Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20160511 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 11, 2016 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. None II. INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes April 27, 2016 minutes C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring 110 E. Bleeker G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. OLD BUSINESS A. 5:25 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center- Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Planned Development, PUBLIC HEARING IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 6:00 209 E. Bleeker Street- Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING V. ADJOURN A. 7:10 Next Resolution Number: Resolution #14, 2016 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, Bob Blaich, John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood and Jim DeFrancia. Absent were Nora Berko and Michael Brown. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of March 23, 2016 with one amendment; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of April 13, 2016, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure Gretchen and Willis are conflicted on 541 Race Street Jim is conflicted on 540 E. Main Update on Council review of Hotel Jerome Justin explained that the project was reviewed in 2014 to remodel the existing Aspen Times bldg. with an addition behind it as well as some interior work to the inside of the Hotel Jerome. Last year the property changed ownership and the project was revised and most of it was interior changes and the elimination of the proposed 4th floor along Bleeker Street. The project then went to City Council and they expressed concern about the remaining of the Aspen Times building and the applicant did more research on the building and discovered there might be some additional length of the building that could contain an historic structure or materials behind it. Major changes are the length of the building which was 30 feet and now it is 53 feet that will be retained. New structure behind the Aspen Times building will be slightly smaller but the width and height will be the same. There are also some changes in the materials which will be reviewed at final. All the board members liked the changes and thought they were good improvements for the better. P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 2 Justin asked for volunteers for the Commercial design standards focus groups. Patrick, Willis, Bob, Jim, Gretchen and John volunteered 541 Race Alley – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing Willis and Gretchen recused themselves. Jim seated and chaired. Debbie said the affidavits and public notices have been properly provided, Exhibit I. Amy said the two buildings discussed are called line shacks. Before the Fox Crossing development the site was an open field with the Victorian and line shacks and other structures on the site. In 2015 a subdivision was granted with the designation of two properties, the Victorian and the line shacks. The two shacks will be reunited and placed side by side as they were historically. They were 1964 rental units and were built by the Griffith family. There were a few proposals before that were approved but were not built. In this proposal the two line shacks would be connected together and used as a single family house. Previously TDR’s were sold and there is very little square footage that is available to build here right now. The allowed floor area basically only covers the two cabins. The applicant is able to expand because of some exemptions in the code. Basements don’t count 100% and garages don’t count 100%. They are also asking for a 500 square foot FAR bonus. Setback variances are also requested and RDS’s. Relocation: Amy said this is a necessity and the lot that was created in the subdivision isn’t particularly generous for these two buildings. They originally had about 15 feet between them and they are proposing 8 feet between them. They are close to the side property lines which leads to some of the variances. Staff finds that the requirements are met for relocation and this is the best preservation method. Design review: The properties will be set on the site so that they have a generous front yard setback and well set back from the park so that they maintain a relationship to the Victorian house. There will be a one-story connector between them. P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 3 On the back side of the cabins there is another connector that leads to a one story garage. They are proposing a below grade court well that allows a walkout aspect of the basement and allows them some protective deck area below grade. Overall the architecture is very sensitive and does many things that HPC asks for. The connector elements slip below the existing eave lines and there is an interesting relationship between the old and new architecture. The architect has attempted to remove as little historic fabric as possible and keep the development low in scale. HPC needs to be aware that when you walk to the front porch of the cabins there is very low head clearance that doesn’t meet code which is 6.3’ Code is 6’8”. The applicant proposes to lower the floor of the house. You will not see this because the porch is surrounded by a solid log railing. They will have to add a panel to the lower part of the door because the threshold will be dropping but we feel this is a minimal impact and allows the project to keep a nice low scale and create some of the relationships to the connectors. With regard to the connector between the two houses as proposed originally it was only set back 5 feet from the historic houses and the guidelines call for ten feet. New exhibits we submitted (Exhibit II) which push the element further back and removing less of the side walls of the historic resource and making the connector piece as minimal as possible. The applicant has creative ideas for how to side the connector and they are considering using mirror because the reflectivity could tend to make the connector basically disappear. This is for final but the applicant wanted to introduce you to the concept. Amy said HPC is being asked to consider setback variances. This neighborhood was annexed into the city in 1989 and when that happened there were special setbacks. This property is zoned R-6 and in the West End you need 5 feet on each side and on this property you need ten feet on each side. The two cabins are to be placed 3 feet from their adjacent lot lines but they have deep eave overhangs which means after measurements they are actually only one foot from the side yard setbacks. You are asked to grant a 9 foot reduction on each of the properties and a 18 foot reduction of the combined requirement. That only happens right along the side of the cabins. The proposed garage also potentially needs a variance and it is 7 feet from the side yard setback instead of 10 feet. HPC could discuss moving the garage over 3 feet but the downside to that is that the more you move it over the more you block the view from the alley of the back of the two cabins. Staff isn’t recommending that requirement. The applicant is asking for a 500 square foot floor area bonus and with the revised drawings we think the bonus is deserved. Utility boxes etc. will be moved from the cabins. The P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 4 architecture is well designed and the connector has been addressed with their revisions. HPC needs to discuss the RDS’s. The standards state that the project be set closer to the front lot line and staff feels a variance is appropriate because the cabins should be subservient to the Victorian and should not be forward than what is proposed. Staff recommends approval with the amendments. Patrick asked about the position of the cabins. Amy said they will not be in the original location because when the subdivision was created they put the two buildings on separate lots. Derek Skalko represented Willis Pember architects. Ryan Vuutgraveen, Lift studio landscape architects for the project. John Morton, owner Derek said he is speaking for Willis who cannot speak on behalf of his own project. Ryan said we will focus on mass and sale, height and proportionality. We would like to make sure the landscape is seamlessly thread into the final review with materials and lighting for your review. The front yard is important but how Willis approached this from Race alley is also very intriguing. We want to make sure the new elements and the old elements work well and feel at home in the neighborhood. Derek said Race alley is essentially next to the Smuggler Trailer Park. The Park is situated to the west. We are looking at lot 6 for the two connecting line shacks. Race alley is the rear yard but yet it is the primary access point to and from that property. Derek presented some contextual site images on the TV screens. One of the line shacks is fairly close to its original location. To the south is the new construction recently built. The one line shack will move forward and the other will be moved to tie into it and the garage would be built on the north side of the property. We propose to eliminate all electrical and gas attachments to the line shacks and move them to the west side of the garage. The windows in the shacks will be restored. We will eliminate OSB infill panels on the back of the project and a new roof will be constructed that is more historically and contextually accurate. The structures are very simplified with a simple gable one story structure that sits approximately 14 feet at its top height. There will be very little disruption to P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 5 the structures which we feel warrants the bonus request. The intent is to restore the two line shacks back to their original state. Regarding the project concept we are set back from the Victorian to maintain the subservient relationship that they have always had. The two shacks have always been together and keeping them together allows the rear of the property to open up so that there is some relief from Race alley. The proposal on the north of the property is a one story garage, (two stalls). To the south is the proposed subgrade court well concept which will essentially reduce the mass and scale across the property pretty significantly and allow the view corridors to remain open. There was discussion of two separate structures but the concern was the additional mass that would be brought onto the site and it became congested in the rear of Race alley. We responded to staff’s concern regarding the connector element. We are looking at an 8 foot connection between the two shacks for circulation and a stair circulation. We have also reduced the court well in scale and size which gives a little more relief and contextually it aligns the strategy of the two structures. With these reductions in mind we feel it warrants the 500 square foot bonus. By lowering the entry porch there are no visual changes but it allows the structure to exist at code compliancy. 6’8” inches is mandated by code in modern standards. At 6’3” we run into several issues at the Bldg. Dept. Regarding the height we are subservient from the neighborhood. The court well is a relatively new philosophy for preservation. It is an ideal use and reduces the mass and scale but taking everything sub level. It also complies with the guidelines. The long term intention is to not put up a 5 or 6 foot tall fence around the property. We are creating more of a visual public amenity. We wanted to make sure HPC is aware of the court well because it is a part of the intricacy of the project. From the east and south exposure we get a quality amenable space. The bonus numbers are below 500 square feet but we request the ability to go up to the 500 square feet not to expand the concept but just in the reality of how things are constantly being redefined and re-interpreted in the City of Aspen. One of the interesting things Willis is proposing is a mirrored concept for the connecting elements. It creates an interesting visual concept and element with the idea that the massing goes away through transparency and reflectivity. As you review the actual resources the materiality in the wall where it is cut off ten feet back would essentially be perceived to extend the complete distance that historically existed. There won’t be concern of neighboring connectivity because they are so far set back to the north and west elements it just helps lighten and expand the spaces. P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 6 Questions and clarifications: Patrick asked if they discussed two separate units with staff which would solve the connector issue. Amy said previously one of the proposals that didn’t get built turned one of the line shacks into an affordable housing unit and left it free standing. It is not the desire of the applicant do to that. Bob said he loves the mirrors and they are a great use. It is a wonderful approach. Jim said he likes the mirrors also and it is a creative approach. The way they are positioned it is highly unlikely that they would be reflective. Patrick asked if the mirrors would be angled? From Race alley you would be seeing whatever ground is in front of it unless it is angled because you are looking down into it. Derek said it is a glazed vertical application. When you are in the inside you can see through and out. From the exterior it is a vertical application and the intention of Willis is to not pick up the sky and pick up everything that is directly related to the structures. The lawn would be extended in the mirroring concept. Patrick said it looks like the garage roof in the back is no higher than the pitch of the cabins. Derek said that is correct. Jim opened the public hearing. Maggie Harris said her house is on Spruce Street but the back of her house is on Race Street. My only problem is that everybody gets five foot setbacks rather than ten feet. Gretchen’s house and the one next have five foot setbacks and the alley has been destroyed because people park in the alley because there is no parking in front of the houses. I really like the project because it is low and everything else in the area is high and it is nice to have the view. The low houses change the neighborhood which is good because the neighborhood has monster houses. P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 7 Jim closed the public hearing. Commissioner discussion: Patrick said he hopes the meters will be on the west corner of the garage so that it is accessed between the properties rather than through the back yard. Maybe the garage could be moved three feet so that it has the ten foot setback and as you go around to Race alley you would see the historic house better. If cars are parking parallel in front of the garage that might be a fire hazard. Maybe move the garage further west so that there is an apron that you can fit a car in front of the garage and that would make the connector smaller going from the house to the garage. John said it is a trade off if you move 3 feet to the west or to the north of the property. Being the monitor on the adjacent property you will get a nice view of both sides and I would like to thank the applicant for proceeding with one garage which gives more exposure to one of the historic resources in its entirety. I can support the applicant’s original proposal and I wouldn’t modify it. If you moved further left it would encroach on the full unobstructed view of one cabin and then you lose that little piece of the other cabin popping out from the connecting piece, so you lose more historic fabric from certain angles. The roof of the garage has very sympathetic site lines to the break of the gable on the cabins. Regarding the 5 foot setbacks on the street it is a missed zoned street in some aspects and it would have been nice to have larger setbacks to accommodate congestion of vehicles. The applicant has done a nice job and I can support all of staff’s recommendations. The bonus is warranted and the side yard setbacks are acceptable. Staggering the cabins you would lose some of the historical integrity because they were designed to be line checked together. The examples that you showed regarding the mirrors indicate that it could work in a lot of ways. Bob said this is a great project and he listened to both points of view and would agree that the project should remain as presented. Jim said he appreciates the model and it is a good project and I am in full support of the project. Amy pointed out that Race Alley is almost a no parking area and the applicant might want to create a little parking pad so that when guests park here they won’t get a ticket. P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 8 MOTION: Bob moved to approve resolution #12 with the conditions approved by staff. On condition #3 add that the variances apply to the below grade space. Motion second by John. Roll call vote: Bob, yes; John, yes; Jim, yes; Patrick, yes. Motion carried 4-0. 540 E. Main Street – Planned Development, Project Review, Major Development, Conceptual Review, Demolition and Relocation of designated historic properties, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Review for the provision of Affordable Housing Growth Management Review for an Essential Pubic Facility and for the Development of Affordable Housing. Public Hearing cont’d from Feb. 24th Jim recused himself Willis was seated Gretchen was seated Amy said this is the third public hearing on this project. At the last meeting there was a switch in direction regarding the historic resource onsite. The applicant was specifically asked to come back and accomplish three things: Study the issue of where the historic resources should go. The applicant provided two site plans, one keeps the historic house and shed on the site but plans to use them as a housing unit. The other plan relocates the two structures and the barn to Holden Marolt property. If they are kept on the site most likely the interior would be lost even if they were kept in their existing position. Right now the proposal is to not have an interpretive museum on the property. If the resources are moved to Holden Marolt the idea is that they would be moved once right onto their final foundation. They would be handled in a manner that preserved the interior finishes since they would not be occupied. If the historic resources stay then the affordable housing project gets pushed toward the west side of the site into a single volume. If they are removed the application has been changed to create two buildings that include the affordable housing unit and the applicant has actually eliminated two units from the plan so the over scale of the project is reduced. Amy said HPC has also asked for the height of the police building in the front to be reduced and that has occurred. It is about a three foot height drop. Regarding the resolution of approval section #1 needs amended to be a little more clear. The approved project is for site plan option #2 that moves the buildings to Holden Marolt including demolition of the two buildings on P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 9 site. The Holden Marolt property is a landmark itself. There needs to be a public hearing and discussion allowing where the cabins should be sited and letting the public comment on the proposal. Maybe say that the intent of the relocation is that they will be moved to Holden Marolt with further land use requirements. There are a number of conditions to be resolved before final. We are asking that there be clarification as to what the city is committing to do when the buildings are landed at Holden Marolt. They need to be put on foundations and there is a certain amount of stabilization that needs to take place. The application includes some changes, improvements to adjacent bus stops and we ask that there be more information about how that will look. We have some concern about the rear of the project even though in the plan it reduces the height of the affordable housing there is still a kind of sheer wall where the housing sits above the exposed parking garage and we would like to see some softening of that. We need to make sure from the Obermeyer perspective and the Rio Grande prospective that this looks like an appropriate project. Other conditions: owner consent to allow some improvements on neighboring properties such as pathways and access to the parking garage. Details on how exactly the historic resources will be relocated and transported. We will also need information about the restoration materials for the exterior of the building. We will also need information about the transportation impact plan. There will be 8 multi-family housing units on the site. HPC would recommend that Council accept the calculation method used of 39 employees and Council would need determine how many employees need to be mitigated. Usually applicants have to mitigate for 60%. It might change how many credits the city receives or doesn’t receive. Staff recommends approval of the project. Alan Richman, Planning Services Jack Wheeler, City Richard Pryor, City,Rob Taylor, representing the City Charles Cunniffe Architects, Scott Smith, Darla Calaway, Design Workshop Charles said there are 12 bedrooms and 3 studios. Alan said at the last hearing HPC asked us to do three specific things: Look at the height of the police department building, provide two site plan options, one was original and the second one removes the historic resources from the site. You also asked us to re-examine the affordable housing building in terms of its footprint and massing and address the livability of the units. P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 10 Changes to the police department building: Alan said our building steps down quite considerably from the court house plaza and the Concept 600 building. In the CC zone the height limit is 28 feet that applies to two story buildings. There are two modules to the building, a western module and an eastern module. The western module is a little taller than the eastern due to the clerestory to allow light and air to get into that portion that is against the wall of the courthouse plaza. On the western module we are proposing a 3 ½ foot reduction which brings it to 29’11”. The eastern module is coming down by 3 feet which is 25 feet. The heights are below all the surrounding buildings. The height is necessary and we are trying to achieve an interior height of 11.6 feet which translates to 8.10 inches of usable height after mechanical and structural issues are taken in. Charles said we originally wanted 10 feet floor to ceiling and have the LEED and air movement and quality of environment. We have looked at how far we can reduce this and the minimum is 8’10”. We reduced the height to 29’11” and the eastern module came down from 28 to 25 feet. The clerestory is an important element particularly because we are pushed up against the county building and no opportunity for windows on the west wall and therefore imperative that we bring light in from another way and that is the clerestory. Alan said the original plan had the historic houses moved toward the center of the property and utilize the structure for affordable housing and the shed would be used for onsite storage. As we worked through the two meetings HPC felt that the interior was important so that they could function as an interpretive manner. At the last hearing we discovered that practically it would be difficult to have that interpretive center on this site. It would be difficult for the Historical Society to staff that site and maintain the site and the City does not have staff or a department to operate it. When students come they often have 120 students at a time to a site. That number would be very difficult to accommodate on this site. The site has the police station as one use and affordable as the second and having a third component would over utilize the site. The affordable housing unit has been reduced in length and width and there is much less of the building on the third story and we have added a second smaller building east of the main building to take up some of the units. The unit count has gone from ten to 8 and the floor area has dropped from 10,500 sq. ft. to just over 8,000 square feet. The setback P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 11 on the Rio Grande side have increased and the landscape outdoor amenity space has been increased. In many respects moving these resources off the site enables us to achieve the kind of result that you were contemplating last month. We will have private balconies and decks for each unit and there is an individual storage area for each unit. The overall floor area is around 26,000 square feet on a 26,000 square foot lot so we are at a 1 to 1 floor area ratio. We are so far below the buildings around us. We would prefer option #2. Charles did a power point of the existing site and revised site. The affordable housing area gains two patio areas and the massing will be pulled back on the north and the building steps back. We will do landscape mitigation also on the north elevation. We were also able to reduce and move the elevator on the site. Amy pointed out that the public meeting space at the front of the building might need an additional egress route. Charles said in an emergency the access through the police corridor would be available for emergency egress which would accommodate our second means of egress without compromising the building design or cluttering up the front of the building. John asked what the City’s commitment is to relocate and stabilize the historic buildings to the Marolt site and have them as an interpretive site. Jack Wheeler said we are committed to place the structures on foundations in an appropriate manner. The specifics we will have for final review. Charles said the property at Marolt was a ranching property. The site plan will be brought back and we will work with the Historical Society as part of the PUD review. Alan said when HPC established the museum in the 1990’s there was a planned development review at that time and a subdivision and HPC review. The 1.9 parcel was leased by the City to the Historic Society was subdivided out as a separate lot. HPC reviewed all the museum plans at the time. We will have to amend the site plan and planned development approval for that lot which will come to the HPC, council and then back to HPC for final review. In reviewing the PUD we will have to look at the proposed HWY P11 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 12 82 alignment on any site plan that we create and ensure that the historic structures are not in the middle of the road. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Kelly Murphy, President and CEO of the Aspen Historical Society. We were approached about accepting these buildings onto the Holden Marolt property and we are very much in favor of that. We also do preservation and we care very deeply as you do and we understand the importance of leaving historic structures in the C2 but in this case we do believe the best course of preservation for these particular buildings is to bring them to Holden Marolt. Instead of preserving the outer shell this is an opportunity for us to not only preserve the exterior of the building but to preserve and restore the historic interior of the buildings and show them the way they were actually used with many of the artifacts and furnishings that were actually used in them. We wouldn’t be putting them in a completely inappropriate place. Carl Bergman said he has been with the society for quite a few years. During the Bill Stirling administration we got through to make a ranching mining museum where it is now. I don’t know of a better fit for these three existing buildings. With our boards we are 100% behind this move. Those three buildings hands down 100% will fit so beautiful that you can’t see straight. You are on this board to make your mark on Aspen and do some good things. In a few years visitors and locals will be talking about these buildings. For 30 years I have been collecting black smith items. We have everything at the museum as far as the tools and bellows except for the hearth. When I saw the smaller building my heart poured out for it. We need to leave things as they are. It is our mission to tell people about the history of Aspen. Nina Gabrielle, Vice-president in charge of education and programs at the Aspen Historical Society. Nina said she made a plea at the last meeting how valuable the resource would be for us to show kids literally what it looked like, what life was like in the 1880, 1920 and the 1940’s. We are here because of the ranching part and this resource with the artifacts that we have would give us the chance to actually show them rather than a picture and let them use their imagination. The living history piece of this being available to us on the site is extraordinary. P12 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 13 Dana Pingatore, a third grade teacher. We have an opportunity with this move of this historical building to Holden Marolt to continue to make history come alive for our children. I know firsthand what it is like for them when we take them to the museum and they learn about mining and then to have this additional resource there where they can see a home and what it was like is tremendous. I hope you don’t miss this incredible opportunity. Lisa Hancock, curator at the Historical Society. This is a great opportunity to preserve the interior which is not normally what HPC gets to do. Lisa showed an image on the screen from 1890’s. It showed St. Stephens and Main Street and across the street the house and a barn structure and a shed. If the three of them are moved to the Holden Marolt site they will retain that configuration of the three buildings being together in a grouping. The historical houses sat near a bluff and the Holden Marolt site offers that. There is a railroad track in the vicinity and the Holden Marolt also had a railroad track. There were not buildings behind it. The Holden Marolt site could offer the original feel of where the house was originally built. Jerome Simmiceck on behalf of Obermeyer Place. The applicant is working currently well with the association and we have made some progress on different pieces. A lot of the components are moving well. Amy mentioned a concern of the sheer wall in the back and Obermeyer Place shares this concern on the Rio Grande side. We wish to continue to work with the applicant on that component. We were pleased that the mass and scale of the building has been reduced and we are supportive of moving the historic structures off site. Overall Obermeyer Place remains supportive of the police Dept. relocation. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Charles said Option #1 is more impactful to Obermeyer than option #2 which allows us to tuck the housing building and there is more open space and views maintained. Willis asked about the landscaping on the north. Darla said they will implement landscaping on the north side and it would wrap around the guest parking. Patrick asked about the police court yard. P13 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 14 Carla said that is included in the plan and is called out as the employee courtyard. It is a place for staff to go right off their break room. It is semi- transparent. Willis asked what the position was about the employee mitigation of 39 employees. Alan said 39 was proposed in the application. Ryan said the real head count is 37 ½ so we are saying we will mitigate for a little more than we actually currently have. Willis identified the issues: 39 employees PD development Commercial design review Conceptual mass and scale Demolition and relocation Relocation of the historic houses to Marolt Willis said the application has been re-formulated since the last hearing in the most favorable terms possible for us to approve tonight. The applicant listened to everything that we said the last time. The site plan works betters without the historic house on the property and moving it to the Holden Marolt site. The police station architecture has much improved on the north side and they gave us a complete presentation and the height has been brought down. Bob said he is 100% in favor of the plan. It is a great step forward and a benefit to the community. The affordable housing is also a great improvement and the applicant listened to what the board’s concerns were. John said he concurred with both comments from Willis and Bob. It is long overdue that the police department have this space. It is a nice product overall. Having the cabin at the Marolt as a museum will be cherished for the community. Gretchen said this is a good project and she appreciates the historic photos. Taking the out buildings and re-creating what was there before is great and that convinced me that moving the cabins is the right thing. The site P14 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 15 planning and the architecture is really good from a streetscape perspective. The transparency is good and the building is really friendly looking. It is a nice accomplishment for a civic building. The open space created by the massing of the courthouse building really solves the problems of the courthouse building being so cold and rigid and the way it steps back is appropriate. I liked having the old building onsite but it is a too high a price to pay. The historic building will not be kept onsite which is typically against all direction that we give as an historic body but it is critical that it moves off site. I want the city to make sure that it takes “ownership” of this project and pays for it and puts it on a foundation and restores it as any private citizen would be required to do in the ownership of an historic resource. City council reads our minutes and this is a strong message. The project is great and the massing change is a huge success. Patrick said Charles has done an excellent job in interpreting the architecture with the three points that the board had brought up at the last meeting. The entire project is successful with option #2. Patrick said he hopes the museum tapes Carl Bergman’s stories from the good old days for the children. Willis commended the applicants site planning and urges them to make the pedestrian linkage as strong as possible to increase the number of pathways through the site down to the Rio Grande Place. Willis pointed out that the Pitkin County site doesn’t offer the same friendliness from a pedestrian point of view because the jail is there and they have other public commitments to public safety than the pedestrian. The project is fantastic. MOTION: Bob moved to approve resolution #13 as proposed with the amendments. Debbie added an amendment to Section 1. subject to any necessary approvals for specific location on the Holden Marolt property. Approval of site plan Option #2. Section 4 the HPC supports 39 employees. Motion second by Patrick. Roll call vote: Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-0 P15 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 16 Discussion on the selection of the annual awards MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P16 II.B. C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\8971.doc 5/4/2016 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 332 W. Main 1102 Waters (new duplex) 1006 E. Cooper 100 E. Main 417/421 W. Hallam 602 E. Hyman 61 Meadows Road ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision 232 E. Bleeker 609 W. Smuggler ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC 420 E. Cooper 420 E. Hyman 407 E. Hyman Sallie Golden 206 Lake 114 Neale 212 Lake 400 E. Hyman 517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s) Hotel Aspen Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove 135 E. Cooper 1280 Ute 211 E. Hallam ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Willis Pember 204 S. Galena Aspen Core 120 Red Mountain 233 W. Hallam 101 E. Hallam 229 W. Smuggler 407 E. Hyman Patrick Segal 204 S. Galena 701 N. Third 612 W. Main 212 Lake Holden Marolt derrick 333 W. Bleeker John Whipple Aspen Core 201 E. Hyman 549 Race 208 E. Main 420 E. Cooper 602 E. Hyman Hotel Aspen 610 E. Hyman 301 Lake Michael Brown 223 E. Hallam 1102 Waters Avenue Need: 530 W. Hallam P17 II.F. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Reilly Thimons, Planner Tech RE: 110 E. Bleeker–Project Monitor review DATE: May 11, 2016 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: In July 2015 HPC granted Final approval for a restoration of this Victorian era home, and construction of a new addition. The approvals allow for a non-historic rear addition and garage to be demolished and replaced with a new structure which will be linked to the Victorian home with a connecting element. While the approved plan view showed that the historical structure has a second story double hung window facing the rear of the property which was to be replaced, there was no elevation of the north wall of the Victorian indicating that the applicant was proposing a sliding door in place of the historic window and the request was overlooked by Staff and HPC. The change from window to sliding door was noticed during the building permit. The Architect was required to change plans to indicate that the existing window will be preserved with no alterations in order to receive the permit. Afterwards, staff was given alternative designs for the proposed sliding door which were shown to the project monitor, Willis Pember. Both staff and the project monitor agreed to bring this discussion to the board. HPC is asked to look at the options and make a determination as to whether the architect may apply for a Change Order for a different window design. APPLICANT: Bleek House LLC , represented by Kim Raymond Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-37-006. ADDRESS: 110 E. Bleeker, Lots L and M, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. Staff Response: The house at 110 E. Bleeker was built in about 1887. Records from the Aspen Historical Society indicate it was constructed as a boarding house. The Victorian-era home is shown below (Figure 1) with original finishes and detail. In its current state, the house has undergone several alterations and paint changes. The applicant will be restoring the historic house in addition to constructing an addition on the rear of the property. P18 II.F. HPC Review 5.11.16 110 E. Bleeker Page 2 of 4 Figure 1: Historic photograph showing front of house The second image (Figure 2) illustrates the rear of the property as it is currently, with the double hung window in question. Both the one-story non historic addition and garage are to be demolished. The non- historic addition will be replaced with a one-story linking element between the historic house and the new addition. This new linking element will have a rooftop deck that could be accessed from the new addition. The applicant would also like to provide access from the Victorian. Figure 2: Current rear façade with second story double hung window P19 II.F. HPC Review 5.11.16 110 E. Bleeker Page 3 of 4 In order to access the deck from the Victorian, the applicant had proposed exchanging the historic window for a door opening out onto the roof of the linking element. However, this is not in line with the language in the Historic Preservation Guidelines which encourage preservation of historic windows’ placement and features. The design guidelines speak mainly to primary facades and provide some flexibility in regards to rear walls, in this case where the double hung window is located (Exhibit A). 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.  Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows.  Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit.  Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.  Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature.  Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls.  Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. While new doors on an historic building are generally discouraged, if necessary, they should be kept to secondary or rear walls, be similar in scale and style to the historic openings on the building; and, preserve the ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. The applicant has proposed two alternative designs (Exhibit B) for consideration for a Change Order in order to address the need for access to the linking element:  Option 1 is the original proposal overlooked during HPC review which removes the existing window and replaces it with lift and sliding doors,  Option 2 creates a new entranceway adjacent to the historic window allowing access to the linking element while preserving the placement and features of the window,  Option 3 replaces the window with a door expanding on the size of the historic window opening. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Option 2 and recommends HPC preserve the existing historic window in situ and allow for a new door to be adjacently constructed in order to allow access across the roof of the linking element which is in line with current design guidelines. ============================================================================ REQUEST: Staff requests that HPC review the proposed options and provide a determination as to whether the architect may proceed and apply for a change order. P20 II.F. P21 II.F. 5 5 4 4 2 2 8 7/8"25'-8 1/2" EXISTING BRICK TO REMAIN. STRIP PAINT AND REPOINT EXISTING TRIM AND FASCIA TO REMAIN OR BE RECONSTRUCTED EXISTING WOOD SIDING TO REMAIN OR BE REPAIRED REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW AND REPLACE W/ LIFT AND SLIDE DOOR NEW 3' GLASS AND STEEL RAIL EXISTING STONE FOUNDATION TO REMAIN NEW PATIO AT GRADE W11 D37 KITCHEN BEYOND KITCHEN BEYOND KITCHEN BEYOND P 2 2 I I . F . TYPICAL PROCEEDING Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes) Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. Procedure for amending motions: A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion. If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion and voting on the Motion may then proceed. If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails, discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed. P23 II.K. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 845 Meadows Road- Aspen Meadows Reception Center- Planned Development- Project Review, Conceptual Major Development, and Growth Management, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 11, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The Aspen Institute proposes to make an addition to the existing building commonly known as The Aspen Meadows Reception Center. HPC discussed the project on March 23rd and continued the hearing to May 25th. Subsequently, the applicant asked for an earlier hearing date, so the May 25th continuation will be abandoned a new public notice was issued for tonight’s meeting. The Reception Center was built in 1958. It was placed on the City’s Inventory of Historic Structures in 1996. Originally called the Central Building, this structure was co-designed by Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict and built after the Seminar Building, the lodge buildings, the Health Center and The Grass Mound. For some years the Central Building was home to the well-known restaurant “The Copper Kettle.” It is not clear what changes were made to the building between 1958 and 1992. In 1992, the Institute began to act on a Master Plan for the Meadows campus that had just been approved by City Council. Minor exterior and interior improvements to the Reception Center were completed at that time. In 2005, HPC reviewed and approved the upper floor addition that is occupied by Plato’s Restaurant, as well as the construction of the porte cochere at the entry. In 2011, the service area on the north side of the building was reconfigured to be more adequate for current restaurant needs. Other landscape improvements were completed as well. In this application, the Institute would like to double the seating area of the lower dining room, to better serve guests staying on campus. Currently the dining room only has one seat per lodge room and this has proven to be inadequate during times of high occupancy. Guests are being accommodated at make-shift breakfast and lunch spaces scattered around the campus. The applicant also proposes an expansion of storage and office space on the north side of the building. Topics to be addressed by HPC include conformance with the criteria for a Planned Development, review of the proposed architecture, trash/utility area, transportation impacts, and Growth Management. At the last meeting, staff and HPC asked for more information about the allowed square footage of the project, more information about how the proposed square footage P24 III.A. affects Growth Management mitigation requirements and Transportation Impact Assessment, a restudy of some of the details of the proposed new restaurant space, a restudy of the proposed north addition and consideration of the landscape in front of the historic resource. Below is a Ferenc Berko photo of the north façade of the Central Building, soon after construction: This image from the Denver Public Library Collection, was taken in 1964. P25 III.A. This photo shows the original west façade of the building. Below are two interior photos of The Copper Kettle. P26 III.A. APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by Curtis and Associates and Jeffrey Berkus Architects. ADDRESS: 845 Meadows Road, Lot 1-A, Aspen Meadows Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-008. ZONING: Academic, Planned Development. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT REVIEW In 1991, the Aspen Meadows Campus, consisting of the Aspen Institute, Aspen Music Festival and Aspen Center for Physics, received approval to develop new facilities totaling just over 83,000 square feet. City Council identified the property as a Specially Planned Area and approved a Master Plan. In the 25 years since the SPA approval, most of the work has been completed. The Institute applied for this project intending to use all of their remaining allotment. After further research, the proposed development exceeds the 1991 limits by 781 square feet. Recent code amendments have eliminated Specially Planned Areas and replaced them with the Planned Development designation. Planned Development review is allowed on properties which are determined to merit special flexibility and innovation in terms of land development. The decision making body may grant variations from dimensional requirements or uses when appropriate. In this case, the proposed project may be allowed to exceed the square footage limits in the previous approvals if Council, with HPC’s recommendation, allows it. Typically in a PD, the review board uses the underlying zoning of the property as a guide for allowable development. In this case the underlying zoning is Academic and there are no set dimensional parameters. Each project is reviewed on a case by case basis. The Meadows and ACES are the only properties zoned Academic within the city limits. All development proposed within a Planned Development shall be subject to a three-step review. The first step on a designated property is Project Review by HPC. This is similar to HPC’s typical Conceptual review, but the board makes a recommendation to City Council and Council makes the formal determination as to whether the project meets the applicable criteria. The third review step is Detailed Review by HPC, which is akin to Final review. The 1991 plan allowed for expansions to the Institute facilities, particularly construction of additional lodge rooms, and improvements to the Health Club, the Reception Center and the Tennis shop. Approximately 10 years ago, the Institute adjusted their priorities for some of the new space. One of the approved lodge buildings was never pursued and the square footage was instead used to create the Doerr-Hosier building, which was not in the original Master Plan. Other remaining square footage was shifted around the site to accomplish the renovation of Paepcke Auditorium and construction of the Greenwald Pavilion. Re-working of the Master Plan to meet evolving needs of the Institute has been accepted. Each project was reviewed and approved by HPC, P&Z and/or Council, as applicable. During the review processes the Institute has kept a tally of the square footage left for development. The Institute believed that they had just enough for this project, however some P27 III.A. errors in previous calculations have been identified and there is a shortfall of 781 square feet. The impacts of the new square footage must be reviewed, applying the criteria below. 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Response: The proposed development is in keeping with the implementation of the 1991 Specially Planned Area Master Plan for the Aspen Meadows. This project is consistent with the mission of the Institute as expressed in the SPA. Staff finds this criterion is met. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: The proposed development has been preliminarily reviewed by City Engineering and City Parks, who have provided referral comments attached to this memo. The project does involve construction of new outdoor deck area that extends over the steep drop-off immediately behind the building. As the project evolves, the City will require assurance that this construction is appropriate and will not have negative impacts to the slope. Please note that, while the drawings indicate a line that is considered the top of the slope as the land rises up from Castle Creek, the development is far enough away from the creek that the typical Stream Margin regulations requiring all development to be setback from the top of slope line are not applicable. Staff finds this criterion will be addressed through recommended conditions of approval. P28 III.A. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. Staff Response: The addition is placed on an existing patio, avoiding new impacts to natural features. The deck expansion is cantilevered over the slope at the back of the site. Any disturbance to the slope will need to be reviewed by Engineering. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Response: Historic Preservation considerations will be addressed in more depth later in the memo. Placing the expansion on the existing patio is appropriate, vs. other locations which could have created a more significant impact to the site as a whole. For reference, the Reception Center drawings included in the 1991 SPA are shown below. The only alterations to this building that were approved at that time were the restaurant addition that is now known as Platos’s and a patio that was never added at the front of the building. This restaurant expansion is a substitution for square footage that was once intended to be added to other Institute structures. P29 III.A. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Response: The project is located in a unique campus setting. The public street system ends in front of this building and gives way to a more organic system of pedestrian paths. This project sits well below the street grade. The Building Department and Fire Department have reviewed the conceptual design and will continue to provide direction to ensure safe access to the pavilion is addressed. Staff finds this criterion will be addressed through permit review. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Response: The proposal exceeds the original SPA approval by 781 square feet. The applicant notes that this is a small number compared to the 83,140 square feet of allowed expansion (an increase of 0.9%.) The applicant has been determined to be an Essential Public Facility and represents that this space is needed to serve their current operations. At the previous HPC meeting, staff pointed out that the project includes a significant amount of outdoor deck space, a portion of which would typically count in floor area. This has not been the interpretation of the SPA to date and Planning staff recommends that decks be omitted from floor area for this project. Staff recommends decks be attributed to floor area according to the methodology of the Land Use Code at the time of any future PD application affecting the Aspen Meadows. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Response: The Aspen Meadows campus is large and the permitted floor area has provided for relatively small scale structures distributed amongst a significant amount of open space. This proposal is consistent with the character of the academic use of the site. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources Staff Response: The applicant has given careful consideration to context and the historic resource. This will be addressed further in the Conceptual review discussion. P30 III.A. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. Staff Response: The 1991 SPA approval required the Institute to provide a 97 space parking garage for its operations. Within the last few years they have created 6 additional garage spaces by re-striping to accommodate compact cars and by moving some maintenance functions out of the garage. Using the parking generation rate applied to commercial development, the 781 square feet of new floor area created by this project would require the provision of 0.78 parking spaces. Staff recommends that the total required parking mitigation for the Institute be increased from 97 spaces to 97.78 spaces, to be accommodated entirely within the parking garage. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 – Amendments. Staff Response: At this time there are no changes anticipated after Project Review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Staff Response: Not applicable. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Response: The materials that have been identified for this step in the review process appear to be appropriate, but will be considered further at Detailed Review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. P31 III.A. Staff Response: A Transportation Impact Analysis was provided with the original application, providing a proposal to mitigate for the impacts of the building expansion. The expansion exceeds the amount represented in the TIA and the document will need to be amended. The applicant has been taking the initiative to meet with Engineering, Parks, Transportation and Parking to discuss appropriate improvements to the property. Currently the discussion is focused on repairs to the pedestrian trail below the Meadows Restaurant, and improvements to how overflow parking is handled during larger Institute events. This topic is a work in progress and will continue to be addressed into Final review. One condition of approval related to ceasing the practice of head in parking along Meadows Road is included in the resolution because of the damage that is potentially being caused to street trees. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal with regard to Design Standards and URMP. Staff finds that this criterion will be through recommended conditions of approval. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: No upgrades to public infrastructure or facilities are currently anticipated as part of this proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Findings: The proposal has access to a public way. Staff finds this criterion to be met. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed P32 III.A. development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review to renovate this historic building are listed in “Exhibit A.” Overall, staff finds that the proposed restaurant addition relates well to the architectural vocabulary of this very important historic resource and campus. At the previous meeting staff recommended reconsideration of the rotation of the pavilion siting relative to the historic structure, but the majority of HPC did not share that concern. Staff and HPC did request the applicant provide a section drawing showing exactly how the connector between the existing dining room and new space engages with the historic resource. This information is included in the attached drawings, and the architect has revised their plan. Previously the deck on the connector was at the same elevation as the deck outside of Plato’s. Once one crossed the connector there were four steps up to the roof of the pavilion. The architect has revised this to break the stairs into two sections. The roof of the connector is now two steps above the roof of the deck outside of Plato’s, and once one crosses the connector there are two steps on the roof of the pavilion. The benefit of this change is that rather than having the connector butt into the historic resource, it is slightly higher, which allows the original exposed beams on the south side of the historic building to be seen interior to the connector. The design of the pavilion is otherwise essentially unchanged. The top of the parapet and railing around the pavilion roof deck have each increased 4” in height from what HPC reviewed in March. The application includes a 380 square foot addition on the north side of the building, to accommodate back of house operations at the lodge check-in. In March, this addition was proposed where the red arrow is inserted in the historic photo below. Staff and HPC were concerned with this alteration to an area of the historic resource which is currently intact. P33 III.A. The applicant studied the possibility of putting the new space on top of the platform that can be seen at the right side of the image above. This area has been changed over the years and is currently occupied by mechanical equipment surrounded by a screen wall. The revised north addition will not attach to the historic building walls as seen below. Another aspect of the proposal identified for further discussion was the proposed pedestrian bridge that will create an ADA compliant access from the area near Bayer’s Kaleidoscreen towards the new addition. This new connection would prevent everyone from having to travel through the main lobby to get to the roof decks. The applicant will be removing the non-historic stairway that currently attaches to the historic deck on the south side of the Reception Center, which is a good restoration outcome, but the pedestrian bridge takes the place of the stair. Staff recommends that the applicant redesign the pedestrian bridge to link directly to the pavilion roof, rather than the historic structure. Existing and proposed conditions are shown below. This is a condition of approval in the proposed resolution. P34 III.A. Finally, the previous meeting included a brief discussion of the trees in front of the Reception Center, which have grown to a substantial size and which block the views of the front of the historic resource. The applicant expressed a willingness to work with the Parks Department on any opportunities to limb up the trees where appropriate. Staff recommends this as a condition of approval. GROWTH MANAGEMENT The Aspen Meadows was deemed an Essential Public Facility in the 1991 Specially Planned Area approval granted by City Council. The SPA clearly stated that: “Under the terms of this Agreement the City acknowledges it has granted the Institute a GMQS development exemption for essential public facilities from competition and affordable housing impact mitigation for the Institute’s existing and new facilities.” No review at all is needed for all development that falls within the development rights approved in 1991. This project exceeds those rights by 781 square feet and discussion of the impacts of the newly requested square footage is appropriate. Council has the authority to “assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations.” HPC is tasked with P35 III.A. making a recommendation to City Council, which is the final decision-making body on mitigation requirements. The applicant proposes no affordable housing mitigation for the project. They represent that this is not an expansion of their operations, but rather relocating their guests from multiple informal dining areas into one venue. The Institute has provided employment figures to the Housing Authority and indicates that they had 16.58 employees dedicated to food service as of 2015. The APCHA housing board recommends an audit after three years and requests additional data on the calculation of 16.58 existing employees. The intention of the audit would be to require housing of any new employees generated. HPC is required to make a recommendation to Council on this topic. The criteria are as follows: Sec. 26.470.090.4. Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. c. The applicant has made a reasonable good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. d. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment, including all or none. Unless otherwise required by this Title, the provision of affordable housing mitigation via a fee-in-lieu payment for 0.25 FTEs or less shall not require City Council approval. Staff Response: HPC is asked to recommend the three year audit indicated by APCHA, with mitigation for any new employees to be provided at a rate proportionate to the new square footage above and beyond the 1991 approval. REFERRAL COMMENTS P36 III.A. As part of the preparation of this project for HPC review, staff and the applicant met with other City Departments to discuss any conditions for the redevelopment. Conditions of approval that have been recommended to date are included in the attached resolution. ______________________________________________________________________________ The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC support Council approval of Planned Development-Project Review, Conceptual Major Development and Growth Management with the conditions included in the proposed Resolution. Exhibits: Resolution #__, Series of 2016 A. Design Guidelines B. DRC Comments C. Revised application text (Original application text, Drainage Plan and TIA provided to HPC at the March 23rd meeting) D. Revised application drawings Exhibit A- Relevant Design Guidelines, Project/Conceptual Review 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. P37 III.A. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. A 1-story connector is preferred. The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. 14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws. All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fullest extent possible, while also preserving the integrity of the character-defining features of their buildings. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting the ADA standards. P38 III.A. 14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter its historic characteristics is encouraged. P39 III.A. Aspen Meadows Reception Center Resolution No.__, Series 2016 Page 1 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVAL FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 845 MEADOWS ROAD, ASPEN MEADOWS RECEPTION CENTER, LOT 1-A, ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-29-008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for an expansion to the Aspen Meadows Reception Center from The Aspen Institute, represented by Curtis and Associates and Jeffrey Berkus Architects, which requires the following land use review approvals: • Planned Development – Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. • Major Development - Conceptual for properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415. • Growth Management Review – Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application – December 21, 2015, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, Transportation, Parking, and Zoning as a result of a Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code, the Community Development Director may combine reviews where more than one (1) development approval is being sought simultaneously; and, WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, a summary of public outreach was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at duly noticed public hearings on March 23, 2016 and May 11, 2016, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, P40 III.A. Aspen Meadows Reception Center Resolution No.__, Series 2016 Page 2 of 5 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1:Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby recommends City Council grant Planned Development – Project Review, Conceptual Major Development and Growth Management approval subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Major Development Review and Planned Development – Detail Review following approval of the reviews outlined herein. The applicant shall combine these applications, and they shall be made no later than one (1) year following City Council approval of the reviews outlined herein. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render the Planned Development – Project Review, Conceptual Major Development approval and Growth Management approval null and void. This deadline may be extended by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.445.090.C of the Land Use Code. Section 3: Planned Development – Detail Review In addition to the general documents required as part of a Planned Development – Detail Review, the following items shall be required as part of the Application’s Planned Development – Detail Review: a. An Outdoor Lighting Plan, pursuant to section 26.575.150. b. An existing and proposed Landscaping Plan, identifying trees with diameters and values. c. A draft Construction Management Plan. d. A completed Transportation Impact Analysis. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements Approval is hereby granted for 781 square feet of floor area to be added to the 83,140 square feet permitted in the Aspen Meadows SPA. The approved floor area is for the purpose of constructing an addition to the Aspen Meadows Reception Center. The addition will total 2,567 square feet of floor area. Decks shall be omitted from the calculation of floor area for this project. Decks will be attributed to floor area according to the methodology of the Land Use Code at the time of any future PD application affecting the Aspen Meadows. Existing and proposed floor area calculations shall be verified with the Zoning Officer prior to Planned Development – Project Review by City Council. Section 5: Architectural Design The applicant shall amend the proposal so that the new entry bridge connects to the roof deck on the pavilion rather than to the historic deck on the south side of the Reception Center. Section 6: Parking The Institute was required to create a 97 space parking garage as part of the Aspen Meadows SPA. The proposed project, which involves 781 square feet of floor area beyond what was already mitigated in the original Aspen Meadows SPA approval is deemed to generate the need P41 III.A. Aspen Meadows Reception Center Resolution No.__, Series 2016 Page 3 of 5 for 0.78 new spaces. A total of 97.78 parking spaces are now required to be provided entirely within the parking garage. Section 7: Growth Management, Essential Public Facility Growth Management approval for expansion of this Essential Public Facility is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Three years after Certificate of Occupancy, an employee audit shall be conducted showing the current FTE head count at that time. If additional employees are shown at that time, mitigation may be required. The auditor and audit will be reviewed and approved by APCHA. Any costs associated with the audit will be at the expense of the applicant. 2. Backup documentation shall be provided to APCHA relating to the current 16.58 FTE level for the food service. Section 8: Engineering Department The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. Drainage: 1. Detention is required for all new/altered impervious area. If the proposed interior remodel consists of more than 50% of the interior, then the entire affected site needs to be brought up to URMP standards 2. The historic rate for all sub-basins needs to be calculated pre-development, not existing conditions. The discharge needs to be less or equal to the historic rate and in a historical manner. If the basin drainage pattern is adjusted, detention and/or drainage features may be required to achieve historical rate and manner. The applicant can use the proposed green roof on the new pavilion for detention. 3. Slope stability study needs to be performed for the site because of slopes greater than 30%. The applicant is to work with Colorado Geological Services (CGS) in order to obtain study from CGS. 4. All existing drywells must be cleaned as part of this project. 5. The effectiveness of the proposed rain garden will need to be confirmed. 6. Cantilever/top of slope position and details will need to be vetted and discussed further in order to ensure safety and preservation of the slope. 7. More information, details, and calculations will need to be provided for the discharge control to ensure the discharge rate does not exceed historic rates. This can be provided at building permit. TIA: 1. A revised Transportation Impact Analysis must be reviewed and approved by Engineering and Transportation and provided to HPC for Final Review. P42 III.A. Aspen Meadows Reception Center Resolution No.__, Series 2016 Page 4 of 5 Section 9: Parks Department Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. In addition the Parks Department requires: 1. Review and approval of construction plans for the preservation of the elm tree that will be surrounded by the patio for the new pavilion. 2. Review and approval of construction access the project. 3. Review and approval of a proposed retaining wall on the eastern edge of the project. 4. Review and approval of a tree protection plan for the group of aspen trees to be preserved on the patio. A temporary mulch bed will be required to mitigate against soil compaction around this group of trees. 5. A construction fence will be required along the hillside to keep any and all construction material from this area. A silt fence may also be required. 6. Fence protection must be installed at the driplines of all trees for this project. There is no activity allowed within this fenced area, nor storage of material, or equipment. An inspection of this fence will be required by the City Forester prior to any activity. 7. The applicant shall work with the Parks Department to undertake any limbing up of deemed appropriate in an effort to improve the visibility of the historic structure. Section 10: Overflow Parking for Large Events Parking, Parks, Transportation and Engineering will review and approve a new plan for management of parking along Meadows Road, specifically to eliminate the practice of allowing head in parking on the west side of the road, adjacent to street trees. Applicant must revegetate the area that has been compacted, in consultation with Parks. Future parking shall be parallel only. The City may want to add signs in the area stating ”Parallel Parking Only.” Section 11: Environmental Health Department The Applicants have received Environmental Health Department Special Review approval for their Trash and Recyling facilities in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 12.10 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant has installed fencing and electric wire to ensure wildlife (specifically bears) cannot access the trash and recycling. The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife was consulted in the design of this fencing and it meets with their recommendations. 2. The applicant has agreed to implement a compost collection program within the fenced area in May 2016. 3. Environmental Health and Sustainability staff have agreed to work with the staff to implement the separation of compostable materials. Section 12: Water/Utilities Department The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees P43 III.A. Aspen Meadows Reception Center Resolution No.__, Series 2016 Page 5 of 5 will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 13: Outdoor Lighting and Signage All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 14: Building Department All applicable building and accessibility codes in place at the time of building permit shall be met. Section 15: 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 16: 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 17: 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. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11th day of May, 2016 Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Acting Chair Attest: _______________________________ Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk P44 III.A. Zoning 1. Provide mechanical plan for the site and the structure. 2. Provide lighting plan for the site and the structure. 3. Provide clear existing floor area. 4. Provide proposed floor area 5. Provide bullet point list of all proposed expansion. For example, include increase in office space at entry. ______________________________________________________________________________ Environmental Health Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling comments 1. This building is subject to the space requirements of 20’l x 20’d x10’h found in Municipal Code 12.10.040 (A)a for a Lodge with over 60 rooms and commercial Retail Food Service License. 2. The applicant has installed fencing and electric wire to ensure wildlife (specifically bears) cannot access the trash and recycling. The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife was consulted in the design of this fencing and it meets with their recommendations. 3. The applicant has agreed to implement a compost collection program within the fenced area in May 2016. 4. Environmental Health and Sustainability staff have agreed to work with the staff to implement the separation of compostable materials. 5. Given the above conditions, this project meets the Space Allotment requirements through the Special Review process. ______________________________________________________________________________ Parking All is good with parking for this project ______________________________________________________________________________ Parks Department 1. We would like to see construction plans for the preservation of the elm tree that will be surrounded by the proposed deck. 2. We are looking for the routes that will be used to access the site. Along the northern side of the project there are 2 transformers for the building. Are there plans to move them? There are also a couple of spruce trees that may need to be removed for access. 3. Along the existing retaining wall along the southern edge of the project lies a group of aspen trees that will require mitigation for removal, thus requiring a tree removal permit from the parks department. 4. The retaining wall on the eastern edge of the project will require the City Forester’s input as it appears that it may be in the driplines of the trees. Some thinning of the trees above this proposed wall may be allowed. 5. The group of aspen trees that are in the courtyard need to be protected and the limit of disturbance needs to be defined. A temporary mulch bed will be required to mitigate against soil compaction around this group of trees. P45 III.A. 6. A construction fence will be required along the hillside to keep any and all construction material from this area. A silt fence may also be required. 7. Fence protection must be installed at the driplines of all trees for this project. There is no activity allowed within this fenced area, nor storage of material, or equipment. An inspection of this fence will be required by the City Forester prior to any activity. 8. There is a concern with how parking is being managed along Meadows Road, specifically the recent addition of head in parking on the West side of the road. Applicant must revegetate the area that has been compacted, in consultation with Parks. Future parking shall be parallel only. The City may want to add signs in the area stating ”Parallel Parking Only.” ______________________________________________________________________________ Building Department Review Comments We have done a preliminary review for compliance on this project to the policies and codes as currently adopted and amended per Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Building/ http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/clerk/municode/coaspent08.pdf The comments are intended to provide the applicant with corrections or concerns that may require further development or be re drawn to show compliance. We are available to schedule a meeting to discuss these items at your earliest convenience. Please either email me at Denis.Murray@cityofaspen.com or call at 970-429-2761. 1) The project will most likely be submitted after we adopt the 2015 edition of the International codes. 2) The conceptual plans we reviewed left us with questions about exiting and accessibility. 3) We met with the design team and believe solutions have been worked out and will verify this when we see the changes incorporated into the design. 4) The importance of the wider exit balcony and bridge to the grade at the road level plus the rework of the exterior stair from the lawn level up to this same grade are key components to compliance. 5) Some accessible features to the toilet facilities, dinning and drinking surfaces were discussed and will be revised by permit submittal. ______________________________________________________________________________ Engineering, Transportation and Utilities These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. P46 III.A. Grading/Stormwater Drainage 1. Detention required for all new/altered impervious area. Mention of separate interior re- model. If interior remodel consists of more than 50% of interior than entire site needs to be brought up to URMP standards 2. According to preliminary drainage report, sub-basin PD-A does not require detention because the discharge rate is less than the historic rate. The historic rate for all sub-basins needs to be calculated pre-development, not existing conditions. The discharge needs to be less or equal to the historic rate and in a historical manner. If the basin drainage pattern is adjusted, detention and/or drainage features may be required to achieve historical rate and manner. 3. Renderings show green roof. Applicant can use green roof for detention. 4. Slope stability study needs to be performed for the site because of slopes greater than 30%. Applicant to work with Colorado Geological Services (CGS) in order to obtain study from CGS. 5. In the 2011 project, all existing drywells onsite were cleaned, we will require that all drywells be cleaned again along with this project. 6. Rain garden under a deck is not ideal. Not enough sunlight for plants to prosper. Look to relocate rain garden if possible or show deck will not negatively affect rain garden. 7. Cantilever/top of slope position and details will need to be vetted and discussed further in order to ensure safety and preservation of the slope. 8. More information, details, and calculations will need to be provided for the discharge control to ensure the discharge rate does not exceed historic rates. This can be provided at building permit. Transportation Impact Analysis MMLOS 1. Bike rack vs trail improvements a. If trail needs improvements, we would encourage the applicant to perform upgrades to trail in place of solely providing bike racks. With the above comment incorporated in to the TIA the project will meet the required mitigation points. Water Comments 1. Plans have not reached the detail required for a full water review. Applicant will need to determine if any upgrades are necessary once plans are sufficient. Electric Comments 1. Plans have not reached the detail required for a full electrical review. Applicant will need to determine if any upgrades are necessary once plans are sufficient. ______________________________________________________________________________ P47 III.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Simon, Community Development FROM: APCHA Board of Directors THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director DATE: March 3, 2016 RE: Referral for an Expansion of the Lower Dining Area at the Aspen Meadows Reception Center ISSUE: The applicant, The Aspen Institute, is requesting an expansion of the lower dining area located in the Reception Center to accommodate an additional 100 seats, as well as a small addition to the north side of the existing lobby/check-in area for front desk staff and guest luggage storage. BACKGROUND: The Reception Center building was opened in 1958. The building was placed on the City’s Inventory of Historic Structures in 1996. The Aspen Institute has made improvements to the building over the years to enhance its functionality. Currently, there are 98 lodge rooms that typically house at least two people. At times when the lodge rooms are at a 60% or higher occupancy, the current dining area is too small. The expansion will add approximately 1,800 additional square feet. The property is zoned as Academic, with a Planned Development Overlay. The City designated the Aspen Institute as an Essential Public Facilities which exempted them from the Growth Management Quota System Competition. The applicant also states that this designation exempts them from the affordable housing impact mitigation. Section 26.470.090.4, Essential public facilities, states: The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The P48 III.A. employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. c. The applicant has made a reasonable good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. d. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment, including all or none. Unless otherwise required by this Title, the provision of affordable housing mitigation via a fee-in- lieu payment for 0.25 FTEs or less shall not require City Council approval. The language in the Code does not specifically exempt an applicant from the mitigation of affordable housing. DISCUSSION: The applicant states that the expansion and addition of 100 seats will not generate any new employees. The Aspen Meadows provides food for all of the current guests, but may use multiple on-site locations. According to the applicant, the Aspen Meadows currently employs 16.58 FTE’s for the food service. An updated FTE analysis for 2015 has been provided to the staff. Employee Generation Calculations: Again, according to Section 26.470.050A.1, “all essential public facilities shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine employee generation.” The updated employee count provided to APCHA by the applicant states that the current staff level is 16.58 FTE’s. This number needs to be verified. There are no specific calculations stated in the Land Use Code within the Academic zone district. RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held March 2, 2016 and recommend approval of the expansion with the following conditions: 1. Three years after Certificate of Occupancy, an employee audit shall be conducted showing the current FTE head count at that time. If additional employees are shown at that time, mitigation may be required. The auditor and audit will be reviewed and approved by APCHA. Any costs associated with the audit will be at the expense of the applicant. 2. Backup documentation shall be provided to APCHA relating to the current 16.58 FTE level for the food service. P49 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 20 Straw vote on moving the house to Marolt: Patrick, Willis, Bob, Michael Nora voted to keep the house onsite. Sallie didn’t vote. Willis said Bob mentioned his concern that if the resource stays on site and the interpretive center fails because of the nebulas location and then it would be converted to affordable housing in which case we have lost the unique quality of the interior as a civic asset. That might not ever happen but it is a concern. Bob said his other concern is if a two bedroom affordable housing unit is a good application for the house. I can’t imagine that being a good application. An interpretive center is a better use for the building. Nora said we don’t know down the road if there will be an interpretive application. MOTION: Patrick made the motion to continue 540 to a date certain and that they move the historic house off-site and show a redesign of the employee housing and that they keep it to 28 feet with the clearstory. Patrick withdrew his motion. MOTION: Willis made the motion to continue 540 E. Main to April 27th with direction to show two elevations, one with the resource onsite and the other with the historic house offsite. The police station be lowered and the affordable housing mass and scale be restudied and height lessened. Michael pointed out that the affordable housing should not be at 46 feet. The city has pushed for lower height everywhere. Motion second by Patrick. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, yes; Michael, yes; Sallie, yes. Motion carried 6 -0 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception enter, Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Planned Development, Public Hearing Jim Curtis, presented Amy Margerum Berg, Executive Vice-President for Aspen Institute P50 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 21 Debbie said she reviewed the public notice and asked Jim what boundaries he used in connection with the mailed notice. Jim said he went beyond the 300 foot radius and went to 325 feet and used the boundary of property 1A. This is an amendment to Lot 1A within a larger SPA. Debbie said given the neighborhood outreach that has been done and because we have multiple forms of notice the notice is acceptable. Amy said HPC is reviewing the planned development and making a recommendation to city council. Council will make the determination and then it will come back to HPC for details. Planned Development is a special designation given to unique properties in town that gives more flexibility for uses, dimensions etc. HPC will also have conceptual review and growth management. The building was originally called the Central building and was built in 1958. Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer designed the building together. The proposal is for the expansion of the lower level of the building where the Plato restaurant is. The entire Meadows area received approval in 1991 for a master plan which included the Institute the Music Associates and the Physics Center. The Institute has done numerous improvement to the site. Expansion limits were set in 1991 and we are close to the limit. They are about 1500 square feet past their limit in terms of building and about 2,000 in decks. We need to talk about traffic and affordable housing and they will need to meet today’s criteria. The applicant was required to compile a Transportation impact analysis which is a newer process where you calculate the proposed square footage and determine what kind of improvements are needed for the overall transportation system and pedestrian activity. The applicant did that but we feel the numbers are incorrect. We are recommending continuation to redo the TIA. Part of their proposal is to improve how pedestrians and disabled people would come in the front of the reception building and down to the new patio. There is a proposal to expand the dining room area on the lower patio and also make an addition on the north side of the historic building to accommodate in house needs. While we understand the need, staff questions the need of impacting the historic structure on all sides. Perhaps there is an area below grade so that the historic materials are not impacted. On the dining room expansion it is on an angle to the historic structure which I am sure is intentional but it is a departure from the Bayer/Benedict idea. It might be a way to distinguish P51 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 22 old from new or it might be too disruptive and cause attention to itself. We would also like discussion about the height difference between the historic resource and the addition. The new addition is about two feet taller than the ground floor of the dining room. We have also asked for more detail how the new construction actually physically attaches to the historic building. The project includes creating a new pedestrian bridge from the sculpture out to the new terrace. We aren’t entirely clear how that works so we need to know what the requirements are etc. The last topic are the trees. The trees have grown and they are quite large and it is hard to see the front of this building and it is an important piece of architecture. There should be some discussion whether some of them could be removed to provide more view of the architecture. In general this project is good and the architect is trying to be compatible with vocabulary of the institute. Willis inquired about the allocations. Amy said in 1991 the master plan had certain allocations for expanding the various buildings and the institute campus. There was square footage for the lodging, health club etc. As things progressed there was a tracking method but there seems to be an error. Nora said the health center has 1500 square feet unused. Amy said we just need better clarification on the numbers. Michael asked about the area of the total site. Amy Margerum Berg said there is 40 acres on the site. Amy B. said she was the Planning Director for the City of Aspen and after that she was the City Manager for the City of Aspen. It was an historic effort to plan this property and it was important for the community. The music festival was almost at the time bankrupt and the institute was bankrupt. The reason the master plan was done in the first place is the institute sold all the property including the land under the physics and music festival to a developer as part of the package for the St. Regis Hotel. The City got together with the developer and the four non-profits which included the International Design conference and we created a consortium and together we worked with the neighbors and the community to come up with the master plan. We have been very careful to develop the property in the P52 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 23 spirit of the Aspen Idea, Mind, Body and Spirit. We have worked hard to keep the property in the same feeling as 1958. The property still has the original spirit that the Paepcke’s and Bayer’s wanted it to have. Amy B. identified the team: Becky Ward, facilities coordinator Jud Hawk, general manager of the hotel. Amy said we own the hotel but contract out the services to a hotel management company which is Dolce International. Jeff Berkus is the institute’s architect. Amy B. said Donny Lee was here to support the Aspen Institute but had to leave. Amy B. said regarding the FAR we have been careful in keep track of our Floor Area. We have never intended or wanted to go over our floor area ratio. We have been talking for the last 5 and ten years what we want to use our last FAR for. We had discussed increasing the size of the fitness center and lodging. We feel it is important for us to have a restaurant that fits the number of hotel rooms that we have. In 1958 there were 100 seats in the restaurant and only 48 lodge rooms and now we have 98 lodge rooms and still only have 100 seats in the restaurant. When we have double occupancy which is most of the year they all can’t come together to eat breakfast or lunch. The hotel company has done a masterful job of managing that and we have put up tents. The tents aren’t heated as well as they should be. Many times our meals are centered on having a speaker. Having one room connected with the addition would make it feel like one big space and within keeping the architecture. Each time we went through the city process we had a resolution approved by City Council and recorded with our square footage and how much we deducted each time. The resolution shows that we have 2,229 square feet left. We have raised money and we are relying on that. After we build this building we aren’t coming back to ask for more square footage. We just had a donner give us a million dollars to put a conservation easement on the old historic race track. It is zoned open space and it can’t be developed. Someone could come before City Council and ask that it be rezoned. We are cognizant not wanting to come back to ask for more square footage. The addition is in the academic zone district which is meant to fulfill the mission of the Aspen Institute which is bringing intellectual activity to the Aspen community. Jim Curtis said he has been involved since 2003. Staff and myself will get together and work through the history of the numbers. We would prefer to P53 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 24 defer that discussion tonight. We would like to request that the next meeting date be changed as the architect is out of the country. HPC and staff were gracious to move us up to tonight’s meeting. Jeff Berkus, architect said it is an honor to work on this final building for the institute. I have been engaged with the institute for the last 13 years. When I do architecture with the Institute I bring in body and spirit. The main thing in the building is the elegance of the structural systems and they are clean and very thin. We started with how do we maintain the light elegant pattern that the first two architects have done, Harry Teague and Herbert Bayer. When we start a project we look for the heart or center of the project. When we were asked to add an addition for 100 people the first thing we did was try to determine how to make it as small as possible. It is 15 square foot per person, with 100 people equals 1500 square feet. That is as big as this building is going to be. This space is the only space on the property that is indoor/outdoor. All summer we have a tent that is the same square footage. The piece by Bayer is on the side of the building. People would like another way to come to the building rather than the front door to go to the terrace. The bridge is on the axis of the arrival court. We are asking for a subordinate amount of square footage to be added and it is pushed back from the front façade. We angled the building to the energy of the Maroon Creek valley. It makes a different in the building the way people feel. We continue to honor the natural landscape around the buildings that we are creating and create the views to nature. By angling the building away from the existing building it preserves the view of the existing space. The stair is necessary for egress from the roof and also down to the sub-basement. The basement will go under the new pavilion for storage and we want to connect with a tunnel link so that we have ADA access through a new service elevator. There are storage sheds in the parking lot so in order to get rid of those we might need more basement storage. Jeff addressed the roof terrace. The top of the building will have a skylight to bring light to the center. We want to have a flat usable deck. The roof terrace is at 12’8”. It is only two feet above the existing terrace. It was mentioned that a percentage of terrace was over. If you are over terrace by city code it means it goes to FAR which is not our intention. We intentionally designed this to not go over the FAR. We are concerned about the back of the Bayer building. We made the stairway that goes downstairs low so that the view is maintained out of the existing lounge. We added a very eloquent line structurally above and very simple concrete posts P54 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 25 and the same Bayer grey and white. The wing is the exact overhang of Bayer’s bldg. The courtyard that was created outside of the lounge is a place where people will love to sit and look up the Maroon Creek valley. Jim said the pedestrian bridge is mandated by the building codes. It also gives us the opportunity to remove the 2005 stairway that imposes on the that side today. Questions: Nora asked the applicant how they felt about the trees. Amy B. said they love the trees and all of Aspen had large trees. The trees are majestic and add green and outdoors. We can clearly limb some of the trees so that you can see the building. We feel the trees soften the building. Patrick asked if the organic growth of the tree is something that Bayer thought of going forward through time with his designs. Amy B. said Lisa did her thesis on Herbert Bayer and she is the curator for the Institute. Lisa said all of his architecture is in tune with the environment. The reason for all the low buildings is to be completely in context of the environment. I believe he would see the trees as part of the environment. Bob said he remembers meeting Herbert Bayer in 1960. The thinking behind the presentation is well thought out. Patrick asked about the plan for the bike path. It is an aesthetic entrance to Plato’s. Jeff said there is a very weak connection to the path right now. We are trying to create an accessible connection to connect the terrace to the trail. Nora asked if there could be a collaboration with Parks to eliminate any more erosion of the trail. Jim Curtis said we are having this discussion. Michael asked about the elevations of the north addition. P55 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 26 Jeff said we were very careful to not cover up the front corner and 33% of it and there is a window that we didn’t cover up. The second window is covered up and part of the original structure is covered up. Amy B. said the lobby is very small and when we have groups come in all at once from the airport the luggage storage is a huge issue. It is also noisy. It is important to have that extra storage space up above on the top floor. Amy S. asked if any space could be used where the mechanical corral is. Jeff said it is an interesting idea and we need to reassess all the mechanical equipment as it is at the end of its lifetime. The connection might be tough but we could look at going up by the elevator lobby. Nora asked if that would free up room so that you didn’t have to destroy the historic fabric of the building. Bob said where the last house was built that area isn’t the prettiest view and anything you can do to mast that out would be beneficial. Michael said he thought decks for commercial projects were exempt from floor area. Amy said they are not. We want to work out a solution that works for everyone. It has been debated with most current projects. We want to make sure we are accounting for everything in a fair way. Commercial core properties have recently become exempt from decks. Michael pointed out that we see a lot of projects proposing roof top public amenities which are really not roof top amenities. This looks like a real roof top amenity. Amy said the top of the roof is public amenity. Michael said the walk out patio that they have doesn’t count but when you put it on the roof it counts. Amy S. said so does the part that is cantilevered in the back. Jeff said none of it every counted before. P56 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 27 Amy S. said we can have a discussion as to what counts and what doesn’t and they can take that into account with their planned development review. Amy B. we have had the deduction of floor area that we have used for 15 years and we have been very careful to count every square foot. We also have a recorded exhibit with the deductions. We wanted to design a building that fit within what was allowed. Amy S. said HPC will make a recommendation to council including variations if those are an issue and they will make the final decision. Nora asked what was needed for continuation. Amy S. said the calculations are not clear and there are a few design issues that were mentioned. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Willis said the square footage calculation can be addressed at the next meeting. TIA analysis and transportation. They have always been good stewards of people coming and going in the remote location that they are. Mass and scale. Additions, one on the north and one on the south . Articulation of the decks and the impression of the architecture as it relates to the historic resource which now has two major additions and this is the third. Staff raised the two foot height difference from the roof deck to the restaurant level. Pedestrian bridge and stair leading to the new addition was also called out by staff. Where should the bridge connect and land. Michael said the applicant did an exceptional presentation and they were well prepared on the heights and showing us where it would measure on the historical asset. I think the project is fabulous. It is probably the best project I’ve seen since I have been on the commission. The clean lines and how elegant and light and simple the design is goes with what is there. The P57 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 28 height in the historical resource is too low. The site is large and the floor area can be worked out. It is a terrific project. Sallie said the project looks great. It is important that the trees stay there and they are an important element of surprise and discovery. Bob said the floor area can be solved. The removal of part of the north addition and creating the function in the basement for storage is needed. I eat at the bar and it can be disruptive. It isn’t as welcoming to go by the desk etc. The design works very well. The trees can be addressed by Parks. This project is another jewel in the crown for the Institute. I am very supportive of the project and we can work through some of the details. Amy S. said you are missing information that is important, the growth management impacts, square footage, and parking. Nora thanked the applicant for a great presentation and a great site visit. I was shocked that it is small. Possibly you can save the northe rn wall and utilize the mechanical area. It is a beautiful project. Patrick said he knows the site intimately from decades of being there. The design is great and it is a continuation of the Doer Hosier. The trees are part of the organ growth and should stay. The baggage storage should be looked into. The height difference is fine. Willis said engaging in the kaleidoscope panels that Bayer did is a good thing because they are not entirely present as one engages the entrance unless you look for it. I was a huge Bayer fan when I moved to Aspen and his work is near and dear. The west elevation is entirely changed and completely altered. I don’t see the constructive eloquence in the fabric of the addition and that will be for final because it is not mass and scale. Bob said this project is honoring the past and celebrating the future and honoring Herbert’s intent in the building. Willis said the stair and the view doesn’t add up to connectivity. It distracts from the view. MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center to May 25th; second by Nora. Roll call vote: Nora, yes, P58 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 29 Sallie, yes; Michael, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, yes; Bob, yes. Motion carried 6-0. City Clerk Minute review Linda Manning, City Clerk gave a history how the clerk’s office has approached minutes over a decade. This past year we have scanned the minutes from the 50’s from hand written bound books. Back then they were action item minutes only. A lot of clerks today do action item minutes only. Our minutes are summary minutes and we give a brief summary of the item and we try to get the details, who asked the questions and what the response was and the general discussion. City Council loves the HPC and P&Z minutes. Those meetings are not aired on Grassroots TV. If someone comes in they can get the audio of the meeting. For Council you can go online and listen to the meeting. Constantly Council says they rely on the minutes from HPC and P&Z and that is how they know what happened. It seems like every project that is called up comes back to you and Council looks at the minutes to base their decision off of. We try to give a thorough enough summary in those minutes so that when council is looking at them they have enough information to understand what HPC was talking about that there not going to call it up. We are more than happy to make changes to the minutes. You can state what you want in the record and say that you want it in the record and it will be typed. We can’t put it in there unless you say it. If you have an issue or think we aren’t doing a thorough enough job please come and talk to me. We are more than happy to tweak things. We are trying to be innovative and we want to do a good job and if you think we can make improvement please let me know. Patrick said this board is the final decision and the only person that has recourse is the applicant and is it possible that we could get it on video so that people could look at it. Linda said we have talked about that before but it is costly and we haven’t found it necessary at this point. Michael agreed with Patrick on the video. Patrick said maybe we can video larger projects. Linda said we can look into it. P59 III.A. P 6 0 I I I . A . P 6 1 I I I . A . P 6 2 I I I . A . P 6 3 I I I . A . P 6 4 I I I . A . P 6 5 I I I . A . P 6 6 I I I . A . P 6 7 I I I . A . P 6 8 I I I . A . Aspen Meadows Reception Center Aspen Historic Preservation Commission - Presentation May 11, 2016 P 6 9 I I I . A . Upper Level Plan Presented March 23rd Revised Design EXISTING “BLUE” MECHANICAL SCREEN P 7 0 I I I . A . Upper Level Plan Presented March 23rd Revised Design FOUR STEP PROPOSED TWO STEP SOLUTION P 7 1 I I I . A . Basement Level Plan Presented March 23rd Revised Design P 7 2 I I I . A . Pavilion Connection Presented March 23rd Revised Design P 7 3 I I I . A . Concrete T’s Interior View P 7 4 I I I . A . Stepped Connection Section P 7 5 I I I . A . Aspen Meadows Reception Pavilion Upper Level Plan 1/8” = 1’ - 0” 5/11/2016 NN P 7 6 I I I . A . NN Aspen Meadows Reception Pavilion Lower Level Plan 1/8” = 1’ - 0”5/11/2016 P 7 7 I I I . A . NN Aspen Meadows Reception Pavilion Basement Level Plan 1/8” = 1’ - 0”5/11/2016 P 7 8 I I I . A . S C A L E : C O N C E P T U A L N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " E X I S T I N G O U T D O O R S T O R A G E S E R V I C E E N T R A N C E E X I S T I N G C O L U M N P R E V I O U S N O R T H A D D I T I O N S C O P E N E W S T O R A G E A D D I T I O N E X I S T I N G M E C H A N I C A L S C R E E N I N G S C O P E O F M E C H A N I C A L " B L U E " S C R E E N ( N O T S H O W N F O R C L A R I T Y ) E X I S T I N G F A C A D E U N - A L T E R E D T . O . F I N I S H 1 0 0 ' - 0 " T . O . E X I S T I N G U P P E R L E V E L 1 1 0 ' - 2 " 10'-2" T . O . E X I S T I N G R O O F 1 1 9 ' - 6 " T . O . D E C K 1 1 1 ' - 4 " 1'-2" E X I S T I N G E L E V A T O R O V E R R U N N E W P L A T O ' S K I T C H E N A D D I T I O N N E W N O R T H A D D I T I O N S C O P E File Path: P:\Proj-2011\11028-Aspen Meadows_Pavilion\03_Drawings\11028_A3-1_Building Sections.dwgPlot Date/Time: May 05, 2016 - 12:02 pm C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 5 J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : 1 1 0 2 8 _ A 3 - 1 _ B u i l d i n g S e c t i o n s . d w g S C A L E : 2 0 1 0 5 . 1 1 . 1 3 4 0 0 W E S T M A I N S T R E E T - S U I T E 1 2 0 A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 P H O N E 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 1 7 F A X 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 2 6 H P C P A C K A G E 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " P R O P O S E D N O R T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N P79 I I I . A . N E W S U B G R A D E B A S E M E N T T . O . F I N I S H 1 0 0 ' - 0 " T . O . E X I S T I N G R O O F 1 1 9 ' - 6 " N E W 4 2 I N C H G L A S S R A I L I N G W I T H M E T A L C A P N E W C O N C R E T E C O L U M N S N E W G L A S S D O O R A S S E M B L Y E X I S T I N G W A L L A S S E M B L Y NEW MESH RAILING(NOT DRAWN FOR CLARITY)RE: RENDERINGS S C A L E : C O N C E P T U A L S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " N E W B R I D G E M E T A L C - C H A N N E L F A S C I A T . O . F I N I S H 8 8 ' - 4 " 5'-8"CANTILEVERED PATIORE: STRUCT M E C H A N I C A L C H A S E T.O. R A I L I N G 116' - 0 " T . O . M E C H A N I C A L C H A S E 1 1 8 ' - 2 " T . O . E X I S T I N G U P P E R L E V E L 1 1 0 ' - 2 " T . O . D E C K 1 1 1 ' - 4 " 10'-2"1'-2"1'-2" T . O . P A V I L I O N 1 1 2 ' - 6 " T . O . F I N I S H 1 0 0 ' - 0 " T . O . E X I S T I N G U P P E R L E V E L 1 1 0 ' - 2 " T . O . E X I S T I N G R O O F 1 1 9 ' - 6 " T . O . D E C K 1 1 1 ' - 4 " N E W S U B G R A D E B A S E M E N T EXISTING SUBGRADE LEVEL 10'-2"1'-2"1'-2" N E W 4 2 I N C H G L A S S R A I L I N G W I T H M E T A L C A P N E W M E S H R A I L I N G E X I S T I N G M E S H R A I L N E W M E T A L P A N E L A C C E N T W A L L N E W C O N C R E T E C O L U M N S N E W M E T A L R A I L I N G E X I S T I N G P L A T O ' S R E S T A U R A N T E X I S T I N G D I N I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G D I N I N G A R E A EXISTINGROOF TOP MECHANICAL AREA N E W G L A S S D O O R A S S E M B L Y T . O . P A V I L I O N 1 1 2 ' - 6 " C O N C R E T E E X I S T I N G E X T E R I O R S T E E L S U P P O R T S N E W M E S H R A I L I N G ( N O T D R A W N F O R C L A R I T Y ) R E : R E N D E R I N G S S C A L E : C O N C E P T U A L W E S T E L E V A T I O N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " T . O . F L O O R 9 1 ' - 0 " T . O . F I N I S H 8 8 ' - 4 " T . O . E X I S T I N G R O O F 1 2 6 ' - 4 " File Path: P:\Proj-2011\11028-Aspen Meadows_Pavilion\03_Drawings\11028_A3-1_Building Sections.dwgPlot Date/Time: May 05, 2016 - 11:37 am C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 5 J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : 1 1 0 2 8 _ A 3 - 1 _ B u i l d i n g S e c t i o n s . d w g S C A L E : 2 0 1 0 5 . 1 1 . 1 3 4 0 0 W E S T M A I N S T R E E T - S U I T E 1 2 0 A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 P H O N E 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 1 7 F A X 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 2 6 H P C P A C K A G E 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " P R O P O S E D W E S T + S O U T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S P80 I I I . A . B U I L D I N G S I T E M E A D O W S C A M P U S File Path: P:\Proj-2011\11028-Aspen Meadows_Pavilion\03_Drawings\Campus Map.dwgPlot Date/Time: November 12, 2015 - 3:33 pm C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 5 J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : C a m p u s M a p . d w g S C A L E : 2 0 1 0 5 . 1 1 . 1 3 4 0 0 W E S T M A I N S T R E E T - S U I T E 1 2 0 A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 P H O N E 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 1 7 F A X 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 2 6 H P C P A C K A G E 1 " = 1 2 0 ' - 0 " V I C I N I T Y M A P M E A D O W S C A M P U S M A P P81 I I I . A . P 8 2 I I I . A . D N S C A L E : E X I S T I N G L O W E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N N . T . S . SCALE:EXISTINGBASMENT LEVEL FL O O R P L A N N.T.S. S C A L E : E X I S T I N G U P P E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N N . T . S . E L E V E X I S T I N G D E C K E X I S T I N G M E C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T O N R O O F D E C K E L E V U P S T A I R D N S T A I R S T E P D N D N S T A I R U P R A M P U P S T A I R S T A I R D N S T A I R U P R A M P ELEC.001C O M M . 0 0 2 F R I D G E 0 0 3 F R I D G E 0 0 4 L I Q U O R S T O R A G E 0 0 5 S T A F F L U N C H R O O M 0 0 6 B O I L E R R O O M 0 0 7 S T O R A G E 0 0 8 MECH009 WOMENSRESTROOM010 MENSRESTROOM011 STORAGE012 H A L L 0 1 3 L I F T H O S T S T A T I O N 1 0 1 B E R N H A R D R O O M 1 0 2 O R T E G A R O O M 1 1 7 S E R V I N G 1 0 3 E X I S T I N G D I N I N G A R E A 1 0 4 E X I S T I N G D I N I N G A R E A 1 0 5 S E R V I N G C O R R I D O R 1 0 6 E X I S T I N G K I T C H E N 1 0 7 L I F T E X I S T I N G O U T D O O R S T O R A G E 1 0 8 S T O R A G E 1 0 9 E L E V A T O R L O B B Y 1 1 0 S T O R A G E 1 1 1 C L O S E T 1 1 2 U T I L I T Y 1 1 3 W O M E N S R E S T R O O M 1 1 4 M E N S R E S T R O O M 1 1 5 S T O R A G E 1 1 6 S T O R A G E 1 1 8 O F F I C E 1 1 9 C O R R I D O R 1 2 0 E N T R Y L O B B Y 2 0 1 L O U N G E 2 0 2 L O U N G E 2 0 3 D I N I N G A R E A 2 0 4 S E R V I N G S T A T I O N 2 0 5 K I T C H E N 2 0 6 C O A T C L O S E T 2 0 7 E L E V A T O R L O B B Y 2 0 8 O F F I C E 2 0 9 O F F I C E 2 1 0 O F F I C E 2 1 1 R E C E P T I O N 2 1 2 V E S T I B U L E 2 1 3 H A L L 2 1 4 E X I S T I N G B A R File Path: P:\Proj-2011\11028-Aspen Meadows_Pavilion\03_Drawings\HPC Existing Floor Plans.dwgPlot Date/Time: February 28, 2016 - 3:43 pm C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 5 J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : H P C E x i s t i n g F l o o r P l a n s . d w g S C A L E : 2 0 1 0 5 . 1 1 . 1 3 4 0 0 W E S T M A I N S T R E E T - S U I T E 1 2 0 A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 P H O N E 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 1 7 F A X 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 2 6 H P C P A C K A G E N O T T O S C A L E E X I S T I N G F L O O R P L A N S P83 I I I . A . EAST ELEVATION E A S T E L E V A T I O N SOUTH ELEVATION W E S T E L E V A T I O N W E S T E L E V A T I O N File Path: P:\Proj-2011\11028-Aspen Meadows_Pavilion\03_Drawings\HPC - Existing South - East - West Photos Sheet.dwgPlot Date/Time: November 12, 2015 - 1:53 pm C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 5 J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : H P C - E x i s t i n g S o u t h - E a s t - W e s t P h o t o s S h e e t . d w g S C A L E : 2 0 1 0 5 . 1 1 . 1 3 4 0 0 W E S T M A I N S T R E E T - S U I T E 1 2 0 A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 P H O N E 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 1 7 F A X 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 2 6 H P C P A C K A G E N O T T O S C A L E E X I S T I N G P H O T O S P84 I I I . A . P 8 5 I I I . A . Bird’s Eye View P 8 6 I I I . A . Entrance View P 8 7 I I I . A . West View P 8 8 I I I . A . N Aspen Meadows Reception Pavilion Upper Level Plan 1/8” = 1’ - 0” 2/3/2016 N P 8 9 I I I . A . N Aspen Meadows Reception Pavilion Lower Level Plan 1/8” = 1’ - 0”2/3/2016 N P 9 0 I I I . A . P 9 1 I I I . A . N E W S U B G R A D E B A S E M E N T T . O . F I N I S H 1 0 0 ' - 0 " ( 7 8 5 4 ' ) T . O . E X I S T I N G U P P E R L E V E L 1 0 9 ' - 8 " T . O . E X I S T I N G D E C K 1 1 0 ' - 2 " 9'-8"6"2'-0" T . O . P A V I L I O N 1 1 2 ' - 2 " T . O . E X I S T I N G R O O F 1 1 9 ' - 6 " N E W 4 2 I N C H G L A S S R A I L I N G W I T H M E T A L C A P N E W C O N C R E T E C O L U M N S N E W G L A S S D O O R A S S E M B L Y E X I S T I N G W A L L A S S E M B L Y NEW MESH RAILING(NOT DRAWN FOR CLARITY)RE: RENDERINGS S C A L E : C O N C E P T U A L S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " N E W B R I D G E M E T A L C - C H A N N E L F A S C I A T . O . F I N I S H 8 8 ' - 4 " 5'-5 3/8"CANTILEVERED PATIORE: STRUCT M E C H A N I C A L C H A S E T.O. R A I L I N G 115' - 8 " T . O . M E C H A N I C A L C H A S E 1 1 8 ' - 2 " T . O . F I N I S H 1 0 0 ' - 0 " T . O . E X I S T I N G U P P E R L E V E L 1 0 9 ' - 8 " T . O . E X I S T I N G R O O F 1 1 9 ' - 6 " T . O . E X I S T I N G D E C K 1 1 0 ' - 2 " N E W S U B G R A D E B A S E M E N T EXISTING SUBGRADE LEVEL 9'-8"6"2'-0" N E W 4 2 I N C H G L A S S R A I L I N G W I T H M E T A L C A P N E W G L A S S R A I L I N G E X I S T I N G M E S H R A I L N E W M E T A L P A N E L A C C E N T W A L L N E W C O N C R E T E C O L U M N S N E W M E T A L R A I L I N G E X I S T I N G P L A T O ' S R E S T A U R A N T E X I S T I N G D I N I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G D I N I N G A R E A EXISTINGROOF TOP MECHANICAL AREA N E W G L A S S D O O R A S S E M B L Y T . O . P A V I L I O N 1 1 2 ' - 2 " C O N C R E T E E X I S T I N G E X T E R I O R S T E E L S U P P O R T S N E W M E S H R A I L I N G ( N O T D R A W N F O R C L A R I T Y ) R E : R E N D E R I N G S S C A L E : C O N C E P T U A L W E S T E L E V A T I O N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " T . O . F L O O R 9 1 ' - 0 " T . O . F I N I S H 8 8 ' - 4 " File Path: C:\Users\nketpura\Desktop\11028_A3-1_Building Sections.dwgPlot Date/Time: March 02, 2016 - 5:42 pm C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 5 J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : 1 1 0 2 8 _ A 3 - 1 _ B u i l d i n g S e c t i o n s . d w g S C A L E : 2 0 1 0 5 . 1 1 . 1 3 4 0 0 W E S T M A I N S T R E E T - S U I T E 1 2 0 A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 P H O N E 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 1 7 F A X 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 2 6 H P C P A C K A G E 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " P R O P O S E D W E S T + S O U T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S P92 I I I . A . S C A L E : C O N C E P T U A L N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " T . O . F I N I S H 1 0 0 ' - 0 " T . O . E X I S T I N G U P P E R L E V E L 1 0 9 ' - 8 " T . O . E X I S T I N G D E C K 1 1 0 ' - 2 " 9'-8"6" T . O . E X I S T I N G R O O F 1 1 9 ' - 6 " N E W P O P O U T F O R O P E R A T I O N A L S T O R A G E N E W C O V E R E D P O R C H N E W C O L U M N E X I S T I N G O U T D O O R S T O R A G E S E R V I C E E N T R A N C E E X I S T I N G M E C H A N I C A L S C R E E N I N G File Path: C:\Users\nketpura\Desktop\11028_A3-1_Building Sections.dwgPlot Date/Time: March 02, 2016 - 8:49 pm C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 5 J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : 1 1 0 2 8 _ A 3 - 1 _ B u i l d i n g S e c t i o n s . d w g S C A L E : 2 0 1 0 5 . 1 1 . 1 3 4 0 0 W E S T M A I N S T R E E T - S U I T E 1 2 0 A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 P H O N E 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 1 7 F A X 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 2 6 H P C P A C K A G E 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " P R O P O S E D N O R T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S P93 I I I . A . NEW 3'-6" MESH RAILING(NOT DRAWN FOR CLARITY)RE: RENDERINGS 5 ' - 8 " CANTILEVERED PATIORE: STRUCTLINE OF EXISTINGGRADE 3'-6"2'-0" U P S T A I R U P D N D N S T A I R D N U P 5 ' - 8 " File Path: C:\Users\nketpura\Desktop\11028_A3-1_Building Sections.dwgPlot Date/Time: March 02, 2016 - 8:44 pm C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 5 J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S . J E F F R E Y B E R K U S A R C H I T E C T S S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : 1 1 0 2 8 _ A 3 - 1 _ B u i l d i n g S e c t i o n s . d w g S C A L E : 2 0 1 0 5 . 1 1 . 1 3 4 0 0 W E S T M A I N S T R E E T - S U I T E 1 2 0 A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 P H O N E 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 1 7 F A X 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 7 0 2 6 H P C P A C K A G E A S N O T E D C A N T I L E V E R E D P A T I O P L A N A N D S E C T I O N D E T A I L SCALE:CONCEPTUAL PATIO CANTILEVERED SECTION1/4" = 1'-0" S C A L E : C O N C E P T U A L P A T I O P L A N 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " P94 I I I . A . N Aspen Meadows Reception Pavilion Conceptual Landscape Plan 1/8” = 1’ - 0”2/3/2016 N EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN IF POSSIBLE P 9 5 I I I . A . !. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 100 Year Flood PlainBoundarySource:FEMA PITK I N W A Y ME A D O W S R D C A S T L E C R E E K D R ROARIN G F O R K R D ASPEN MEADOWS !.Reception Center Building ! !100 Year Floodplain Contours 2' Parcels Aspen Meadows Pitkin County, CO NAD 1983 StatePlane Colorado Central FIPS 0502 Ft US Q:\1996\96057R_ReceptionCenter-Lot1A\AspenMeadows.mxd ESRI, FEMA, Pitkin County, City of Aspen, SGM Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Map by:Job No.Date:11/04/2015 96057R RKK Coordinate System: Data Sources: File:®0 275 550Feet 1 inch = 100 feet The information displayed above is intended for general planning purposes. Refer to legal documentation/data sources for descriptions/locations. Page: Approximately 286 ft Reception Center Building Proposed Expansion C a s t l e C r e e k R o a r i n g F o r k R i v e r Aspen Municipal CodeSection 26.435.040. Stream margin reviewA. Applicability. The provisions of the stream margin review shall apply to all developmentwithin one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring ForkRiver and its tributary streams and to all development within the Flood Hazard Area, also known asthe 100-year flood plain. To Disturbance P 9 6 I I I . A . 2/25/162/25/16 P 9 7 I I I . A . 2/25/16 P 9 8 I I I . A . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 209 E. Bleeker–Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 11, 2016 SUMMARY: 209 East Bleeker is a designated landmark located in Aspen’s West End neighborhood. The home belonged to the Hayes family for 60 years. In November a new owner received HPC Conceptual approval and variations to allow the historic resource to be restored and a new addition to be constructed. Final design approval is requested. This historic resource was significantly altered decades ago to provide more space for the Hayes’ expanding family. A second floor was added on top of the original miner’s cottage, as seen at the right. There is enough historic fabric remaining in place to inform the restoration plans, and since Conceptual approval, a photo of the original house, below, was found in the Mary Hayes collection donated to the Aspen Historical Society. This will greatly assist in ensuring the historical accuracy of the project. P99 IV.A. FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: 209 Bleeker, LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-20-002 ADDRESS: 209 E. Bleeker Street, Lots C, D and a portion of Lot B, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen Colorado ZONING: R-6 Major Development is a two-step process requiring HPC approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: The Final proposal closely matches what was reviewed by HPC at Conceptual. The only massing change is that the architect has broken up the length of the ridgeline on the eastern portion of the addition by creating a flat roofed area that features skylights. This is an improvement that came out of HPC member comments in November. The Conceptual approval included a number of variations, including setbacks and floor area. The resolution noted that if there are any discrepancies found between the variations listed in the resolution and what is represented in the site plan, the site plan would prevail. As part of this Final review, staff proposes to clarify the variations as follows: • A 1'2" west sideyard setback is provided alongside the Victorian house. • A 4' west sideyard setback is provided alongside the addition to the Victorian house. • The total combined sideyard setback being provided is 8'5" (1'2" on west, 5'3" on east.) • The rear yard provided is 5' for the garage, 5' for a deck on top of the garage and 5' for below grade living space. • The approved site coverage is 52%. (This was presented to HPC but not clearly noted in the Conceptual resolution.) • A 500 square feet floor area bonus is approved. • The Residential Design Standard related to the minimum size of the front porch is waived because the standard does not match the size of the historic porch on this home. P100 IV.A. There were a number of items noted in the Conceptual approval as topics required to be addressed at Final, including: • a. The connector directly behind the landmark shall be a flat roof that connects to a one story gable roof. ACCOMPLISHED • b. The applicant shall demonstrate whether the flat roof connector can be tucked beneath the original eave of the landmark. ARCHITECT HAS REDUCED PLATE HEIGHT TO THE EXTENT THEY FEEL IS PRACTICAL; APPROXIMATELY 8’ • c. All built-in features shown in setbacks shall be identified in height and location to determine whether a variation is needed. NO SPECIFICS PROVIDED. ALL OUTDOOR LIVING ELEMENTS THAT EXCEED SETBACK ALLOWANCES WILL HAVE TO BE REVISED/MOVED. • d. Detailed preservation plans for the historic resource shall be submitted including an appropriately sized window in the gable end of the landmark. DRAWINGS INCLUDE RESTORATION NOTES. MORE DETAILS WILL BE REQURED AS CONDITIONS OF THIS APPROVAL. • e. A detailed landscape plan that includes a conceptual proposal addressing storm water management requirements. ACCOMPLISHED. REGARDING INITIAL STORMWATER CONCEPTS, THE DRAWINGS REPRESENT A PREVIOUS CONCEPT FOR THE ADDITION THAT WAS NOT APPROVED. ASSUMING THE CONCEPT WILL BE THE SAME, THE ENGINEER PROPOSES WATER QUALITY CAPTURE AREAS CONCEALED WITH GRASS AT THE FRONT CORNERS OF THE SITE, WHICH SHOULD HAVE NO NOTICEABLE VISUAL IMPACT. In terms of remaining items, Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” This project will involve a substantial amount of reconstruction. The architect has done a careful job of estimating the dimensions and character of features that will be rebuilt, particularly on the front façade. Shop drawings must be provided for review by staff prior to building permit regarding doors, windows, and porch posts. Staff recommends that the railing shown at the front porch be deleted. This cannot be confirmed in the photo and was typically not a feature of the simpler miner’s cottage. The house is being preserved in place, on a basement that was excavated years ago. It appears that more of the foundation will be exposed to view than exists currently. An appropriate treatment for the foundation, such as covering it with painted flashing, must be proposed for review and approval by staff prior to building permit. The historic photo indicates no windows on the west side of the historic structure, which is unusual, but perhaps fortunate because of the close proximity of the Victorian to that property line. Once interior finishes are removed, staff will inspect the house with the architect and any original window framing will be used to finalize window locations on the building. P101 IV.A. This miner’s cottage, like most others, featured two front doors. The doors are not currently in place, but one was found in storage in the basement. It will be re-installed and a matching door will be created for the second opening. The plans indicate that the door that faces Bleeker Street will be fixed (not-operable) and the west facing door will be used. This does not meet the Residential Design Standard’s requirement for a street-facing door and must be amended on the plans as part of the building permit submittal. Staff recommends a simpler light fixture at the front porch, more in keeping with the simplicity of the historic home. Staff is concerned that the windows on the street-facing gable end of the addition do not reflect the tall and narrow proportions of the windows on the historic resource. We recommend the architect restudy this and provide a revision for board review by noon on Tuesday, May 10th. In addition, the architect must provide an elevation of the proposed fence along the alley. ___________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Final approval with conditions listed in the proposed resolution. EXHIBITS: Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines Exhibit B: Application P102 IV.A. Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a “transparent” quality allowing views into the yard from the street. A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less transparent. A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six feet), but 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. 1.7 Preserve original retaining walls. Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size and finish. Painting a historic masonry retaining wall, or covering it with stucco or other cementitious coatings, is not allowed. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. P103 IV.A. This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. P104 IV.A. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. P105 IV.A. A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. Simple paneled doors were typical. Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. Keeping an open porch is preferred. Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable. Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted. The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged. Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. Use materials that appear similar to the original. While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. Repair only those features that are deteriorated. Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. P106 IV.A. If the original detail was made of wood , for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which traditionally was a smooth painted finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. 6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities. Replace only those portions that are beyond repair. Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence. Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible. A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass cornice may be considered at the top of a building. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically. A new chimney should reflect the width and height of those used historically. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. P107 IV.A. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. 14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic facade materials. P108 IV.A. Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade. If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall. P109 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 1 of 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 209 EAST BLEEKER STREET, LOTS C, D, AND A PORTION OF LOT B, BLOCK 73, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2016 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-20-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, 209 Bleeker LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, requested Final Major Development approval for the property located at 209 East Bleeker Street, Lots C, D, and a portion of Lot B, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Final 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.4.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, Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on May 11, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and approved the project with conditions by a vote of __ - __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Final Major Development as follows: 1. Variations approved for this project are: • A 1'2" west sideyard setback is provided alongside the Victorian house. • A 4' west sideyard setback is provided alongside the addition to the Victorian house. • The total combined sideyard setback being provided is 8'5" (1'2" on west, 5'3" on east.) • The rear yard provided is 5' for the garage, 5' for a deck on top of the garage and 5' for below grade living space. P110 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 2 of 3 • The approved site coverage is 52%. (This was presented to HPC but not clearly noted in the Conceptual resolution.) • A 500 square feet floor area bonus is approved. • The Residential Design Standard related to the minimum size of the front porch is waived because the standard does not match the size of the historic porch on this home. 2. Provide shop drawings for review and approval by staff prior to building permit application regarding doors, windows, and porch posts. 3. The front porch of the historic house shall not have a railing. 4. An appropriate treatment for the foundation, such as covering it with painted flashing, must be proposed for review and approval by staff prior to building permit application. 5. Once interior finishes are removed, staff will inspect the house with the architect and any original window framing will be used to finalize window locations on the building. 6. The street-facing door on the historic house must be operable. 7. Provide a simple light fixture for the front porch of the historic resource for review and approval by staff prior to building permit application. 8. Provide HPC with a restudy of the fenestration on the front of the addition by noon on Tuesday, May 10th. 9. Provide HPC with an elevation of the proposed fence along the alley by noon on Tuesday, May 10th. 10. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific P111 IV.A. 209 E. Bleeker HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 3 of 3 development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 209 E. Bleeker Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of May, 2016. ________________________ Willis Pember, Chair Approved as to Form: ________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ________________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P112 IV.A. P113 IV.A. P114 IV.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252         December  31,  2015       Amy  Simon   Sara  Adams   City  of  Aspen  Community  Development  Department   130  S  Galena  Street,  3rd  Floor   Aspen,  CO    81611     RE:    209  E  Bleeker  Ave     Summary  Letter,  Final  Review   Aspen,  Colorado   Parcel  ID:  273707320002     Dear  Amy  and  Sara,     Thank  you  for  your  time  and  knowledge  regarding  this  property  that  has  historic   significance  as  a  structure  and  in  the  community  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Hayes  family   had  this  home  in  their  family  for  decades.    The  home  has  had  a  tremendous  amount  of   work  done  to  it  over  the  years,  so  the  restoration  back  to  the  original  cottage  will  be   substantial.    We  have  located  great  photos  to  show  us  how  to  re-­‐construct  the  home  to   it’s  original  appearance.       The  property  is  located  in  the  R-­‐6,  Medium  density,  residential  zone  district.    A  quick   recap  of  the  project  that  was  approved  by  HPC  follows  before  the  summary  for  the  final   review.     The  home  will  remain  in  it’s  original  location,  which  had  a  full  basement   constructed  below  it  some  time  ago.    This  basement  will  be  expanded  under  the  new   addition  to  the  south  and  east  of  the  historic  cottage.    The  section  of  the  addition  to  the   east  will  be  held  back  substantially  from  the  front  façade  of  the  historic  resource  to   allow  it  to  remain  the  prominent  element  on  the  property,  keeping  the  large  front  yard.         The  original  building  is  located  only  14”  from  the  west  property  line,  requiring  a   side  yard  variance  and  combined  side  yard  variance;  and  to  keep  the  development   towards  the  back  of  the  property,  a  5’-­‐0  rear  yard  setback  was  granted  for  basement   space  under  the  garage  and  for  a  deck  above  the  garage.    This  variance  allowed  us  to   have  outdoor  space  for  the  upper  level,  keeping  it  screened  from  view  from  the  street.     P115 IV.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 The  addition  has  been  adjusted  to  be  10’-­‐0”  away  from  the  resource  to  the  east;   shrinking  the  width  of  it  5”  to  meet  this  standard.    It  remains  set  back  from  the  front   façade  of  the  cottage  by  15’-­‐6”;  leaving  the  historic  building  in  the  dominant  location  on   the  property  as  the  focus  for  pedestrians.     There  is  a  small,  non-­‐historic  shed  that  will  be  removed,  as  approved  at  the   Conceptual  HPC  meetings.    And  the  500  sq.  ft  bonus  granted  at  Conceptual  approval  is   being  used  on  the  property;  no  TDRs  will  be  requested.     RELEVANT  LAND  USE  CODE  SECTIONS      SECTION  26.304  –  Application   1.    Please  see  attached  letter  of  authorization  from  209  E  Bleeker,  LLC,  a  Colorado   limited  liability  corporation,  granting  Kim  Raymond  Architects,  Inc  authority  to  act  on   their  behalf  throughout  this  process.       2.      Please  see  the  attached  Vicinity  Map  with  a  legal  description  and     directions  to  the  property.   3.      Attached,  please  find  the  Disclosure  of  Ownership  in  the  form  of  the  Title  Insurance   conveying  the  property  to  209  E  Bleeker,  LLC.   4.      See  number  2  above.   5.      Please  see  attached  Site  Plan  depicting  the  proposed  changes  to  the     existing  landscape  and  building  footprint;  including  proposed  lighting  and  landscape.   6.    Please  see  the  site  improvement  survey  of  the  property  located  at  209  E  Bleeker.   7.    Please  see  below,  the  description  and  summary  of  all  requested  information   pertaining  to  the  Land  Use  Code  sections  in  regard  to  the  proposed  development.     Additionally,  please  find  a  copy  of  the  Pre-­‐application  Conference  Summary  sheet,   attached  at  the  end  of  this  packet  of  information.    This  application  package  includes  all   requested  documents  as  outlined  in  the  pre-­‐application  conference  summary  dated   December  22,  2015.       The  final  inclusion  in  this  packet  is  a  copy  of  the  Summary  letter  for  the  Conceptual   Approval  meeting  with  HPC  as  presented  by  Kim  Raymond  and  Resolution  #30  of  2015   granting  Conceptual  approval  for  this  project.       Section  26.410  –  Residential  Design  Standards      This  section  was  addressed  in  the  conceptual  summary  letter.    I  have  included   just  a  couple  of  the  standards  here  as  they  are  specifically  referred  to  in  the  conditions   of  approval  or  are  handled  at  final  review.    Please  see  attached  Conceptual  summary   letter  for  the  remainder  of  this  section,  if  desired.         P116 IV.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 26.410.040  Residential  Design  Standards     A.  Site  design      3.  There  was  a  picket  fence  around  the  existing  home  that  has  been  moved  to     toward  the  street.    The  applicant  is  not  planning  on  restoring  this  fence,  as  it  makes  the   front  yard  look  smaller  and  cramped  because  it  was  so  close  to  the  house  originally.    The     neighboring  houses  do  not  have  fences  either,  so  it  is  more  in  keeping  with  the  street   scape  to  not  replace  the  historic  fence.    B.  Building  Form     1.  Subordinate  linking  element:       This  link  meets  all  the  dimensional  standards  and  requirements  of  Section   26.410.040  of  the  Land  Use  Code  except  in  width;  it  has  a  plate  height  of  9’-­‐0”,  is  10’  in   length  but  is  15’-­‐0”  wide.    It  is  situated  behind  the  historic  cottage  in  such  a  way  as  to   expose  both  of  the  back  corners  of  the  original  building.    The  width  of  the  link  was   approved  at  the  conceptual  review  meeting  with  HPC.    There  will  not  be  a  deck  above   this  linking  element.     Per  the  conditions  of  conceptual  approval,  the  link  does  have  a  flat  roof  (which   was  presented  at  conceptual  review).    We  studied  putting  the  new,  flat  roof  under  this   shed  and  found  that  to  meet  today’s  energy  codes  with  proper  insulation  value,  that  the   ceiling  height  in  this  connection  would  be  under  6’-­‐6”  in  height;  which  is  not  adequate   for  the  quality  of  homes  built  in  Aspen  today.        The  existing  shed  roof  of  the  historic   building  at  this  shed  roof  comes  down  to  a  plate  height  of  7’-­‐6.     As  the  linking  element  is  substantially  narrower  than  the  historic  cottage,  the   historic  shed  roof  will  come  down  past  the  link  on  both  sides,  making  a  definite   distinction  between  old  and  new;  with  the  old  being  preserved  at  the  exterior  roof  line.   The  new  roof  will  be  connected  in  a  fashion  to  meet  today’s  construction  details  for     waterproofing  and  insulation,  with  minimal  detail  so  as  not  to  draw  attention  away  from   the  existing  cottage;  the  roof  will  not  run  over  the  top  of  the  shed  roof,  it  will  be  slightly     above  and  next  to  it.    D.  Building  Elements    3.  WINDOWS:  No  window  shall  span  where  a  floor  would  typically  be  located;   between  9’  and  12’  above  the  finished  facade  on  the  street  facing  façade.    The  main   level  of  this  home  has  a  window  up  to  the  9’-­‐0  line.    The  upper  level  has  a  window  that     is  set  on  the  finished  floor  to  match  the  rest  of  the  windows  on  the  East  and  West   facades.  The  windows  on  the  upper  floor  show  distinctly  the  floor  structure  between   the  main  and  upper  level.       The  issue  is  that  the  lower  portion  of  the  upper  window  is  11’-­‐2  above  the  main   level  finished  floor;  in  the  no  window  zone.    The  front  façade  of  the  addition  is  a  simple   gable  form,  and  the  large  windows  of  both  levels,  set  back  from  the  face  of  the  wall,  give   a  modern  look  to  this  “cottage  shape”.           This  design  element  is  used  to  keep  a  similar  form  of  tall  narrow  windows,  as  are   found  on  the  historic  cottage;  but  with  a  modern  installation  and  look.    We  are   requesting  a  variance  from  this  design  standard  on  the  addition  to  the  cottage  that  faces   Bleeker  Street.    We  feel  that  the  design  works  well  in  setting  the  new  construction  apart   P117 IV.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 from  the  historic  and  still  meets  the  intent  of  the  design  standard  because  one  can  “see”   that  there  is  a  floor  between  the  levels.    E.  Context  1.  Materials.    This  section  is  included  for  final  review.    E1.a  All  of  the  existing  materials  on  the  historic  house  will  be  cleaned  up  and   repaired  as  necessary  to  maintain  the  historic  character  of  the  existing  building.    The   existing  wood  siding  is  4”  clapboard.      The  wood  siding  on  the  new  portion  of  this  home   will  be  a  similar  color  palette  with  the  siding  to  blend,  but  be  differentiated  from  the   historic.    The  new  siding  will  be  attached  as  a  rainscreen  and  will  be  6”  wide  w/  a  5/8”   gap.    The  single  story  elements  of  the  addition  will  be  metal  cladding  to  match  the   windows.    There  is  very  little  wall  showing  at  these  areas,  so  we  are  going  to  minimize   the  siding  to  have  the  walls  read  as  glass.   E1.b  The  palette  of  materials  will  be  similar  to  the  historic  building;  and  will  be   true  to  their  natural  characteristics  with  heavy  materials  at  the  bottom  of  walls.       E1.c  Highly  reflective  materials  will  not  be  used  anywhere  on  this  project.   E2.  Inflection.    This  lot  has  two  story  buildings  on  both  sides.    The  addition   addresses  the  two  story  building  to  the  east;  it  being  a  two  story  element  as  well.    It  is   set  back  from  the  front  façade  of  the  historic  resource;  it  addresses  the  street,  and  is   similar  in  height  to  the  neighboring  home.    Since  the  addition  is  set  back,  it  does  not   overpower  the  miner’s  cottage.    The  addition  to  the  rear  of  the  cottage  is  a  single  story   element,  to  remain  subordinate  to  the  cottage.   This  arrangement  gives  the  appearance  of  two  smaller  homes  on  the  lot  as   viewed  by  pedestrians  on  Bleeker  Street.    The  existing  home  to  the  west  towers  over   the  cottage,  but  that  mix  of  new  and  historic;  shorter  and  tall,  is  part  of  what  makes  the   West  End  unique.     Section  26.415  –  Historic  Preservation   Section  26.415.070  –  Development  involving  designated  historic  property  or  property   within  a  historic  district.   Section  26.415.070D  Certificate  of  appropriateness  for  major  development    D1.    This  development  meets  all  the  criteria  for  being  a  major  development:   a. it  is  building  a  new  structure  in  the  historic  district   b. it  is  altering  more  than  3  elements  of  the  existing  building  in  the  restoration   work  of  the  Miner’s  cottage  and  proposing  an  addition  to  the  back.   c. it  is  expanding  the  floor  area  by  more  than  250  sq.  ft.   D2.  This  project  does  not  need  any  additional  Land  Use  approvals.   D3.  Please  see  section  26.304  above  for  the  general  application  information.   The  attached  drawings  shall  include  all  listed  drawings  and  requirements,   including  conceptual  materials,  and  3D  renderings  of  the  project.    See  Section   26.410  above  to  see  how  the  project  complies  with  the  residential  design   standards  and  the  variances  that  we  are  seeking  from  these  standards.  We  have   complied  with  the  posting  and  mailing  of  public  notices  prior  to  any/all  meetings   to  complete  this  process.       P118 IV.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 Section  26.415.110  Benefits     Please  see  the  summary  letter  for  the  conceptual  review  for  HPC  to  see  a     detailed  list  of  the  benefits  that  were  requested,  our  supporting  information  to  see     why  the  variances  and  benefits  were  granted  by  the  HPC  at  that  review.     Section  26.575.020  –  Calculations  and  Measurements.    Please  see  attached  Floor  Area  Ratio  Calculations.    These  calculations  were  made   in  accordance  with  the  regulations  and  rules  of  this  section  and  Section  26.710.040  R-­‐6   medium  Density  Zone  District.       The  Floor  Area  for  this  parcel  is  3240  sq.  ft.  for  a  single  family  home  on  a  6000  sq.  ft.  lot,   plus  the  requested  floor  area  bonus  of  500  sq.  ft.  =  3740  sq.  ft.  of  allowable  FAR;  if  the   bonus  is  granted.   The  current  measurements  and  calculations  per  this  section  have  been  used  in   the  calculation  of  floor  area  for  the  building,  including  the  subgrade  space.  The  Site  Plan   addresses  the  front,  rear  and  side  yard  setbacks.    The  elevations  show  compliance  with   the  height  limitations  as  described  herein.    Please  see  attached  drawings  for  the  FAR   Calculations,  Site  plan  and  Exterior  Building  Elevations.     The  changes  to  the  existing  building  and  all  new  construction  comply  with  the   definitions,  requirements  and  limitations  as  outlined  in  this  section.     Section  26.600  –  Impact  Fees     Section  26.600.030    Exemptions.    The  Miner’s  cottage,  being  listed  on  the  Inventory  of   Historic  Sites  and  structures  is  exempt  from  the  Parks  and  TDM  fees.    This  includes  the   addition  to  the  historic  structure.   Section  26.600.090    Impact  Fees.    The  applicant  is  aware  of  the  impact  fees  that  may  be   imposed  on  the  project,  and  will  be  ready  to  pay  such  fees  at  permitting.         Section  26.710  –  R-­‐6  Zone  District;  Medium  Density    Please  see  the  Application  form,  dimensional  requirements  for  a  summary  of     the  dimensional  requirements  or  allowances  and  the  proposed  measurements.      Please  see  the  attached  Site  Plan,  for  compliance  with  most  of  the  setbacks.   There  is  a  side  yard  setback  and  combined  side  yard  setback  variance  being  requested.     Please  see  Attached  Floor  Area  Calculations  that  demonstrate  that  this  project  is   in  compliance  with  the  FAR  regulations  for  R-­‐6.     Historic  Preservation  Guidelines   1.  Streetscape  and  Lot  Features    The  “strip”  of  grass  and  trees  that  is  between  the  home  and  the  street  will  be   maintained.    Historically  there  were  only  sidewalks  on  Main  Street  and  in  the   Commercial  Core.    There  is  not  a  sidewalk  on  Bleeker  Street  now,  and  the  applicant  is     not  planning  on  building  one.    It  is  recognized  that  the  City  may  require  the  owner  to   install  or  agree  to  install  a  sidewalk  at  some  time  in  the  future.    The  proposed  site  plan   allows  for  this.   P119 IV.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252  The  photos  of  the  historic  cottage  show  a  picket  fence  that  is  very  close  to  the   original  structure.    It  is  not  the  intent  of  the  owner  to  recreate  this  fence.    The  fence  that   is  there  now  is  not  on  the  property,  but  in  the  City  right  of  way.    It  will  be  removed.     There  is  a  tall  fence  on  the  eastern  lot  line,  on  the  neighbor’s  property;  there  will  not  be   another  one  added  on  this  property.  There  will  be  a  6’-­‐0”  tall  fence  built  along  the  alley   for  privacy.    It  will  be  vertical  boards  to  be  in  character  with  the  historic  and  neighboring   fences.    The  small  retaining  wall  that  creates  a  couple  steps  on  the  North  and  South  sides   of  the  yard  will  be  maintained  on  the  north  side;  the  south  side  will  be  removed  for  the   driveway.  The  sidewalk  that  leads  to  the  front  door  of  the  cottage  will  be  rebuilt.    It  will   be  concrete.     The  sequencing  of  public  to  private  will  be  maintained;  there  is  a  sidewalk  to  the   public  street  leading  directly  to  the  front  porch.     Private  yards   1.10    The  historic  grassy  front  yard  will  be  maintained,  with  small  plantings  of  flowers.   The  existing  excessive  paving  will  be  removed.   1.11    We  are  preserving  all  of  the  trees  along  the  side  yards  and  the  two  large   evergreens  on  the  north  side  of  the  property.    The  only  trees  to  be  removed  are  along   the  alley  for  access.    The  Parks  Department  has  been  informed.   1.12    There  are  no  significant  historic  plantings  or  landscape  on  this  property  to  save.   1.13    The  new  landscaping  will  be  simple,  in  character  with  historic  yards.   Site  Lighting   1.15    The  site  lighting  will  be  limited  to  entry  porch  lights  and  lights  on  the  back  patio;  all   the  lights  will  conform  to  the  Aspen  “dark  sky”  standards.   Streetscape   1.16-­‐17    There  are  not  any  historically  significant  landscape  features,  like  the  irrigation   ditch  or  sidewalks.   Historic  Building  Materials    The  historic  cottage  has  much  of  it’s  original  clapboard  siding.    This  will  be   repaired  and  refinished  as  necessary.    The  aging  character  of  the  wood  will  not  be     removed,  just  cleaned  up;  with  good  preparation  for  the  new  paint.    The  new  paint  will   help  preserve  the  old  wood.    Any  replacement  boards  will  be  milled  to  match  the   existing.         No  historic  building  materials  will  be  covered,  just  repaired.   Windows    The  photographs  that  are  available  give  a  good  idea  of  the  windows  that  were   in  the  original  cottage;  these  will  be  replaced  with  vintage  looking  windows.    There  is  a   manufacturer  that  specializes  in  matching  historic  windows  and  we  will  use  them    for   replacement  windows.    The  original  windows  that  still  exist,  will  be  refurbished  to  work   as  new.         The  cottage,  being  a  very  modest  building,  has  no  embellishment  around  the   windows;  just  simple  trim,  which  will  be  repaired  or  replaced  as  needed.     Storm  windows  will  be  added  if  deemed  necessary  for  energy  conservation.   P120 IV.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 Doors    The  cottage  had  two  front  doors  on  the  front  porch,  as  was  typical  of  these   cottages.    Both  original  doors  remain  on  intact.    One  door  is  still  being  used,  the  other  is   in  the  basement  and  well  preserved,  along  with  the  original  back  door.    All  doors  will  be   repaired  and  reused.       Porches     The  original  front  porch  can  be  readily  identified  from  the  interior  of  the  existing   building.    The  original  floor  boards  still  existing,  as  the  porch  was  simply  closed  in  and   incorporated  into  the  interior  living  space.    The  photographs  of  the  original  cottage   show  a  very  simple  porch  with  no  ornamentation.    This  will  be  reproduced  as  closely  as   possible  from  the  photos  and  other  similar  cottages  in  the  area  that  are  still  intact.     Architectural  Details     The  historic  cottage  was  very  simple  and  has  very  little  detailing.    The   photographs  show  the  simple  trim  and  we  will  use  these  for  a  guide  in  detailing  the   window  and  door  trim  and  the  fascia  and  porch  details.    Please  see  attached  drawings.     Roofs    The  Hayes  family,  who  owned  this  home  for  decades  and  raised  their  family  in  it,   put  on  a  second  story  to  the  original  cottage,  completely  removing  the  roof.    Mary,   being  a  prolific  photographer,  took  many  photographs  of  the  home  while  it  was  being   altered,  so  much  information  can  be  gleaned  from  these  for  the  replacement  of  a  roof   that  will  be  a  replica  of  the  original.    Please  see  attached  drawings  for  details.     The  same  roof  pitch  will  be  built  and  the  small  dormer  facing  south  will  be   replaced.    We  will  find  cedar  shingles  that  have  the  same  profile  and  exposure.    There   are  a  number  of  other  cottages  just  like  this  one  in  town  that  are  an  excellent  source  of   information  for  these  sorts  of  details  if  the  photographs  fall  short.     The  historic  brick  chimney  will  be  rebuilt  from  the  photos;  it  will  not  be   functional,  but  part  of  the  restoration  effort.     Secondary  Structures    The  Sanborn  maps  show  that  at  one  time  there  were  two  small  structures  in  the   back  yard,  along  the  alley.    These  were  removed  at  some  time.    There  is  only  a  small   child’s  play  house  in  the  back  now,  and  it  has  been  determined  to  not  be  historic  and   will  be  removed.         Building  Relocation  and  Foundations    This  building  is  not  being  relocated;  it  will  remain  in  it’s  original  location.    The   historic  foundation  was  replaced  in  the  1970s  when  the  Hayes  family  put  a  basement   under  the  existing  cottage.    We  will  examine  the  foundations  on  similar  cottages  so  see   if  there  is  some  way  to  cover  the  CMU  blocks  in  a  fashion  that  is  realistic  to  the  historic.   We  are  happy  to  work  with  the  monitor  on  this  detail.     P121 IV.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 Building  Additions     Existing  Additions:  The  historic  cottage  had  a  major  remodel  when  the  Hayes   family  out  grew  the  small  cottage.    A  basement  was  placed  under  the  cottage,  a  large   addition  to  the  east  of  the  existing  living  room  and  an  entire  second  story  were  added.     All  of  these  additions  will  be  removed  as  they  add  nothing  to  the  historic  character  of   the  cottage.        New  Additions:    10.3  After  removing  all  of  the  existing  additions,  the  proposed   new  addition  will  enhance  one’s  ability  to  interpret  the  historic  character  of  the  miner’s   cottage.    The  original  appearance  of  the  cottage  will  be  restored,  and  the  new  addition   will  be  added  via  a  single  story  linking  element  that  is  behind  the  historic  cottage  and   completely  screened  from  view  from  Bleeker  Street.    All  of  the  new  building  behind  the     cottage  will  be  single  story  and  not  visible  by  pedestrians  on  Bleeker  Street.    10.4  The  new  addition  will  be  a  product  of  this  time;  larger  glazing  facing  south   so  as  not  to  detract  from  the  cottage,  but  will  be  in  line  with  design  standards  and   details  of  modern  construction.    The  portion  of  the  new  addition  that  is  two  stories  will   have  a  simple  gable  roof  to  be  visually  compatible  with  the  historic  cottage,  but  will   have  a  larger  window  to  express  the  more  modern  architecture  of  this  time.  The  wood   siding  will  be  a  similar  proportion,  but  attached  as  a  rainscreen  for  a  differentiation.    10.5  In  preserving  the  historic  alignment  with  the  cottage,  the  link  connects   another  gable  shape  directly  behind  the  cottage  with  the  ridge  also  running   north/south.    The  two  story  portion  of  the  addition  also  has  a  simple  gable  that  is   running  parallel  with  the  ridge  of  the  cottage,  maintaining  the  historic  rhythm  of  simple   gables  along  a  block,  predominately  all  running  the  same  direction.    10.6  The  most  visible  portion  of  the  addition  from  Bleeker  Street,  the  two  story   element  has  a  similar  proportion  and  scale  to  the  cottage.    The  gable  is  approximately   the  same  width  and  the  slope  of  the  roof  will  match  the  slope  of  the  cottage  gable.    The     proportions  of  the  historic  and  new  are  very  compatible.    The  addition  directly  behind   the  cottage  will  have  a  roof  that  is  shorter  than  the  cottage.    The  two  story  element   helps  with  the  scale  of  the  block.        10.7  This  little  cottage  has  a  large,  two  story  home  on  both  the  east  and  west   sides.    The  inflection  to  the  home  on  the  east  is  created  by  this  taller  element.    The  taller   section  of  building  is  held  back  from  the  front  façade  of  the  cottage   to  leave  the  cottage  as  the  prominent  feature  at  the  front  of  the  property.    10.8  The  location  of  the  historic  cottage  just  14”  from  the  west  property  line   made  this  property  ripe  for  a  building  that  would  look  like  two  smaller  houses  on  a   larger  lot.    The  small  cottage  has  a  single  story  link  and  addition  behind  it;  and  a  single   story,  mostly  glass  element  at  the  back  of  the  lot  that  connects  the  cottage  to  the  new     two  story  element.    This  creates  the  look  of  smaller  houses  in  a  row,  facing  Bleeker.   Please  see  the  site  plan  to  see  that  the  taller  addition  is  set  back  15’-­‐6  from  the  front   façade  of  the  cottage;  leaving  the  cottage  as  the  primary  focus  along  the  streetscape.    10.9  The  predominant  new  roof  element  is  a  simple  gable,  with  no  dormers  to     be  compatible  with  the  cottage,  but  not  draw  attention  away  from  it.    The  linking   elements  at  the  rear  of  the  cottage  are  flat,  low  and  small  to  be  discreet  and  very   subordinate  to  the  roof  line  of  the  cottage.   P122 IV.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252  10.10  The  new  construction  will  only  affect  a  15’0  wide  section  of  the  rear  of  the   cottage.    The  link  will  attach  to  the  shed  at  the  rear  leaving  a  significant  amount  of  the   shed  and  back  corners  of  the  cottage  visible.    No  important  architectural  details  will  be   completely  obscured  or  destroyed.    From  the  street,  the  connection  won’t  be  visible.    10.11  The  new  wood  siding  will  be  slightly  larger  than  the  historic  clapboard.  The   new  wood  siding  will  be  painted  and  applied  with  as  a  rainscreen.    A  compatible   application  of  a  similar  material.          10.12-­‐13    There  will  be  no  rooftop  additions  to  the  cottage.    10.14  The  simple  gable  of  the  new  structure  will  be  the  same  slope  as  the   cottage  gables;  the  eave  will  be  similar  but  a  bit  larger  on  the  new  portion  of  the   building  to  make  it  a  product  of  it’s  own  time  and  so  as  not  to  appear  to  be  mimicking   the  cottage.    The  fascia  will  proportionate  to  the  roof  form.       In  Summary,  the  proposed  development  of  this  property,  including  renovating   and  putting  an  addition  on  the  historic  resource,  comply  with  all  requirements,   allowances,  limitations  and  restrictions  as  outlined  in  Title  26  of  the  Land  Use  Code  as   described  above.           We  feel  that  this  project  meets  all  of  the  criteria  and  design  standard  intentions   to  be  an  outstanding  Historic  Preservation  and  Restoration  project  and  we  are  excited  to   be  able  to  bring  this  little  cottage  back  to  it’s  historic  appearance  while  still  being  able  to     bring  this  property  up  to  its  best  potential  use.       Thank  you  for  your  time  and  consideration  of  this  project.    We  look  forward  to   working  with  the  HPC  on  this  renovation/addition.     Sincerely,         Kim  Raymond,  Principal   Kim  Raymond  Architects,  Inc   P123 IV.A. P 1 2 4 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 1.1 4/29/16Plotted On:S I T E P L A N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 D D C C IM B B 6 6 3 3 A A 4 4 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 F DW A B B B B B A B B 5 ' - 3 7 / 1 6 " 2 0 ' - 9 " 2 9 ' - 1 1 3 / 1 6 " 4 ' - 0 " 2 3 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 1 ' - 2 " 16'-3 3/16"12'-1 3/16" 5'-1 15/16"5'-2 1/8" 4 ' - 1 1 5 / 1 6 " A FENCE STEP DOWN EXISTING STONE SITE WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WEST SETBACK (TO REMAIN) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN 2 STEPS UP TO ENTRY PORCH (7 1/2" H. EACH) THIN DENSE PLANTING OF ASPEN TREES ALONG PROPERTY LINE THIN DENSE PLANTING OF ASPEN TREES ALONG PROPERTY LINE NEW FENCE 6" STEEL SHEET SLATS RIVETED TO STEEL POST (TUBE 2"X4") EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A L L E Y C U R B C U R B PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 7895 7895 7 8 9 678 9 7 7 8 9 6 7896 7 8 9 6 PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E ENTRY PORCH MUD ROOM FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN POWDER BEDROOM 1 FIREPLACE TV DINING GLASS FLOOR FI R E P I T LI N E O F E X T E R I O R W A L L A B O V E 2 CAR GARAGE PANTRY ICE MAKER UC WINE FRIG 36" CABINET BAR SINK STONE PATIO GARDENS TRASH RECYCLE DOG WASH BUILT-IN NOOK/BENCH BOOK SHELVES RIDGE VAULTED CEILING WINDOW WELL ARCH 100'-3" SITE 7896'- 9" BENCH STORAGE CLOSET/ PANTRY BATH 1 OFFICE CLOSET CUBBY CABINET WINDOW WELL DN TR E N C H D R A I N R E M O V E E X I S T I N G C U R B A T N E W D R I V E W A Y 102 101 103 104 105 106 107 108109 CL O S E T SIDE WALK 7896.00' WALK SITE: 7895.12' ARCH:98'-11 1/4" MAIN LEVEL PLY SITE:7896.18' ARCH:100'-0" MAIN LEVEL FF SITE:7896.37' ARCH:100'-2 1/4" MAIN LEVEL PLY SITE:7896.18' ARCH:100'-0" MAIN LEVEL FF SITE:7896.37' ARCH:100'-2 1/4" MAIN LEVEL (2) PLY SITE:7894.93' ARCH: 98'-9" MAIN LEVEL (2) FF SITE:7895.12' ARCH: 98'-11 1/4" GL A S S F L O O R F N 1 1 5 5 NEW CONCRETE WALKWAY EXPOSED AGGREGATE W/ SMOOTH CONCRETE BORDER EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN CONCRETE WALK BUILT IN GRILL SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SITE PLAN A 1.1 P 1 2 5 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 1.2 4/29/16Plotted On:E X I S T I N G F A R ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 1,025.74 sq ft 12345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 F W KITCHEN BATHROOM DINING ROOM OFFICE LIVING ROOM ENTRY STORAGE 7895 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE RAMPS NON-HISTORIC ELEMENT; REVEGETATE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN 82.31 sq ft 12345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BEDROOM DECK 826.09 sq ft 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. 2. 3. 5. 7. 8. 4. 6. BASEMENT STORAGE 994.99 sq ft SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 EXISTING-MAIN LEVEL FAR A 1.2SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EXISTING-UPPER LEVEL FAR A 1.2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EXISTING-LOWER LEVEL FAR A 1.2 P 1 2 6 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 1.3 4/29/16Plotted On:P R O P O S E D F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 D D C C B B 6 6 3 3 A A 4 4 D W 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.88 sq ft 1 1 ' 1. 2. 3.4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. A FENCE 1 1 5 5 3,064.48 sq ft D D C C B B 6 6 3 3 A A 4 4 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A FENCE 1 1 5 5 976.27 sq ft 102.90 sq ft D D C C IM B B 6 6 3 3 A A 4 4 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 F DW A FENCE 370.11 sq ft 43.98 sq ft A L L E Y F N 1 1 5 5 2,417.59 sq ft 453.45 sq ft 56.10 sq ft LOWER LEVEL FAR UPPER LEVEL FAR MAIN LEVEL FAR FAR CALCULATIONS - LOWER LEVEL: 3065 SF 3065 X 5.1% FLOOR AREA GROSS: FLOOR AREA NET: 156 SF - MAIN LEVEL: FLOOR AREA : 2418 SF - UPPER LEVEL: FLOOR AREA : 976 SF MAIN LEVEL: PATIOS - EXEMPT ON GRADE: PORCH - EXEMPT= UPPER LEVEL DECKS: 370 SF 56 SF 103 SF LIVING FAR TOTAL 3550 SF GARAGE : 454 SQ FT 454 SF - 250 SF= 204/2 = 102 SF 3550 SFLIVING FAR= 102 SFGARAGE FAR= TOTAL FAR = 3652 SF 3240 SF ALLOWABLE FAR BASED ON 6000 SF LOT (REQUESTING A 500 SF BONUS) 3240 SF + 500 SF= 3740 SF ALLOWABLE FAR P 1 2 7 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 1.4 4/29/16Plotted On:P R O P O S E D F A R E L E V A T I O N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 1 1 2 2 23 ' - 3 1 / 8 " 702.97 sq ft T.O. RIDGE EXISTING ELEV. 117'-1/4" T.O. PLY COTTAGE ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLATE MASTER BED ELEV. 117'-6" T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 87'-10" T.O. PLATE, GUEST BEDRM ELEV. 117'-6" T.O. PLY, MASTER BEDRM ELEV. 109'-7 1/2" 11. T.O. PLY MASTER GUEST ELEV. 99'-0" D D C C 110.00 sq ft 284.31 sq ft179.61 sq ft T.O. RIDGE ELEV. 116'-5 1/2" T.O. PLY COTTAGE ELEV. 100'-0"T.O. PLY GUEST BEDRM ELEV. 99'-0" T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 87'-10" 6.8.10. 12 : 1 2 SL O P E B B A A 228.27 sq ft329.29 sq ft31.09 sq ft T.O. RIDGE EXISTING ELEV. 117'-1/4" T.O. PLY GUEST MASTER ELEV. 99'-0" T.O. PLATE MASTER BED ELEV. 117'-6" T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL, NEW ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 87'-10" T.O. PLY LOWER LEVEL, NEW ELEV. 87'-10" 4.2.12. A A B B C C D D 1 1 4 4 5 5 6 6 394.55 sq ft 333.21 sq ft 181.04 sq ft 1.35 sq ft 2.88 sq ft T.O. PLY PROPOSED ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLATE MASTER BED ELEV. 117'-6" T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL, NEW ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 87'-10" T.O. PLY UPPER LEV. ELEV. 109'-0" HISTORICAL CABIN LINK TO ADDITION 3.1.5. 1":12"SLOPE 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 3 3 2 2 515.64 sq ft 4 4 1 1 2 2 121.61 sq ft T.O. RIDGE EXISTING ELEV. 116'-7" T.O. PLY COTTAGE ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 87'-10" T.O. PLATE, MASTER BEDRM ELEV. 117'-6" 7. 1":12" SLOPE 3 3 HISTORICALCABINLINK TOADDITION 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 5 ' T.O. PLY PROPOSED ELEV. 99'-0" T.O. PLATE MASTER BED ELEV. 117'6" T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 87'-10" T.O. PLY UPPER LEV. ELEV. 109'-0" 9. T.O. PLY PROPOSED ELEV. 100'-0" 309.93 sq ft 57.71 sq ft SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 EAST ELEVATION-FAR A 1.4 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION-FAR A 1.4SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION-FAR A 1.4 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 5 WEST ELEVATION-FAR A 1.4 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 FAR PROPOSED-PARTIAL EAST A 1.4SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 6 FAR PROPOSED-PARTIAL WEST A 1.4 FAR ELEVATION CALCULATIONS TOTAL WALL SURFACE: (181+329+333+31+395+284+516+106+310+180+228+706)= 3599 SQ FT EXPOSED WALL SURFACE: (1.35+2.88+58+122)= 184.23 SQ FT 184.23/3599= 0.051= 5.1 % P 1 2 8 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 2.0 4/29/16Plotted On:E X I S T I N G F L O O R P L A N S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3 B B A A 1 BASEMENT STORAGE A2.1 EXISTING-EAST A2.1 EXISTING-NORTH N/S1N/S6 A2.1 EXISTING-SOUTH 3 B A 1 12345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 F W A2.1 EXISTING-EAST KITCHEN BATHROOM DINING ROOM OFFICE LIVING ROOM ENTRY STORAGE PROPERTY LINE 7895 N/S1N/S6 A2.1 EXISTING-SOUTH 3 B B A A 1 12345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A2.1 EXISTING-EAST A2.1 EXISTING-NORTHBEDROOM DECK N/S1N/S6 A2.1 EXISTING-SOUTH 3 B B A A 1 A2.1 EXISTING-EAST A2.1 EXISTING-NORTH N/S1N/S6 A2.1 EXISTING-SOUTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EXISTING-LOWER LEVEL A 2.0 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 EXISTING-MAIN LEVEL A 2.0 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EXISTING-UPPER LEVEL A 2.0 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 EXISTING-ROOF PLAN A 2.0 P 1 2 9 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 2.1 4/29/16Plotted On:E X I S T I N G E L E V A T I O N S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 B A A B 3 1 1 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EXISTING-NORTH A 2.1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 EXISTING-SOUTH A 2.1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EXISTING-EAST A 2.1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 EXISTING-WEST A 2.1 P 1 3 0 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 3.1 4/29/16Plotted On:L O W E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 01 NORTH D D C C D008 D0 0 1 D005 W001W002 D 0 1 3 D0 1 2 D014 D011 D015 W003 D018 D0 1 9 D0 1 7 D0 1 6 D003 D 0 0 7 D 0 0 6 D002 B B 6 6 3 3 A A 4 4 D W 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 5 5 46'-2 1/2" 8"13'-6"8" 3'-5 1/2" 1 7 ' - 8 " 10 ' 25 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 5 3 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 82'-7 1/2" 15'-7"20'-2"11'19'-6"16'-4 1/2" 8"3 1/2"30'-2 1/2"8"3 1/2"18'-1"5 1/2"3'-11"3 1/2"11'-6"8" 8" 3 1 / 2 " 2' - 1 3 / 4 " 3 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 3' - 9 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 4 " 3 1 / 2 " 8 " 6' - 4 1 / 4 " 8" 2' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 8" 3 1 / 2 " 1 5 ' - 9 " 3 1 / 2 " 8" 8" 3 1 / 2 " 18 ' - 1 0 " 3 1 / 2 " 8" 28 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 3 1 / 2 " 8" 2 ' - 1 0 " 8"3 1/2"12'-4"3 1/2"8'-1"5 1/2"3'-9 3/4"5 1/2"8'-5"5 1/2"11'-11 1/4"3 1/2"2'-2"3 1/2"15'-4"3 1/2"8" 1 0 ' - 3 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 4 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 4' - 6 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 6' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 3'-8 3/4" 3 1/2" 2'-2" 5 1/2" 5 1/2"5'-10 1/4" 3 1/2" 7 3/4"11'5 1/2"11'-5"5 1/2"5'-8" 5 1 / 2 " 9' - 4 1 / 4 " 3 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 2 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 3 1 / 2 " 3 1/2"2'3 1/2" 5 1/2"5'-9 3/4"3 1/2"13'-4 1/2"0"5 1/2"7'-7 3/4"5 1/2"7'-3 3/4" 4'-5 1/4" 3 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 2 ' - 6 " 5 1 / 2 " 4 ' - 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 6 " 5 1 / 2 " 4' - 7 " 13'-6 X 7' = 94 SQ FT EXPOSED WALL BATH 3 SKYLIGHT ABOVE UP T V GUEST SUITE MECHANICAL BEDROOM 2 POWDER WE I G H T S GYM LAUNDRY FAMILY ROOM G L A S S E N C L O S E D W I N E C A B I N E T FP HOT / COLD WATER FILTER DISPENSER UC FRIG BATH 2 ART GALLERY WALL BATH 3 BEDROOM 3 WINDOW WELL WET BAR LINEN T V CLOSET C L O S E T 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010TV 011 TV 2 2 4 4 06 EAST 04 WEST 02 SOUTH 05 PARTIAL WEST 03 PARTIAL SOUTH A FENCE 1 1 07 PARTIAL EAST 1 1 5 5 3 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN A 3.1 P 1 3 1 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 3.2 4/29/16Plotted On:M A I N L E V E L F L O O R P L A N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 01 NORTH D D C C W 1 0 2 W113W112W111 IM D 1 0 4 W104 D101 W1 0 1 D 1 0 2 D 1 1 4 D113 W106 D1 1 5 W 1 2 2 D103 W121 W107 W120 D 1 1 2 W105 W 1 1 0 D 1 1 7 D118 D 1 1 9 D116 D 1 2 1 D1 0 4 W103 D111 W 1 1 4 D 1 0 9 B B 6 6 3 3 A A 4 4 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 F DW 5 5 3'-9 1/4" 1 7 ' - 8 " 66'-3" 5 1 / 2 " 16 ' - 9 " 5 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 3' - 1 0 " 5 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 3' - 9 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 5 1/2"21'-2"5 1/2"7'-3"0 1/2"8'-1/4"5 1/2"10'-10 3/4"3 1/2"2'-2"3 1/2"14'-3 1/2"5 1/2" 82'-7 1/2" 15'-7"20'-2"11'19'-6"16'-4 1/2" 5'-3 1/4"12'-1 1/4" 5' - 3 1 / 2 " 53 ' - 6 " 1' - 2 1 / 2 " 1 7 ' - 8 " 10 ' 25 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 1'-9 1/2"11'-3 1/2"5 1/2"33'-2 1/2"5 1/2"28'-5 1/2"5 1/2"5'1'-6" 10'-1/4"16'-10"6'-4 1/4"9'-7 1/2"18'-10" 5' - 3 1 / 2 " 53 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 1' - 2 1 / 2 " 1 7 ' - 8 " 10 ' 25 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 1' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 5 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 9 " 5 1 / 2 " 5 1/2"8'-10"5 1/2"5'-5 1/4" 5 ' - 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 6' - 1 / 4 " 4 ' - 9 1 / 4 " 3' - 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 3' - 4 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 2' - 2 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 13 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 4' - 5 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 1 0 " 5 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 4 ' - 4 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 2 ' - 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 8 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 3 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 2' - 5 3 / 4 " 4 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 3 1 / 2 " 5' - 1 1 / 4 " 5 1/2"2'-1/2"5 1/2"8'-4 1/2"3 1/2"4'-1 1/2" 3 1/2" 4'-5 1/2"5 1/2" 2 2 4 4 06 EAST 04 WEST 02 SOUTH 05 PARTIAL WEST 03 PARTIAL SOUTH A FENCE 2 STEPS UP TO ENTRY PORCH (7 1/2" H. EACH) PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E ENTRY PORCH MUD ROOM FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN POWDER BEDROOM 1 FIREPLACE TV DINING GLASS FLOOR FI R E P I T LI N E O F E X T E R I O R W A L L A B O V E 2 CAR GARAGE PANTRY ICE MAKER UC WINE FRIG 36" CABINET BAR SINK STONE PATIO GARDENS TRASH RECYCLE DOG WASH BUILT-IN NOOK/BENCH BOOK SHELVES RIDGE VAULTED CEILING WINDOW WELL ARCH 100'-3" SITE 7896'- 9" BENCH STORAGE CLOSET/ PANTRY BATH 1 OFFICE CLOSET CUBBY CABINET WINDOW WELL DN TR E N C H D R A I N R E M O V E E X I S T I N G C U R B A T N E W D R I V E W A Y 102 101 103 104 105 106 107 108109 CL O S E T SIDE WALK 7896.00' WALK SITE: 7895.12' ARCH:98'-11 1/4" MAIN LEVEL PLY SITE:7896.18' ARCH:100'-0" MAIN LEVEL FF SITE:7896.37' ARCH:100'-2 1/4" MAIN LEVEL PLY SITE:7896.18' ARCH:100'-0" MAIN LEVEL FF SITE:7896.37' ARCH:100'-2 1/4" MAIN LEVEL (2) PLY SITE:7894.93' ARCH: 98'-9" MAIN LEVEL (2) FF SITE:7895.12' ARCH: 98'-11 1/4" GL A S S F L O O R 1 1 F N 07 PARTIAL EAST 1 1 5 5 W117 W115W116W119W118 5 1/2" 13 ' - 2 " CONCRETE WALK BUILT IN GRILL 3 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN A 3.2 P 1 3 2 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 3.3 4/29/16Plotted On:U P P E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 01 NORTH D D C C W 2 1 7 W 2 1 7 W210 W209 W 2 1 4 D 2 0 9 W202W204W203 D 2 0 5 D 2 0 6 W2 1 2 W 2 1 1 D 2 1 0 D 2 0 8 D203 D204 D207 W213 W208 W205W206W207 W 2 0 1 B B 6 6 3 3 A A 4 4 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 5 5 2 2 4 4 06 EAST 04 WEST 02 SOUTH 05 PARTIAL WEST 03 PARTIAL SOUTH A FENCE 66'-7" 15'-7"20'-2"11'19'-6" 1 7 ' - 8 " 1 0 ' 2 5 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 5'-6 1/2" 5 ' - 8 1 / 4 " 66'-3" 1 7 ' - 8 " 53 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 16 ' - 9 " 5 1 / 2 " 5 1/2"15'-3 1/2"5 1/2"7'-2 1/4"5 1/2"5'-9 1/2"3 1/2"11'-7 1/4"5 1/2"17'-11 3/4"5 1/2" 15'-7"20'-2"11'19'-6" 6' - 8 " 3 1 / 2 " 5' - 9 " 3 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 9 " 5' - 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 5' - 8 " 3 1 / 2 " 5' - 4 " 6'-1 1/2"3 1/2"5'-7" 5 1 / 2 " 3' - 1 0 " 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 2 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 3' - 9 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " L O N G , L O W F I R E P L A C E DN MASTER BATH MASTER BEDROOM TV R A I S E S F R O M C A B I N E T STEAM SHOWER PA T T E R N O F C L E A R I N T H E AC I D E T C H E D G L A S S FREE STANDING TUB ART WALL MASTER DRESSING/ CLOSETS D R E S S E R DECK 201 203 204 202 205 1 1 07 PARTIAL EAST 1 1 5 5 3 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN A 3.3 P 1 3 3 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 3.4 4/29/16Plotted On:R O O F P L A N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 01 NORTH D D C C B B 6 6 3 3 A A 4 4 2 2 5 5 2 2 4 4 06 EAST 04 WEST 02 SOUTH 05 PARTIAL WEST 03 PARTIAL SOUTH A FENCE 82'-7 7/16" 15'-7"20'-2"11'19'-6"16'-4 7/16" 1'-7 7/8"20'-11"6'-1 1/4"39'-2 13/16"14'-8 1/2" 53 ' - 6 3 / 1 6 " 17 ' - 8 " 1 0 ' 2 5 ' - 1 0 3 / 1 6 " 8" 8 ' - 1 0 " 8' - 1 0 " 8" 1 0 1 / 1 6 " 7' - 3 7 / 1 6 " 8' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 9 1 / 2 " 10'-6 3/8"5'-5/8"20'-3 15/16"10'-3 1/8"6 15/16"15'-9 15/16"6'-5"8'-1 1/2"4'-7 1/8"10 15/16" 10'-5 3/16"7'-10 1/8"28'-7 1/4"1'-1 1/16" 9 ' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 6 ' - 4 7 / 8 " 8 ' - 1 0 1 1 / 1 6 " 8' - 8 1 5 / 1 6 " 8' - 8 1 5 / 1 6 " 2' - 4 1 1 / 1 6 " 1 1 07 PARTIAL EAST 1 1 5 5 3 3 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 12:12 SLOPE 12:12 SLOPE 1:12 SLOPE 1:12 SLOPE 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 1: 1 2 SL O P E 1: 1 2 SL O P E SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 ROOF PLAN-GABLE VERSION A 3.4 P 1 3 4 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 4.1 4/29/16Plotted On:N O R T H E L E V A T I O N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 17'-8"10'25'-10 1/4" D C 2 2 ' - 5 3 / 4 " 6" HORIZONTAL WOOD BUTT JOINT SIDING EXISTING GRADE SHEET METAL SHEET METAL WOOD COLUMNS BRICK CHIMNEY CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL RESTORE EXISTING WOOD DOOR 1. WOOD SHINGLE PORCH ROOF, W/WOOD FASCIA AND DRIP EDGE CONCRETE STEPS TO PORCH D1 0 2 W102 W101W110 W201 W114 T.O. RIDGE ELEV. 116'-5" T.O. PLY COTTAGE ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLY MASTER BED ELEV. 109'-0" T.O. PLY GUEST BEDRM ELEV. 99'-0" T.O. PLATE ELEV. 117'-6" 12 : 1 2 SL O P E B A SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION A 4.1 P 1 3 5 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 4.2 4/29/16Plotted On:S O U T H E L E V A T I O N S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 25'-10 1/4"10'17'-8" 2 1 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 25 ' WINDOWS ACROSS TOP OF GARAGE DOOR EXISTING GRADE 6" HORIZONTAL WOOD BUTT JOINT SIDING SHEET METAL FLUSH FASTENED 6" HORIZONTAL WOOD BUTT JOINT SIDING WOOD SHINGLE METAL FASCIA METAL FASCIA STEEL HANDRAIL D 1 1 4 D 1 1 2 W212 W211 D2 1 0 W217 W216 T.O. RIDGE EXISTING ELEV. 116'-5" T.O. PLY GUEST MASTER ELEV. 99'-0" T.O. PLATE MASTER BED ELEV. 117'-6" T.O. PLY GUEST BED ELEV. 109'-0" T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL, NEW ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 87'-10" T.O. PLY LOWER LEVEL, NEW ELEV. 87'-10" A B C D A B WOOD SHINGLE W214 W215 W122 T.O. RIDGE COTTAGE ELEV. 116'-5" T.O. PLY COTTAGE ELEV. 100'-0" 1 2 : 1 2 S L O P E 1 2 : 1 2 S L O P E 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 4 1/4" WOOD SIDING PAINTED WHITE WOOD OUTSIDE CORNER BOARDS WOOD FASCIA SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION A 4.2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION A 4.2 P 1 3 6 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 4.3 4/29/16Plotted On:E A S T E L E V A T I O N S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 6 5 4 3 12 2 3 ' - 3 1 / 8 " ORIGINAL WOOD SIDING TO BE RESTORED WOOD SHINGLES EXISTING GRADE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 6" HORIZONTAL WOOD BUTT JOINT SIDING SHEET METAL CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL STEEL HANDRAIL W210 W209 W120 W205W206 W117 W115W116 W208 W207 T.O. RIDGE EXISTING ELEV. 116'-5" T.O. PLY COTTAGE ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLATE MASTER BED ELEV. 117'-6" T.O. PLY UPPER LEV ELEV. 109'-0" T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLATE, GUEST BEDRM ELEV. 117'-6" T.O. PLY, MASTER BEDRM ELEV. 109'-7 1/2" T.O. PLY MASTER GUEST ELEV. 99'-0" 4 12 2 5 ' EXISTING GRADE ORIGINAL WOOD SIDING TO BE RESTORED WOOD SHINGLESSHEET METAL WALL CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL PAINTED WOOD CORNER BOARD METAL FASCIA FLUSH FASTENED STANDING SEAM ROOF BRICK CHIMNEY W106 W103 W001W002 T.O. RIDGE EXISTING ELEV. 116'-5" T.O. PLY COTTAGE ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 87'-10" T.O. PLATE, MASTER BEDRM ELEV. 117'-6" 1":12" SLOPE 3 HISTORICAL CABIN LINK TO ADDITION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION A 4.3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION A 4.3 P 1 3 7 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 4.4 4/29/16Plotted On:W E S T E L E V A T I O N S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 1 4 5 6 3' EXISTING GRADE WOOD SHINGLE ROOF 4 1/4" WOOD SIDING PAINTED WHITE WOOD COLUMNS BRICK CHIMNEY CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL RESTORE EXISTING WOOD DOOR 2. WOOD SHINGLE PORCH ROOF, W/WOOD FASCIA AND DRIP EDGE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 6" HORIZONTAL WOOD BUTT JOINT SIDING STEEL HANDRAIL SHEET METAL FLUSH FASTENED W104 D101 W105 W213 D113 W107 T.O. RIDGE EXISTING ELEV. 116'-5" T.O. PLY PROPOSED ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLATE MASTER BED ELEV. 117'-6" T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL, NEW ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLY UPPER LEV. ELEV. 109'-0" HISTORICAL CABIN LINK TO ADDITION 1":12" SLOPE 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 32 WOOD TRIM WOOD FASCIA 19'-6"11' 3 42 2 5 ' EXISTING GRADE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 6" HORIZONTAL WOOD BUTT JOINT SIDING SHEET METAL CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL T.O. PLY PROPOSED ELEV. 99'-0" T.O. PLATE MASTER BED ELEV. 117'6" T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 87'-10" T.O. PLY UPPER LEV. ELEV. 109'-0" T.O. PLY PROPOSED ELEV. 100'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 WEST ELEVATION A 4.4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION A 4.4 P 1 3 8 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 5.1 4/29/16Plotted On:S E C T I O N S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-7 1/2" MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL SLAB 87'-10" MAIN LEVEL PLY 99'-0" DCBA STAIRSMUDROOM KITCHEN FAMILY ROOM UPPER LEVEL FF 109'-7 1/2" MAIN LEVEL FF 99'-00" MAIN LEVEL FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL SLAB 87'-10" 5 4 3 2 1 MASTER CLOSET MASTER BATHMASTER BEDROOM GARAGE GUEST MASTER BEDROOM GUEST SUITEGYM SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECT. 2-2' A 5.1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SECT. 1-1' A 5.1 P 1 3 9 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 5.2 4/29/16Plotted On:S E C T I O N S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-7 1/2" LOWER LEVEL SLAB 87'-10" MAIN LEVEL PLY 99'-0" D C B A BEDROOM 1 MASTER BATH GUEST SUITE BEDROOM 3 BATH 3 HALLWAY LIVING ROOM (DINING AND KITCHEN BEYOND) UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-7 1/2" MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL SLAB 87'-10" 123456 LIVING ROOMDINNING ROOMKITCHENPATIO FAMILY ROOM BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2 ENTRY SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECT. 4-4' A 5.2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SECT. 3-3' A 5.2 P 1 4 0 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE LA 1.0 4/29/16Plotted On:C O N C E P T U A L L A N D S C A P E P L A N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 IM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 F DW A B B B B B A B B A FENCE NEW FENCE 6" STEEL SHEET SLATS RIVETED TO STEEL POST (TUBE 2"X4") EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE KEY SOD MULCH PERENNIAL FLOWER BEDS EXISTING ASPEN TREES TO REMAIN MAIN LEVEL PLY SITE:7896.18' ARCH:100'-0" MAIN LEVEL FF SITE:7896.37' ARCH:100'-2 1/4" MAIN LEVEL PLY SITE:7896.18' ARCH:100'-0" MAIN LEVEL FF SITE:7896.37' ARCH:100'-2 1/4" MAIN LEVEL (2) PLY SITE:7894.93' ARCH: 98'-9" MAIN LEVEL (2) FF SITE:7895.12' ARCH: 98'-11 1/4" EXISTING SPRUCE TREES TO REMAIN EXISTING PINE TREE TO REMAIN NEW ASPEN TREES NEW STEEL FENCE (DETAIL TBD) EXISTING CONCRETE WALL PERENNIAL FLOWER BEDS OUTSIDE LIGHTING KEY BELLAGIO 20 1/2" HGITH BLACK LED WALL LIGHT. BLACK FINISH HINKLEY ATLANTIS 1648TT WALL LIGHT. TITANIUM FINISH. * SEE SPECIFICATIONS IN SHEET LA1.1 F N CONCRETE WALK P R O P O S E D S I D E W A L K 4' - 6 " 4'-7 9/16"4'-7 9/16"2 7/16" NEW FENCE 6" STEEL SHEET SLATS RIVETED TO STEEL POST (TUBE 2"X4") SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 LANDSCAPE LA 1.0 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 FENCE LA 1.0 P 1 4 1 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE LA 1.1 4/29/16Plotted On:L A N D S C A P E : L I G H T I N G S P E C S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15   ATLANTIS 1648TT TITANIUM WIDTH:6.0" HEIGHT:16.0" WEIGHT:4.0 LBS MATERIAL:EXTRUDED ALUMINUM BODY GLASS:ETCHED GLASS LENS BACKPLATE WIDTH: 4.5" BACKPLATE HEIGHT: 4.5" SOCKET:2-20W MR-16  *INCLUDED DARK SKY:YES EXTENSION:3.5" TTO:13.8" CERTIFICATION:C-US WET RATED VOLTAGE:120V UPC:640665164817   4/28/2016 Bellagio 20 1/2" High Black Outdoor Wall Light - #37750 | LampsPlus.com http://www.lampsplus.com/products/bellagio-20-and-one-half-inch-high-black-outdoor-wall-light__37750.html 1/3 Lamps Plus  |  Outdoor Lighting  |  Transitional  |  John Timberland  |  Bellagio™ 20 1/2" High Black Outdoor Wall Light < Go Back   Store Locations Rate Us 800­782­1967Shop by Room/Trends SCALE: 1' = 1'-0" 2 FIXTURE B: HINKLEY ATLANTIS LA 1.1 SCALE: 1' = 1'-0" 1 FIXTURE A: BELLAGIO WALL LIGHT LA 1.1 P 1 4 2 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 0.0 4/29/16Plotted On:T I T L E / C O V E R S H E E T ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 OWNER: ARCHITECT: GENERAL CONTRACTOR: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: MECHANICAL ENGINEER: CIVIL ENGINEER: 0103 02 04 V I C I N I T Y M A P 2 0 9 E A S T B L E E K E R 7/20/15 A S P E N , C O PARCEL ID: 273707320002 Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 73 Lot: C & D 1A7.1 LOCATION 1 A4.1 1 A5.1 PARCEL ID NUMBER: ZONING: SITE AREA: BLDG USE: OCC. GROUP: CONST. TYPE: CLIMATE ZONE: FIRE SPRINKLERS: LEGAL DESC'N: 273707320002 R6-Medium Density Residential 6000 sq ft Residential #### #### #### #### 209 E. BLEEKER STREET "HAYES HOUSE" ABBREVIATIONS MATERIAL LEGEND VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEXPROJECT TEAMAPPLICABLE CODES PROJECT DATA HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION HPC 1 CABIN EVOLUTION HPC 2 1955: ORIGINAL CABIN HPC 3 1959: CABIN CHANGES HPC 4 1978: REMODEL REFERENCES HPC 5 1978: CABIN REMODEL/EXISTING HPC 6 PICTURE REFERENCES HPC 7 ORIGINAL COTTAGE: FLOOR PLAN HPC 8 ORIGINAL COTTAGE: ELEVATIONS HPC 9 NEIGHBORHOOD REFERENCE: PROPOSED SITE HPC 10 NEIGHBORHOOD REFERENCE: PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION HPC 11 NEIGHBORHOOD REFERENCE:PROPOSED EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS HPC 12 NEIGHBORHOOD REFERENCE: CURRENT PICTURES HPC 13 PROPOSED STREET ELEVATION HPC 14 LINK SECTION HPC 15 3D RENDERS HPC 16 3D RENDERS ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS A 0.0 GENERAL INFORMATION A 1.0 SURVEY A 1.1 SITE PLAN A 1.2 EXISTING FAR A 1.3 PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS A 1.4 PROPOSED FAR ELEVATION A 2.0 EXISTING FLOOR PLANS A 2.1 EXISTING ELEVATIONS A 3.1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A 3.2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A 3.3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR A 3.4 ROOF PLAN A 4.1 ELEVATION: NORTH A 4.2 ELEVATION: SOUTH ELEVATIONS A 4.3 ELEVATION: EAST ELEVATIONS A 4.4 ELEVATION: WEST ELEVATIONS A 5.1 SECTIONS A 5.2 SECTIONS ALL CODES REFERENCED ARE TO BE USED AS AMENDED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO AND LOCAL JURISDICTION. FAR (FLOOR AREA RATIO) 1. THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED IS CONSTRUCTED OR NOT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE REUSED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT CONTRACT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ARCHITECT. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO INSURE THAT CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AND RELATED CODES AND PRACTICES. SKILLED AND QUALIFIED WORKMEN IN THEIR ASSOCIATED TRADES SHALL PERFORM ALL WORK AT THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF CRAFTSMANSHIP. 3. THE ARCHITECT WILL PROVIDE DETAILS AND/OR DIRECTION FOR DESIGN INTENT WHERE IT IS NEGLECTED IN THE DOCUMENTS OR ALTERED BY EXISTING CONDITIONS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS DEPICTED IN THESE DOCUMENTS AND SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES, OMISSIONS, AND/OR CONFLICTS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. ALL DIMENSIONS ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE CHECKED AGAINST ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DRAWINGS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL TRADES UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY WITH DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS. 7. THE OWNER AND/OR ARCHITECT SHALL APPROVE ANY “EQUAL” MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, ETC. PRESENTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY THE ARCHITECT AND/OR OWNER WITH SAMPLES OF ALL FINISH MATERIALS AND SHALL NOT PROCEED WITH INSTALLATION UNTIL THE ARCHITECT AND/OR OWNER ISSUES AN APPROVAL. ALL WORK MUST CONFORM TO THE APPROVED SAMPLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FORWARD ALL REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AND VERIFICATIONS TO THE ARCHITECT WITH ADEQUATE TIME FOR REVIEW AS NOT TO DELAY THE WORK IN PROGRESS. 8. IF REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN PRIOR TO OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS TO THE ARCHITECT FOR WINDOWS, DOORS, CASEWORK, METAL DETAILING, STAIRS, FIREPLACE, AND ANY OTHER WORK NOTED IN THE DOCUMENTS. FABRICATION SHALL NOT PROCEED ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR RECEIVES APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS FROM THE ARCHITECT. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS. 10. THE DESIGN, ADEQUACY, AND SAFETY OF ERECTION BRACING, TEMPORARY SUPPORTS, SHORING, ETC. SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL CONFORM TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL O.S.H.A. REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY AND CARE OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REQUESTING BUILDING INSPECTIONS AS APPLICABLE TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING / RESIDENTIAL CODE AND LOCAL ORDINANCES. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL OPENINGS THROUGH WALLS, FLOORS, AND CEILINGS WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, AND LIGHTING DRAWINGS. REFERTO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR ALLOWABLE OPENING SIZES / REQUIREMENTS IN STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. 13. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE STONE MASON’S TAKE-OFFS AND WILL ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COORDINATING ANY ITEMS THAT REQUIRE CLARIFICATION DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS. 14. THE ARCHITECT WILL VERIFY IN FIELD ALL LIGHTING FIXTURES, SWITCHES, MECHANICAL GRILLES, REGISTERS, AND THERMOSTAT LOCATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH-IN LIGHTING FIXTURES AND ILLUSTRATE SWITCH, REGISTER, AND GRILLE LOCATIONS PRIOR TO THE ARCHITECT WALK-THROUGH. 15. ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATIONS SUCH AS GRILLES, BOILER FLAPS, ETC. TO BE COPPER OR ENCLOSED BY COPPER FITTINGS. - 2009 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE - 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE - 2009 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE - PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE - PITKIN COUNTY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODE - PITKIN COUNTY PROPERTY RESOLUTIONS OFFICE PHONE: CONTACT: KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. 0133 Prospector Rd. Unit 4102X Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.2252 KIM RAYMOND / kim@krai.us LIVABLE LOWER LEVEL: 131 sf. MAIN LEVEL: 2130 sf. UPPER LEVEL: 1340 sf. SUBTOTAL: 3609 sf. DECK MAIN LEVEL 708 sf. UPPER LEVEL 163 sf. SUBTOTAL 871 sf. GARAGE MAIN LEVEL: 122.5 sf. 122.5 sf. TOTAL: 3731.5 sf. *REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DOCUMENTS A1.3 FOR THE FAR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION. JST.JOIST VINYL COMPOSITION TILEVCT YARD WROUGHT IRON WOOD WITHOUT WITH WEIGHT WEATHER PROOF WAINSCOT WINDOW WATER CLOSET VERTICAL VOLT AMPERE VERIFY IN FIELD VAPOR BARRIER URINAL UNFINISHED TYPICAL TRANSFORMER TOILET THROUGH THICK THREADED THRESHOLD TELEPHONE TELEVISION OUTLET TUBE STEEL TOP OF WALL TOP OF SLAB TOP OF MASONRY TOP OF JOIST TOP OF FOOTING TOP OF CURB TOP OF BEAM TOP OF TELEPHONE MOUNTING BOARD THROUGH BOLT TONGUE AND GROOVE SYSTEM SYMMETRICAL SWITCH SUSPENDED STEEL STANDARD SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS SQUARE INCHES SQUARE FEET SPEAKER SPECIFICATIONS SPACE SIMILAR SHEATHING SHEET SERVICE ENTRANCE SECTION SECTION SCHEDULE SELF CLOSING STAINLESS STEEL SKYLIGHT SHUT OFF VALVE SMOKE DETECTOR SOLID CORE REMOVE ROOM REVISION RETURN REQUIRED REINFORCED REFERENCE REFRIGERATOR RIGHT OF WAY ROUGH OPENING ROOF DRAIN OVERFLOW ROOF DRAIN LEADER RADIUS QUANTITY QUARRY TILE POWER POLYVINYLCLORIDE PARTITION POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT PREFABRICATED PERFORATED PORCELAIN PLYWOOD PLUMBING PLASTIC PLATE PLASTER PHASE PERPENDICULAR POINT OF CONNECTION PLASTIC LAMINATE PROPERTY LINE PRECAST CONCRETE OPPOSITE OPENING OVER HEAD OUTSIDE AIR INTAKE OUTSIDE RADIUS ORNAMENTAL IRON OVER HANG OUTSIDE DIAMETER ON CENTER NOMINAL NUMBER NAILER NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NON-CORROSIVE METAL NOT TO SCALE NOT IN CONTRACT MULLION METAL MODULAR MISCELLANEOUS MINIMUM MANUFACTURER MANUFACTURING MEDIUM MECHANICAL MAXIMUM MATERIAL MASONRY MARBLE MASONRY OPENING MALLEABLE IRON MANHOLE MACHINE BOLT LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER LIGHTING LIGHT LINOLEUM LINEAR LEAD LAVATORY LATERAL LAMINATE LINEAR FEET LIGHT EMITTING DIODE KNOCK OUT KILN DRIED KNOCK DOWN JOINT JUNCTION JUNCTION BOX INTERIOR INSULATION INCLUDE, INCLUSIVE IMPREGNATED INTERMEDIATE METALLIC CONDUIT ISOLATED GROUND IDENTIFICATION INSIDE FACE INSIDE DIAMETER INTERCOM OUTLET HYDRAULIC HOT WATER HEATING, VENTILATING & AIR CONDITIONING HEATER HORIZONTAL HEIGHT HARDWARE HARDBOARD HANDICAPPED HOLLOW METAL HOLLOW CORE HOSE BIBB GYPSUM BOARD GYPSUM GALVANIZED RIGID TUBING GATE VALVE GRADE MARK GLUE LAMINATED BEAM GLASS GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER GARAGE GALVANIZED GAUGE GALVANIZED IRON FURNISH FOOTING FIRE PROOF FLUORESCENT FLOORING FLOOR FINISH FIRE HOSE CABINET FOUNDATION FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL FABRICATE FIBERGLASS FLOOR SINK FACE OF FIELD NAILING FIRE EXTINGUISHER FLOOR DRAIN FLOOR CLEAN OUT FAN COIL FIRE ALARM EXTERIOR EXISTING EXHAUST EXCAVATE ELECTRIC DRINKING COOLER EVAPORATIVE COOLER ESTIMATE EQUIPMENT EQUAL ELECTRICAL NON-METALLIC TUBING ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING ELECTRICAL METALLIC CONDUIT ELEVATOR "ELECTRIC, ELECTRICAL" ELEVATION EACH EACH WAY END NAILING EXPANSION JOINT EXHAUST FAN EXPANSION ANCHOR DOOR DOWN DEAD LOAD DIMENSION DIAGONAL DIAMETER DEMOLITION DOUBLE DISHWASHER DOWN SPOUT DECOMPOSED GRANITE DRINKING FOUNTAIN PENNY COPPER CONTRACTOR CONTINUOUS CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE COMBINATION COLUMN CENTERED CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CLEAR CLOSET CAULKING CEILING CENTERLINE CIRCUIT BREAKER CHANNEL CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE CERAMIC CEMENT CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION CAMBER CABINET CERAMIC TILE CLEAN OUT CONTROL JOINT CAST IN PLACE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS CONCRETE ASBESTOS PIPE BRONZE BEARING BRASS BEAM BLOCKING BLOCK BUILDING BOARD BACK OF CURB BUILT UP BOTTOM OF FOOTING BOTTOM OF BOUNDARY NAILING BENCH MARK ANGLE AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE AVERAGE ASPHALT ANNEALED ALTERNATE ALUMINUM AIR HANDLER UNIT ABOVE GRADE ADDITION or ADDENDUM ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE ACOUSTIC ASBESTOS-CEMENT BOARD ABOVE ACRYLONITRILE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE AGGREGATE BASE COURSE AIR CONDITIONING ABOVE FINISHED GRADE ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR ANCHOR BOLT AMPERES YD. W.I. WD. W/O W/ WT. WP WCT WDW WC VERT. VA V.I.F. V.B. UR UNF. TYP. TRANS. TLT. THRU THK. THD. TH. TEL. T.V. T.S. T.O.W. T.O.S. T.O.M. T.O.J. T.O.F. T.O.C. T.O.B. T.O. T.M.B. T.B. T & G SYS. SYM SW SUSP. STL. STD. STC SQ. IN. SQ. FT. SPKR. SPECS SPA. SIM. SHT'G. SH SES SECT. SCHED. SC S/S S/L S.O.V. S.D. S.C. RMV. RM REV. RET. REQ'D. REINF. REF. REF R.O.W. or R/W R.O. R.D.O. R.D.L. R QTY. Q.T. PWR. PVC PTN. PSI PSF PREFAB. PERF. PORC. PLYWD. PLUMB. PLAS. PLT. PL. PH or Ø PERP. or P.O.C. P.LAM. P.L. P.C. OPPO. OPNG. OH OAI O.R. O.I. O.H. O.D. O.C. NOM. NO. NLR. NFC NCM N.T.S. N.I.C. MUL MTL. MOD MISC. MIN. MFR. MFG. MED. MECH. MAX. MAT'L MAS. MAR. M.O. M.I. M.H. M.B. LVL LTG. LT. LINO. LIN. LD. LAV LAT. LAM L.FT. L.E.D. KO KD K-D JT. JCT J-BOX INT. INSUL. INCL. IMPG IMC IG ID I.F. I.D. I.C. HYD. HW HVAC HTR HOR. HGT. HDW HDBD. H/C H.M. H.C. H.B. GYP. BD. GYP. GRC GM GM GLB GL GFI GFCI GAR. GALV. GA. G.I. FURN. FTG. FP FLUOR. FLG. FL FIN. FHC FDN. FDC FACP FAB. F/G F.S. F.O. F.N. F.E. F.D. F.C.O. F.C. F.A. EXT. EXIST. or E EXH. EXC EWC EVAP. EST. EQUIP. EQ. ENT EMT EMC ELEV. ELECT. EL EA. E.W. E.N. E.J. E.F. E.A. DR DN. DL DIM. DIAG. DIA. or Ø DEMO DBL. D/W D.S. D.G. D.F. d CU CONTR. CONT. CONST. CONC. COMB. COL. CNTRD. CMU CLR. CLO. CLKG. CLG. CL or C.L. CKT. BKR. CH CFM CER CEM. CCTV CAM. CAB C.T. C.O. C.J. C.I.P. C.D. C.A.P. BRZ BRG. BR BM. BLKG. BLK. BLDG BD. B/C B.U. B.O.F. B.O. B.N. B.M. AWG AVG ASPH. ANL ALT. AL. or ALUM. AHU AG ADD. ACT ACOU. ACB ABV. ABS ABC A/C A.F.G. A.F.F. A.B. A SLOPE TO DRAINS.T.D. GENERAL NOTES FINISH WOOD WOOD STUD BLOCKING STEEL STEEL STUD FRAMED WALL BATT INSULATION OR PLYWOOD PLYWOOD OR GLU-LAM CONCRETE STONE CMU SAND GRAVEL GWB COMPACTED SOIL SPRAY-FOAM INSULATION RIGID INSULATION GRID LINE BREAK LINE MATCH LINE REVISION A9.1 ELEVATION MARKER SECTION MARKER DETAIL CUT DETAIL 1 A6.1 ELEVATION 100 A ROOM NAME 101 INTERIOR ELEVATION MARKER ELEVATION NUMBER SHEET NUMBER SECTION NUMBER SHEET NUMBER DETAIL NUMBER SHEET NUMBER SPOT ELEVATION DOOR MARK WINDOW MARK ROOM NAME AND NUMBER ELEVATION NUMBER SHEET NUMBER SYMBOL LEGEND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LA 1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN: CONCEPTUAL AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING LA 1.1 EXTERIOR LIGHTING SPECS Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 73 Lot: C & D P 1 4 3 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 1 4/29/16Plotted On:C A B I N E V O L U T I O N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 1955 - BACK VIEW 1955 - ROOF 1978 ADDITION - FRONT VIEW 1978 ADDITION - BACK VIEW 1978 ADDITION - ROOF 2015 - BACK VIEW 2015 - ROOF2015 - FRONT VIEW O R I G I N A L C A B I N R E M O D E L E X I S T I N G P 1 4 4 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 10 4/29/16Plotted On:N E I G H B O R H O O D R E F E R N E C E : P R O P O S E D N O R T H E L E V A T I O N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 D C B A EXISTING 209 E. BLEEKER STREET BUILDING OUTLINEGABLE ROOF VERSION 114 N. ASPEN STREET (TO WEST SIDE) 217 E. BLEEKER STREET (TO EAST SIDE) SCALE: 1:56.47 1 STREET VIEW ELEVATION HPC 10 P 1 4 5 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 11 4/29/16Plotted On:N E I G H B O R H O O D R E F E R E N C E : P R O P O S E D E A S T A N D W E S T E L E V A T I O N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 6 5 4 3 12 217 E. BLEEKER HOUSE OUTLINE (ON EAST SIDE OF 209 BLEEKER)EXISTING 209 E. BLEEKER STREET BUILDINGOUTLINE GABLE ROOF VERSION BLEEKER STREET (NORTH SIDE) ALLEY (SOUTH SIDE) 1 3 4 5 62 114 N. ASPEN STREET HOUSE OUTLINE (ON WEST SIDE OF 209 BLEEKER) EXISTING 209 E. BLEEKER STREET BUILDING OUTLINE GABLE ROOF VERSION BLEEKER STREET (NORTH SIDE) ALLEY (SOUTH SIDE) NOT TO SCALE 1 HPC-PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION HPC 11 NOT TO SCALE 2 HPC-PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION HPC 11 P 1 4 6 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 12 4/29/16Plotted On:N E I G H B O R H O O D R E F E R E N C E : P I C T U R E S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 V I C I N I T Y M A P 2 0 9 E A S T B L E E K E R 7/20/15 A S P E N , C O PARCEL ID: 273707320002 Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 73 Lot: C & D 2 1. E. BLEEKER ST. & MONARCH ST. 2. E. BLEEKER ST. & MONARCH ST. 3 1 3. E. BLEEKER ST. & MONARCH ST. 4. E. BLEEKER ST. & MONARCH ST. 4 10. E. BLEEKER ST. & N. ASPEN ST. 9. E. BLEEKER ST. & N. ASPEN ST. 8. E. BLEEKER ST. & N. ASPEN ST. 7. E. BLEEKER ST. & N. ASPEN ST.5. E. BLEEKER ST.6. E. BLEEKER ST.7. E. BLEEKER ST. 5678 9 10 11 10. E. BLEEKER ST.11. E. BLEEKER ST. 12. 209 E. BLEEKER ST. 12 P 1 4 7 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 13 4/29/16Plotted On:S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 D C B A 114 N. ASPEN STREET (TO WEST SIDE) 217 E. BLEEKER STREET (TO EAST SIDE) SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 HPC-NORTH STREETSCAPE: E. BLEEKER STREET HPC 13 P 1 4 8 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 14 4/29/16Plotted On:L I N K D E T A I L ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-7 1/2" MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" 12345 LIVING ROOMDINNING ROOMKITCHENPATIO ENTRY 123 MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" LIVING ROOM PORCH DINING ROOM SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SECT. 3-3' HPC 14 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 2 COTTAGE SECTION 6-6' HPC 14 P 1 4 9 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 2 4/29/16Plotted On:1 9 5 5 - O R I G I N A L C A B I N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 ORIGINAL-NORTH HPC 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 ORIGINAL-WEST HPC 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 ORIGINAL-EAST HPC 2 BRICK FIREPLACE AT CROSS RIDGE ENTRY PORCH ON CORNER. WOOD POSTS AND HANDRAIL. SHINGLE ROOF ONE STORY CABIN, SIDING FINISH AND CORNER TRIM BACK SHED ADDITION BACK SHED ADDITION BACK SHED ADDITION DOUBLE HUNG FRONT WINDOWS RESESSED PORCH WITH WOOD POSTS BRICK CHIMNEY NO SIDE DOOR YEAR 1956 - MARY HAYES FAMILY CABIN IN THE BACKGROUND, NO SIDE DOOR YEAR 1956 - JIM, PAULI AND ELII HAYES PICTURE FROM BACKYARD TOWARDS BLEEKER ST. , NO SIDE DOOR ON HOUSE YEAR 1955 - CORNER OF BLEEKER ST. AND ASPEN ST. SINGLE STORY CABIN SHOWS PORCH, CHIMNEY YEAR UNKNOWN - VIEW FROM BLEEKER ST. FRONT OF SINGLE STORY CABIN SHOWS DETAILED PORCH, DOUBLE HUNG FRONT WINDOWS BRICK CHIMNEY P 1 5 0 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 3 4/29/16Plotted On:1 9 5 9 - C A B I N C H A N G E S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 ORIGINAL-EAST (1959) HPC 3 BRICK CHIMNEY FRONT CENTRAL WINDOW PORCH HAS BEEN CLOSED COVERED BACK SHED ADDITION SIDE DOOR ADDED SHED ROOF FOR BACK ADDITION BRICK CHIMNEY YEAR 1959 - MARY HAYES FAMILY PICTURE FROM BACKYARD TOWARDS BLEEKER ST. , SIDE DOOR HAS BEEN ADDED P 1 5 1 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 4 4/29/16Plotted On:1 9 7 8 - R E M O D E L R E F E R E N C E S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 ORIGINAL-SOUTH HPC 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 5 ORIGINAL-EAST (1959) HPC 4 BRICK CHIMNEY GABLED DORMER WOOD PANELED DOOR SHED ROOF FOR BACK ADDITION BRICK CHIMNEY P 1 5 2 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 5 4/29/16Plotted On:1 9 7 8 - C A B I N R E M O D E L / E X I S T I N G ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 B A A B 3 1 1 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EXISTING-NORTH HPC 5 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 EXISTING-SOUTH HPC 5 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EXISTING-EAST HPC 5 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 EXISTING-WEST HPC 5 P 1 5 3 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 6 4/29/16Plotted On:P I C T U R E R E F E R E N C E S T O R E S T O R E O R I G I N A L C A B I N ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 ORIGINAL-SOUTH ORIGINAL-EASTORIGINAL-NORTH ORIGINAL-WEST BRICK CHIMNEY GABLED DORMER SHED ROOF FOR BACK ADDITION DOOR ADDED IN 1959 (NOT ORIGINAL) UNDATED PICTURE OF 209 E. BLEEKER (ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY) P 1 5 4 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 7 4/29/16Plotted On:O R I G I N A L C O T T A G E - F L O O R P L A N S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 IM B 3 A 2 F 82'-7 1/2" 19'-6"16'-4 1/2" 12'-1 1/4" 5 1/2"28'-5 1/2"5 1/2"5'1'-6" 6'-4 1/4"9'-7 1/2"18'-10" 1' - 2 1 / 2 " 2 5 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 1 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 5 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 9 " 5 1 / 2 " 5 1/2"8'-10"5 1/2"5'-5 1/4" 5' - 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 6' - 1 / 4 " 4 ' - 9 1 / 4 " 3' - 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 3' - 4 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 2' - 2 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 13 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 4' - 5 3 / 4 " 5 1 / 2 " 4 2 STEPS UP TO ENTRY PORCH (7 1/2" H. EACH)ENTRY PORCH FAMILY ROOM POWDER FIREPLACE TV ICE MAKER UC WINE FRIG BAR SINK BUILT-IN NOOK/BENCH BOOK SHELVES RIDGE VAULTED CEILING WINDOW WELL CLOSET 102 101 WALK SITE: 7895.12' ARCH:98'-11 1/4" MAIN LEVEL PLY SITE:7896.18' ARCH:100'-0" MAIN LEVEL FF SITE:7896.37' ARCH:100'-2 1/4" N 1 6 CONCRETE WALK 3 B 3 A 24 16'-4 3/4"6'-5"8'-1 1/2"4'-7" 7"15'-10"3'-8"2'-9"8'-1 1/2"4'-7"11" 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 2 3 / 4 " 1 0 " 7 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 9 1 / 2 " 7'-10"29'-8 1/4" 53 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 2 5 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 10 " 7' - 3 1 / 2 " 8' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 9 1 / 2 " 7"15'-10"6'-5"8'-1 1/2"4'-7"11" 07 PARTIAL EAST 1 6 3 1 0 " 3 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 2 2 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 9 1 / 2 " 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 12:12 SLOPE 12:12 SLOPE 1:12 SLOPE 1:12 SLOPE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 COTTAGE-MAIN LEVEL PLAN HPC 7 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 COTTAGE-ROOF PLAN HPC 7 DOOR 1 & 2: FOUND IN EXISTING CABIN BASEMENT. TO BE RESTORED AND USED AT FRONT DOOR. P 1 5 5 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 8 4/29/16Plotted On:O R I G I N A L C O T T A G E - E L E V A T I O N S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 C #DrgID DETAIL NAME #LayID 14'-7 3/4"11'-2 1/2" 5'-7"5'-3"4 1/2" 7'-3 1/2"5'-9 1/4"12'-10 3/4"8 1/4" 2' 1 6 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 5 " WOOD SHINGLE ROOF 4 1/4" WOOD SIDING PAINTED WHITE WOOD COLUMNS BRICK CHIMNEY CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL RESTORE EXISTING WOOD DOOR 1. (SEE PAGE HPC 13) WOOD SHINGLE PORCH ROOF, W/WOOD FASCIA AND DRIP EDGE CONCRETE STEPS TO PORCH T.O. RIDGE ELEV. 116'-5 1/2" T.O. PLY COTTAGE ELEV. 100'-0" 12 : 1 2 SL O P E B 4 1/4" WOOD SIDING PAINTED WHITE FRONT WINDOW WITH WOOD FRAME WOOD OUTSIDE CORNER BOARDS WOOD TRIM WOOD FASCIA WOOD SHINGLE ROOF W/DRIP EDGE A COTTAGE T.O. PLATE ELEV. 107'-10" 1 6'-1"10'-3 1/2"19'-6" 6' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 1'-1"13'-7 1/2"2'-7 3/4"3'-10 1/4"8'-6"7'-3" 2' 3 ' - 5 " WOOD SHINGLE ROOF 4 1/4" WOOD SIDING PAINTED WHITE WOOD COLUMNS BRICK CHIMNEY CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL RESTORE EXISTING WOOD DOOR 2. (SEE PAGE HPC 13) WOOD SHINGLE PORCH ROOF, W/WOOD FASCIA AND DRIP EDGE CONCRETE STEPS TO PORCH DORMER T.O. RIDGE EXISTING ELEV. 117'-1/4" T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL, NEW ELEV. 100'-0" HISTORICAL CABIN LINK TO ADDITION 1":12" SLOPE 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 32 WOOD OUTSIDE CORNER BOARDS WOOD TRIM WOOD FASCIA WOOD OUTSIDE CORNER BOARDS 12 7'-3 1/4"12'-2 3/4"2'-9"13'-7 1/2"1'-1" 2' 2 ' - 6 3 / 4 " T.O. RIDGE EXISTING ELEV. 116'-7" T.O. PLY COTTAGE ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLATE, MASTER BEDRM ELEV. 117'-6" 1":12" SLOPE 4 1/4" WOOD SIDING PAINTED WHITE WOOD OUTSIDE CORNER BOARDS WOOD FASCIA WOOD SHINGLE ROOF W/DRIP EDGE BRICK CHIMNEY COTTAGE T.O. PLATE ELEV. 109'-5 1/2" 3 CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL 4 1/4" WOOD SIDING PAINTED WHITE WOOD SHINGLE ROOF W/WOOD FASCIA AND DRIP EDGE HISTORICAL CABIN LINK TO ADDITION A B 17 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 9 1/2"7'-8"3'-1/4"2'-1 1/4"13'-3/4" 2' 3 ' 5 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 1 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 5 1 / 2 " T.O. RIDGE COTTAGE ELEV. 117'-3 3/4" T.O. PLY COTTAGE ELEV. 100'-0" 1 2 : 1 2 S L O P E 1 2 : 1 2 S L O P E 12 : 1 2 SL O P E 4 1/4" WOOD SIDING PAINTED WHITE WINDOW WITH WOOD FRAME WOOD OUTSIDE CORNER BOARDS WOOD TRIM WOOD FASCIA WINDOW DORMER W/WINDOW WOOD SHINGLE ROOF W/DRIP EDGE COTTAGE T.O. PLATE ELEV. 109'-5 1/2" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 COTTAGE-NORTH ELEVATION HPC 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 COTTAGE-WEST ELEVATION HPC 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 COTTAGE-EAST ELEVATION HPC 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 COTTAGE-SOUTH ELEVATION HPC 8 P 1 5 6 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 9 4/29/16Plotted On:N E I G H B O R H O O D R E F E R E N C E : P R O P O S E D S I T E ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 6,000 sq ft 6,000 sq ft4,500 sq ft 3,000 sq ft 2,605 sq ft 1,915 sq ft 1,808 sq ft 2 , 9 6 6 . 6 1 s q f t T.O. RIDGE: 33'-3" T.O. TOWER: 29'-1" T.O. RIDGE: 26'-1" T.O. RIDGE: 16'-10" SECOND FLOOR SETBACK 9 ' - 6 " 3'-3" 1 ' 3'-9" 3'-6" 1'-6" 9 5 / 8 " 3'-1" 4' 2 4 ' 5 ' - 4 " 3'-9" SECOND FLOOR SETBACK 114 N. ASPEN STREET LOT SIZE: 6,000 sq ft BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 2,605 sq ft NET SQ FOOTAGE: 6585 sq ft 2,605/6,000= 0.43= 43% 209 E. BLEEKER STREET LOT SIZE: 6,000 sq ft BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 3,098 sq ft NET SQ FOOTAGE: 3,098/6,000= 0.64= 64% 217 E. BLEEKER STREET LOT SIZE: 4,500 sq ft BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 1,915 sq ft NET SQ FOOTAGE: 4,460 sq ft 1,915/4,500= 0.43= 43% 208 E. MAIN STREET LOT SIZE: 3,000 sq ft BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 1,503 sq ft NET SQ FOOTAGE: 3,567 sq ft (LIVABLE & LEASABLE) 1,503/3,000= 0.50= 50% ALLEY 2 6 ' - 1 " 3 3 ' - 3 " 114 N. ASPEN STREET (TO WEST SIDE) 217 E. BLEEKER STREET (TO EAST SIDE) E. MAIN STREET E. BLEEKER STREET ALLEY N . A S P E N S T R E E T N . M O N A R C H S T R E E T 217 209 114 208 FRONT VIEW FROM BLEEKER STREET P 1 5 7 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE A 9.0 4/29/16Plotted On:3 D R E N D E R V I E W S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 NORTH EAST VIEW SOUTH EAST VIEW NORTH VIEW SOUTH WEST VIEW NORTH WEST VIEW P 1 5 8 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 15 4/29/16Plotted On:3 D R E N D E R S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 WEST VIEW EAST VIEW AERIAL VIEW STREET VIEW P 1 5 9 I V . A . Scale: ISSUE HPC 16 4/29/16Plotted On:3 D R E N D E R S ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANSI N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY ANDCOPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCYSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. 1" ACTUAL AS NOTED DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN04/15/15 " H A Y E S H O U S E " 2 0 9 E . B L E E K E R S T R E E T A S P E N C O 8 1 6 1 1 HPC 2ND HEARING11/05/15 VIEW FROM ABOVE VIEW FROM N. ASPEN STREET P 1 6 0 I V . A . P161 IV.A. E . H A L L A M S T . B L E E K E R S T . PROJECT IN F O R M A T I O N PROJECT DESCRIPTION:ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 100 BL E E K E R S T R E E T I N A S P E N , C O L O R A D O . PERMIT JURISDICTION:CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADODISTURBED AREA:~2,000 SF (0.05 ACRES)DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL NARRATIVE:THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THIS PROJEC T I S T O D I R E C T S T O R M R U N O F F T H R O U G H F O U R SEPARATE WQCV TREATMENT AREAS AND INTO T H E C I T Y S T O R M S E W E R S Y T E M O N B L E E K E R S T A N D VIA THE ALLEY TO GARMISH ST. THE DESIGN FOR T H I S P L A N I S S H O W N I N T H E D R A I N A G E R E P O R T PREPARED ON THE SAME DATE AS THESE PLANS.SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL DURING CONST R U C T I O N W I L L B E C O N T R O L L E D W I T H S E D M I E N T FENCES, A CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA AND STRA W B A L E S P E R T H E E R O S I O N C O N T R O L A N D DRAINAGE PLANS AT THE END OF THIS PACKAGE. S H E E T 1 O F 6 S C A L E A R E A T O P O G R A P H Y 0 2 1 " = 2 0 ' S C A L E VICINITY MAP01 N . T . S . A6B C D 54321 E F G H ASPEN COLORADO DESCRIPTION DATESYMBOL APPR. DESIGNED BY:DATE:REV. DWN BY:CKD BY:__________________ REVIEWED BY: FILE NAME: PLOT DATE: PLOT SCALE: SUBMITTED BY: __________________ LLH 0 __________ __________ ___________________ _____________ LLH JSR JSR P162 I V . A . SIDEW A L K BUILDI N G BUILDING LOT K X L O T N AREA A A R E A D SIDEWA L K BUILDI N G BUILDI N G L O T K X L O T N A6B C D 54321 E F G H ASPEN COLORADO DESCRIPTION DATESYMBOL APPR. DESIGNED BY:DATE:REV. DWN BY:CKD BY:__________________ REVIEWED BY: FILE NAME: PLOT DATE: PLOT SCALE: SUBMITTED BY: __________________ LLH 0 __________ __________ ___________________ _____________ LLH JSR JSR S H E E T 2 O F 6 S C A L E D R A I N A G E P L A N 0 2 1 " = 1 0 ' SCALE DRAINAGE AREAS01 1 " = 1 0 ' 1 S C A L E S I T E S E C T I O N A - A 0 3 1 " = 1 0 ' 1 1 P163 I V . A . ±A6B C D 54321 E F G H ASPEN COLORADO DESCRIPTION DATESYMBOL APPR. DESIGNED BY:DATE:REV. DWN BY:CKD BY:__________________ REVIEWED BY: FILE NAME: PLOT DATE: PLOT SCALE: SUBMITTED BY: __________________ LLH 0 __________ __________ ___________________ _____________ LLH JSR JSR S H E E T 4 O F 6 SCALE TYPICAL GRAVELPAVE INSTALLA T I O N 02 N . T . S . S C A L E T Y P I C A L S I D E W A L K D E T A I L 0 3 N . T . S . S C A L E F O U N D A T I O N D R A I N T A N K 0 4 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " P164 I V . A . A6B C D 54321 E F G H ASPEN COLORADO DESCRIPTION DATESYMBOL APPR. DESIGNED BY:DATE:REV. DWN BY:CKD BY:__________________ REVIEWED BY: FILE NAME: PLOT DATE: PLOT SCALE: SUBMITTED BY: __________________ LLH 0 __________ __________ ___________________ _____________ LLH JSR JSR S C A L E NORTHWEST GRASS S W A L E 01 1 " = 1 ' S H E E T 3 O F 6 S C A L E EAST SWALE SECTION04 1 ' " = 1 ' S C A L E P E R M A B L E G R A V E L D E T A I L 0 5 1 " = 1 ' S C A L E E A S T W Q C V S W A L E A N D T R E N C H D R A I N L O N G I T U D I N A L S E C T I O N 0 3 1 " = 1 ' S C A L E P E R M E A B L E P A V E R S E C T I O N 0 6 1 " = 1 ' P165 I V . A .