overhang. Necessary retaining for the area wells run parallel to the existing building foundation walls with sloped top of wall rising just a couple of inches above the existing sloped grade. The retaining walls for the area wells will not be seen from Waters Avenue. The retaining walls will be concealed by natural grade & will be concealed by the wide existing roof overhang on the two sides of the building. No changes to existing grading are proposed. 26.410.A.2 Build to Lines Not applicable to this below grade expansion proposal. 26.410.A.3 Fences There is an existing low, approximately 30” high, split-rail fence with two rails. Part of the fence is within the ROW. The fence will be removed for construction & will not be replaced in the ROW. There are no plans for any new or additional fencing. P111 IV.A. 26.410.B. Building Form The roof form of the existing landmarked house is an important feature. The proposed below grade expansion does not change the existing building or roof forms. Existing river side wood decks are not altered. Overall, the proposed below grade expansion does not alter the appearance or form of the existing building. 26.410.C. Parking, Garages, & Carport There is no existing or proposed garage or carport. There is no change to the existing parking proposed. 26.410.D Building Elements Street oriented entrance, principal window, other windows, etc. There are no changes proposed to the existing Building Elements. 26.410.D.4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. As mentioned previously, Required egress & light & ventilation wells take advantage of the existing steep slope to the river, facing away from Waters Avenue & are behind the front facade. The two proposed area wells will not be visible from Waters Avenue. 26.480.090.B Insubstantial Amendment, Subdivision An insubstantial amendment to an approved subdivision or between adjacent subdivisions may be authorized by the Community Development Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations which could not reasonably have been anticipated during the approval process or any other minor change to a subdivision which the Community Development Director finds has no substantial effect upon the subdivision or to the allowances and limitations of the subdivision. The existing designated building envelope is the same overall size, approximately 1,667 square feet, as the proposed amended designated building envelope, see graphic illustration attached on sheet A 2.01. 26.575.020 Calculations & Measurements See floor area sheet A1.02 attached. P112 IV.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE OF MEMO: February 2, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 10, 2016 RE: Newspaper Kiosks ________________________ BACKGROUND: Newspaper kiosks are used to consolidate periodicals throughout the city. A total of 26 kiosks of varying aesthetic have appeared over time. Adam Frisch and Ann Mullins have expressed interest in addressing the need to upgrade the newspaper boxes. The Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC) and the Parks Department have coordinated within the Aspen Times and the Aspen Daily News on the issue. Photo examples of the kiosks around town can be found in Exhibit A. PROPOSAL: The existing kiosks should be removed and replaced with a consistently designed newspaper rack system. The papers have offered to contribute recycling bins to be located adjacent to the new kiosks. Additionally, the City of Aspen Parks Department has budgeted $25,000 for replacement of the newspaper racks in 2016. This figure will not cover the replacement cost of all newspaper racks in the City; therefore, the replacement will be implemented multi-year phases, as budgeting permits. The CCLC has proposed a modular rack design, shown in Figure A. The proposed design has been modified with a gabled “roof form” to better reflect local character in Figure B. Figure A. Newspaper Rack with Barrel “Roof Form” Page 1 of 2 P113 IV.B. Staff has reviewed each proposed design and investigated the racks currently used throughout town. Rubey Pa rk replaced on-site kiosks with a simple black newspaper rack, shown in Figure C. Staff would prefer the design presently in use at Rubey Park. The design utilized by Rubey Park is very simple relative to the design proposed by the CCLC. The “roof form” is flat and the racks are mounted on a single, geometric column. The lower profile and reduced bulk of the Rubey Park newspaper racks keep them in the background rather than as a focal point. Additionally, the intent of replacing the kiosks is to clean up the hodge-podge of rack systems and use a consistent design throughout town. Staff feels implementing the Rubey Park design ensures that the racks have a cohesive appearance. SUMMARY: The intent of this Memo to the Historic Preservation Commission is to inform the Commission that the Parks Department intends on a multi-year phased replacement of existing newspaper racks with a new, uniform design. Additionally, Staff seeks to receive comment from the Commission regarding the proposal. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A, Existing Newspaper Racks Figure B. Newspaper Rack with Gabel “Roof Form” Figure C. Rubey Park Newspaper Rack Page 2 of 2 P114 IV.B. 2. Behind Carl’s Pharmacy 4. Mill St. and Main St. (Hotel Jerome) 1. Post Office 2. Main St./Carl’s Pharmacy 5. Mill St. at the Wheeler Oprah House 6. Main St. Bakery Exhibit A Existing Newspaper Racks P115 IV.B. P 1 1 6 I V . B . P117 IV.B.