Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit B.Notice of Call-Up.211 W Hopkins Ave Page 1 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: November 18, 2020 RE: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue– AspenModern Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development Review including Relocation, Variations, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 28, 2020 APPLICANT /OWNER: Matt Joblon, 205 S. Detroit Street , Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206, with the consent of property owner Vaughan Capital Partners, LP REPRESENTATIVE: Rowland + Broughton BendonAdams LOCATION: Street Address: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue Legal Description: Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen Parcel Identification Number: PID# 273512463003 CURRENT ZONING & USE: Single-family home, R-6: Medium Density Residential PROPOSED ZONING & LAND USE: Two detached homes, R-6: Medium Density Residential SUMMARY: The applicant has offered voluntary AspenModern historic designation of a 1956 Pan Abode, and requests Major Development, Relocation and Variation review for a project which involves restoring the resource, excavating a basement below it, and constructing a detached new home along the alley. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation for restudy of the design of the new unit, in particular the north façade and roof plan as indicated at the October 28th hearing. Site Locator Map – 211 W. Hopkins Avenue 211 Page 2 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: 211 W. Hopkins is a 6,000 square foot lot located in the R-6 zone district. The site contains a 1956 Pan Abode, which is essentially unaltered. It is still owned by the same family that originally built it. REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • AspenModern Historic Designation (Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030) for negotiation of a voluntary designation. • Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for removal of a non-historic addition, restoration on the Pan Abode and construction of a new structure at the rear of the property. • Relocation (Section 26.415.090.C) to excavate a basement below the Pan Abode in its original location. • Setback Variations (Section 26.415.110.C) for a rear yard variation. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is making a recommendation to Council on this application. STAFF COMMENTS: Following is a summary of staff findings. Please see Exhibits A, B, C and D for more detail. Staff supports the voluntary designation of this property as one of the best and most intact examples of a Pan Abode home in Aspen. The benefits requested for designation (tree removal fee waivers, expedited permit review, a floor area bonus and setback variation) are reasonable in consideration of the community benefit of the project. The project approach is an ideal preservation outcome. The cabin is preserved with no addition and new construction is detached and located at the rear of the site. Staff recommended on October 28th, and still recommends, restudy of the design of the north façade and roof plan of the new unit in order to achieve the most sympathetic and compatible relationship with the small historic structure being preserved. HPC agreed with this direction at the last hearing, the minutes of which are attached. The restudy that has been provided uses material changes and a vertical trim board to address the concerns expressed with a low pitched and wide gable form set behind the Pan Abode. Staff finds the restudy is not yet successful. A second design issue mentioned in the previous meeting was a fence near the northwest corner of the Pan Abode. A revision has been provided that reduces the height of the fence so that it meets the design guidelines. The new structure must meet the Residential Design Standards, which appears to be the case but will be confirmed based on the restudy. Page 3 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred out to other City departments to preliminarily identify requirements that may affect permit review. Applicant follow-up on these comments as part of building permit review is a condition of approval. Parks: The new water line is to be installed under where the front walk is now located to minimize impacts to the spruce and aspen in the front yard. A site visit with the Forester is needed prior to this installation so he can direct the best route for the tree roots. A tree permit must be issued for all removals. This permit will call out specifics for the dripline excavation for the trees at the front of the property. No trees in the right-of-way on West Hopkins are approved to be removed. The impact of the project on the driplines of neighbor’s trees will be need to be considered. Some neighboring trees might need to be removed. The applicant will be required to provide the Forester with a letter from the trees’ owners saying they accept the impacts and risks to their trees. The applicant may need to treat impacted trees with growth regulating hormones and trunk injections for bark beetle protection. Engineering: One item needs to be addressed for this property prior to HPC approval. 1. The proposed transformer shown on sheet L300 does not have adequate space. 10’ in depth and 13’ in width needs to be provided for a 7’x7’ vault with 3’ clearances on the sides and back. The plan sheet shows only 5’ from the property line to the building. The following items will need to be addressed at building permit. 1. The proposed drywell must be 10’ from the neighboring property. A Geotech or structural engineer must supply a stamped letter stating the drywell within 10’ of the proposed structure and existing cabin foundation will have no adverse effects. 2. At building permit the project may be required to detach the existing sidewalk and install a new sidewalk with a 5’ landscape buffer between the curb and sidewalk. The neighboring property to the west has a current building permit and may detach their portion of the sidewalk depending on existing tree constraints. If this happens the sidewalk at 211 W shall also be detached. 3. At building permit the project will need to determine the water service line size and configuration for the two buildings. Currently two service lines are proposed per sheet L300. The water service line on the east runs under the dripline of the large spruce tree. The excavation that close to the tree trunk will most likely kill the tree. This needs further vetting. Page 4 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com 4. Foundation drywells are proposed in close proximity to the east spruce tree. Excavation cannot take place within the dripline of the tree. It needs to be shown excavation can take place to accommodate the foundation drywells without adversely affecting the tree. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue the project to restudy the new unit for compliance with guidelines 11.3., 11.4 and 11.6. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Exhibit A – Historic Designation and Benefits Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit B – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit C – Relocation Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit D – Setback Variation Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit E – November 18th revised application Exhibit F – October 28th application Exhibit G – Draft Oct. 28th HPC minutes HPC Resolution #25, Series of 2020 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #25, SERIES OF 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW INCLUDING RELOCATION, AND VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 53, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PARCEL ID: 2735-124-63-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Matt Joblon, 205 S. Detroit Street , Suite 400, Denver, CO 80206, with the consent of property owner Vaughan Capital Partners, LP has requested HPC approval for AspenModern Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations for the property located at 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the AspenModern designation process is described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on October 28, 2020, considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and continued the proposal for restudy. On November 18, 2020, the commission found the revised application to be consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC Resolution #25, Series of 2020 Page 2 of 3 Section 1: Approvals 1. HPC hereby recommends Council approval of historic designation for 211 W. Hopkins Avenue and approval of the proposed redevelopment, Option 4 for the design of the new structure on the alley as presented at the November 18th meeting, under the terms of AspenModern negotiation for designation as follows: • Granting of tree removal permits and waiver of all tree mitigation fees generated by the approved development. • Expedited building permit review consistent with the Building Department’s adopted procedure. • A floor area bonus of 135 square feet of enclosed space and 19 square feet to be used for larger outdoor decks. • A rear yard setback reduction of 2’, allowing the new residential unit to be 8’ from the rear lot line on all floors. 2. As part of the approval to relocate the house on the site, the applicant will be required to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application, along with a detailed description of the house relocation approach. 3. As part of building permit review, the applicant shall address the following referral comments to the satisfaction of the respective Departments. Parks: The new water line is to be installed under where the front walk is now located to minimize impacts to the spruce and aspen in the front yard. A site visit with the Forester is needed prior to this installation so he can direct the best route for the tree roots. A tree permit must be issued for all removals. This permit will call out specifics for the dripline excavation for the trees at the front of the property. No trees in the right-of-way on West Hopkins are approved to be removed. The impact of the project on the driplines of neighbor’s trees will need to be considered. Some neighboring trees might need to be removed. The applicant will be required to provide the Forester with a letter from the trees’ owners saying they accept the impacts and risks to their trees. The applicant may need to treat impacted trees with growth regulating hormones and trunk injections for bark beetle protection. Engineering: The proposed drywell must be 10’ from the neighboring property. A Geotech or structural engineer must supply a stamped letter stating the drywell within 10’ of the proposed structure and existing cabin foundation will have no adverse effects. At building permit the project may be required to detach the existing sidewalk and install a new sidewalk with a 5’ landscape buffer between the curb and sidewalk. The neighboring property to the west has a current building permit and may detach their portion of the sidewalk depending on existing tree constraints. If this happens the sidewalk at 211 W shall also be detached. HPC Resolution #25, Series of 2020 Page 3 of 3 At building permit the project will need to determine the water service line size and configuration for the two buildings. Currently two service lines are proposed per sheet L300. The water service line on the east runs under the dripline of the large spruce tree. The excavation that close to the tree trunk will most likely kill the tree. This needs further vetting. Foundation drywells are proposed in close proximity to the east spruce tree. Excavation cannot take place within the dripline of the tree. It needs to be shown excavation can take place to accommodate the foundation drywells without adversely affecting the tree. 4. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Section 2: Material Representations 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 18th day of November, 2020. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _________________________ ___________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: __________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM November 10, 2020 Historic Preservation Commission and Aspen City Council c/o Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 211 West Hopkins Avenue – Project Revisions Dear HPC and Staff, Thank you for your thoughtful comments during the public hearing on October 28, 2020. This is a challenging small site, with a small pan abode that cannot be relocated forward to the front setback line due to large trees. The design team has focused on restudying the north elevation to add dimension that breaks up the mass behind the pan abode. While this is typically a Final Design element, at HPC ’s direction we have restudied the fence proposed along the west elevation of the pan abode. The AspenModern request is unchanged with the project revisions (Table 1 is provided for easy reference). We are proud of this project – it fits into the context of the neighborhood, balances historic preservation and new development, and most importantly it preserves and restores an unprotected AspenModern resource. Table 1: AspenModern Request & Fee Summary (estimated based on 2,469sf floor area increase) Fee Request Affordable Housing 0.4 FTEs at Category 2 ~ $137,040 cash in lieu No request. TDM/Air Quality ~$1,506.09 No request. Parks Development ~$13,456.05 No request. Tree Removal Mitigation ~ $20,122.75 Request wavier of tree removal mitigation. Building Permit Review n/a Expedited permit review. Dimensional Variations n/a Rear setback – 2’ for living space (8’ provided) Historic Development Benefits n/a 135 sf FAR bonus; 19sf of deck exemption New Building Multiple roof forms were explored over the past few weeks, but we feel strongly that a gable roof form with a shallow pitch is most appropriate in relationship to the pan abode. When looking at a steeper pitched gable form, it resulted in a taller building and did not relate to the pan abode. Breaking the gable into different roof forms appeared overly complicated and distracted from the simple form of the pan abode. We concluded that a shallow gable roof was most appropriate and have provided a symmetrical and an asymmetrical version for your consideration. A 20” deep eave is proposed to reflect the eave dimensions of the pan abode. The majority of the changes to the north façade are found in the material application and windows. A comparison of the original proposal to the revised two options are below. Option #1 (symmetrical) is preferred by the applicant. Figure 2: Option 1, north elevation November 18, 2020. Figure 1: October 28, 2020 proposed north elevation. Figure 3: Option 2, north elevation November 18, 2020. Figure 4: Option 1 rendering November 18, 2020. Figure 5: Option 2 rendering November 18, 2020. We prefer the symmetrical Option 1 and find that both options meet the Design Guidelines noted below: 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 parallel to the lot lines to maintain the traditional grid and to relate to the pan abode. 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. Response – A front porch is proposed to define the entry into the new building. A walkway is proposed from Hopkins that reinforces the entrance. 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 divided into smaller modules through material application and window placement. Vertical and horizontal wood siding divides the north elevation into modules that relate to the asymmetrical vertical joints and façade division of the pan abode, but in a contemporary application. 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 primary plane of the new building is similarly scaled to the historic building in the application of the building materials. The new building is taller than the one story historic structure; however, the front porch is lower in height. 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. Response – While this is not a lot split project, the majority of the floor area is allocated to the detached new building at the rear of the property. 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 consistent with form and materials, and diverts from the pan abode in the fenestration category. The primary form reflects the simplicity of the pan abode footprint and shallow roof. The secondary form of the new building is a steeper gable roof that is setback to break up massing. The primary material is wood with a similar scale and finish as the pan abode. The application of wood siding in both vertical and horizontal sections references the horizontal and vertical divisions of the pan abode but with a modern influence. Subtle references to the pan abode are found throughout the new building that create a strong dialogue between the two structures – for example, the rain screen has overlapping ends that reference the pan abode corners. Metal is woven as an accent throughout the façade. The project diverts in fenestration from the pan abode. Windows and doors are contextual to the rest of the property, but the placement, size and style of the doors and windows are contemporary. 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 building reflects on the pan abode but is a clearly a product of its own time. The details are simple and subordinate to the pan abode. Fence HPC feedback on October 28, 2020 included concerns about the visibility of the west elevation of the pan abode with the addition of a 6 feet tall wood fence. Bluegreen restudied the fence and re- examined existing vegetation to propose a 2.5 feet tall wood fence with 4” vertical boards and 2” spaces between board. The fence is setback 3 feet from the front façade of the pan abode. At HPC’s suggestion Bluegreen looked at pushing the fence back behind the existing chimney, however, closer examination of mature vegetation onsite blocks any view of the proposed fence or west elevation of the pan abode. Applicable fence design guidelines are addressed below: 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. Figure 6: Northwest corner of pan abode as viewed from Hopkins. Figure 7: Looking at west side yard of pan abode from Hopkins. • 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 proposed fence in the west side yard is 2.5 feet in height and a simple wood picket style. 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 new fence in the west yard of the pan abode has 4” wide vertical boards and 2” spaces between. 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. Figure 8: Proposed fence in west side yard of pan abode. • 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 – The proposed fence is 2.5 feet tall and is setback 3 feet from the front façade to allow the northwest building corner to be visible from the street. We are excited about the preservation of Aspen’s most exemplary pan abode, the community benefits, and the positive contribution to the neighborhood. Please reach out with any questions. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP sara@bendonadams.com Exhibits A – T already provided U – Updated plans dated 11/18/20 Figure 9: Proposed landscape plan showing fence location and height in west side yard. Option 1 - Symmetrical Option 1 - Symmetrical Option 1 - Symmetrical Option 1 - Symmetrical Option 1 - Symmetrical Option 2 - Asymmetrical Option 2 - Asymmetrical Option 2 - Asymmetrical Option 2 - Asymmetrical Option 2 - Asymmetrical BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 14 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " COVERED FRONT ENTRY FENCE AND GATE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E 23 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 8 12 8 12 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 3 12 10' - 4 7/8"31' - 9 1/4"5' - 9 7/8" 48' - 0" CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 3 12 BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E EAST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY WEST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 1 : 5 9 : 2 8 A M As indicated A4.1 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.1 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED - NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.1 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION - STREET 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE - OPT 1 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A ALLEY B PR O P E R T Y L I N E C D EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BASEMENT BASEMENT ± 1 2 ' - 2 1 / 2 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" 3 12 3 12 EXISTING PAN ABODE SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24 ' - 6 5 / 8 " CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 1 : 5 8 : 0 5 A M As indicated A4.2 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.2 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1 4 ALLEY 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E BASEMENT FENCE AND GATE FENCE AND GATE GARAGE DOOR 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 18' - 0" 3 12 BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24 ' - 6 5 / 8 " 48' - 0" TRANSFOMER WILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSURE CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 2 3 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH NEW WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING BASEMENT 31' - 9 1/4" ± 1 1 ' - 7 7 / 8 " CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 2 4 : 0 1 P M As indicated A4.3 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING CABIN 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A ALLEY B 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 6 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E CD EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BASEMENT BASEMENT ± 1 2 ' - 2 1 / 2 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE 3 12 CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 0 7 : 3 9 P M As indicated A4.4 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.4 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 1 7 : 0 3 P M A4.5 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR VIEWS VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS ENTRY VIEW VIEW FROM ALLEY LOOKING AT OFFICE TERRACE VIEW FROM ALLEY LOOKING AT MAIN BEDROOM TERRACE VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 1 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " COVERED FRONT ENTRY FENCE AND GATE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 8 12 8 12 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10' - 4 7/8"31' - 9 1/4"5' - 9 7/8" 48' - 0" 4 12 2 12 LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E EAST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY WEST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 3 : 2 3 : 3 8 P M As indicated A4.6 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.6 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED - NORTH ELEVATION - OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF SCALE:A4.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION - STREET VIEW OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A B C D EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY PR O P E R T Y L I N E BASEMENT BASEMENT ± 1 2 ' - 2 1 / 2 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" 3 12 3 12 EXISTING PAN ABODE SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24 ' - 6 5 / 8 " rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 3 : 0 1 : 0 6 P M 1/4" = 1'-0" A4.7 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.7 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION - OPT 2- OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1 4 CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E BASEMENT FENCE AND GATE FENCE AND GATE GARAGE DOOR 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 18' - 0" BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24 ' - 6 5 / 8 " 48' - 0" TRANSFOMER WILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSURE rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 3 : 0 3 : 0 1 P M 1/4" = 1'-0" A4.8 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.8 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION - OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH ABCD EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 6 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E BASEMENT BASEMENT ± 1 2 ' - 2 1 / 2 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE 3 12 rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 3 : 1 6 : 3 4 P M 1/4" = 1'-0" A4.9 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.9 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF - OPT 2 DN UP DN DN UP UP UP DN PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS WALL LABEL EXPOSED WALL AREA (SF)TOTAL WALL AREA (SF) PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS MAIN LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) GARAGE GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) GARAGE FLOOR AREA EXEMPTION (SF) MAIN LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,251 500 250 1,376 500 - 250 - 125 = 125 TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS BASEMENT FLOOR AREA (SF) UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SF) EXISTING CABIN AREA (SF) 49 37 832 TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (SF) DECK/PORCH AREA CALCULATIONS TOTAL DECK/PORCH AREA (SF) MAIN LEVEL ENTRY PATIO (SF) 559 258 < 540 SF ALLOWABLE > 3,615 SF ALLOWABLE PROPOSED AREA CONSTRAINTS LOT AREA (SF) MAX ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) MAX ALLOWABLE DECK AREA (SF) 6,000 3,615 540 15% * 3,600 ROOF DECK AREA (SF)N/A FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LEVEL 2 DECK - COVERED TERRACE (SF) 301 1 2 4 3 348 0 443 0 443 0 348 44 OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SF) 1,582 EXPOSED WALL AREA (SF)44 % OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL) 2.78% NEW HOUSE BASEMENT TOTALS (WALLS 1 - 4) PROPOSED NEW HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS BASEMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) BASEMENT COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,767 49 1,767 * 2.78% PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS UPPER LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) UPPER LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,403 1,403 125GARAGE COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) ROOF DECK (SF) - 3,600 + 15 HPC BONUS MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SF)1,376 PER ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE 26.575.020.d.7, 26.575.020-2 1,403 ROOF FLOOR AREA (SF) UPPER LEVEL DECK AREA (SF)N/A ALLOWANCE REQUESTED REQUEST: EXCESS OF 19 SF DECK ALLOWABLE AND 120 SF FAR 3,754 5 212 20 6 0 7 20 8 0 OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SF) 862 EXPOSED WALL AREA (SF)40 % OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL) 4.40% CABIN BASEMENT TOTALS (WALLS 5 - 8) PROPOSED CABIN BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS BASEMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) BASEMENT COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 862 38 862 * 4.40% 245 212 245 BASEMENT CABIN AREA (SF)38 3,735 1251 SF MAIN LEVEL AREA GARAGE AREA 500 GSF 125 CSF 832 SF CABIN OPEN TO ABOVE AND BELOW EXTERIOR AREA FENCE EXTERIOR AREA FENCE FRONT PORCH WITHIN 30" OF FINISHED GRADE IS EXEMPT FROM FAR CALCULATIONS -IT IS ALSO OPEN ON TWO SIDES T W I L D L I F E TR A S H EN C L O S U R E 6' - 4 1/2" FIREPLACE OPEN TO ABOVE 258 SF COVERED TERRACE 1403 SF UPPER LEVEL AREA FLAT ENTRY ROOF BELOW OPEN TO BEYOND OPEN TO BEYOND LOWER LEVEL AREA 1767 GSF 49 CSF EGRESS LIGHTWELL LOWER LEVEL AREA 862 GSF 38 CSF 2 1 4 3 EGRESS LIGHTWELL EGRESS LIGHTWELL 6 8 7 5 301 SF ROOF DECK ROOF LEVEL INT. AREA 37 SF OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW NON-USABLE ATTIC SPACE 1146 SF EXISTING CABIN NON-HISTORICAL ADDITION rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 3 : 3 4 : 4 2 P M As indicated A0.6 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 PROPOSED LEVEL 1 FAR SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 PROPOSED LEVEL 2 FAR SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FAR SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 PROPOSED ROOF FAR SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A0.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 5 EXISTING LEVEL 1 FAR 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 UPWD UP A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 4 A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 MEDIA LAUNDRY GUEST SUITE #3 BATH MECHANICAL MULTI WE T B A R BE L O W S T A I R BUNKS ABOVE BATH TV 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL B B W D C C D D 2 3 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 48 ' - 0 " GUEST SUITE #4 Q T T PROPERTY LINE AL L E Y SETBACK OPEN TO ABOVE CHIMNEY FOUNDATION HO P K I N S A V E N U E SE T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E A4.3 2 80' - 1 3/8" 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL PROPERTY LINE SETBACK HI D D E N DO O R MECHANICAL / LAUNDRY BEDROOM BEDROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM FLEX ROOM 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL 3' X 3' EGRESS LIGHTWELL K Q rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 9 : 4 3 : 0 3 A M 1/4" = 1'-0" A2.0 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.0 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 DN UP DN A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 4 48 ' - 0 " A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 MUD POWDER COVERED STONE ENTRYOPEN TO ABOVE AND BELOW WALK FE N C E AN D G A T E GARAGE EXISTING CABIN WITH ADDITION REMOVED GR A V E L A L L E Y SE T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E EGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW FIREPLACE STONE WALK HO P K I N S A V E N U E EGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW GUEST SUITE #2 (GEMMA) GUEST BATH B B GUEST BATH GUEST SUITE #1 (LOLA) Q COAT CLOSET BOOK SHELVES 11 ' - 0 " CL E R E S T O R Y W I N D O W OFFICE KITCHEN BATHROOM BEDROOM STAIR LIVING ROOM CABIN GARDEN TERRACE C C D D 2 3 DR E S S E R DR E S S E R 10' - 6 3/4" A4.3 2 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" FE N C E AN D G A T E FE N C E AN D G A T E FENCE AND GATE T REF CL O S E T PROPERTY LINE SETBACK PROPERTY LINE SETBACK COVERED ENTRY CO N C R E T E A P R O N 10 3/8" 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 10' - 0" OPEN TO BELOW EGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW EGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW 27' - 7"5' - 0 1/8" TR R WI L D L I F E T R A S H EN C L O S U R E FE N C E AN D G A T E 3' - 0 " VAULT 5' - 0" 3' - 0"VAULT 5' - 0" 1' - 0" 3' - 0" 1' - 0" MIN. 4" 4 1/2" 4' - 0"3' - 0" CONCRETE PAD 3' - 0" BOLLARDS rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 9 : 5 8 : 5 0 A M 1/4" = 1'-0" A2.1 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.1 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 DN UP A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 4 A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 COVERED TERRACE MAIN BED BALLAST FLAT ROOF ABOVE ENTRY EXISTING CABIN ROOF, ADDITION REMOVED CHIMNEY PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E K TV / FP B B LIVING ROOM KITCHEN OPEN TO BEYOND OPEN TO BEYOND TV / FP AL L E Y C C D D 2 3 48 ' - 0 " REFBAR BB Q COVERED ENTRY A4.3 2 MAIN WIC MAIN BATH BENCH 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E HO P K I N S A V E N U E PANTRY WOOD PAN ABODE LOG SCREEN, ALTERNATING CORNER NEW WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 9 : 5 9 : 3 5 A M 1/4" = 1'-0" A2.2 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.2 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 DN A4.1 2 A4.3 1 A A 1 1 4 4 A4.2 1 A4.1 1 A4.4 1 CHIMNEY BAR TOWELS OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW B B EXISTING CABIN ROOF ADDITION REMOVED LIVING ROOM CHIMNEY MAIN BEDROOM CHIMNEY ROOF DECK SPA C C D D 2 3 48 ' - 0 " FP BALLAST ROOF OVER ENTRY A4.3 2 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E AL L E Y HO P K I N S A V E N U E 3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0" NEW WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 8 3 / 8 " / 1 ' - 0 " 8 3 / 8 " / 1 ' - 0 " STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF BALLAST ROOF rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j r i c e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j o n a t h a n. r i c e L V A M F . r v t 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 0 : 2 9 : 2 8 A M 1/4" = 1'-0" A2.3 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 PR O P E R T Y B O U N D A R Y EX I S T I N G 5 ' S E T B A C K SIDE W A L K WEST H O P K I N S A V E N U E EXIS T I N G 1 0 ' S E T B A C K EX I S T I N G 5 ' S E T B A C K EXIS T I N G 1 0 ' S E T B A C K ALLE Y B L O C K 5 3 PROP O S E D 8 ' S E T B A C K PROP O S E D 1 0 ' S E T B A C K 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 5 10 11 12 13 TREE REMOVAL SUMMARY EX. CONIFER TO BE REMOVED SYMBOL TYPE SIZE QTY. EX. DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED 4"-18" CAL. 6"-12" CAL. TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: NOTES: 1.TREES REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENCE AND/OR IN RESPONSE TO POOR HEALTH. 2.FOR PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, REFER TO PLANTING PLAN (LA 200). 3.REFER TO PLANTING PLAN (LA200) FOR MITIGATION. 4.EXISTING TREE(S) TYPE, LOCATION, SIZE AND CALIPER BY OTHERS; REFER TO SURVEY. 5.ALL EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED ARE REPRESENTED HERE, INCLUDING THOSE NOT MEETING THE 4"/6" CALIPER STANDARD (I.E. NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION). TREE MITIGATION SUMMARY TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE OF PROPOSED NATIVE TREES (REFER TO PLANTING PLAN): TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: 4 8 LEGEND TOTAL REMAINING: EX. DECIDUOUS TO REMAIN EX. CONIFER TO REMAIN VARIOUS VARIOUS 5 7 $20,122.75 NA $20,122.75 $20,122.75 LEGEND TREE PROTECTION FENCE EXISTING SETBACK LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY TREE PROTECTION ZONE PROPOSED SETBACK LINE L100 tree mitigation 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 10/28/2020 hpc revision 1 11/05/2020 hpc revision 2 0 4 8 scale north bl u e g r e e n 30 0 s o u t h s p r i n g s t r e e t l s u i t e 2 0 2 l a s p e n , c o l o r a d o 8 1 6 1 1 l t 9 7 0 4 2 9 7 4 9 9 l f 9 7 0 4 2 9 9 4 9 9 ww w . b l u e g r e e n a s p e n . c o m 21 1 W H o p k i n s l a s p e n , c o l o r a d o pa n a b o d e date l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen TREE #SPECIES DIAMETER (IN.) 1 2 CONIFER 14 TREE TABLE MITIGATION VALUE ADJUSTED BY CONDITION 25% 3 4 CONIFER DECIDUOUS 8 12 25% 25% 5 6 CONIFER DECIDUOUS 12 12 50% 50% CONIFER 14 50% 7 CONIFER 9 25% 8 CONIFER 12 25% 1 L100 TREE PROTECTION FENCE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NOTE: 1.ADDITIONAL PROTECTION OUTSIDE AT TREE DRIP LINE MAY BE REQUIRED (EX. 12 IN. OF MULCH). 2.FENCE MAY BE CONTINUOUS TO PROTECT MULTIPLE TREES 3.MAINTAIN FENCE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. 4.REFER TO LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONS AND GOVERNING BODIES/AGENCIES FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. EXISTING TREE(S) TO REMAIN CHAINLINK FENCING TO BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED AT TREE DRIP LINE EXISTING GRADE TO REMAIN NO DISTURBANCE WITHIN TREE DRIPLINE TR E E D R I P L I N E TR E E D R I P L I N E 9 10 12 75% 11 12 11 9 25% 75% 13 0% CONIFER CONIFER DECIDUOUS DECIDUOUS PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT PROPOSED HISTORIC RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT - REMOVAL OF NON-HISTORIC ADDITION EXISTING RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT MAXIMUM MITIGATION VALUE $6462 $2110 $5087 $4748 $5087 $6462 $2671 $4748 $4748 $3989 $2861 $0 $1617 $528 $1272 $2374 $2544 $3231 $668 $1187 $3561 $998 $2146 $0 ACTUAL MITIGATION VALUE 13*10 0%CONIFER $0 $0 *pending neighbor approval Q Q PROP O S E D F F E +94.0 0 DECK 94.00 FFE + 9 4 . 5 0 FFE + 9 4 . 5 0 FFE + 9 4 . 0 0 WW 94 . 0 0 WW BS 94 . 0 0 TS 94 . 4 0 93.00 WW 93.00 WW 94.00 WW 94.00 EXIST I N G F F E +93.7 0 93.5 0 93.5 0 93.50 93.35 93.30 93.40 93.30 93.70 LP 93.50 93.70 93.50 94.45 94.45 94.45 94.45 94.30 94.30 94.10 93.50 93.60 93.70 93.15 93.70 93.70 93.40 93.30 LP 93.15 93.20 93.50 93.50 94.50 94.50 94.50 94.50 94.40 94.40 94.00 WW 94.45 WW 94.00 93.75 94.20 DECK 94.00 94.45 LP 93.90 94.35 LP 94.15 94.00 94.00 93.25 93.25 LP 93.10 LP 93.40 TS 94 . 0 0 BS 9 3 . 5 0 WW 93.50 LEGEND GAS LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SPOT GRADE PROPOSED SETBACK LINE SANITARY SEWER LINE 85.36 FLOW ARROW WATER LINE L200 grading/drainage 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 10/28/2020 hpc revision 1 11/05/2020 hpc revision 2 0 4 8 scale north bl u e g r e e n 30 0 s o u t h s p r i n g s t r e e t l s u i t e 2 0 2 l a s p e n , c o l o r a d o 8 1 6 1 1 l t 9 7 0 4 2 9 7 4 9 9 l f 9 7 0 4 2 9 9 4 9 9 ww w . b l u e g r e e n a s p e n . c o m 21 1 W H o p k i n s l a s p e n , c o l o r a d o pa n a b o d e date l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen Q Q PR O P E R T Y B O U N D A R Y SIDE W A L K WEST H O P K I N S A V E N U E ALLE Y B L O C K 5 3 PROP O S E D 8 ' S E T B A C K SETBACK LINE LEGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED 6' FENCE L300 site plan 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 10/28/2020 hpc revision 1 11/05/2020 hpc revision 2 0 4 8 scale north bl u e g r e e n 30 0 s o u t h s p r i n g s t r e e t l s u i t e 2 0 2 l a s p e n , c o l o r a d o 8 1 6 1 1 l t 9 7 0 4 2 9 7 4 9 9 l f 9 7 0 4 2 9 9 4 9 9 ww w . b l u e g r e e n a s p e n . c o m 21 1 W H o p k i n s l a s p e n , c o l o r a d o pa n a b o d e date l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen HARDSCAPE HARDSCAPE WALKWAY MAINTENANCE BAND WALKWAY MAINTENANCE BAND PROPOSED 6' FENCE HARDSCAPE BEAR PROOF TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED GATE PROPOSED 6' FENCE DECK EXISTING TREES UTILITY LOCATIONS STORMWATER DRYWELL EXISTING HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE FOUNDATION DRY WELL SLOT DRAIN HARDSCAPE DRAIN PLANTING RE L400 GATE PROPOSED 6' FENCE PROPOSED 6' FENCE PROPOSED 2.5' FENCE HARDSCAPE STEP TRANSFORMER 3' - 0 " L800 details 10/16/2020 hpc submittal 10/28/2020 hpc revision 1 11/05/2020 hpc revision 2 0 4 8 scale north bl u e g r e e n 30 0 s o u t h s p r i n g s t r e e t l s u i t e 2 0 2 l a s p e n , c o l o r a d o 8 1 6 1 1 l t 9 7 0 4 2 9 7 4 9 9 l f 9 7 0 4 2 9 9 4 9 9 ww w . b l u e g r e e n a s p e n . c o m 21 1 W H o p k i n s l a s p e n , c o l o r a d o pa n a b o d e date l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" FENCE TYPE 1 - TYP. L801 1 2X2 METAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO ARCH ENTRYHIDDEN FASTERNERS TYP.2X2 BOARDS, INTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY, TYP. 5'-0" ELEVATIONSECTION 2X2 BOARDS, ON INTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ADDITION, TYP. 2X2 METAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY 6' - 0 " INTERIOR OF PROPERTY EXTERIOR OF PROPERTY 2" T Y P 1" TY P 4X2 BOARDS, ON INTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ADDITION, TYP. 4" TY P SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" FENCE TYPE 2 - TYP. L801 2 4X4 NOMINAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO ARCH ENTRY 1X4 BOARDS, ON EXTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY, TYP. 5'-0" ELEVATIONSECTION 1X4 BOARDS, OFFSET ON EXTERIOR SIDE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ADDITION, TYP. 4X4 NOMINAL POST IMBEDDED IN CONCRETE BASE AND PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH ENTRY 2' - 6 " 1X2 NOMINAL POST ATTACHED HORIZONTALLY TO POST 2" 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM November 17, 2020 Historic Preservation Commission and Aspen City Council c/o Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 211 West Hopkins Avenue – Project Revisions Dear HPC and Staff, We have continued to study various roof forms for the north elevation to ensure that we propose the best option for this project. Below please find four proposed roof options to discuss tomorrow night. We prefer Option #1, the symmetrical gable end facing the street, and find that it is successful and supportive of the pan abode. Figure 1: Option 1, symmetrical gable end, preferred option. Figure 2: Option 2, north elevation symmetric gable end. Figure 3: Option 3, north elevation with dormer. Figure 5: Option 1 (symmetric) rendering November 18, 2020. Figure 4: Option 4, north elevation. Figure 1: Option 2 (asymmetric) rendering November 18, 2020. We prefer the symmetrical Option 1 and find that both options meet the Design Guidelines noted below: 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 parallel to the lot lines to maintain the traditional grid and to relate to the pan abode. 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. Response – A front porch is proposed to define the entry into the new building. A walkway is proposed from Hopkins that reinforces the entrance. 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 divided into smaller modules through material application and window placement. Vertical and horizontal wood siding divides the north elevation into modules that relate to the asymmetrical vertical joints and façade division of the pan abode, but in a contemporary application. 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 primary plane of the new building is similarly scaled to the historic building in the application of the building materials. The new building is taller than the one story historic structure; however, the front porch is lower in height. 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. Response – While this is not a lot split project, the majority of the floor area is allocated to the detached new building at the rear of the property. 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 consistent with form and materials, and diverts from the pan abode in the fenestration category. The primary form reflects the simplicity of the pan abode footprint and shallow roof. The secondary form of the new building is a steeper gable roof that is setback to break up massing. The primary material is wood with a similar scale and finish as the pan abode. The application of wood siding in both vertical and horizontal sections references the horizontal and vertical divisions of the pan abode but with a modern influence. Subtle references to the pan abode are found throughout the new building that create a strong dialogue between the two structures – for example, the rain screen has overlapping ends that reference the pan abode corners. Metal is woven as an accent throughout the façade. The project diverts in fenestration from the pan abode. Windows and doors are contextual to the rest of the property, but the placement, size and style of the doors and windows are contemporary. 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 building reflects on the pan abode but is a clearly a product of its own time. The details are simple and subordinate to the pan abode. We are excited about the preservation of Aspen’s most exemplary pan abode, the community benefits, and the positive contribution to the neighborhood. Please reach out with any questions. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP sara@bendonadams.com Exhibits A – T already provided U – Updated plans dated 11/18/20 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 14 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " COVERED FRONT ENTRY FENCE AND GATE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E 23 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 8 12 8 12 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 3 12 10' - 4 7/8"31' - 9 1/4"5' - 9 7/8" 48' - 0" CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 3 12 BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E EAST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY WEST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j g e o r g e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j g e o r ge Z G M C R . r v t 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 0 : 3 0 P M As indicated A4.1 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.1 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED - NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.1 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION - STREET 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE - OPT 1 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A ALLEY B PR O P E R T Y L I N E C D EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BASEMENT BASEMENT ± 1 2 ' - 2 1 / 2 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" 3 12 3 12 EXISTING PAN ABODE SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24 ' - 6 5 / 8 " CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j g e o r g e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j g e o r ge Z G M C R . r v t 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 0 : 3 2 P M As indicated A4.2 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.2 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1 4 ALLEY 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E BASEMENT FENCE AND GATE FENCE AND GATE GARAGE DOOR 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 18' - 0" 3 12 BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24 ' - 6 5 / 8 " 48' - 0" TRANSFOMER WILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSURE CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 2 3 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH NEW WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING BASEMENT 31' - 9 1/4" ± 1 1 ' - 7 7 / 8 " CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j g e o r g e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j g e o r ge Z G M C R . r v t 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 0 : 3 4 P M As indicated A4.3 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING CABIN 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A ALLEY B 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 6 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E CD EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BASEMENT BASEMENT ± 1 2 ' - 2 1 / 2 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE 3 12 CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND: LOG SCREEN WOOD SHAKE SHINGLES STANDING SEAM ROOF LAPPED WOOD SIDING rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j g e o r g e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j g e o r ge Z G M C R . r v t 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 0 : 3 6 P M As indicated A4.4 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.4 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 10/28/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V2 - OPT 1 OPTION 1 -SYMMETRICAL GABLE rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j g e o r g e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j g e o r ge Z G M C R . r v t 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 0 : 4 4 P M A4.5 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR VIEWS VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 1 ENTRY VIEW -OPTION 1 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 1 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 2 ENTRY VIEW -OPTION 2 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 2 - OPT 1/2 BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " COVERED FRONT ENTRY FENCE AND GATE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 8 12 8 12 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10' - 4 7/8"31' - 9 1/4"5' - 9 7/8" 48' - 0" 4 12 2 12 LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1423 EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E EAST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY WEST NEIGHBOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j g e o r g e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j g e o r ge Z G M C R . r v t 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 0 : 4 6 P M As indicated A4.6 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.6 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED - NORTH ELEVATION - OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF SCALE:A4.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION - STREET VIEW OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH A B C D EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY PR O P E R T Y L I N E BASEMENT BASEMENT ± 1 2 ' - 2 1 / 2 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" 3 12 3 12 EXISTING PAN ABODE SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24 ' - 6 5 / 8 " rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j g e o r g e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j g e o r ge Z G M C R . r v t 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 0 : 4 7 P M 1/4" = 1'-0" A4.7 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.7 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION - OPT 2- OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH 1 4 CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 20 ' - 6 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E BASEMENT FENCE AND GATE FENCE AND GATE GARAGE DOOR 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 18' - 0" 3 12 BUILDING HEIGHT 8 3/8 / 12 PITCH 24 ' - 6 5 / 8 " 48' - 0" TRANSFOMER WILDLIFE TRASH ENCLOSURE rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j g e o r g e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j g e o r ge Z G M C R . r v t 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 0 : 4 9 P M 1/4" = 1'-0" A4.8 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.8 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION - OPT 2 OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF BASEMENT LEVEL 89' -6" T.O. SLAB LEVEL 1 100' -0" T.O. PLY LEVEL 2 110' -6" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 120' -6" T.O. FINISH ABCD EXISTING CABIN 99' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH CABIN BASEMENT 90' -8 13/32" T.O. FINISH ALLEY 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 6 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E BASEMENT BASEMENT ± 1 2 ' - 2 1 / 2 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E 25' HEIGHT LIMIT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 38' - 0"14' - 1 3/8"28' - 0" 80' - 1 3/8" SIDEWALK HOPKINS AVENUE 3 12 rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j g e o r g e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P A N A B O D E _ j g e o r ge Z G M C R . r v t 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 0 : 5 0 P M 1/4" = 1'-0" A4.9 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 SCALE:A4.9 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION OPTION 2 -ASYMMETRICAL ROOF - OPT 2 rowland+broughton architecture / urban design / interior design 500 w. main st. aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 1830 blake st. denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 Consultants: Issuances and Revisions: COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. SCALE: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT NO: Fi l e P a t h : Pl o t D a t e :NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC: \ U s e r s \ j g e o r g e \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 0 3 7 . 0 0 _ P a n A b o d e - 2 0 2 0- 1 1 - 1 6 V 4 _ d e t a c h e d _ j g e o r g e Z G M C R . r v t 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 3 8 : 2 9 P M A4.5 22037.00 PAN ABODE 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPOSED EXTERIOR VIEWS VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 3 ENTRY VIEW -OPTION 3 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 3 09/21/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL 11/18/2020 HPC CONCEPTUAL, V3 - OPT 3/4 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 4 ENTRY VIEW -OPTION 4 VIEW FROM WEST HOPKINS -OPTION 4 DRAFT MINUTES- HPC MEETING, NOVEMBER 18, 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Sherri Sanzone, Gretchen Greenwood. Commissioners not in attendance: Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jim True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone stated that she has a conflict with the second agenda item 211 West Hopkins. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon stated that there has been a lot of project monitoring happening and she has been in direct communication with the monitors. Ms. Yoon stated that she will be reaching out to her monitors with details on a project. OLD BUSINESS: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue– AspenModern Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development Review including Relocation, Variations. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that the project was near approval on October 28th however the board agreed with staff that a restudy needed to be done on the north façade of the proposed new building. Ms. Simon reviewed the application that was present at the October 28th meeting. Ms. Simon stated at the time the November 18th packet was written staff felt that not enough restudy was done in reference to the north façade. She explained that the applicant submitted more options of the restudy at a later date. Ms. Simon stated that she will outline staff’s recommendations and would like to see this project move forward. Ms. Simon reviewed and read the condition attached to the resolution. Ms. Simon stated the staff is recommending approval. Ms. Simon said that the applicant will be presenting two other alternatives that change the orientation of the roofline that brings it down to a low eave behind the Pan Abode. APPLICANT COMMENTS: Sara Adams with BendonAdams and John Rowland of Rowland + Broughton. Ms. Adams stated that the feedback that was given on the Oct. 28th meeting was great. She said that nothing has changed from the AspenModern request or the restoration plan. Ms. Adams stated that her team focused on the north elevation and the feedback that was given. She explained that HPC felt that the elevation was too flat and domineering and needed to add depth and breaking down the mass of the new addition. Ms. Adams stated that she will be presenting four different options that address the north elevation. The first option Ms. Adams showed kept the street-facing shallow gable with an add on of a 20inch eave that matches the Pan Abode. She explained that the team has pulled in more reference material to the new addition with the vertical seams and a breakdown of the siding with different size wood siding. Ms. Adams stated that they wanted to relate form and material to the Pan Abode however wanted to be a bit more playful with the windows. She said that the entrance under the gable has not changed much under any of the options. Ms. Adams stated that option two has an asymmetrical shallow roof, the windows and materials are the same as option one. Option three shows the north façade turned to line up with the Pan Abode. She pointed out the added dormer that relates to the entrance to the Pan Abode. Ms. Adams stated in option four, is like option three with the north facade turned to line up with the Pan Abode however, there is no dormer and is just a simple roofline. Ms. Adams said that the fence that raised some concern was lowered to two and a half feet and spaced boards to create more transparency. Mr. Rowland stated the rotated ridge options that go parallel to the Pan Abode don’t change the operations of the house but are not as playful as the first two options. Ms. Adams stated that they would like to add language to the condition that states otherwise negotiated with the Parks Dept. and Engineering Dept. She explained the conditions seem to be too finite, and that is not the intent of staff or the referral departments. Ms. Adams stated that they plan on working with Parks and Engineering Dept for their approvals along the way and stay in constant communication. Mr. Kendrick asked if there is any room to lower the overall height. Mr. Rowland explained if lowered there would be an additional cost to the mechanical system and applicant. Ms. Adams said the Pan Abode is so small that anything behind it will feel big. She further said that with the two large trees in the front yard that will be preserved, and the addition will fit in nicely behind the frame. Mr. Halferty asked staff which roof line they prefer. Ms. Simon stated that option three or four with lower eave height is more sympathetic. PUBLIC COMMENT: David Scruggs neighbor. Mr. Scruggs thanked Ms. Simon for answering all of his questions that he had sent her and commended the applicant team for being responsive. He stated that the Pan Abode is twelve feet tall and is a product of the 40’s & 50’s and would be pretty difficult to live in by today’s standards without a modern addition. Mr. Scruggs stated that he is in favor of option one. He explained the eves and gable compliment the Pan Abode along with the simplicity of the form. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson said that the fenestration changes are great and definitely add a bit of playfulness to the different structures. She said she is torn between the options and that she likes them all. Ms. Greenwood agreed with Ms. Thompson about the fenestration changes. Ms. Greenwood stated that she likes option four the most. She explained that option four is the most sympathetic and best solution to simplifying the addition. Ms. Greenwood said when you compare to option one, option one has two different roof pitches and is much more complicated. She stated when HPC discusses Victorian homes with additions, the gable will always face the same way as the historic resource does and that same theme should follow with the Pan Abode. Ms. Greenwood said that she agrees with the materials and articulations. Mr. Kendrick said that he agrees with staff that option three and four do bring the massing down however option one and two work better architecturally. He stated that he likes the fenestration and overall details that have been added. He said he is willing to move forward with option one or two. Ms. Greenwood asked Mr. Kendrick if he thinks the roofline of options one and two are a bit busy after reviewing options three and four. Mr. Kendrick stated he does not think so. Mr. Halferty stated that it is tough when you have a small Pan Abode and adding a large addition. He said he appreciates the fence redesign. He said he agrees with Ms. Greenwood that it does get busy. Ms. Thompson stated that the elegant sloping roofline of option four of the addition against the Pan Abode is a success and clean. Ms. Greenwood stated that she likes that the chimney of the Pan Abode and the new addition is on the same side. She said it tells a similar story. Ms. Thompson agrees and said it was very playful and sympathetic. Mr. Halferty stated that the plate height is too tall. Ms. Greenwood asked if the plate height is the same for each option. Mr. Rowland stated that the plate height does not change in any option. Mr. Moyer stated that this is a tough decision since the Pan Abode is 12 feet tall. He suggested a way around the height problem is to raise the Pan Abode a few feet with the foundation. He said that he would support a plate height reduction on the second floor. Mr. Moyer stated he likes option 3. He explained he likes the playfulness of the dormer. He said he could go with option 4 as well. Ms. Greenwood stated that you don’t see dormers on a Pan Abode redo concept. She said that the dormer is not successful. Ms. Greenwood said that you can’t tell what is old versus new with option four. She explained that option four follows the design idea into the future quietly especially from the street. Mr. Moyer restated that he is fine with option four. Mr. Kendrick stated that he prefers option four to option three, he explained that the dormer makes it too symmetrical between the three peaks of the entry of the Pan Abode, the dormer, and the new addition. Mr. Kendrick said that option four almost blends in too much to the Pan Abode and if HPC is looking for a product of its own time, option one or two delivers. Ms. Thompson stated that the simplistic detailing on the new addition will be very clear and the difference will be highlighted while complementing. Ms. Thompson said that she could have been on board with the dormer if it was on the entrance to the new addition and more of a direct relation to the Pan Abode, however since it is a simple window there is no real relation and cannot support. Ms. Greenwood asked if the chimney on the new addition sits above the ridgeline as the Pan Abode does. Mr. Rowland said no the chimney will not sit on the ridgeline. He said that the chimney might look a bit short but the Pan Abode set a precedent. Ms. Thompson stated that she understands the concern about the plate height. She explained that it is extremely changing to add a two-story resource behind a one-story and not knowing that the addition is behind it. She stated that she is ok with the plate height. Ms. Greenwood stated that she is ok with plate height. She explained that if there was a reduction of any sort, that is should be on the 8:12 pitch over the entry. Ms. Greenwood said that she has no objections to the 4:12 pitch plate height. Ms. Greenwood stated that Ms. Thompson, Mr. Moyer, and herself agree with option four. She asked Mr. Halferty and Mr. Kendrick where is their thinking. Mr. Halferty stated that it is between option four and one. He explained he is always looking for a lower plate height on new additions. Mr. Kendrick stated that he is between options one and four and leaning towards one. Ms. Greenwood stated that HPC agrees that this project should move forward. Ms. Simon said that unanimous consent would be very helpful. Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #025-2020 with attached conditions and option four, for the roof form. Ms. Greenwood stated that they did not ask the architects which option they preferred. Ms. Adams stated they preferred option one and so does the neighbor. Ms. Greenwood seconded the motion. Ms. Greenwood stated that option one and four are the best. She said that she is in total agreement with staff about option four. Mr. Kendrick asked if the applicant could state which option, he would prefer for him and his family. Matt Joblon owner. Mr. Joblon stated that his goals are to get an incredible home built that is long-lasting and sets a new standard with HPC. He said that the reality is if it is option one or four, it won’t change his family’s life. Mr. Joblon stated that he is excited to get this job done and would like for HPC to be proud to be coauthors of this world-class project with unanimous consent. Ms. Greenwood called for a roll call vote. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Thompson stated that all the requests that the applicant is requesting is extremely reasonable and should be an easy yes for City Council. She said that HPC is very excited about this project. Mr. Kendrick said he would like to reiterate Ms. Thompson’s comments. Adjourn All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 28 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Scott Kendrick, Kara Thompson, Roger Moyer, Gretchen Greenwood. Commissioners not in attendance: Sherri Sanzone Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jim True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk NEW BUSINESS: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue– AspenModern Historic Designation Conceptual Major Development Review including Relocation, Variations. Sara Adams of BendonAdams and John Rowland of Rowland+Broughton Architecture. Ms. Adams stated that AspenModern has a 90 day turn around, meaning this project will be moving pretty fast. Ms. Adams stated that there have been multiple demolition permits pulled on this property until AspenModern was adopted. Ms. Adams stated that they will only be asking for what is needed and what will work for the resource. Ms. Adams said that they are requesting for AspenModern is Landmark Designation, FAR Bonus, Deck Bonus, Waiver for Tree mitigation along the alley. Ms. Adams said that their request for Restoration with a demolition of the non-historic addition. Ms. Adams stated that the HP conceptual design with a temporary relocation for a basement, she explained that the Pan Abode will be placed back into its original location. Ms. Adams said the only variation that is needed is in the rear yard for living space. Ms. Adams stated that the location of the project along Hopkins is among other historic designated properties. Ms. Adams said that the Pan Abode is a rustic style of architecture, essentially a log kit with overlapping corners with a tongue and groove construction. Ms. Adams stated that this was a quick and affordable construction and is indicative of Aspen of post-World War II as a ski resort and destination. She further explained that the Pan Abode was built in 1956 and is the best example of a Pan Abode in Aspen with an extremely high level of integrity. Ms. Adams stated that she scored the historic resource with a perfect score and Ms. Simon scored it one point less due to the lack of a recessed entry. Ms. Adams stated that there will be a restoration effort on the Pan Abode. She explained that the restoration will be restoring the rear façade, removing the paint, removal of added shutters, repair and replace logs, improving the foundation through the adding of a basement, and finally the replacing of the roof in kind. Ms. Adams said that there are a lot of conceptual challenges on this property. She explained that it is a 6000sf lot with two large sprues trees that frame the resource. Ms. Adams said that the goal of this project is to keep the new construction detached while restoring the Pan Abode to its original footprint while maintaining 10 feet of separation between the two buildings. Ms. Adams stated that the Pan Abode is set back 15 feet from the front property line and the required setback is 10 feet but due to the spruce trees, the Pan Abode can not shift forward. Ms. Adams pointed out that the shape of the new building resembles the Pan Abode as a simple rectangle. She stated that the access for the new building is from the alley mimicking the symmetrical entrance of the historic resource or a sidewalk off Hopkins. Ms. Adams stated that they are required to have 10 feet of living space in the back and asking for a variance of 2 feet. Ms. Adams stated that they tried to balance the three main elements of HP REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 28 2020 conceptual design form, fenestration, and materials. Ms. Adams referenced the shallow roof of the designated Search and Rescue Pan Abode on Main Street for the new addition’s roof form. Ms. Adams said the width of the new addition will be the same as the historic resource. She explained, to break up the long façade of the new building one roofline of the new addition will have a more traditional gable while relating to the historic landmarks around the neighborhood and having contemporary glazing. The second roofline will have a Pan Abode form with a more of a direct relationship with the historic resource. Ms. Adams stated that the material that will be used on the new addition will be wood and there will be more detail at the final review. She said that Ms. Simon raised concern in the staff memo that this could come across too similar. Ms. Adams pointed out the overlapping corners on the new addition and stated that the owners wanted to bring some small references from the rescuers to the new addition. Ms. Adams stated that there will be a full basement under the Pan Abode, she said they have worked with the Parks Department in respect to the Spruce trees. Ms. Adams showed a rendering of each floor plan of the new addition. She explained that on the second and third floors of the new addition there will be decks carved out and are along the alley and not visible from Hopkins St and there will be no visible impact on the Pan Abode. Ms. Adams reiterated the community and property benefits. Mr. Rowland stated that it was very critical to his team was that the new architecture needed to be distinguished yet quiet, and the form needed to be pure and honest. Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant would be paying the parking fee for the historic resource since there will be no parking for that structure. Ms. Adams stated that there currently is no parking for the Pan Abode and that they are able to keep that condition. She said that they are required for two parking spaces for the new addition which has been met. Ms. Thompson stated that there was a note about a 3-foot setback on the side of the structure. Ms. Adams stated that was a carryover, that there was a lightwell that was proposed, and ultimately it was taken out. Ms. Thompson asked if the proposed railing up to code. Mr. Rowland stated that the railing is up to code. Ms. Thompson asked if the walkway that is under the trees has been reviewed by the Parks Dept. Ms. Adams stated that yes, the Parks Dept. has reviewed all walkways and have met on-site with them multiple times. Mr. Moyer asked how will the paint be removed. Ms. Adams stated that they will be doing a few spot tests on the section of wood that will be taken down. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that there is great enthusiasm for this project and that HPC has talked for over twenty years about preserving post-war area historic properties and that it is properties like this that we are dedicated to the preservation for our community. Ms. Simon said that this is the first designation that has come in since the reductions of benefits for a property. Ms. Simon stated that the benefits that are being requested are entirely fair since this application is starting out not as far along as previous discussions. Ms. Simon stated that there is less floor area bonus available, mitigation for affordable housing which the applicant is doing. Ms. Simon said that this is a negotiation and HPC will be making recommendations to City Council and then Council will be the ones deciding if the designation and requested benefits are appropriate. Ms. Simon further explained after Council's review then the project will return to HPC for final review. Ms. Simon stated that staff recommended a continuation and some of the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 28 2020 issues that raised concern have been resolved in the previous restudy. She said that the Engineering Department has requested a larger easement for the transformer and that is why the building placement had to be adjusted. She further explained that there have been conversations with the Electric Department to see if any of the clearances can be supplied by the ally rather than the property. Ms. Simon stated that the Parks Dept. has agreed to the removal of the trees in the alley and that a few of the trees have grown so close they have cut off access. Ms. Simon stated that the idea of AspenModern is everyone working together to achieve a common goal. Ms. Simon said that staff suggested a restudy on a fence on the westside of the Pan Abode, the fence is 6-feet tall and would block views from Hopkins, and that it looks like it has been removed from the site plan. Ms. Simon said that this would be an easy issue to discuss at the final. Ms. Simon stated that there were concerns raised about the compatibility with the new structure and the Pan Abode. She further explained that it is the shallow pitch gable end behind the Pan Abode is what is causing concern with relationship and scale. Ms. Simon said that the material is matching so well that it is reading as an attached structure to the historic building and would like to see the material restudied for the best fit for the site. Ms. Simon stated that staff supports all the benefits that have been requested, tree mitigation waivers, and the applicant has asked for an expedited permit review process which is an easy way to reduce cost and move things along faster. She stated that the applicant has asked for some floor area bonus for closed space and deck space. Ms. Simon stated that the final condition would be financial reinsurance for relocation to be posted. Ms. Greenwood asked what aspect of the roof needed to be restudied. Ms. Simon stated that they cited three guidelines in chapter 11 which are the guidelines for new buildings on a historic lot. She further explained that chapter 11 talks about form, fenestration, materials picked, scale relationship, and form relationship to the historic resource. Ms. Simon stated that the street-facing gable end on the new building and a pretty shallow roof but is pretty broad and imposing on the Pan Abode. PUBLIC COMMENT: David Scruggs neighbor. Mr. Scruggs stated that he is very pleased that the Pan Abode is going to be preserved. Mr. Scruggs said that he has spoken with the applicant's team and finds them to be very fourth right and transparent. Mr. Scruggs stated that he supports the project. COMMISSIONER COMMENT: Ms. Adams stated that the fence Ms. Simon referenced is still in the plan. Ms. Adams said that they are still finessing the plan and where the best location for it. Ms. Greenwood asked if it is the plan to take the fence at 6-feet on the east and westside. Ms. Adams stated that is not the plan. She explained that on the west side there is a fence which code allows a 6-foot fence. Ms. Adams said that there is fencing in between the Pan Abode and the new structure to create a cornhole area. She further said that they will be looking at other ideas to define the yards and can discuss more at the final review. Ms. Greenwood stated that this is a beautiful project. Ms. Greenwood said that it is like a modern Pan Abode look and an excellent addition. She said that her first thoughts were that the massing is a bit overwhelming, however, after further review from different angles this project is appropriate and well done. Ms. Greenwood stated that she does not agree with staff on the restudy for the roof. She explained having the same width and style of the roof pulls the two together. Ms. Greenwood stated that she would be in favor of moving this forward except for the fence. She said that the fence cuts of the property to the community to see the past architecture REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 28 2020 with a modern complement. Ms. Greenwood said that she would be in favor of something that would not obliterate the historic sides and shields the beautiful yards. Ms. Thompson stated that restoration is phenomenal. She further stated that she is in support of all the floor area bonus, variations, and everything that Ms. Adams has listed. Ms. Thompson said that she agrees with Ms. Greenwood about the fence and would be nice to see a bit more of the resource from the street. Ms. Thompson stated that she agrees with staff that the front plane of the roof is beautiful and elegant. Ms. Thompson explained that the shed roof takes away from the rest of the proportion of the structure. She further explained that this style makes sense on the historic resource, however, when the scaling up to two stories it seems out of place. Mr. Halferty stated he appreciates the volunteering for designation. Mr. Halferty said he also has an issue with the scale of the addition and agrees with staff. He said he appreciates that the new addition is detached but the scale still feels large. Mr. Halferty stated that he agrees with HPC about the fence, and should be restudied for scale and transparency. Mr. Halferty said he agrees with Ms. Thompson about the shed form that it might not be the most appropriate form. He stated that overall this is a great project and thanked all the City departments that worked on this project. Mr. Halferty stated he would support a continuance on this project to flush out any concerns on the new construction. Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with staff about the awkwardness of the roof form. He said that he agrees with fellow commissioners about the restudy of the fence. Mr. Moyer said that it was great to hear support from the neighbor and overall this is a great project. Mr. Kendrick stated that this is a project that he struggles with. He explained that overall this is a great project and likes the preservation aspects and agrees with all the asks. Mr. Kendrick said that he agrees with the concern about the fence. He stated that the roof form of the north elevation of the main mass feels too big. Ms. Greenwood stated that she agrees with Mr. Kendrick about the north elevation and that a breakdown of scale does not happen, unlike the south elevation. Mr. Kendrick stated that he would like to see the north elevation restudied. He said that he would like to see the project move forward with a few restudies. Ms. Greenwood stated that the 3:12 roof pitch is what pulls the whole project together and would not want to see the roof pitch change. She said that she was surprised that the alley neighbors did not want to comment on the south elevation’s fenestration. Ms. Greenwood said that this is not too different from the swiss chalets that are seen throughout the town and that the shallow 3:12 pitch is what makes this project so successful. Ms. Greenwood reiterated that she would like to see the project move forward. Mr. Kendrick stated that he disagrees with Ms. Greenwood about the alley elevation that there is a lot of options to break the elevation. He explained that there is a lot more interest from the southside with the wrap-around deck, rooftop deck, all the different windows, and the garage doors. Ms. Greenwood stated that the Pan Abode is a pretty simple rectangle and the architects are successful in mimicking that and there is a strong relationship between the two. Ms. Greenwood said the new addition does dominate the resource, but it complements the resource in form. Ms. Thompson said that the typical 3:12 overhang in town is much deeper. She explained working with the façade depth could help break it apart. Ms. Greenwood asked what is the proposed overhang on the new addition and the current overhang of the Pan Abode. Mr. Rowland stated that the existing eve is 16 inches and the modern eve will be 4 inches. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 28 2020 Ms. Greenwood stated that the applicant could bring the overhangs of the new addition out a bit more to break up the flat wall. Mr. Moyer said when you have a vertical wall with no overhang it makes the building seems more imposing. Ms. Adams asked with the tight turn around the board is wanting a restudy on the depth of the overhang rather than the 3:12 pitch. Ms. Greenwood stated that the roof pitch and overhang are very strong with the Pan Abode and the new addition should reflect that. Ms. Thompson moved to continue 211 W. Hopkins Avenue to November 18th. Mr. Halferty seconded. Ms. Simon reviewed the topic of conditions that will be reviewed at the November 18th meeting. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Sanzone, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. ADJOURN: All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. _________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy Clerk