Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20250122AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 22, 2025 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.ROLL CALL II.MINUTES II.A Draft Minutes - 10/23/24 & 11/13/24 III.PUBLIC COMMENTS IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PROJECT MONITORING VII.STAFF COMMENTS VII.A Information Only Memo to HPC - Response to Proposition 122 VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED IX.CALL UP REPORTS X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XI.SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT XII.OLD BUSINESS XIII.NEW BUSINESS XIII.A Resolution #__, Series of 2025 - 337 Lake Ave Certificate of Appropriateness for minutes.hpc.20241023_DRAFT.docx minutes.hpc.20241113_DRAFT.docx Proposition 122 Response Information Only Memo_HPC_1.22.2025.pdf Exhibit A_ Map of Allowed Zone Districts and School Buffers.pdf 1 1 Major Development XIV.ADJOURN XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER HPC Memo.337 Lake Ave.20250122.pdf Draft HPC Resolution # , Series of 2025.pdf Exhibit A.337Lake.MajorCOA.HP Design Guidelines Analysis.pdf Exhibit B_Combined Referral Comments_337 Lake Ave.pdf Exhibit C_337 Lake Conceptual HP Application 8 23 2024.pdf TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS (1 Hour, 15 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item) 1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda) 2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda) 3. Applicant presentation (10 minutes for minor development; 20 minutes for major development) 4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes) 5. Staff presentation (5 minutes for minor development; 10 minutes for major development) 6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes) 7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair) 8. Close public comment portion of hearing 9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) 10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed. 11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes) 12. Motion. Prior to vote the chair will allow for call for clarification for the proposed resolution. Please note that staff and/or the applicant must vacate the dais during the opposite presentation and board question and clarification session. Both staff and applicant team will vacate the dais during HPC deliberation unless invited by the chair to return. Updated: March 7, 2024 2 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2024 Vice - Chairperson Raymond opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Kim Raymond, Dakota Severe, Jodi Surfas and Riley Warwick. Absent were Peter Fornell and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Charlie Tarver thanked HPC for their service and recognized that it was not an easy job because he felt in this town you cannot do the right thing without someone objecting. He asked the members to do what they each thought was right. Mr. David Scruggs echoed Mr. Tarver’s comments and asked that the members also use common sense. He then gave the board members and Ms. Johnson a letter (entered into the record). He then moved on to addressing the members regarding his points contained in his letter. He asked the HPC to waive their attorney client privilege and make the contents the 10/9 executive session public and to also reverse their decision on the 205 W. Main approvals and revoke the permission to demolish. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Pitchford addressed her fellow HPC members stating that while she did not agree with the decision HPC made regarding the Crystal Palace, the west wall of 300 E. Hyman is designated as a historic resource. She noted that the applicant in their presentation and application had argued the building was not historic. She felt that four HPC members accepted those arguments and treated the designated property as not historic. She also noted that the applicant had not applied to delist the property and told HPC that they were not interested in delisting it. She felt the four members did not allow City staff to guide HPC though the process of determining whether it continued to be historic or not. Ms. Johnson let the members know that at the previous evening’s City Council meeting, the Crystal Palace project was asked to be noticed for call up. She then cautioned the members of engaging in ex parte communications outside of a public meeting. She explained ex parte communications. There was some discussion about the possibility of the item being called up and sent back to HPC and how any ex parte communication could impact things. Ms. Johnson also went over some basics of open meetings law as well. Mr. Moyer spoke to his experience over the 20 years he had been on and off this commission. He felt that he had always had competent staff advising HPC and he always deferred to their suggestions, unless there was something he felt they missed. He felt that all HPC members should adhere to staff and follow their guidance. He said that in his years of experience, he learned to listen to all sides, but not to let the applicant run over you and be very persuasive. He said that they should not be dealing with any applicant’s desires for a property, but rather they are there for the historic resource. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2024 Ms. Raymond agreed that the City staff are amazing for all the hard work they do, but she cautioned against having the idea that the City is on their side and the applicant is not. She felt it was not a them versus us mentality. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS:Ms. White commented on the previous discussion. She said that City staff and the applicant each bring evidence forward and that it was up to HPC to determine how they would like to interpret that. She suggested members take a broad look at all evidence presented and not just put staff above everything else. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with open meetings law for the action item. ACTION ITEMS: Consideration of Chair’s proposed letter to City Council Re: the Armory Building project located at 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. Ms. Johnson passed out a paper copy of the Chair’s draft letter and introduced the item, noting that at the last HPC meeting there were a few commissioner member comments related to the Armory Building remodel. She said that while Ms. Thompson was not present, if the board collectively approved the letter as to form, it would be appropriate for there to be a motion to authorize the chair to sign the letter or that changes could be made to the letter through discussion. Ms. Surfas felt it was a very well written letter but had some small grammatical edits. She then went over her suggestions. Ms. Raymond asked Mr. Anderson to refresh the members on the difference between the Public Projects process and the Planned Development process. Mr. Anderson noted that this project as described has uses that require a Planned Development which is one of the reviews under the Public Projects process. He said that if this was just a Planned Development and not a Public Project, HPC would still be just a recommending body on the first step of that review. After City Council approval it would then come back to HPC for a final review of the details. The Public Projects process, which he noted has been used fairly regularly, basically combines those two reviews into a single step and HPC is a recommending body. He also noted that the Public Projects process does not take away any of the review criteria that HPC would normally be considering. All criteria need to be submitted, discussed and considered, both in HPC’s recommendation and City Council’s ultimate decision. He then described a few other projects that were reviewed under the Public Projects process, including the new City Hall, the Ambulance building at the hospital and the addition to the County administrative building. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2024 Ms. Raymond then asked what criteria are used to deem something a Public Projects review. Mr. Anderson said that the Land Use Code spells out three or four criteria that would qualify a project for that type of review, including that the project is of significant public interest. Ms. Johnson noted that in this case the City of Aspen is the applicant, and they have say in what they seek as far as an application process. There was then some discussion about the differences between this project and the Wheeler remodel and their associated review processes. Ms. Raymond wondered if there was a possibility to clarify the section of the letter asking to schedule a work session with City Council. She wondered if they could add a specific timeframe to scheduling it. There was discussion about the possibility of scheduling a work session before a Land use Application was submitted. Ms. White made the final grammatical edits to the letter. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to have the Chair to sign the letter as revised. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. Realizing that Ms. Thompson was currently out of the country, Mr. Moyer motioned to have Ms. Raymond, as Vice Chair, sign the letter. Ms. Severe seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Johnson noted that the letter would be sent to each individual Council member and the City Manager would be copied. She also mentioned that staff would work on the potential for a work session and what dates might work. After checking the Land Use Code, Mr. Anderson wanted to clarify that the determination of pursuing the Public Projects process was up to the City Council’s discretion. ADJOURN:Ms. Pitchford moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford, Kim Raymond, Dakota Severe, Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Absent was Peter Fornell. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes of 9/25/24. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes from 10/2/24. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer commented that an aspect that he felt was holding HPC back on making good decisions was the amount of square footage allowed on a lot. He felt that it was a topic that should be seriously looked at by City Council. Ms. Thompson noted that she had asked staff to look into scheduling a work session in January and she listed some of the topics she would like to discuss, including training, the different types of applications that come before the board, meeting attendance and times, standard draft resolution language and other policy ideas to discuss with staff. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None Mr. Hayden requested that the staff reports and comments be moved to the end of the agenda to respect the applicant’s time. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item as it was previously noticed and continued. She noted that she had emailed links to prior meeting materials and recordings, as a few board members may not have been at the two previous meetings. She wanted to confirm on the record that in order to vote on this item, members have reviewed the materials. All members confirmed that they were either in attendance at the previous meetings and or had reviewed the materials and recordings. OLD BUSINESS: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Variations Review - Public Hearing – Continued from 9/25/24 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams & Wheeler Clancy – DJ Architects Ms. Adams began her presentation by stating that this was the third time before the board on this item. She agreed with Mr. Moyer’s previous comments that when an applicant works with HPC a better project usually is the result. She thanked the members for their feedback and noted that she would be concentrating her presentation of the board’s direction for redesign and not the other items that the board has already signaled support for. Ms. Adams reviewed the conceptual major development and relocation requests. She noted that they are still proposing to fully restore the historic landmark, they are not asking for a floor area bonus and that the project is under the allowable floor area and allowable height limit. She reviewed the items that had HPC support at the previous meetings. She moved on to the redesign of the new construction and noted that for this meeting they had simplified the roof forms and materials and restudied the fenestration to better relate to the historic landmark. She then showed and reviewed some historic pictures of the property, and the site plans presented at the two previous meetings as well as the redesigned current site plan. She reviewed the roof plans from each successive redesign, highlighting the current changes. She then showed the updated elevations and renderings and reviewed the roof form and material changes. Ms. Adams then reviewed the design guidelines, highlighting guidelines 11.3, 11.4 and 11.6 and why they felt they were met. She also went over the change from the proposed crawlspace under the landmark to the currently proposed 2 bedroom / 2 bathroom basement under it. She noted the condition of approval in the draft resolution to have the relocation of the landmark for purposes of digging the basement to not be in the setback. She felt this was somewhat out of the ordinary as it is easiest to just shift the landmark straight back from where it is currently located. She invited any comments on that. Mr. Clancy finished by stated that they really tried to reduce the massing as well as create a stronger relationship to the landmark. Ms. Thompson asked about the lightwell proposed for the landmark and what type of railing they would be using. Ms. Adams said they don’t have a specific treatment just yet, but that it would be brought back at final review. Ms. Pitchford asked if the shed roof addition to the historic resource had been reduced in size. Ms. Adams said it was the same size as what was presented at the last meeting which was based on the Sanborn maps. Ms. Severe asked about the width of the front door proposed for the new construction. There was some discussion about the exact dimensions of the door. Staff Presentation:Stuart Hayden – Preservation Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden started his presentation by going over the relocation standards. He noted that the temporary relocation is an acceptable preservation method, and he went over the relocation criteria. He detailed staff’s thoughts about the temporary location of the resource as outlined in the recommended conditions of approval and noted that it was out concern for the space the resource may need during construction and that of the neighbors. He said that staff would be ok removing the condition if HPC did 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 not find it necessary. He moved on to the requested dimensional variations and noted that staff felt them appropriate due to the historic setting of the resource. He then went over the relevant historic preservation design guidelines and noted that staff had identified several that could not be considered at this time, and they were included in the recommended conditions in the resolution. He noted that many of these would be able to be addressed once the selective demolition gets underway. He continued by highlighting other design guidelines that staff found to be not met or partially not met as outlined in the staff memo and that warranted further consideration. These included guidelines 1.1, 6.4, 6.5, 11.3 and 11.6. Mr. Hayden went over each in detail and why staff found them not to be met or partially met. He noted that these were also addressed in the recommended conditions of approval. He finished his presentation by stating that staff is recommending approval with conditions. Ms. Raymond asked about the setback-to-setback issue (guideline 1.1) and wondered what staff’s thoughts were as she felt it was a large part of the design which should have been addressed from the very beginning. Mr. Hayden noted that it had been staff’s position from the very first meeting that the project did not meet this guideline. Public Comment:None Board Discussion:Ms. Thompson thanked the applicant and staff for their revised presentations. She was ok with the relocation of the historic resources straight back, staying in the setback as it was a single move instead of two. A few other members agreed. She felt that they had already exhaustively discussed the restoration of the corner element on the historic resource and given the applicant the direction of support, so she did not have any additional comments on that. Ms. Thompson then addressed Ms. Raymond’s setback-to-setback question noting that in this proposal the historic resource and the new construction are two separate structures. She felt that is the best restoration outcome they could have and that it provided in her mind a bit of flexibility in their application of the guidelines for this project. She appreciated that the applicant had further revised the roof forms and lowered them again and she was ready to make a motion of approval with some revised conditions. Ms. Raymond agreed with the porosity and liked the separation between the historic resource and the new construction. She had no issues with the layout of the site and thought it was quite nice. She acknowledged the rear addition to the historic resource had been talked about at length and was ok with it. She commented that she liked that the front door on the new construction was slightly larger and different than the historic resource. She was also ok with all the setback variances and noted that having moved resources before acknowledged that it would be best to move it straight back. She appreciated the new roof lines and massing on the new construction and felt it related nicely with the historic resource. There was then some discussion about the non-orthogonal window on the rear portion of the new construction and whether it was considered to be located on the front façade and met the historic preservation design guidelines or not. Mr. Anderson noted that the Residential Design Standards related to non-orthogonal windows refers to all street facing façades and allows for one non-orthogonal window. 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 Mr. Moyer commented that he believed the windows on the historic resource should stay the size of the historic windows and the door should remain the same size as well. He thought that since there were no historic pictures of the porch it should be restored to blend in with the other historic porches in the area. He did still think the mass and scale of the new construction was enormously large, but felt there was nothing they could do about that. He commented on window wells and offered other options for their design versus just having a pit in the ground. Ms. Thompson then went over staff’s recommended conditions of approval, highlighting her proposed edit to condition #1 and removal of conditions #2 and #5a. There was some more discussion about the non-orthogonal window and Ms. Thompson felt it could be dealt with at Final review. Ms. Adams noted that the resolution did not include the dimensions of the setback variations which were important and requested some feedback on the fenestration. Ms. Thompson said that it seemed that the non-orthogonal window on the rear portion of the new construction was generally acceptable by the board. Ms. Surfas noted that she had to leave to attend another meeting but agreed with Ms. Thompson’s proposed edits to the resolution. Ms. Surfas left the meeting. Mr. Clancy displayed the 3D model of the project, and the board further discussed the fenestration in order to give feedback. Ms. Thompson again stated her opinion that since the new construction was fully detached from the historic resource the applicant had more flexibility to not fully relate to every single window proportion on the new construction. She said the only thing that bothered her was the asymmetrical window on the rear of the structure. MOTION:Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution on the series with the removal of condition #1, replacing it with language that states that during demolition and relocation of the historic resource, if additional historic material is discovered that is evidence of a different original footprint, the applicant will revise the proposal to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Her motion also included the removal of conditions #2 and #5a and the addition of a condition to include setback dimensions as presented in the application. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. OLD BUSINESS: Discussion concerning rescission of Historical Preservation Commission Resolution #9, Series of 2023, Granting Minor Development and Relocation Approval for Property Located at 205 W. Main Street. Ms. Johnson introduced the item by stating that she requested of the Chair that this item be added to the agenda as it was her impression that one or more members may want to consider recission of a prior resolution. She remined the members that her office had provided legal opinions during an executive session regarding the legal implications of what the resolution meant and the discovery of potential different information after the fact. Ms. Johnson went on to note that the consideration of recission hinged on the factual question of whether the approvals were based upon an error, regardless of how that error came to be. She said the City Attorney’s office believes that if a majority of the commissioners wanted to consider recission that a public hearing be set in order to allow the applicant and staff time to prepare, present information and 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 be heard. She noted that public comments from the applicant’s representative had been provided to each commissioner as well as comments and a proposed resolution provided by a member of the public (both included in the 11/13/24 HPC meeting agenda packet). She said that she had not had time to review that resolution and that it should be considered as public comments as it was not provided with the support of the City Attorney’s office. Ms. Thompson wanted to confirm that members had received the public comments. All members confirmed that they had received all comments. She invited Mr. David Scruggs to give public comment. Mr. Scruggs began his comments by asking the HPC to address the facts. He noted that the approvals had been based on the representation that the west addition was not historic. He also noted that staff had subsequently discovered that the representation was probably in error. He then reviewed the HPC’s duties as laid out in the Land Use Code and Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. He referenced the resolution he had provided and asked the members to past the resolution and retain the entire historic structure. Ms. Thompson started the discussion by noting that Mr. Moyer had requested this item be added to the agenda. She also noted that while she was working with the applicant on their administrative review, she had no indicationthat the applicant had falsely represented any information. She understood there was a question about the historic nature of the addition but felt that the representation was not done with malintent. She noted that the applicant had relied on the approvals for over a year now and that she had no appetite to rescind the approvals. She felt applicants needed to be able to rely on HPC’s decisions and that it would be a learning experience for HPC and their resolutions. Mr. Moyer commented that HPC’s one purpose was to save historic structures. While he realized that a mistake was made, the only reason he wanted to make a recission was because of HPCs one and only job, to save the historic structure. He did not feel that they should just move forward while a mistake was made. Ms. Thompson argued that they don’t have any definitive information on whether the addition is historic or not, as that research had not occurred. Ms. Severe agreed that there was no malintent on either side and that there was not enough evidence to prove that it is historic. She did not feel it fair to the applicant if there wasn’t more proof. Ms. Pitchford felt that there was reason to open it up for a public hearing to see if it warrants recission. She felt there was some indication that it was historic. She agreed with Mr. Moyer in that it was not their job to take care of the applicant, but rather to take care of the historic resource. Ms. Thompson said that while she did not want to minimize Ms. Severe’s input here, she did not find it appropriate for Ms. Severe to vote on this as she had not participated in the previous meetings on this item. Ms. Johnson noted that Robert’s Rules of Order allows anyone to vote regardless of which way they voted or whether they were present at previous meetings. She noted that Ms. Severe was present at the executive session and felt that she was informed enough and there wasn’t anything to prevent her from voting. Ms. Severe said that she understood where Ms. Pitchford and Mr. Moyer were coming from but noted that she had done her research on this project. 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 Mr. Warwick felt they had this board for a reason and that was that things are not always black and white. He said that factors come into play that cannot always be solved by strictly following the book or just following staff’s recommendations. He said that he did not have a stance either way on this as he understood both sides. Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Warwick that it is very complicated but felt that the applicant has had these approvals for over a year and have moved forward based on them. She said she would find it difficult for HPC to go back a year and a half later and say no. She felt there was no malice from the applicant and that while there was a lot of differing opinions on the Crystal Palace it should be taken out on this applicant. Mr. Warwick felt that the ability to rescind an approval at any point down the road takes away HPC’s credibility. He acknowledged that they made a mistake by not gathering the correct information, but that this should be used as a learning experience. He felt it was too far on to go back and rescind. He wasn’t sure how future applicants could rely on HPC’s decisions if this were to be rescinded. Ms. Thompson agreed and felt that there was not a perfect decision here. Ms. Severe asked what the timeline was from when the approvals were given until the new information about the west addition potentially being historic was discovered. Ms. Johnson said it was about nine months. Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Warwick’s notion about HPC’s credibility if approvals were able to be rescinded. She felt it would be a dangerous precedent to set. Mr. Moyer felt the applicant had as much responsibility to do the research on the structure as staff does. Ms. Pitchford reminded the members that there are not voting on whether to rescind or not tonight, but rather to set a hearing in order to gather more information from both sides. Motion:Mr. Moyer moved to set a hearing regarding 205 W. Main in order to allow both sides to present their arguments as to the viability of the historic structure. Ms. Johnson requested that the motion be to consider a resolution of recission. Mr. Moyer agreed with that language. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, no; Ms. Raymond, no; Ms. Thompson, no. 3-3 vote, motion failed. Ms. Pitchford wanted to make a further commissioner comment and ask a procedural question. She asked Mr. Anderson that since the Crystal Palace is designated historic was it subject to HPC guidelines for demolition. Mr. Anderson said that it is now subject to the approvals given at the October 2nd meeting. He said that, as has been discussed, the Crystal Palace has a complicated legacy. He noted that it is designated historic, was redeveloped in the 1970s and that there were many assumptions of what historic materials remained after that redevelopment. He also thought that perhaps at the time of designation in the 1980s as well as the 2017 approvals there was a misunderstanding of what historic materials were remaining in the west wall. He noted that at the October 2nd meeting, the applicant’s proposal raised some questions about certain review criteria, but that the motion and approval of the application is what now stands. He further clarified that the October 2nd approval did not consider these criteria and that at that meeting staff did not present a resolution as they wanted to continue to work with the applicant to craft a resolution that all parties could agree to, based on applicable review 11 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 criteria. He stated that staff and the applicant have an understanding that as this project moves forward to a change order to the existing building permit, that there will be discussion about what the most appropriate treatment is for the west wall. Ms. Pitchford expressed disappointment and disillusionment that HPC members have review criteria and guidelines that they are expected to follow, but this situation has proved to her that they do not need to actually follow them. Mr. Moyer had a few questions of staff related to the 2017 approvals, his recollection of them as well and questions about the monitor on the project back then and the holes in the west wall that he referenced in the October 2nd meeting. Ms. Johnson said that since there is no application in front of them at the moment and for the sake of time that those be asked directly to staff outside of this meeting. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. White reviewed the past approvals at 333 W. Bleeker and noted that the main approvals she would be focusing on in this report where the removal and restoration of the historic windows while keeping the historic window framing intact as well as the sistering in of new framing with the historic framing. She displayed the approved wall assemblies showing the sistering of new framing and noted that during a site visit staff found that this work was not done according to the approved plans. She then showed images of the actual work done that was observed at the site visit. Ms. White moved on to note that staff recently met with the applicant team to discuss their findings and while the applicant did acknowledge that they did not build according to the approved plans, they did not explicitly take responsibility for the violations, nor did they offer any restitutions or settlement to avoid potential penalties. She said that staff is requiring the applicant to update their drawings to reflect the changes that currently exist and also let them know that staff would be bringing this to HPC’s attention. Ms. Pitchford asked what happened to the historic window framing. Ms. White said that the historic windows still exist, are currently stored and are going to be restored, but that the historic window framing was gone. Mr. Hayden noted that both historic structures on the property were relocated and that there was a $45,000 bond submitted for their safe relocation. He said that he did an inspection to determine that they were properly relocated back on a proper foundation and after that is when the violations occurred. Thus, the bond had already been given back. Ms. Thompson felt that a fine was appropriate. Mr. Moyer wondered if the monitor did not catch this soon enough and ifthere were not enough inspections done. Mr. Hayden admitted that he did notice some work being done when he did the relocation inspection and that he did not check soon enough to make sure things were being done according to the plans. He noted that they typically don’t have regularly scheduled inspections, but that that was something they discussed with the applicant, regarding ways that staff can improve their processes to insure this doesn’t happen. Ms. Thompson said the wall assembly was discussed in depth with the applicant’s representative at the original meeting and felt like a fine was appropriate. Mr. Warwick said the applicant team should know what they are doing. Ms. Berne went over the process to request a fine be imposed through Municipal Court. 12 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 Ms. Johnson then went over the options and penalties HPC could pursue. These included a potential fine through Municipal Court, a recommendation that the Chief Building Official revoke the contractor’s license, to potentially revoke any benefits or variances that were originally given and to, after a public hearing, deed restrict the property preventing any future development on the property for up to 10 years. Ms. Johnosn noted that this report serves as notification of the violations to the HPC. Ms. Thompson asked staff to communicate to the applicant that the HPC is considering pursuing penalties and see if they come back with some sort of restitution. Ms. Raymond suggested that they recommend the Chief Building Official to red tag the project. She felt that is a strong way to get the applicant team’s attention. Ms. White said that the project had been verbally issued a stop work order, but it had not been officially red tagged. She further noted that staff had told the applicant to stop working on any historic portions other than protecting and securing those portions. Ms. Raymond said all work should stop on the project, not just the historic portions. The other board members agreed that staff should pursue a red tag on the entire project. Mr. Moyer thought it very important for the community to know when violations like this occur. He suggested that in order to learn from this, they should require more regular inspections and not release any bond until the entire project is completed. He wanted to make sure this applicant learns from this and that other contractors learn from it as well. Ms. Johnson suggested that HPC could also ask that the applicant provide them with a written plan on how they would prevent the future destruction of historic materials as well as an explanation of why and how this happened. Ms. Thompson clarified that the HPC would like staff to pursue a formal red tag to stop work on any portion of the project other than protecting the historic resource and that the contractor team or applicant come back to them with a proposed plan for remediation or restitution for this. There was further discussion of the potential penalties and options going forward for this violation as well as ways that staff and HPC can learn from this and put steps in place to hopefully avoid something like this happening again. STAFF COMMENTS: None CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UP REPORTS:Mr. Hayden noted that Notice of Call Up was provided to City Council for the project at 300 – 312 W. Hyman and no action was taken to call it up. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Warwick seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 13 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 14 Page 1 of 3 Information Only Memo – HPC Response to Proposition 122 INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Ben Anderson, Director, Community Development Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Haley Hart, Long-Range Planner MEMO DATE: January 10, 2025 MEETING DATE: January 22, 2025 RE: Code Amendment: Response to Proposition 122 _____________________________________ This memo is providing the Historic Preservation Commission with information on staff’s response to City Council direction to create a regulatory response in the Land Use Code (LUC) to Proposition 122. Colorado Senate Bill 23-290 - Proposition 122, titled Natural Medicine Regulation And Legalization (the Act), was signed by Governor Polis May 23, 2023. As of January 1, 2025, the state of Colorado offers regulated psychedelic-assisted therapies with State-wide established guidelines (‘Natural Medicine Businesses’). Per Senate Bill 23-290 “Natural Medicine” is defined to include psilocybin/psilocyn, as well as, if approved for use by the state at a later time, each of the following: dimethyltryptamine; ibogaine; and mescaline. The definition does not include synthetic or synthetic analogs of these substances. Nor does it include peyote. “Natural Medicine Product” means products infused with natural medicine that is intended for consumption. This legislation allows persons over 21 years old to possess, share, cultivate (limited sq. ft.), and manufacture certain regulated natural medicine for personal use without payment. It creates a state licensing program for natural medicine licensed facilities with certification, permitting and registration requirements and advisory board for five license types. The State will begin to issue licenses on January 1, 2025. The adopted rules restrict any Natural Medicine facility holding a state license to be at least 1,000 feet distance from childcare centers, preschools, elementary, middle and junior high schools and residential childcare facilities. The rules create specific regulations for cultivation, manufacturing, testing, storing, distribution, transportation, and dispensation of regulated Natural Medicine and related products. Per the bill, local governments may regulate the time, place, and manner of operation of Natural Medicine Businesses but cannot ban or prohibit the Natural Medicine Business or the personal use of allowed substances in their communities. During a City Council Work Session on November 18, 2024, Council gave staff direction to amend the LUC to 15 Page 2 of 3 Information Only Memo – HPC Response to Proposition 122 regulate the allowance of place within the Commercial Core. Staff has responded to City Council’s request by proposing amendments to Section 26.104.110 – Use Category, which now includes ‘Natural Medicine Business’ as an allowed use within the ‘Offices uses’ section. Staff finds the request of Council is consistent with the Office use category which is defined by the following characteristics: “A type of land use, or any building or portion thereof, involving the establishment, transaction and delivery of business, medical, or professional activities or services to the general public.” Additionally, staff has introduced a new definition for ‘Natural Medicine’, ‘Natural Medicine Product’, and ‘Natural Medicine Business’ which is verbatim from the Act within Section 26.104.100 – Definitions. To further define and clarify the allowed use as defined by state statue the definitions are proposed as follows: , Natural Medicine. As defined by State Statute to include psilocybin/psilocyn, as well as, if approved for use by the state at a later time, each of the following: dimethyltryptamine; ibogaine; and mescaline. The definition does not include synthetic or synthetic analogs of these substances. Nor does it include peyote. Natural Medicine Product. As defined by State Statute means products infused with natural medicine that is intended for consumption. Natural Medicine Business. As defined by State Statute, “Natural Medicine Business” means any of the following businesses licensed pursuant to the Natural Medicine Code: i. A Natural Medicine Healing Center; ii. A Natural Medicine Cultivation Facility; iii. A Natural Medicine Products Manufacturer; iv. A Natural Medicine Testing Facility. Through these proposed amendments which regulate the place as allowed by Proposition 122, Natural Medicine Businesses will be allowed in the following Zone Districts: CC (Commercial Core), C1 (Commercial), SCI (Service/Commercial/Industrial), NC (Neighborhood Commercial), MU (Mixed Use), L (Lodge), CL (Commercial Lodge). This regulatory power by the City of Aspen is in addition to the state’s regulations of time, place and manner which includes a 1,000-foot buffer to any childcare facility or school. A map detailing the allowed zone districts with a 1,000-foot overlay buffer from childcare facilities and schools within the City is included in Exhibit A. Staff brought a Policy Resolution to Council 1/14/2025 to formally open the Land Use Code for amendments. Pursuant to Section 26.310.020.B.1, the Community Development Department, following approval of the Policy Resolution, will now conduct a limited public outreach effort to inform the public of this proposed amendment. 16 Page 3 of 3 Information Only Memo – HPC Response to Proposition 122 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A – Map of Allowed Zone Districts and School Buffers 17 W ill o w - Herrick W i l l o w -Herrick Maroon C r e ek Cas t l e Creek C e m etery R e d B utte Asp en Golf Red Butte BarX Ranch - St age R oad PUD Ag ricultural La nd K e n o G u l c h SternerG ulch Willow-Herrick M a r o o n Creek C a stle C reek G l e n Eagles Tieha c k 82MooreOpen Space Thomas Ra nch Moore Family PUD Ak a Five Trees Reds Reds Draw Wrights Hunter Creek - Esta ma r Rubey Meadows Lot 4 Vallejo G ulch P i o n ee r Gulch Hallam Mill Aspen Hyman Bleeker 4th S i l v e r lode 5th Gi b s o n U t e Durant Smuggler Main Cooper 82 82 SM OS -Robert Emmet t USM S# 6044 R ubey A s p e n MU MU MU MU MU MUMU MUMUMU CC MU CC MU MU MU CLCL NC L NC L SCI LL L LL CL CC L L C-1 SCI SCI L L L L 0 0.35 0.70.17 Miles FCity of Aspen GIS, Pitkin County, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Legend Schools Within City Limits Schools1000ftbuffer L CL CC C-1 SCI NC MU LP Aspen City Limits Source: City of Aspen GIS Proposition 122 Map 18 19 Page 1 of 5 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) FROM: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer, Principal Planner THROUGH: Ben Anderson, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: January 22, 2025 RE: 337 Lake Ave. – Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, Conceptual Review APPLICANT/OWNER: Aspen West AJ, LLC Representative: Sara Adams, BendonAdams, LLC Location: 337 Lake Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description: Lot B, Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: 2735-121-35-002 Current Zoning & Use: R-6 – Residential Proposed Use: Residential SUMMARY: The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development at 337 Lake Avenue for the purpose of constructing a new, detached, one-story, single-family residence on the vacant parcel created out of a Historic Landmark Lot Split per Ordinance #47, Series of 2005. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Historic Preservation Staff recommend Approval of Resolution #XX, of Series 2025, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, Conceptual Review, for 337 Lake Avenue. Figure 1. 337 Lake Ave. – Site Location Aerial Image 20 Page 2 of 5 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: Located in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) Zone District between Hallam Lake and Aspen Meadows on the north side of Aspen’s West End neighborhood, the property referred to as 337 Lake Ave. is a 6,000-square-foot parcel that is currently vacant. 337 Lake Ave. and 335 Lake Ave. were included in the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmarks as a single parcel in 2001, under the address of 640 N. Third St, per Ordinance #18, Series of 2001. HPC Resolution #45, Series of 2005, and Ordinance #47, Series of 2005, created the Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption (Book 80, Page 97, Reception #427631). The Historic Landmark Lot Split resulted in Lot A (335 Lake Ave.), which contains a circa 1889 AspenVictorian Miner’s Cottage, and Lot B (337 Lake Ave.) the subject property of this request. Pursuant to Ordinance #47, Series of 2005, both lots created as part of the Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split must conform to the requirements of their underlying zone district. The Ordinance and associated plat states that Lot B has an allowed floor area of 1,700 sq. ft. Variations provided for in Section 26.415.110(c)(1)a-c are not applicable to Lot B, as it does not contain the historic structure. The maximum potential buildout for the two parcels created by the lot split is not to exceed three units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. The Ordinance also states that any lot for which development is proposed shall be subject to affordable housing mitigation, which in the City of Aspen Municipal Land Use Code includes Growth Management Residential Development review per Section 26.470.090(a). Figure 2. 337 Lake Ave. on the 1896 Willits Map Figure 3. Northeast corner of Block 102, City and Township of Aspen (Poley, H. S., 1990-1899) 21 Page 3 of 5 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com REQUEST OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval(s): • Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development (Section 26.415.070(d)): for the construction of a new structure within a historic property, the extent of which exceeds the parameters set forth for minor development per the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.415.070(c). • Residential Design Standards (RDS) (Section 26.410) The HPC is the final review authority for Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a one-story, stand-alone, single-family dwelling with a basement on a vacant lot. In addition to the detached dwelling, the proposed project includes a patio, side-yard fencing, new vehicular paving, and landscaping. Fig. 4. Existing lot as seen from Lake Ave. Figure 5. Rendering of proposed dwelling. 22 Page 4 of 5 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com STAFF EVALUATION The application (LPA-24-106) for Certificate of Appropriateness Major Development at 337 Lake Ave. deserves commendation for its general approach to satisfying the City’s intent to “draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage” as set forth in Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.415. Major Development: As detailed in Exhibit A, the application satisfies most of the applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The previously determined maximum floor area condition, as a result of the historic lot split, has aided in the satisfactory review of many of the Guidelines. This was particularly the case for Guidelines 1.7 and 1.11, where the limited floor area allowed for more open space and the preservation of specific trees. The proposed new building remains subordinate to the neighboring historic resource in both size and scale, while still relating to the historic context by way of materiality and form. Although Guideline 11.3 calls for new construction to appear similar in scale with the existing historic resource, the allowable floor area demands the proposed structure be smaller in scale. Staff find the proposal to be acceptable for this project and appreciate the refined nature of the design. While the majority of the Guidelines have been met for the submitted conceptual review, there are Guidelines that have not been met at this time. This includes Guideline 1.10, 1.14, 1.19, 1.20, and 12.3, which deal with site elements such as fencing and lighting. Please refer to Exhibit A for more details on each Guideline. These Guidelines will be assessed for compliance at the time of Final Review. Residential Design Standards: Applicant meets all Residential Design Standards at the time of this conceptual review. Figure 6. East elevation showing Lot A (left, existing historic resource) and Lot B (right, proposed structure) 23 Page 5 of 5 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com REFERRAL COMMENTS The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will affect the permit review. As this project qualifies as a Major Engineering Review, the Engineering Department provided several comments that are to be responded to/met at the time of permit. The Building, Parks, and Zoning reviewers did not have any comments or concerns related to this proposal. The combined referral comments are included as Exhibit B. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the HPC approve Resolution #XX, Series of 2025 for the Conceptual Major Development Review for 337 Lake Ave. NEXT STEPS: Per Section 26.415.070(d), 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. ATTACHMENTS Resolution #__, Series of 2025 Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Exhibit B – Referral Comments Exhibit C – Application 24 HPC Resolution # , Series of 2025 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #__, (SERIES OF 2025) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 337 LAKE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT B, DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-121-35-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen West AJ, LLC, represented by Sara Adams, BendonAdams LLC, has requested HPC approval for Certificate of Appropriateness Major Development, Conceptual Review for the property located at 337 Lake Avenue, Lot B, Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split, Aspen, Pitkin County, 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 approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, 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) 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, this property is subject to Residential Design Standards, of which the conceptual plans comply; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review; and WHEREAS, the HPC reviewed the project on January 22, 2025. The HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval by a vote of ___ to ___. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review for 337 Lake Avenue, Lot B, Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado as follows: Section 2: Material Representations 25 HPC Resolution # , Series of 2025 Page 2 of 3 All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 3: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: Vested Rights 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: 337 Lake 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 26 HPC Resolution # , Series of 2025 Page 3 of 3 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 22th day of January 2025. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: __________________________________ ____________________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair ATTEST: _________________________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 27 Page 1 of 8 Exhibit A Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.070.D – Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development 1) The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for major development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a major development. A major development includes one or more of the following activities: a. The construction of a new structure within a historic district; and/or b. Alterations to more than three (3) elements of a building façade including its windows, doors, roof planes or materials, exterior wall material, dormers, porches, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim; and/or c. The expansion of a building increasing the floor area by more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet; and/or d. Any new development that has not been determined to be minor development. 28 Page 2 of 8 Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines & Findings The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development at 337 Lake Avenue for the purposes of constructing a new one-story, single family detached dwelling. Chapter 1: Site Planning and Landscape Finding 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. Met 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. • If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. • Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. Met 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. Met 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. Met 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. Met 29 Page 3 of 8 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. Met 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape. • Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred. TBD 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. • If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. • The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. Met 30 Page 4 of 8 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. • In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. Met 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. Met 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. • Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. • Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-by-case basis. • Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. • Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. • Landscape uplighting is not allowed. TBD 31 Page 5 of 8 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. • The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of significance. • A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations. • Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. • A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not oversized. Met 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. • A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature. • For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket. • For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. TBD 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. • A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B. TBD 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. • All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure. Met 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. • An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape should be done before the beginning of any project. • The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved. Met 32 Page 6 of 8 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. • Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape. • Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures. • Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site. • All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work. • New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features. • Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible. Met 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. • Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation. • Minimize the visual impact of new parking. • Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically. Met 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. • Protect established vegetation during any construction. • If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species. • New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species. • Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site. • Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements. Met • Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties Finding 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. Met 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. Met 33 Page 7 of 8 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. Met/Not Met 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. Met 11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new structure(s). • This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot split. Met 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. Met 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. Met Chapter 12: Accessibility, Architectural lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas, and Signage Finding 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. TBD 34 Page 8 of 8 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. Met Staff Findings: Chapters 1 and 11 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are particularly relevant to the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, Conceptual Review for 337 Lake Ave. Staff finds that the application meets all the applicable Guidelines, with the exception of Guidelines 1.19, 1.14, 1.19, 1.20, and 12.3. These Guidelines that have not yet been met deal with elements such as site lighting, fences, and built-in site features. As this is the conceptual review phase, staff recommends approval of the application at conceptual review with regards to the location, form, height, scale, massing, and proportions. The Guidelines referenced above that have not yet been met are details that will be considered further at the time of final review. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application for Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, Conceptual Review. 35 Memorandum TO: Sara Adams, BendonAdams FROM: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: November 12, 2024 PROJECT: LPA-24-106, Major Development - Conceptual HPC Review, Development of New House on Vacant Lot at 337 Lake Avenue COMMENTS: These comments are not intended to be exhaustive, but an initial response to the Land Use application submitted for review. Other requirements may be requested at time of permit. Engineering: 1. This project will qualify as a major level Engineering Review. A full drainage report and civil plans will be required at the time of permit. a. Ensure all utility crossing minimums are maintained. 2. A Permanent Revocable Encroachment License will be required prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the retaining wall and stairs in the Right of Way. 3. The fence should not block the curb stop and should always be accessible. 4. This appears to be shown as two separate units, each unit needs its own service lines for utilities. 5. Show routing of green roof to storm system in permit documents. 6. Mech room should be located in the rear to reduce distance between the potable water entry to the structure and the meter and backflow prevention assembly. Water Distribution Standard 5.8.1 require all meters to set as close as possible to the point where the service enters the building. 7. Curb cuts should be a minimum of 25ft away from an adjacent curb cut. There is currently only approximately 22ft. Amend the driveway location. 8. If any snowmelt is proposed, it is not permitted over the water main. Historic Preservation: 1. Preliminary material representations are requested when available. 2. Sheet LX-01 shows the retaining wall partially on 335 Lake Ave property – are you only demolishing to the property line? 3. Please include photo of the existing retaining wall. Building: No Comments. Parks: No Comments. Zoning: No Comments. 36 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Stuart Hayden Aspen Historic Preservation Commission August 23, 2024 Re: 337 Lake Avenue – HP Major Development Conceptual Application Dear Stuart, and HPC, Please accept this application for Major Development Conceptual Review of the vacant property located at 337 Lake Avenue, Lot B of the Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split. This 6,001 sf property is under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The owners, Abby and Jon, propose to construct a small studio residence with a basement. The project conforms to both the R-6 zone district and the specifications in the lot split subdivision agreement (Exhibit J.2). Background 337 Lake Avenue was created in 2005 through the historic landmark lot split incentive – Lot A (335 Lake Avenue) contains the 1880s historic landmark and is 5,706 sf; and Lot B (subject property) is vacant and 6,001 sf. The total allowable floor area plus the 500 sf floor area bonus for historic restoration was allocated to the newly created lots through the lot split process – Lot A is permitted 2,542 sf of floor area plus a 500 sf bonus for a total of 3,042 sf; and Lot B is permitted 1,700 sf of floor area. The allocation of floor area between the lots clearly indicates a desire for Lot B to be developed with a small residence. 335 Lake Avenue recently received Minor Development approval from HPC for a remodel of the existing home. Proposal A one story studio residence with basement is proposed on the vacant lot. The home complies with the underlying R-6 zone district, Residential Design Standards, and is about 600 sf below the maximum floor area of 1,700 sf and about 10 ft below the maximum height of 25 ft. The primary roof form is a Figures 1 & 2: Historic 335 Lake (left) and proposed 337 Lake (right). 37 Page 2 of 3 gable and horizontal siding is proposed. The house sits on its own fee simple lot, but clearly pulls inspiration from the adjacent historic landmark through the prominent front porch, simple forms, and material application. Modern architectural details, front porch, and fenestration, and a flat green roof distinguish the new building as a product of its own time. Historic preservation design guidelines are addressed in Exhibit A. The project team worked closely with the City Forester early in the design process to identify trees to preserve and trees to remove. Coordination with the Forester to establish a tree setback informed the site plan. A conceptual storm water management plan and conceptual landscape plan are included in the design set for initial review with the understanding that final plans will be provided in the Final Review application. Residential Design Standards are addressed in Exhibit K. A physical model will be presented at the public hearing. Kind Regards, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams, LLC Exhibits A Review Criteria - Historic Preservation Design Guidelines B. Land Use Application C. Pre-application summary D. Authorization to represent E. Proof of ownership E.1 Title commitment E.2 Statement of authority F. Agreement to Pay G. HOA form H. Vicinity Map I. Mailing list J. Past approvals J.1 Ordinance 47-2005 approving the historic lot split J.2 Subdivision agreement J.3 Subdivision plat K. Residential Design Standard Checklist L. Drawing set including survey 38 Page 3 of 3 39 Exhibit A HP Review Sec. 26.415.060.A Approvals Required Any development involving properties designated on the aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual property or located within the boundaries of a Historic District, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. HPC shall provide referral comments for major projects to rights of way located within the boundaries of a Historic District. Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below: Streetscape 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. Response – The building faces Lake Avenue similar to the adjacent landmark. Open space and porosity are maximized in the site plan – the proposed site coverage is 15% where 50% is the maximum allowed. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable. • Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones. • Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add landscape. • Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged. • Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas. • Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a case by case basis. Response – No change to historic streets is proposed. Figure 1: Site plan comparison – 337 Lake (top) and 335 Lake (bottom) 40 Exhibit A Review Criteria 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. • Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets. • Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to the alley. Response – No change to access. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. • If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. • Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. Response – Access to the property is from Third Street via cobble stone tracks. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi- public walkway, to a semiprivate entry feature, to private spaces. Response – A simple walkway from Lake Avenue to the entry porch is proposed to reflect the traditional transition from public to private space. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example, on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. Response – A simple concrete walkway with steps and a handrail is proposed from Lake Avenue to the front entry- there is significant grade change between the property and Lake Avenue. The width of the walkway is three feet. Large cottonwoods in the right of way necessitate a slight jog in the walkway to accommodate tree roots per the Parks Department. A dry stack stone retaining wall to replace the existing wall is proposed along Lake Avenue which will be coordinated with the Engineering Department. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. Response – Open space is provided around the new home to create usable outdoor areas and passive landscaped areas. Two rain gardens are incorporated into the landscape plan, and hardscape is limited to the side yard. 41 Exhibit A Review Criteria 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. Response – A conceptual drainage plan is included in the application as shown on Sheet C4 of the drawing set. 1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. Response – n/a. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape. • Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred. Response – Built in outdoor elements are proposed on the rear patio behind the home. More information will be provided at Final Review as the landscape plan is further refined. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. • If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. • The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. Response – Existing cottonwoods in the right of way along Lake Avenue, and significant trees along the west property line are preserved and protected per the Parks Department’s specifications. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is over textured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. 42 Exhibit A Review Criteria • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. • In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. Response – A simple landscape is proposed around the new house. Conceptual plantings are proposed on Sheet LX-03 and LX-04 to -06 of the drawing set. The landscape plan will be finalized prior to final HPC review. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. Response – Plants do not obscure the view of the new building or the adjacent landmark. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. • Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. • Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case- by-case basis. • Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. • Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. • Landscape uplighting is not allowed. Response – Landscape lighting is not proposed at this time. Lighting will be included in the Final Review application. 43 Exhibit A Review Criteria 1.15 Preserve original fences. • Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved, removed, or inappropriately altered. • Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair. • Replacement elements must match the existing. Response – n/a. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. Response – n/a. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. • Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the character of a property. Response – No fence is proposed in the front yard. Fencing is proposed in the side and rear yards. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. • The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of significance. • A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations. • Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. • A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not oversized. Response – The existing side fence is proposed to remain. The rear fence will be 42” tall wood fence with appropriate spacing. More detail will be provided in the Final HPC application as part of the final landscape plan. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. • A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature. • For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket. • For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. Response – The rear fence will comply with this guideline – more details will be provided with the final landscape plan for HPC review. 44 Exhibit A Review Criteria 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. • A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B. Response – This property does not contain a designated building. The adjacent landmark is not blocked by the proposed rear fence. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls • Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size and finish. • Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed. • Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate. Response – n/a. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. • All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure. Response – The existing red sandstone retaining wall in the right of way is proposed to be replaced with a grey dry stack stone wall. 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Response – The site is relatively flat and is not proposed to be regraded. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. • An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape should be done before the beginning of any project. • The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved. Response – Existing cottonwood trees in the right of way along Lake Avenue are protected and preserved per the Parks Department’s specifications. 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. • Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape. • Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures. 45 Exhibit A Review Criteria New Buildings on Landmarked Properties • Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site. • All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work. • New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features. • Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible. Response – A simple landscape with traditional plant species is proposed. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. • Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation. • Minimize the visual impact of new parking. • Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically. Response – Parking is located off Third Street. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. • Protect established vegetation during any construction. • If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species. • New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species. • Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site. • Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements. Response – All new plantings are simple and reference historically used native species. 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. Response – The new building is oriented to Lake Avenue and is aligned with the historic landmark while still respecting the tree root protection area and meeting the “build to requirement” in the Residential Design Standards. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 46 Exhibit A Review Criteria Response – A recessed front porch with 3’6” cantilevered metal roof provides primary entry into the home. The historic landmark has a 65 sf recessed front porch, and the new home proposes a similarly sized recessed rectangular front porch. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. Response – The new building is a simple one story gable form that transitions into a flat green roof toward the rear of the property. The new building is 19’2” wide compared to the primary front module of the landmark which is 20’ 8” wide. The building is one story and significantly shorter than the adjacent landmark. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. Response – The front façade of the new building is not taller than the historic structure as shown in Figure 2 . 11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new structure(s). • This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot split. Figure 2: Comparison of Lot A (historic) and Lot B (new) front facades. 47 Exhibit A Review Criteria Response – n/a. The lot split was approved in 2005 at which time floor area and the FAR Bonus were allocated. 337 Lake Avenue was allocated 1,700 sf of floor area with the intention of developing a small home on this lot. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. Response – The new structure is recognized as a product of its own time in the size and application of the fenestration and solid to void ratios on the building facades. The gable roof form relates to surrounding historic landmarks, and the primary material is horizontal stained wood siding. Modern architectural details like eave depth, cantilevered metal porch roof, and the flat green roof viewed from Third Street, distinguish this home as new construction that fits into the neighborhood. Historic photographs below illustrate traditional forms and details along Lake Avenue. Figure 3: 220 Lake Avenue, 1978. Aspen Historical Society. Figure 4: Lake Avenue streetscape with prominent street facing gables. 48 Exhibit A Review Criteria 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. Response – The new home is modest in character and is clearly a product of its own time as expressed through architectural details, fenestration size and placement, and the treatment of the wood siding (stained dark). 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. Response – An exterior lighting plan will be provided at Final Design Review. Lighting and Mechanical Figures 5 & 6: Historic home at 335 Lake (left) and proposed new home at 337 Lake (right). 49 Exhibit A Review Criteria 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. Response – The mechanical equipment will mostly be located in the basement. Required outdoor units are conceptually located in the side yard with screening, and are significantly setback from the front façade. This property has two street facing yards – utilizing the side yard for mechanical equipment is the least impactful option. We coordinated the location with the City Forester to ensure the tree roots are not impacted. Figure 7: Location of above grade mechanical equipment. The area is fully screened and has been vetted with Parks. 50 City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020 ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: Fax#: E-mail: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: Fax#: E-mail: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)  Historic Designation  Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness  Minor Historic Development  Major Historic Development  Conceptual Historic Development  Final Historic Development  Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)  Demolition (total demolition)  Substantial Amendment  Historic Landmark Lot Split Aspen West AJ LLC 337 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO Lot B, Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split 2735-121-35-002 Jon and Abby Winkelried 416 South Beach Rd., Hobe Sound, FL 33455 n/a abbywinkelried@gmail.com BendonAdams 300 S. Spring Street, Aspen CO 81611 970-925-2855 n/a sara@bendonadams.com vacant lot created per Ordinance 47-2005 historic landmark lot split Single family home. Exhibit B 973-943-7020 51 337 Lake Avenue Dimensional Requirements R6 requirement/ Ord. 47-2005 Vacant Lot Minimum lot size 3,000 sf 6,001 sf Minimum net lot area per dwelling unit 3,000 sf for landmark properties 6,001 sf Minimum lot width 30 feet 60 feet Minimum front yard 10 feet primary 15 feet accessory 10 feet Minimum side yards 5 feet per side 5 feet minimum 15 feet combined Greater than 15 feet combined Maximum site coverage 50% 15% Minimum rear yard 10 feet living space 5 feet garage Greater than 10 ft. Maximum height 25 feet 15 ft. 6 in. Floor Area 1,700 sf 1,084 sf Parking 1 space per bedroom or 1 space per unit, whichever is greater 1 surface parking space 52 PRE-APPLICATION SUMMARY DATE: June 30, 2023 PLANNER: Kirsten Armstrong - Principal Planner, Historic Preservation, kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, AICP, sara@bendonadams.com PROJECT LOCATION: 337 Lake Avenue; Lot B, Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split PARCEL ID: 2735-121-35-002 REQUEST: Historic Preservation – Major Development Review DESCRIPTION: In 2005, a historic landmark lot split regarding the current subject property was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (Resolution #45, series of 2005) and City Council (Ordinance #47, series of 2005). The Historic Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat and the Subdivision Exemption Agreement for the Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split were recorded in 2006, Book 80, Page 97 and Reception #427631, respectively. The Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption created Lots A and B out of the original parcel for 640 N. Third Street, consisting of Lots 4, 5, and 6 (Less the southerly 3.2’ of Lot 6) Block 102, Hallam’s Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. Lot A is a 5707 sq. ft. lot containing an AspenVictorian landmark. Lot B, to the north of Lot A, is a vacant 6,000 sq. ft. lot, and is the subject of this request. Both are located in the R-6 zone district. Both parcels are designated historic and are subject to development review by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. The owner would like to develop Lot B with new construction. Pursuant to Ordinance #47, Series of 2005, both lots created as part of the Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split must conform to the requirements of their underlying zone district. The Ordinance and associated plat states that Lot B has an allowed floor area of 1,700 sq. ft. Variations provided for in Section 26.415.110.C.1.a-c are not applicable to Lot B, as it does not contain the historic structure. The maximum potential buildout for the two parcels created by the lot split is not to exceed three units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. The Ordinance also states that any lot for which development is proposed shall be subject to affordable housing mitigation, which in the 2023 City of Aspen Municipal Land Use Code includes Growth Management Residential Development review per Section 26.470.090.A. The scope of work qualifies as Major Development, which is a two-step process, requiring the approval of Conceptual Design and a Final Design. Conceptual Design review will consider mass, scale and site plan.. Following Conceptual, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to uphold or to “Call Up” aspects of the design approval for further discussion. This is a standard practice for all significant HPC projects. Following the Notice of Call Up, HPC will conduct Final Design review to consider landscape, lighting and materials. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Land Use Code Sections that are applicable to this project will be used to evaluate the proposal. This property is subject to Residential Design Standard Review (RDS). RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards (RDS) 26.415.070.D Historic Preservation – Major Development 26.470.090.A Growth Management, Administrative Applications 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.090 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Exhibit C 53 For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Application Packet Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Municipal Code REVIEW BY: • Staff for completeness and recommendations • HPC for decisions. City Council for Notice of Call Up. PUBLIC HEARING: • Yes, at Conceptual and Final PLANNING FEES: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) This fee will be due at Conceptual and Final submittal. REFERRAL FEES: $0. Staff will seek referral comments from the Building Department, Zoning, Engineering and Parks regarding any relevant code requirements or considerations. There will be no Development Review Committee meeting or referral fees. TOTAL DEPOSIT: $1,950 at Conceptual and Final (additional/lesser planning hours are billed/refunded at a rate of $325/hour). APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements. Please email the entire application as one .pdf to kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov. The fee will be requested after the application is determined to be complete.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form.  List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  Site improvement survey, no more than a year old, showing all existing conditions including topography and vegetation, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. 54 APPLICATION CHECKLIST CONTINUED:  A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed work complies with the relevant Historic Preservation Guidelines and any other relevant land use code at Conceptual and Final.  An existing and proposed site plan showing property boundaries, setbacks and parking.  Scaled floor plans and elevations of the proposed structure(s) clearly depicting form, height, mass/scale and roof plan. If possible, a project model is appreciated, to assist the HPC in their analysis.  An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development. Please include relevant cut-sheets for all materials for review.  Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location and extent of proposed work. For Conceptual, the following will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:  A preliminary stormwater design. For Final Review, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:  Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale.  Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples are preferred for the presentation to HPC.  A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 55 Exhibit D 56 Customer Distribution Prevent fraud - Please call a member of our closing team for wire transfer instructions or to initiate a wire transfer. Note that our wiring instructions will never change. Order Number: Q62017442 Date: 08/13/2024 Property Address: 337 LAKE AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title Team 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 927-0405 (Work) (970) 925-0610 (Work Fax) valleyresponse@ltgc.com Seller/Owner ASPEN WEST AJ LLC Delivered via: No Commitment Delivery BENDONADAMS LLC Attention: ERIN WACKERLE 300 S SPRING STREET SUITE 202 Aspen, CO 81611 (406) 531-0806 (Cell) (970) 925-2855 (Work) erin@bendonadams.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail Exhibit E.1 57 Estimate of Title Fees Order Number: Q62017442 Date: 08/13/2024 Property Address: 337 LAKE AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 Seller(s): ASPEN WEST AJ, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Buyer(s): Thank you for putting your trust in Land Title. Below is the estimate of title fees for the transaction. The final fees will be collected at closing. Visit ltgc.com to learn more about Land Title. Estimate of Title Insurance Fees "TBD" Commitment $279.00 TOTAL $279.00 Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These documents, such as covenants conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and use of the property. You may wish to engage legal assistance in order to fully understand and be aware of the implications of the documents on your property. Chain of Title Documents: Pitkin county recorded 10/19/2022 under reception no. 690992 Plat Map(s): Pitkin county recorded 08/18/2006 at book 80 page 97 58 Copyright 2006-2024 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Property Address: 337 LAKE AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 1.Effective Date: 07/26/2024 at 5:00 P.M. 2.Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured: "TBD" Commitment Proposed Insured: $0.00 3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: FEE SIMPLE 4.Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: ASPEN WEST AJ, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 5.The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOT B, DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 18, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 80 AT PAGE 97 AS RECEPTION NO. 527634.​ COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule A Order Number:Q62017442 59 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part I (Requirements) Order Number: Q62017442 All of the following Requirements must be met: This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO. 60 This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction, or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6.(a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 8.RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JUNE 07, 1888, IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 2. 9.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE# 18, SERIES OF 2001 RECORDED AUGUST 16, 2001 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 457607. 10.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION# 20, SERIES OF 2001 RECORDED AUGUST 16, 2001 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 457608. 11.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECORDED JANUARY 17, 2003 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 477482. 12.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION RECORDED OCTOBER 21, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 516549. 13.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION# 40, SERIES OF 2005 RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 516762. 14.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT RECORDED NOVEMBER 21, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 517646. 15.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT RECORDED AUGUST 18, 2006 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 527631. 16.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE# 47, SERIES OF 2005 RECORDED AUGUST 18, 2006 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 527632. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: Q62017442 61 17.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE RECORDED MARCH 15, 2007 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 535454. 18.EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS SHOWN ON PLAT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY RECORDED AUGUST 18, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 80 AT PAGE 97. 19.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT LICENSE RECORDED JUNE 28, 2012 AS RECEPTION NO. 590247 AND AGREEMENT TO SHARE REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT LICENSE RECORDED JULY 31, 2015 AS RECEPTION NO. 622009. 20.CLAIMS OF RIGHT, TITLE AND/OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BETWEEN THE BOUNDARY LINES AND THE FENCES AS DEPICTED ON THE SURVEY PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY, DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2022, JOB NO. 210578 WHETHER SAID CLAIMS ARISE BY ABANDONMENT, ADVERSE POSSESSION OR OTHER MEANS. SAID DOCUMENT STORE AS OUR ESI 40895826 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: Q62017442 62 Land Title Guarantee Company Disclosure Statements Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real property). (B) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. (C) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. (A) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. (B) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's liens. (C) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. (E) 63 This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, in Schedule B-2. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of Regulatory Agencies. Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction. Note: Pursuant to CRS 24-21-514.5, Colorado notaries may remotely notarize real estate deeds and other documents using real-time audio-video communication technology. You may choose not to use remote notarization for any document. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and (A) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. (B) 64 Joint Notice of Privacy Policy of Land Title Guarantee Company Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurancy Company This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information"). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based transaction management system; your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others; a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non-affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration 65 Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 66 Commitment For Title Insurance Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company NOTICE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. . COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS 2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. 3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: 4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a) “Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy. (b) “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c) “Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (d) “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e) “Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (f) “Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (g) “Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h) the Notice;(a) the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b) the Commitment Conditions;(c) Schedule A;(d) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g) The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to: (a) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing. (b) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. (c) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount. (d) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e) In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (f) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment. (c) 67 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services. 8. PRO-FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. 9. ARBITRATION The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. Issued by: Land Title Guarantee Company 3033 East First Avenue Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80206 303-321-1880 Craig B. Rants, Senior Vice President This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II —Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (d) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f) 68 Exhibit E.2 69 70 Exhibit F 71 abbywinkelried@gmail.com 973-943-7020 Exhibit G 72 415 411 406 420 411415 329 335401 337 600 701 340 320 620 315 330 350 312 311 314 710707 300 330 400 360 0 0.01 0.030.01 mi FLegend Aspen Address Parcels Source: City of Aspen GIS Vicinity Map Exhibit H73 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. The information maintained by the County may not be complete as to mineral estate ownership and that information should be determined by separate legal and property analysis. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273512135002 on 08/13/2024 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit I 74 315 LAKE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 315 LAKE AVE 320 LAKE LLC NEW YORK, NY 10028 151 E 85TH ST #C 420 WEST NORTH LLC SEATTLE, WA 98103 3518 FREMONT AVE N #508 433 ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST #102B-233 707 NORTH THIRD STREET LLC CUMBERLAND, RI 02864 200 SCENIC VIEW DR ASPEN CTR FOR ENVIRON STUDIES ASPEN, CO 81611 100 PUPPY SMITH ST ASPEN RESIDENCE SBLMSL LLC MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 833 E MICHIGAN ST #1500 ASPEN WEST AJ LLC HOBE SOUND, FL 33455 416 SOUTH BEACH RD BART ASPEN LLC NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130-6036 601 POYDRAS ST FL 24 BERGER BARBARA QPRT #1 ASPEN, CO 81611 600 E HOPKINS AVE #202 BERGER BRUCE C QPRT #1 ASPEN, CO 81611 600 E HOPKINS AVE #202 BERGER ILYSE D 1998 TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 600 E HOPKINS AVE # 202 BERGER SETH P ASPEN, CO 81611 600 E HOPKINS AVE # 202 BRAND NEW DAY LLC NASHVILLE, TN 37205 1203 CANTERBURY DR CAD ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 710 N 3RD ST D STREET PARTNERS LLC MIDLAND, TX 79702 PO BOX 10703 DURAND LOYAL & BERNICE ASPEN REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 816111256 415 PEARL CT E A ALTEMUS PARTNERSHIP LLLP ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 5000 EFH HOLDINGS LP LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 801 BRAMBLE WY ELEVATE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN #002 LLC SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5223 GILLESPIE LLC NORTHBROOK , IL 60062 401 HUEHL RD # 1A HUNT WILLIAM O JR MARITAL INCOME TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 801 BRAMBLE WY KDR TRUST ASPEN , CO 81611 506 W HALLAM ST LAKE AVENUE PARTNERS LLC SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 690 S PEYTONVILLE AVE LAKE HOUSE ASPEN LLC HENDERSON, NV 89011 430 PARKSON RD MARTIN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC ASPEN, CO 81611 225 MUSIC SCHOOL RD NORTH THIRD STREET LLC WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 500 YGNACIO VALLEY RD #360 OAK LODGE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 7951 PEACHES TRUST SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 200 E CARRILLO ST #300 75 PEARL COURT LLC CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 5299 HAMMOCK DR PETERSEN DARREN C LIV TRUST LAS VEGAS, NV 89118 5052 S JONES BLVD #110 PETERSON JAMES D & HENSLEY R ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1714 PINES DAVID & ARONELLE S REV TRUST URBANA, IL 618014964 403 W MICHIGAN AVE WOOD DUCK LLC ENGLEWOOD, CO 80112 9033 E EASTER PL #112 76 Exhibit J.1 77 78 79 80 81 Exhibit J.2 82 83 84 85 86 Exhibit J.3 87 Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions (Flexible) Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached. Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 2 Exhibit K 88 Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes C.4.Garage Door Design (Flexible) D.1.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) D.2.Door Height (Flexible) D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) E.1.Principle Window (Flexible) E.2.Window Placement (Flexible) E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Page 2 of 2 89 WEST END GARDEN HOUSE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL SET 337 Lake Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 08/16/2024 DRAWING INDEX - HPC GENERAL G0.00 GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION G0.01 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT G0.02 EXTERIOR MATERIALS G0.03 SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS G0.04 FLOOR AREA CALCAULATIONS AND BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM SURVEY . SURVEY CIVIL C1 COVER SHEET C2 SITE LAYOUT C3 UTILITIES PLAN C4 CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN LANDSCAPE LX.01 TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL PLAN LX.02 MATERIALS PLAN LX.03 LANDSCAPE PLAN LX.04 MATERIAL PALETTE LX.05 PLANTING PALETTE LX.06 PLANTING PALETTE DRAWING INDEX - HPC ARCHITECTURE A1.00 SITE PLAN A1.01 LOT A AND B ADJACENCY PLAN AND ELEVATION A2.01 BASEMENT & MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANS A2.02 ROOF PLAN A3.01 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Exhibit L 90 1. GRID LINE REFERENCE GENERAL SYMBOLS LEGEND ELEVATION NAME --- AX.XX X AX.XX X 2. LEVEL / DATUM REFERENCE 3. EXTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCE 5. BUILDING SECTION REFERENCE 4. INTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCE 7. DETAIL SECTION REFERENCE 8. CALLOUT/DETAIL REFERENCE 9. REVISION REFERENCE 10. ROOM REFERENCE AXXX X AX.00 Drawing Number Sheet Number Drawing Number Sheet Number --- AX.XX X 6. WALL SECTION REFERENCE Drawing Number Sheet Number # # # # Drawing Number Sheet Number Drawing Number Sheet Number Drawing Number Sheet Number # D001 W# 11. ASSEMBLY REFERENCE 12. WINDOW REFERENCE 13. DOOR REFERENCE 14. NORTH ARROW AX.XX X # 100 ROOM NAME X# MATERIALS LEGEND WOOD BLOCKING (SHIM) WOOD FRAMING (CONTINUOUS) FINISHED WOOD PLYWOOD BATT INSULATION RIGID INSULATION GRAVEL EARTH ALUMINUM STEEL MASONRY (CMU)BRICK MINERAL WOOL INSULATION FOAM INSULATION LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE SITE SITE pr o j e c t : stamp/seal: sheet: title: checked by: drawn by: project manager: principal architect: revisions: job no.: W E S T E N D G A R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION G0.00 23002 EW, EH TK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2024 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL SET KT, MK ABBREVIATIONS @ AT Ø DIAMETER # POUND OR NUMBER (E) EXISTING (N) NEW AB ANCHOR BOLT ABV ABOVE ACC ACCESS ACOUS ACOUSTICAL ACP ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING ACT ACOUSTIAL CEILING TILE ACS PNL ACCESS PANEL AD AREA DRAIN ADA AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ADJ ADJUSTABLE AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AGGR AGGREGATE AIB AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER ALT ALTERNATE ALUM ALUMINIUM APPROX APPROXIMATE ARCH ARCHITECTURAL APSH ASPHALT AUTO AUTOMATIC BD BOARD BITUM BITUMINOUS BLDG BUILDING BLKG BLOCKING BM BEAM BO BOTTOM OF BOT BOTTOM BRG BEARING BSMT BASEMENT BUR BUILT UP ROOFING CAB CABINET CB CATCH BASIN CEM CEMENT CER CERAMIC CIP CAST-IN-PLACE CJ CONTROL JOINT CLG CEILING CLK CAULKING CLO CLOSET CLR CLEAR CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CNTR COUNTER COL COLUMN CONC CONCRETE CONN CONNECTION CONSTR CONSTRUCTION CONT CONTINUOUS CONTR CONTRACTOR CORR CORRIDOR CPT CARPET; CARPETED CRS COLD ROLLED STEEL CSK COUNTERSUNK CTR CENTER CU FT CUBIC FEET CT CERAMIC TILE DBL DOUBLE DEMO DEMOLITION DET DETAIL DIA DIAMETER DIM DIMENSION DL DEAD LOAD DN DOWN DR DOOR DR OPNG DOOR OPENING DS DOWNSPOUT DSP DRY STANDPIPE DT DRAIN TILE DW DISHWASHER DWG DRAWING E EAST EA EACH EJ EXPANSION JOINT EL ELEVATION ELEC ELECTRICAL ELEV ELEVATOR ENCL ENCLOSURE EQ EQUAL EQUIP EQUIPMENT EST ESTIMATE EF EXHAUST FAN EXIST EXISTING EXP EXPANDED; EXPANSION EXP BT EXPANSION BOLT EXPO EXPOSED EXT EXTERIOR EW EACH WAY FA FIRE ALARM FB FLAT BAR FD FLOOR DRAIN FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER FEC FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FF EL FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION FH FIRE HYDRANT FHC FIRE HOSE CABINET FIN FLR FINISH FLOOR FF FINISH TO FINISH FIN FINISH FLASH FLASHING FLR FLOOR; FLOORING FLUOR FLUORESCENT FOC FACE OF CONCRETE FOF FACE OF FINISH FOIC FURNISHED BY OWNER-INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR FOM FACE OF MASONRY FOS FACE OF STUDS FP FIREPROOF FPL FIREPLACE FR FRAME FT FOOT OR FEET FTG FOOTING FURR FURRING FUT FUTURE FW FULL WIDTH PROJECT DIRECTORY CLIENT: ARCHITECT: GEOTECH: K+A/ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES 5020 COUNTY ROAD 154 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 T: 970.384.4844 CONTACT: STEVEN L. PAWLAK, P.E. SPAWLAK@KUMARUSA.COM CONTRACTOR: HANSEN CONSTRUCTION INC. 310 AABC ASPEN, CO 81611 T: 970.920.1558 EXT. 108 CONTACT: TIM O'CONNELL TOCONNELL@HANSENCONST.COM CODE CONSULTANT: CIVIL: ROARING FORK ENGINEERING 592 CO-133 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 T: 970.340.4130 CONTACT: ANTHONY ALFINI ANTHONYA@RFENG.BIZ LANDSCAPE: DESIGN WORKSHOP 22860 TWO RIVERS ROAD, SUITE 102 BASALT, CO 81621 T: 970.925.8354 CONTACT: MIKE ALBERT MALBERT@DESIGNWORKSHOP.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: KL&A ENGINEERS & BUILDERS 1717 WASHINGTON AVE GOLDEN, CO 80401 T: 303.384.9910 PRINCIPAL: DAN DOHERTY CONTACT: MEGAN SKODACK MSKODACK@KLAA.COM MEP: BG BUILDINGWORKS 222 CHAPEL PLACE, SUITE AC-201 AVON, CO 81620 P.O. BOX 9650 AVON, CO 81620 T: 970.949.6108 CONTACT:PETER B. MORABITO PBMORABITO@BGBUILDINGWORKS.COM LIGHTING: NITEO 1932 1ST AVE, SUITE 605 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T: 206.456.4554 EXT. 104 CONTACT: ERIK CROWELL ERIK@NITEOLIGHTING.COM ENVELOPE CONSULTANT: WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 3609 S WADSWORTH, SUITE 400 LAKEWOOD, CO 80235 T: 303.914.4300 CONTACT: SCOTT R. SONDRUP SSONDRUP@WJE.COM INTERIOR: VICTORIA HAGAN 5 COLUMBUS CIRCLE 19TH FLOOR NEW YOR, NY 10019 T: 212.888.1178 CONTACT: VICTORIA HAGAN VHAGAN@VICTORIAHAGAN.COM ASPEN WEST AJ LLC 335 LAKE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SURVEY: THE SEXTON SURVEY COMPANY P.O BOX 912 SILT, CO 81652 T: 970.456.3081 CONTACT: SCOTT R. BLACKARD SBLACKARD11@GMAIL.COM OLSON KUNDIG 159 SOUTH JACKSON STREET, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.624.5670 F: 206.624.3730 PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT: TOM KUNDIG CONTACT: ERICA WILLIAMS ERICA@OLSONKUNDIG.COM EKRAM HASSEN EKRAMH@OLSONKUNDIG.COM ASPEN WEST AJ LLC 300 S SPRING ST #202 ASPEN, CO 81611 T: 970.925.2855 CONTACT: SARA ADAMS SARA@BENDONADAMS.COM GENERAL NOTES 1. CODES: ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM APPLICABLE LAND USE AND BUILDING CODES AS AMENDED BY AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. 2. DO NOT SCALE DIMENSIONS FROM DRAWINGS. USE CALCULATED DIMENSIONS ONLY. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IF ANY CONFLICTS EXIST. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO INITIATING THE WORK. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 4. VERIFY ALL ROUGH-IN DIMENSIONS FOR EQUIPMENT. PROVIDE ALL BUCK-OUT, BLOCKING, BACKING, AND JACKS REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATIONS. 5. DIMENSIONS ARE TO EXTERIOR FACE OF CONCRETE / WOOD FRAMING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING 2x6 WOOD STUDS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. INTERIOR WALL FRAMING 2x6 WOOD STUDS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. BUILDING CODE / ZONING SUMMARY PROJECT ADDRESS: 337 LAKE AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASSESOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 273512135002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBDIVISION: DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT LOT: B APPLICABLE CODES: TITLE 8 AMENDMENTS TO ALL CODES EXCEPT ENERGY 2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE ADAPTED APPENDICES C, E, P 2021 ASPEN ENERGY CODE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE 2021 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE 2021 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE 2021 INTERNATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY PROVISIONS 2023 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: CITY OF ASPEN PHYSICAL ADDRESS: ASPEN CITY HALL 427 RIO GRANDE PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 PHONE: 970.920.5000 LOT SIZE: 6,000 SQFT LAND USE DESIGNATION: R-6 ZONE DISTRICT DENSITY: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ONE STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. HEIGHT: ALLOWED: 25 FT PROPOSED: 14 FT 3 IN YARD SETBACKS: FRONT: 10 FT SIDE: 5 FT REAR: 10 FT ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE: COMPLIANCE PER 2021 ASPEN RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CODE PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS TABLE 402.1.3 -INSULATION MINIMUM R-VALUE AND FENESTRATION REQUIRMENTS BY COMPONENT FOR CLIMATE ZONE 7. ci = continuous insulation. a. R-values are minimums. U-factors and SHGC are maximums. Where insulation is installed in a cavity that is less than the label or design thickness of the insulation, the installed R-value of the insulation shall be not less than the R-value specified in the table. b. The fenestration U-factor column excludes skylights. The SHGC column applies to all glazed fenestration. c. R-10 insulation shall be provided under the full slab area of a heated slab in addition to the required slab edge insulation R-value for slabs as indicated in the table. The slab-edge insulation for heated slabs shall not be required to extend below the slab. d. The first value is cavity insulation; the second value is continuous insulation. Therefore, as an example, “13 + 5” means R-13 cavity insulation plus R-5 continuous insulation. e. Mass walls shall be in accordance with Section R402.2.5. The second R-value applies where more than half of the insulation is on the interior of the mass wall. Vertical fenestration shall also comply with R402.3.6 and R402.3.7.Doors may have a U-factor of 0.28 or less. ABBREVIATIONS GA GAUGE GALV GALVANIZED GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR GL GLASS GLAM GLUE-LAMINATED GR GRADE GWB GYPSUM WALL BOARD GYP GYPSUM HB HOSE BIB HC HOLLOW CORE HDO HIGH DENSITY OVERLAY HDR HEADER HDWD HARDWOOD HDW HARDWARE HM HOLLOW METAL HORIZ HORIZONTAL HP HIGH POINT HR HOUR HR HOUR HT HEIGHT HVAC HEATING/VENTILATING/AIR CONDITIONING HW HOT WATER HWT HOT WATER TANK ID INSIDE DIAMETER IN INCH INCL INCLUDED INSUL INSULATION INT INTERIOR INV INVERT JB JUNCTION BOX JF JOINT FILLER JT JOINT KIT KITCHEN KO KNOCKOUT LAM LAMINATE; LAMINATED LAV LAVATORY LBS POUNDS LF LINEAR FEET (FOOT) LH LEFT HAND LL LIVE LOAD LOC LOCATION LP LOW POINT LT LIGHT MAS MASONRY MATL MATERIAL MAX MAXIMUM MB MACHINE BOLT MC MEDICINE CABINET MDF MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD MDO MEDIUM DENSITY OVERLAY MECH MECHANICAL MEMB MEMBRANE MEZZ MEZZANINE MFR MANUFACTURER MIN MINIMUM MIR MIRROR MISC MISCELLANEOUS MO MASONRY OPENING MTD MOUNTED MTL METAL MUL MULLION N NORTH N/A NOT APPLICABLE NO NUMBER NOM NOMINAL NR NOISE REDUCTION NTS NOT TO SCALE NIC NOT IN CONTRACT OA OVERALL OC ON CENTER OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER; OVERFLOW DRAIN OFF OFFICE OH OVERHEAD OHWM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OPNG OPENING OPP OPPOSITE OSB ORIENTED STRAND BOARD OCC OCCUPANTS OLF OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PBD PARTICLE BOARD PCC PRECAST CONCRETE PCF POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT PERF PERFORATED PERP PERPENDICULAR PL PLATE PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE PLAS PLASTER PLWD PLYWOOD PNL PANEL PNT POINT PR PAIR PRCST PRECAST PSF POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH PT PRESERVATIVE TREATED PTN PARTITION PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE R RISER RA RETURN AIR RAD RADIUS RD ROOF DRAIN REF REFERENCE REFR REFRIGERATOR REG REGISTER REINF REINFORCED REM REMAINDER REQ REQUIRED RESIL RESILIENT REV REVISION(S); REVISED RH RIGHT HAND RM ROOM ABBREVIATIONS RO ROUGH OPENING RWL RAIN WATER LEADER S SOUTH SAF SELF-ADHERED FLASHING SAM SELF-ADHERED MEMBRANE SC SOLID CORE SCHED SCHEDULE SD SMOKE DETECTOR SECT SECTION SG SAFETY GLAZING SHV SHELF; SHELVING SHR SHOWER SHT SHEET SHT MTL SHEET METAL SHTG SHEATHING SIM SIMILAR SOG SLAB ON GRADE SPEC SPECIFICATION SQ FT SQUARE FOOT (FEET) SQ IN SQUARE INCH(ES) SST STAINLESS STEEL STD STANDARD STL STEEL STOR STORAGE STRUCT STRUCTURAL SUSP SUSPENDED SYM SYMETRICAL T TREAD T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE TEL TELEPHONE TER TERRAZZO TG TEMPERED GLASS THK THICK TO TOP OF TOB TO OF BEAM TOC TOP OF CONCRETE; CURB TOF TOP OF FLOOR; FOOTING; FRAME TOM TOP OF MASONRY TOP TOP OF PARAPET; PAVEMENT TOPO TOPOGRAPHY TOS TOP OF SLAB; STEEL TOW TOP OF WALL TS TUBE STEEL TSTAT THERMOSTAT TYP TYPICAL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VB VINYL BASE VEN VENEER VERT VERTICAL VEST VESTIBULE VG VERTICAL GRAIN VIF VERIFY IN FIELD VT VINYL TILE W WEST W/ WITH W/O WITHOUT WC WATER CLOSET WD WOOD WDW WINDOW WF WIDE FLANGE WF BM WIDE FLANGE BEAM WG WIRED GLASS WH WATER HEATER WL WATER LINE WLD WELDED WP WATERPROOF WPM WATERPROOF MEMBRANE WR WATER RESISTANT WSCT WAINSCOT WSG WIRE SAFETY GLASS WTR WATER WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC WWM WELDED WIRE MESH WT WEIGHT no.: date: description: 91 pr o j e c t : stamp/seal: sheet: title: checked by: drawn by: project manager: principal architect: revisions: job no.: W E S T E N D G A R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT G0.01 23002 EW, EH TK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2024 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL SET KT, MK no.: date: description: 92 pr o j e c t : stamp/seal: sheet: title: checked by: drawn by: project manager: principal architect: revisions: job no.: W E S T E N D G A R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 EXTERIOR MATERIALS G0.02 23002 EW, EH TK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2024 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL SET KT, MK PROPOSED BUILDING MATERIALS CEDAR SHAKE ROOF STAINED WOOD SIDING (DARK)CONCRETE BASE CLADDING MESH SCREEN GUARDRAILROOF STEEL PLATE CEDAR SOFFIT WOOD no.: date: description: STEEL WINDOW SYSTEM, FRAMES PAINTED BLACK 93 42133.8 4 558 SF 65'-0" B A.5 3 93 SF 10'-10 1/2" 4 3.8 2 48 SF 5'-7 1/4" 100'-0" MAIN FLOOR 89'-6" BASEMENT AA.5 98'-1" BO MAIN FLOOR 1 72 SF 8'-4" 2 133.8 6 429 SF 59'-4 3/4" 81 SF 100'-0" MAIN FLOOR 89'-6" BASEMENT BAA.5 98'-1" BO MAIN FLOOR 5 165 SF 19'-2 1/2" SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS 1 2 3 4 TOTAL WALL AREA EXPOSED WALL AREA UNEXPOSED WALL AREA % OF EXPOSED WALL AREA (EXPOSED/TOTAL) WALL ELEVATIONS WALL AREA (SQ FT)EXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ FT) 72 48 93 558 1,446 6% 0 0 0 0 81 UNEXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ FT) 72 48 93 558 1,365 % OF UNEXPOSED WALL AREA (UNEXPOSED/TOTAL)94% 5 165 0 165 6 510 81 429 SUBGRADE LEGEND BELOW GRADE ABOVE GRADE GRADE ABOVE STRUCTURAL CEILING 6 5 4 3 2 1 pr o j e c t : stamp/seal: sheet: title: checked by: drawn by: project manager: principal architect: revisions: job no.: W E S T E N D G A R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS G0.03 23002 EW, EH TK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2024 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL SET KT, MK no.: date: description: 94 UP DN 1202 SF BASEMENT FIREPLACE ABOVE 919 SF MAIN LEVEL 52 SF EXEMPT PORCH 317 SF EXEMPT PATIO (BELOW TRELLIS) TRELLIS ABOVE ROOF ABOVE 396 SF EXEMPT PATIO 18 SF GRILL 81 SF EXTERIOR STAIR FLOOR AREA LEGEND FLOOR AREA EXEMPT FLOOR AREA DECK FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA = 1,700 SF DECK EXEMPTION = 255 SF (15% OF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA) BASEMENT LEVEL = 72 SF (FLOOR AREA * EXPOSED WALL % (1,202 * 0.06)) MAIN LEVEL = 919 SF TOTAL DECK = 93 SF ((77 SF (EXT STAIR) + 253 (TRELLIS) -255 SF) + 18 SF (GRILL)) TOTAL = 1,084 SF (72 SF + 919 SF + 93 SF) EXISTING GRADE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BUILDING HEIGHT 15 ' - 6 " . PROPOSED HEIGHT: 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE PROPOSED GRADE 25 ' - 0 " SITE COVERAGE LOT AREA = 6,001 SF MAIN LEVEL AREA = 919 SF SITE COVERAGE PERCENTAGE = 15% (919 SF / 6,001 SF) pr o j e c t : stamp/seal: sheet: title: checked by: drawn by: project manager: principal architect: revisions: job no.: W E S T E N D G A R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 FLOOR AREA CALCAULATIONS AND BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM G0.04 23002 EW, EH TK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2024 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL SET KT, MK SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 BASEMENT SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 MAIN LEVEL no.: date: description: SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" 3 BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM 95 SITE Lot A 5,706 sq ft ± 0.131 Acres ± Lot B 6,001 sq ft ± 0.138 Acres ± MARTIN CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA ASPEN CO 81611 Parcel No. 273512127800 E A ALTEMUS PARTNERSHIP LLLP PO BOX 5000 ASPEN CO 81612 Parcel No. 273512108003 No r t h T h i r d S t r e e t 65 . 0 ' R - O - W La k e A v e n u e 75 . 0 ' R - O - W SALTER/LUBAR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Plat Book 88, Page 67 Unit B MARTIN CONDOMINIUMS Plat Book 22, Page 51 Unit A MARTIN CONDOMINIUMS Plat Book 22, Page 51 T1 T2 Gas ac ac ac ac T4 T3 T5 T7 T8 T6 T9 T10 T11 T12 T14 T15 T16 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24 T25 T26T27T28T29T30T31T32T33T34T35T36 FF=7884.88' FF=7884.21' FF Garage 7884.24' Ridge El=7904.86' Ri d g e E l = 7 9 0 7 . 6 9 ' Covered Stone St e p s ww ww ww ww Electrical Transformer Electric Meter 5/8" Rebar & Red Plastic Cap LS No. 25947 5/8" Rebar & Red Plastic Cap LS No. 25947 Site Benchmark Elev.=7883.90' 5/8" Rebar & Red Plastic Cap LS No. 25947 5/8" Rebar 5/8" Rebar & Yellow Plastic Cap LS No. 9184 5/8" Rebar & Yellow Plastic Cap LS No. 9184 Edge of Asphalt Light Pole Storm Grate Mail Box Stone Stone Stone Stone Stone Stone 2 Story Frame House Posted Address: 638 N. 3rd St. 2 Story Frame House w/ Basement Address: 335 Lake Ave. Concrete Driveway Top Back Curb Edge of Asphalt Flow Line Curb Electric Box Co v e r e d De c k Covered Stone Planter Planter Planter Stone Retaining Walls Upper Level Deck Upper Level Deck FenceAdjoining House Fence Storm Inlet Rim El.=7874.2' Storm Inlet 10.21' 11.45' T13 T17 T19 T18 City of Aspen GPS Monument No. 8 City of Aspen GPS Monument No. 9 NAVD88 Elev. =7906.09' LEGEND Found Monument Electric Meter Telephone Pedestal Cable Pedestal Electrical Transformer Window Well Sewer Clean-out Storm Inlet Light Pole Fir Tree Aspen Tree Deciduous Tree ww VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 500' SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I, SCOTT R. BLACKARD, BEING A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY TO *SEE BELOW* THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY WAS PREPARED FROM AN ACTUAL MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENTS, BOTH FOUND AND SET, UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND CHECKING; THAT IT IS CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE AND THAT ALL DIMENSIONS, BOTH LINEAR AND ANGULAR WERE DETERMINED BY AN ACCURATE CONTROL SURVEY IN THE FIELD WHICH BALANCED AND CLOSED WITHIN A LIMIT OF 1 IN 15,000 (WHICH COMPLIES WITH COLORADO PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR A LAND SURVEY PLAT AND THE CURRENT ACCURACY STANDARDS FOR ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEYS): I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE, MAY 30, 2023, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES EXCEPT AS INDICATED, AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT AS NOTED. *HANSEN CONSTRUCTION INC. ________________________________________________________________________________________ SCOTT R. BLACKARD L.S. 38342 DATE sblackard11@gmail.com PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT A & B DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 80, PAGE 97. CITY OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO IMPROVEMENT SURVEY LOT A & B DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO U.S. SURVEY FEET USED NOTES 1.) DATE OF THE FIELD SURVEY WAS MAY 30, 2023. 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND/ OR REQUIREMENTS AS NOTED OR SHOWN IN THE RECORDS OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER. 3.) ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON CITY OF ASPEN BENCHMARK GPS 9 (NAVD 88). 4.) NO TITLE COMMITMENT WAS PROVIDED FOR THIS SURVEY. 5.) CONTOUR INTERVAL IS ONE FOOT. 6.) THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 80, PAGE 97. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY LOT A & B DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO TREE TABLE 96 C1 Cover Sheet PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOCATION:337 LAKE AVENUE OWNER:STEVEN L BLACK PARCEL NUMBER:273512135002 AREA:6,001 SQUARE FEET LEGAL DESCRIPTION:SUBDIVISION: DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT Lot: B ZONING:MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-6) WEST END RESIDENCE 337 LAKE AVENUE | ASPEN, CO CHECKED BY: # DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E DR A W N B Y CONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY: JOB #:2023-53 NOT FOR RO A R I N G F O R K E N G I N E E R I N G 59 2 H I G H W A Y 1 3 3 CA R B O N D A L E , C O 8 1 6 2 3 RF E N G . B I Z | ( 9 7 0 ) 3 4 0 - 4 1 3 0 AWA JAK WE S T E N D R E S I D E N C E GA R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L A K E A V E N U E AS P E N , C O Of 4 1 HP C S U B M I T T A L 07 . 3 0 . 2 4 JA K HPC SUBMITTAL 97 CHECKED BY: # DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E DR A W N B Y CONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY: JOB #:2023-53 NOT FOR RO A R I N G F O R K E N G I N E E R I N G 59 2 H I G H W A Y 1 3 3 CA R B O N D A L E , C O 8 1 6 2 3 RF E N G . B I Z | ( 9 7 0 ) 3 4 0 - 4 1 3 0 AWA JAK WE S T E N D R E S I D E N C E GA R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L A K E A V E N U E AS P E N , C O Of 4 1 HP C S U B M I T T A L 07 . 3 0 . 2 4 JA K C2 Site Layout 98 C3 Utilities Plan CHECKED BY: # DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E DR A W N B Y CONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY: JOB #:2023-53 NOT FOR RO A R I N G F O R K E N G I N E E R I N G 59 2 H I G H W A Y 1 3 3 CA R B O N D A L E , C O 8 1 6 2 3 RF E N G . B I Z | ( 9 7 0 ) 3 4 0 - 4 1 3 0 AWA JAK WE S T E N D R E S I D E N C E GA R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L A K E A V E N U E AS P E N , C O Of 4 1 HP C S U B M I T T A L 07 . 3 0 . 2 4 JA K 99 FF E + 8 2 . 2 9 +8 2 . 2 7 +8 2 . 1 8 +8 1 . 1 +74.56 +74.59+7 4 . 7 6 +8 0 . 7 0 +7874.65 +7874.43 FF E + 8 2 . 2 9 +8 2 . 2 7 TW + 7 8 7 8 TW +86.03 +8 2 . 0 0 +8 2 . 0 0 LL FFE +73.79 FFE +82.29 +82.27 83 82 LP +82.12 +82.27 1.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% +82.1 CHECKED BY: # DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E DR A W N B Y CONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY: JOB #:2023-53 NOT FOR RO A R I N G F O R K E N G I N E E R I N G 59 2 H I G H W A Y 1 3 3 CA R B O N D A L E , C O 8 1 6 2 3 RF E N G . B I Z | ( 9 7 0 ) 3 4 0 - 4 1 3 0 AWA JAK WE S T E N D R E S I D E N C E GA R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L A K E A V E N U E AS P E N , C O Of 4 1 HP C S U B M I T T A L 07 . 3 0 . 2 4 JA K C4 Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan 10 0 T4 -10" T3 - 16" T8 - 20" T6 - 24" T10 - 6" A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g C ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 REVISIONS 7302 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E AS P E N , C O C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g EP, XL MA 08/16/2024 DESIGN WORKSHOP Landscape Architecture · Land Planning Urban Design · Tourism Planning Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M FOR REVIEW ONLY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LX-01 22860 Two Rivers Road #1 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 925-8354 33 7 L A K E A V E N U E TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL PLAN NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 5'10'20' 1"=10' HPC SUBMISSION TREE REMOVAL CHART T3 T4 T6 T8 T10 TREE SURVEY# TREE TYPE D.B.H FIR ASPEN FIR FIR ASPEN (DEAD) 16" 10" 24" 20" 6" TOTAL: 76" TREE PROTECTION FENCE, TYP. EXTENTS OF TREE DRIPLINE, TYP. EXISTING CURB TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED 101 A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g C ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 REVISIONS 7302 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E AS P E N , C O C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g EP, XL MA 08/16/2024 DESIGN WORKSHOP Landscape Architecture · Land Planning Urban Design · Tourism Planning Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M FOR REVIEW ONLY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LX-02 22860 Two Rivers Road #1 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 925-8354 33 7 L A K E A V E N U E MATERIALS PLAN NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 5'10'20' 1"=10' VEHICULAR PAVING - COBBLE STONE STONE PAVER TYPE 2 - SAND SET STONE STEP DRY STACK STONE WALL MATERIAL WOOD FENCE VEHICULAR PAVING CONCRETE PAVER, TYP. CONCRETE STEP, TYP. IMPROVED DRY STACK STONE WALL WOOD FENCE (42" HEIGHT) LEGEND STONE PAVER TYPE 1 - MORTAR SET HPC SUBMISSION GUARDRAIL PER ARCH HANDRAIL PA PA PA PA PA PA PAPA CONCRETE STEP CONCRETE PAVER CONCRETE BOARD FORM WALL EXISTING WOOD FENCE STONE PAVER TYPE 1, TYP. STONE PAVER TYPE 2, TYP. STONE STEPS CONCRETE BOARD FORM WALL GRILL AND COUNTER HANDRAIL CONCRETE PAD ROOFLINE, TYP RE: ARCH PA CONCRETE PAD (6" OR LESS OF EXCAVATION WITHIN DRIPLINE OF TREE) RAIN GARDEN RAIN GARDEN 102 LEGEND GREEN ROOF (HATCH) PROPOSED DECIDUOUS SHRUB PERENNIALS MIX (HATCH) PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g C ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 REVISIONS 7302 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E AS P E N , C O C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g EP, XL MA 08/16/2024 DESIGN WORKSHOP Landscape Architecture · Land Planning Urban Design · Tourism Planning Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M FOR REVIEW ONLY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LX-03 22860 Two Rivers Road #1 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 925-8354 33 7 L A K E A V E N U E LANDSCAPE PLAN NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 5'10'20' 1"=10' PLANT CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TREES CC-5 Crataegus crus-galli inermis Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn PP-10 Picea pungens Colorado Spruce PT Pinus thunbergii Japanese Black Pine PT-4 Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen SHRUBS BM-5 Buxus microphylla japonica 'Winter Gem'Winter Gem Japanese Boxwood CB-5 Cornus sericea 'Baileyi'Bayley's Red Twig Dogwood CI-5 Cornus sericea `Isanti`Isanti Red Twig Dogwood CA-10 Cotoneaster acutifolius Peking Cotoneaster PO-5 Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark RP-1 Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry SB-5 Spiraea betulifolia Birchleaf Spirea SJ-3 Spiraea japonica 'Froebelii'Froebelii Japanese Spirea SV-5 Syringa vulgaris Common Purple Lilac VD-5 Viburnum dentatum 'Blue Muffin'Blue Muffin Arrowwood Viburnum ORNAMENTAL GRASSES HS-1 Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass GROUND COVERS GO-1 Galium odoratum Sweet Woodruff PR-4 Petrosedum rupestre 'Blue Spruce'Blue Spruce Stonecrop PERENNIALS AP-1 Aegopodium podagraria 'Variegatum'Variegated Bishop Weed AXM-1 Allium x `Millenium`Millenium Ornamental Onion HD Hosta x `Big Daddy`Big Daddy Hosta LA-1 Leucanthemum x superbum `Alaska`Alaska Shasta Daisy NF-1 Nepeta x faassenii Catmint SP-1 Salvia nemorosa Meadow Sage SOD/SEED FE Festuca x 'Eco-Lawn'Eco-Lawn Fescue PLANT SCHEDULE HS-1, TYP PERENNIAL MIX, TYP. FE, TYP. HPC SUBMISSION PP-10 CA-10 SB-5 CC-5 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, TYP. PROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREE PROPOSED ORNAMENTAL GRASS PT PT-4 SJ-3 SJ-3 SV-5 BM-5 CB-5 CB-5 CB-5 CB-5 CB-5 CB-5 RP-1 RP-1 PO-5 RP-1 SB-5 VD-5 TURF (HATCH) CI-5 PR-4 103 A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g C ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 REVISIONS 7302 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E AS P E N , C O C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g EP, XL MA 08/16/2024 DESIGN WORKSHOP Landscape Architecture · Land Planning Urban Design · Tourism Planning Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M FOR REVIEW ONLY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LX-04 22860 Two Rivers Road #1 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 925-8354 33 7 L A K E A V E N U E MATERIAL PALETTE MATERIALS GRANITE COBBLE: -VEHICULAR PAVING CONCRETE PAVER: -CONCRETE PAVER -CONCRETE STEPS WOOD FENCE STONE PAVER -STONE PAVER TYPE 1 HPC SUBMISSION HANDRAILDRY STACK STONE WALL STONE PAVER -STONE PAVER TYPE 2 CONCRETE BOARD FORM WALL 104 A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g C ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 REVISIONS 7302 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E AS P E N , C O C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g EP, XL MA 08/16/2024 DESIGN WORKSHOP Landscape Architecture · Land Planning Urban Design · Tourism Planning Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M FOR REVIEW ONLY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LX-05 22860 Two Rivers Road #1 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 925-8354 33 7 L A K E A V E N U E PLANTING PALETTE TREES Crataegus crus-galli inermis SHRUBS Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn Picea pungens Colorado Spruce Buxus microphylla japonica 'Winter Gem' Winter Gem Japanese Boxwood Cornus sericea 'Baileyi' Bayley's Red Twig Dogwood Spiraea betulifolia Birchleaf Spirea Spiraea japonica 'Froebelii' Froebelii Japanese Spirea HPC SUBMISSION Pinus thunbergii Japanese Black Pine Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen Cotoneaster acutifolius Peking Cotoneaster Syringa vulgaris Common Purple Lilac Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark Viburnum dentatum 'Blue Muffin' Blue Muffin Arrowwood Viburnum Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Cornus sericea 'Isanti' Isanti Red Twig Dogwood 105 PLANTING PALETTE PERENNIALS Hosta x 'Big Daddy' Big Daddy Hosta Leucanthemm x superbum 'Alaska' Alaska Shasta Daisy Salvia nemorosa Midnight Sage Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass Nepeta x faassenii Catmint HPC SUBMISSION A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g C ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 REVISIONS 7302 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E AS P E N , C O C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A u g 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 - 3 : 1 1 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 7 3 0 2 - 3 3 5 3 3 7 L a k e A v e n u e \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ D W - 7 3 0 2 - H P C S u b m i s s i o n _ 3 3 7 . d w g EP, XL MA 08/16/2024 DESIGN WORKSHOP Landscape Architecture · Land Planning Urban Design · Tourism Planning Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M FOR REVIEW ONLY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LX-06 22860 Two Rivers Road #1 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 925-8354 33 7 L A K E A V E N U E GROUND COVERS Aegopodium podagraria 'Variegatum' Variegated Bishop's Weed Galium odoratum Sweet Woodruff Petrosedum rupestre 'Blue Spruce' Blue Spruce Stonecrop ORNAMENTAL GRASSES Allium x 'Millenium' Millenium Ornamental Onion 106 5'-0" FACE OF BUILDING 421 B A 10'-0" 10'-0" SE T A B A C K ) 10 ' - 0 " (1 5 ' - 0 " C O M B I N E D 5' - 0 " PROPERTY LINE SIDE SETBACK SIDE SETBACK RE A R S E T B A C K FR O N T S E T B A C K 3 GREEN ROOF CEDAR SHINGLES METAL TRELLIS 337 LAKE AVENUE HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT LOT B LOT SIZE: 6,001 SF ZONE DISTRICT R-6 METAL FIREPLACE TREE TO BE REMOVED 1'-6" METAL CANOPY 3.8 A.5 CANOPY IN SETBACK BUILD-TO REQUIREMENT - SEC. 26.410.030.(B)(3)C MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PARKING SPACE 3R D S T R E E T LA K E A V E . 8' - 6 " 18'-0" 17 ' - 2 1 / 4 " 36'-1 1/4" pr o j e c t : stamp/seal: sheet: title: checked by: drawn by: project manager: principal architect: revisions: job no.: W E S T E N D G A R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 SITE PLAN A1.00 23002 EW, EH TK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2024 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL SET KT, MK SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 SITE PLAN no.: date: description: NOTE: REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR LANDSCAPE RELATED INFORMATION. 107 EF EF EF PROPERTY LINE 337 LAKE AVENUE HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT LOT B LOT SIZE: 6,001 SF ZONE DISTRICT R-6 337 LAKE AVENUE HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT LOT A LOT SIZE: 5,706 SF ZONE DISTRICT R-6 3R D S T R E E T LA K E A V E . LOT BLOT A pr o j e c t : stamp/seal: sheet: title: checked by: drawn by: project manager: principal architect: revisions: job no.: W E S T E N D G A R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 LOT A AND B ADJACENCY PLAN AND ELEVATION A1.01 23002 EW, EH TK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2024 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL SET KT, MK SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 LOT A AND B ADJACENCY PLAN NOTE: REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR LANDSCAPE RELATED INFORMATION. no.: date: description: SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 LOT A AND B ADJACENCY ELEVATION (EAST) 108 DN UP A3.01 1 A3.01 2 A3.01 3 20 ' - 0 " 49'-9 1/4" 19 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 421 B A 3 102 KITCHEN 100 ENTRY 103 LIVING / BEDROOM 101 POWDER METAL GUARDRAIL RETAINING WALL GAS FIREPLACE EDGE OF METAL PLATE CANOPY ABOVE EDGE OF ROOF ABOVE METAL TRELLIS ABOVE 4 3 / 4 " 10 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 8' - 4 " 4 3 / 4 " 15 ' - 4 " 3' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 8' - 2 3 / 4 " 19 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 3.8 A.5 EL 100'-0" 7'-9"1'-4"5'-6"1'-4"23'-7 1/2"3'-10"5'-7 1/4" 9"9" 4 3/4"22'-10"26'-1 3/4" 4 3/4" 1'-1 1/4" 4 3/4" 3'-6" A3.01 1 A3.01 2 A3.01 3 421 B A 3 001 BASEMENT 65'-0" 19 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 003 MECH. ROOM CONCRETE SLAB CONCRETE FOUNDATION, TYP. 10 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 8' - 4 " 11'-0 3/4"48'-4"5'-7 1/4" 4' - 8 3 / 4 " EL 89'-6" 3.8 A.5 52'-5 3/4"12'-6 1/4" pr o j e c t : stamp/seal: sheet: title: checked by: drawn by: project manager: principal architect: revisions: job no.: W E S T E N D G A R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 BASEMENT & MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANS A2.01 23002 EW, EH TK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2024 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL SET KT, MK SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 BASEMENT PLAN no.: date: description: 109 A3.01 1 A3.01 2 A3.01 3 421 B A 3 23'-2 3/4"25'-9" 48'-11 3/4" 19 ' - 2 1 / 2 " METAL PLATE CANOPY CEDAR SHINGLES METAL TRELLIS GREEN ROOF 3.8 A.5 METAL FIREPLACE METAL ROOF9 3/4" TYP. SPACE BETWEEN pr o j e c t : stamp/seal: sheet: title: checked by: drawn by: project manager: principal architect: revisions: job no.: W E S T E N D G A R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 ROOF PLAN A2.02 23002 EW, EH TK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2024 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL SET KT, MK no.: date: description: SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 ROOF PLAN 110 100'-0" MAIN FLOOR 89'-6" BASEMENT 4213 CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF STAINED WOOD SIDING METAL WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEM, TYP. METAL TRELLIS BOARD-FORM CONCRETE SITE WALL METAL FASCIA 3.8 25'-9"23'-2 3/4"16'-0 1/4" 48'-11 3/4" CONCRETE OR METAL FLASHING, TBD METAL PLATE ROOF CANOPY AT ENTRY 100'-0" MAIN FLOOR 89'-6" BASEMENT BA METAL WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEM, TYP. STAINED WOOD SIDING METAL FASCIA METAL TRELLIS A.5 19'-2 1/2" MA X . A L L O W E D 2 5 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " . GREEN ROOF ASSEMBLY, TBD AT FINAL HPC REVIEW 100'-0" MAIN FLOOR 89'-6" BASEMENT B A METAL PLATE ROOF CANOPY AT ENTRY 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE METAL WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEM, TYP. STAINED WOOD SIDING 10 ' - 0 " 3'-5"4'-1" 8' - 0 " A.5 MA X . A L L O W E D 2 5 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 6 " . 10'-10 1/2"8'-4" 19'-2 1/2" 4 3/4"4 3/4" CONCRETE OR METAL FLASHING, TBD 100'-0" MAIN FLOOR 89'-6" BASEMENT 4 2 13 DOORS TO BASEMENT, SHOWN DASHED STAIR TO BASEMENT, SHOWN DASHED METAL MESH GUARDRAIL CONCRETE RETAINING WALL METAL TRELLIS METAL WINDOW SYSTEM, TYP. STAINED WOOD SIDING CEDAR SHINGLES METAL FIREPLACE 3.8 5'-7 1/4"20'-1 3/4"23'-2 3/4"16'-0 1/4" 48'-11 3/4" BOARD-FORM CONCRETE SITE WALL CONCRETE OR METAL FLASHING, TBD pr o j e c t : stamp/seal: sheet: title: checked by: drawn by: project manager: principal architect: revisions: job no.: W E S T E N D G A R D E N H O U S E 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 33 7 L a k e A v e n u e A s p e n , C O 8 1 6 1 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.01 23002 EW, EH TK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2024 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL SET KT, MK SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH ELEVATION no.: date: description: 111